ONE OF the biggest problems in America today is its polarization. Liberal or conservative? Hawk or dove? Pro-choice or pro-life? The polarizing nature of the latter issue can clearly be seen in the partial-birth abortion debate. The U.S. Supreme Court, which will rule on the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003, must find the middle ground on this issue, allowing women to have the free choice to have an abortion but still prohibiting what is, in most cases, a horrific type of abortion.
In case you do not know what a partial-birth abortion, let me try to describe it as objectively as possible (as difficult as it may be). According to several sources, the doctor delivers everything but the fetus's head. Then, a surgical instrument is used to puncture the fetus's skull, allowing the doctor to place a catheter through the brain and suction out the fetus's brain.
Clearly, this type of abortion is not the norm, but it does occur. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, stated in 1998 that roughly 3,000 to 5,000 partial-birth abortions occur annually. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's special research institute, stated there were roughly 1,293,000 abortions in the United States in 2004. If we take the 3,000 to 5,000 estimate as still correct today, partial birth abortions make up only 0.23 to 0.39 percent of all abortions. Yet, just because partial birth abortions make up a small percentage of total abortions, it is not insignificant.
In 2003, Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortions Ban, but it was declared unconstitutional by federal judges in California, New York and Nebraska. The Supreme Court has decided to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling of the law. The unconstitutionality of the law has mainly been due to the fact it does not have an exemption for the health of the mother.
While the law does not have an exemption due to health, it does have an exemption due to life. The following clause is found in the law: The bill "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
The key word here is "physical." Under the Supreme Court decision Doe v. Bolton, states must provide exemptions on abortion restrictions for the health of women, with health being defined as physical or mental health. Thus, it makes sense that these laws have been struck down by the federal appellate courts. But is the decision in Doe v. Bolton sound?
Though that is the true question that the Supreme Court must answer, I feel there is simple logic to overturn the decision. Physical health is definable. It is measured with thermometers, x-rays, blood tests, urine samples, etc. Mental health, unfortunately, cannot be measured in this way. Mental health can change substantially from day to day and is entirely subjective.
It is not surprising that a mother's mentality may suddenly change during pregnancy. She has lots of things to consider in supporting the child. Yet this change in attitude does not constitute a detriment to her mental health. If the mother's mental health was going to suffer because of the pregnancy, it would have happened earlier in the pregnancy, when partial birth abortion is not the only option.
The problem with ruling partial birth abortion unconstitutional is that many pro-choice advocates believe it is the first step or springboard to overturning Roe v. Wade and banning all abortion. With the two new members of the Supreme Court, many supporters are antsy about the Court overruling the landmark 1973 ruling. Yet both new members of the Supreme Court have stated that they respect legal precedent. Further, restricting a type of abortion to emergency circumstances says nothing about far more tolerable abortion procedures.
The abortion debate is lengthy, with an uncountable number of arguments on both sides. The essential thing for the partial birth abortion discussion is to not focus on the abortion debate as a whole. Instead, we must focus on this heinous, unacceptable form of abortion and limit its use. A woman should certainly be given a right to choose what to do with her pregnancy, just not a right to choose partial birth abortions.
Rajesh Jain is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached atrajain@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
