The Journal

Issue date: 5/3/07 Section: Opinion/Editorial

Women have been fighting for rights for centuries, from the women's suffrage movement to "bra burners" of the 1960s and '70s. Women everywhere received a blow to their rights April 18 when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to ban a rarely used late-term abortion procedure.


The abortion is carried out in the middle-to-late second trimester and is used mostly in extreme situations, such as if the mother's life is in jeopardy. One problem with this ban is it shows a lack of concern for women and the certain situations where this type of abortion is used.


President George W. Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003 and said the prohibition represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America and reflects America's compassion and humanity. What about the lives of women? This bill is a slap in the face to women and their health and a major hinderance to 30 years of precedent in the Supreme Court.


Justice Ruth Ginsburg released a statement after the ruling that said, "(This) can not be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."


Justice Department Lawyer Solicitor General Paul Clement said since the procedure is rarely performed, banning it would not be a barrier to women. How is the slow and calculated removal of rights not a barrier?


The conservative right deems it tolerable to ban a procedure that is sometimes necessary, without considering rape. This only shows they do not have the rights or well-being of women in mind. While trying to satisfy their Christian image with the promised intention of saving lives, one wonders if the Bush administration fails to see the contradiction in their actions, when they are able to justify the killing of innocent women and children in Iraq.


Even today, women continue to fight for control of our own bodies, and this ruling has only opened the doors for more restrictions, exceptions and court clarifications. Thanks to this ruling, other bills dealing with abortion will also be reviewed and in time, may negatively affect the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established women's legal right to choose.


Bush turned his back on women when he signed the ban, and representatives of Missouri are following suit with more bills.


The Missouri General Assembly has already released a troubling set of bills that will further set back the women's rights agenda. One bill presented by Representative Jane Cunningham-R requires a doctor to perform an ultrasound and present the images to the pregnant women to review before consent by the doctor for an abortion. For women who suffered from rape or abuse and became pregnant, this would be an insensitive and traumatic experience.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools