The Supreme Court today agreed to add a California law to its review of a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion. At issue in the Nebraska law is whether the law violates the Roe v. Wade and other precedents because it doesn’t make an exception for the “health” of the “pregnant woman” (that is, the mother). I put health in quotes because proponents of the late-term abortion have never been able to point to a single instance in which a partial-birth abortion is necessary medically to safeguard the physical health of the mother. On the other hand, we’ve heard cases where the “mental wellbeing” of the mother is stake, which in practical terms means that if the mother doesn’t feel like being pregnant anymore that’s reason enough.
The California case includes additional issues of whether it adds an “undue burden on a woman’s right to seek an abortion and whether it is unconstitutionally vague.” The “undue burden” standard is itself pretty vague and has also been used to justify abortion at any stage of development and of just about any kind.
Let’s hope the new “Bush” court is as amenable to ending the abortion-law debacle we’ve endured since 1973 as all the pro-abortion pundits warned it would be.
bk_keywords:Supreme Court, judges, justices, Roe v Wade, abortion.