few clues as to how they might rule. As expected, the court's four most liberal members, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, sounded skeptical about the statute. Of the court's conservatives, only Chief Justice John Roberts said much at all, asking questions that implied the law should be That left plenty of time for Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom both sides in the case consider the likely swing vote, to listen to the lawyers and air his concerns -- though he did not tip his hand.
At one point, Kennedy, who dissented when the court struck down a similar state ban in 2000, repeated a concern he voiced in that case. "Your argument," he told Priscilla Smith, a lawyer for doctors challenging the law, "is that But later, Kennedy expressed worry that the federal ban might leave some pre-eclampsia," a dangerous spike in blood pressure. reach the court in half a decade.
The federal law, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003, bans the procedure known medically as "intact dilation and extraction," which usually occurs in the second trimester of pregnancy. It usually involves the breech delivery of a fetus, followed by the collapsing of its skull to permit The ban does not apply when a woman's life is at risk, but Congress made no exception to preserve a woman's health. Abortion-rights advocates say this omission is unconstitutional under the 2000 Supreme Court ruling.
All lower federal courts to consider the matter have agreed, so the law has not yet been But Solicitor General Paul Clement, defending the law, told the court medically necessary, and that safe alternatives were always available such that no woman would be prevented from terminating her pregnancy." As a result, he said, Congress had authority to ban what he called "a That argument drew a sharp response from Stevens, who noted that the alternative procedure, dilation and evacuation, requires the dismemberment of the fetus before removal. "Congress has made the judgment that it is far preferable to ensure that fetal demise takes place before any delivery begins," Stevens noted sardonically.
"That's the big issue." occurs when the child or the fetus, whichever you want to call it, is more than halfway outside of the mother's womb," Clement replied. Clement said that Congress is entitled to legislate the distinction.
"The one is abortion," he said. "The other is murder." But Smith noted that there is no such bright line, because doctors midsection while trying to dismember it in utero.
Depicting the federal ban as a direct challenge to the court's authority, the judiciary, that exemplifies the importance of (settled precedent), not to perforation, infertility, sepsis and hemorrhage, is to hold this act The most dramatic moment of the morning came moments later, at about 10:40 a.m. , when a loud voice cried out from the back of the courtroom.
"Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood!" shouted a man later identified by the court as Rives Miller Grogan, 40, of Los Angeles. He was immediately tackled and dragged out by Supreme Court police, who charged him with violating a federal law against disrupting court sessions, as well as with offenses related to resisting arrest.
Grogan's protest, the first such incident in recent memory at the court, momentarily stunned the spectators and justices and interrupted Smith, who was experts as to carry no legal weight. Roberts challenged that claim, asking Smith if the "marginal benefit in from using the procedure is "significant." Kennedy had earlier asked Smith how often in practice such risks arose, but she conceded that there are no statistics.
As if to reinforce Kennedy's concern on that point, Roberts returned to it several times during the argument, telling Smith at one point that "we don't have any record evidence about how often the complications arise, so it's hard to get a handle on exactly what the difference is in terms of safety.
News RSS