Today’s ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to spark more controversy over the role of government in moral matters.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld a federal ban on so-called “partial birth” abortions, undertaking the first rollback of reproductive rights at the high court. The majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart overturned several lower court rulings that protected a woman’s constitutional right to choose.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a dissent focusing on the decision’s adverse affect on women and the highly troubling prospect of government involving itself in moral debate.
“Ultimately, the Court admits,” Ginsburg wrote, “that ‘moral concerns’ are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion…. By allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent.
“In sum,” she observed, “the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply irrational. The Court’s defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court – and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.”
Citing court precedent, Ginsburg concluded that “When ‘a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, the burden is undue.’”
The great unspoken discourse of today’s high court opinions centers on religion. There are more than 2,000 different religious denominations and groups in this country holding various opinions on reproductive rights. Some religious communities call for an outright ban on all abortions, while others oppose restricting reproductive rights. Some traditions insist that in some instances – where the woman’s life is in jeopardy, for example – abortions may indeed be mandated.
When the government favors the views of some faiths over others, there are serious ramifications for the relationship between church and state, as well as individual freedom of conscience.
Religious Right groups, which routinely seek to enshrine in law their theological view on abortion and other issues, were predictably jubilant at today’s decision.
TV preacher Pat Robertson’s legal outfit, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), issued a press statement praising today’s high court ruling as a “monumental victory.”
The Rev. Rob Schenck, head the National Clergy Council and a persistent opponent of the separation of church and state, thanked God for today’s ruling.
“We are grateful to God today that moral sense has prevailed at the court,” Schenck said.
Operation Rescue, an over-the-top fundamentalist group devoted to destroying reproductive rights, also weighed in: “This is the first legal crack in the crumbling Roe v. Wade foundation, and is the first, necessary step toward banning the horrific practice of abortion in this nation.”
The Christian Coalition, another Religious Right outfit, declared that “it is just a matter of time before” the high court does away with reproductive rights.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and the rest of the majority in Carhart have waded into a theological thicket and a constitutional quagmire. Their action is another reminder of the importance of appointments to the high court. The Bush administration, a persistent opponent of reproductive rights, has steered the court sharply rightward.
Another justice in the mold of Justice Clarence Thomas would clearly push the high court over the edge and more fundamental rights will be in the court’s crosshairs. Americans concerned about preserving fundamental rights should remember Carhart when the next Supreme Court nominee is put forward.
© 1947 - 2009