High Court Hears Partial-Birth Abortion Cases, Kennedy Says Women “Might be in Serious Trouble”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The day after what would have been the nation’s most restrictive abortion ban was defeated by voters in South Dakota the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases involving challenges to the 2003 federal ban on so-called partial-birth abortion. With four conservative justices certainly against and four liberal ones for the decision seems to ride on Justice Anthony Kennedy who sits in the center of the court on abortion issues.

Today the court heard two hours of arguments full of exacting, graphic descriptions of abortion procedures and according to reports, throughout the session Kennedy appeared troubled by the potential implications of the law. Would it leave few legal alternatives in cases in which a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life? How frequently is a late-term procedure medically necessary? Would doctors be held criminally liable for performing emergency late-term abortions when they had no other choice? Kennedy pressed both sides in the case on those questions, and hinted that he thinks the federal law may be too restrictive, saying:

If a woman in need of a lifesaving, late-term abortion were to rely on a court’s quick action, she might be in serious trouble. I don’t know if you could just go to a district judge and say, `I need an order.’ The judge would take – would have to take – many hours to understand that.

The government says the law survives constitutional scrutiny because of Congress’ fact-finding and its interest in preventing “infanticide,” a word that came up several times during the hearings.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate