Casey v. Planned
Parenthood: A "Roadmap"?
Part One of Three
"I believe the decision [the
1992 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood] was like planting a
bunch of seeds, and we're just starting to see the shoots
popping out of the ground," said Roger Evans, who is in charge
of litigation for Planned Parenthood of America. "
-- From "Tests of 'Roe' more frequent since
justices upheld late-term abortion ban in '07," a story in
today's Washington Post written by Robert Barnes.
Courtesy of the Internet,
you can read Barnes's 1,905-word-long article in its entirety at
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/27/AR2010122703379.html?nav=hcmodule.
Since you are no doubt busy, let me highlight a few of the key
points.
Barnes' "hook" is Nebraska's historic "Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act." In effect, he works backwards in order to
explain how and why Nebraska was able earlier this year to enact
this first-in-the-nation law on a vote of 44 to 5.
The core of Barnes'
narrative is unassailable. Pro-lifers read Justice Anthony
Kennedy's majority opinion in the 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart
decision and concluded that The Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act (Nebraska's law) could pass muster, as well.
In upholding the federal
ban on partial-birth abortions, Kennedy looked at the joint
opinion in the 1992 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood and
concluded that "it is evident a premise central to its
conclusion" that "the government has a legitimate and
substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life"--a
premise that would be "repudiated," he wrote, if the Court
affirmed the lower court's judgment that the law was
unconstitutional.
"The justices have not
revisited the issue of abortion since [2007]," Barnes writes,
"but the decision has emboldened state legislators to pass an
increasing number and variety of restrictions in hopes that a
changed court will uphold them."
Indeed, pro-lifers, always
ready and willing to offer the Justices food for thought, have
picked up the pace in the state legislatures. One of the
subsequent fruits of pro-lifers' labor is Nebraska's potentially
agenda-shifting "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act."
As demonstrated by the
emphasis of NRLC's State Legislative Strategy Conference held
earlier this month, it is quite true, as Barnes writes, that
pro-lifers are using Nebraska's law as a model for legislation
in other states. NRLC's Director of State Legislation Mary
Spaulding Balch played a key role in drawing up the bill which
was introduced by Nebraska Speaker Mike Flood and she is the
source and resource that state legislators and NRLC state
affiliates are turning to for guidance.
So why is Nebraska's law
so significant? Why does it so unnerve pro-abortionists? The law
seeks to establish that the state has a "compelling interest"
not just in the child who is "viable" (an ever-shifting
benchmark), but also in protecting the life of the child who is
"pain-capable," as well. Much medical evidence establishes that
point at no later than 20 weeks.
Barnes writes that
"Kennedy's [2007] ruling was shot through with references to
government's interest in protecting the unborn and in making
sure women knew the consequences of their actions. …One
outgrowth of the decision's expansive language" is an even
greater emphasis on ensuring that women can give an informed
consent to a life-and-death decision.
And pro-lifers are placing
initiatives in the legislative hopper to enact or beef up
informed consent law, such as ensuring that ultrasounds are
available to women contemplating abortion. But there's more.
At the State Legislative
Strategy Conference, NRLC talked about laws to prevent public
funds from being used to subsidize health insurance that covers
abortion as permitted by the ObamaCare; and (at the other hand
of the life spectrum) fighting the increasingly common practice
by which so-called ethics committee in health care facilities
authorize denial of lifesaving medical care---including food and
fluids--against the will of the patient or his or her
surrogates.
We read in the Barnes'
story once again pro-abortion suggestions that their failure to
challenge the Nebraska law in court doesn't mean they won't.
"Some abortion rights supporters say privately that a challenge
might come if another state adopts Nebraska's model, as seems
likely," Barnes writes.
Okay. If that's the only
reason they took a pass (after strongly hinting they couldn't
wait to take the law into court), let's be sure we pass similar
legislation this session in a dozen different states.
Part Two
Part Three |