BACK TO NEWS 

News

Religious Activists Protest Decision at Missouri Rally
http://www.morcrc.org/events.html

Supreme Court Decision A Devastating Setback for Women's Health and Freedom of Conscience

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, founded in 1973, is the national coalition of religious and religiously affiliated organizations from 15 denominations, including the Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalism, and Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Judaism. Not all organizations share the viewpoint in the statement below. Read member organizations statements.

On April 18, the United States Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." Under this decision, it will be a criminal offense for a physician to perform "dilation and evacuation" procedures used in the second-trimester and in the third-trimester when the physician determines that these are the best procedures medically to prevent damage to the woman's health or future ability to bear children. This is the first time an abortion procedure has been banned since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and the first time that women's health (as well as life) was not the paramount concern of the court.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg referred to the drastic change from the court's previous decisions. Quoting opinions in two previous abortion cases, she wrote: ''Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.'' She also noted that the decision is a "chipping away" of a right protected by previous court decisions. She wrote:

"Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health." ("Casey" refers to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision of 1992.)

Those upholding the ban were: Chief Justice Robert and Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion. He wrote that the Act does not impose a "substantial obstacle" to late-term but previability abortions and that Congress did not intend it to do so.

The Court also held that the abortion procedure or procedures it was banning could be prohibited because it or they--not the pregnancy--threatened a woman's mental and moral health. In his opinion, Justice Kennedy suggested that the Court was protecting women by banning this procedure and that a pregnant woman who chooses abortion is rejecting true womanhood:

"Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child," he wrote.

Federal courts in three different jurisdictions found the Act to be unconstitutional because it did not include an exception if a woman’s health was in danger. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a similar Nebraska ban (in Stenberg v. Carhart) as unconstitutional.

The Court announced that it would hear Gonzales v. Carhart just three weeks after abortion opponent Samuel Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor. As a moderate jurist, O’Connor had often cast the deciding vote in favor of abortion rights.

Background
In 2003, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Board of Directors opposed the Federal Abortion Ban because support for it has been built by deception and fear, because it is so broad that it will unlawfully interfere with access to abortion generally, and because it lacks the morally, as well as legally, required health exception. While the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice does not advocate for abortion or take positions on specific abortion procedures, we do advocate for women's right to make medical decisions according to their faith and conscience as well as with factual, compassionate medical advice.

As such, RCRC filed an amici curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart, challenging the ban on religious grounds and urging the Court to strike it down. RCRC and the other signatories to the brief urged the Court to recognize “the abundance of religious voices speaking out against the failure of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (the ‘Act’) to protect women’s health.” The brief asked the court to “not allow Congress to force a moral consensus where there is none, but rather to let the individual women who face the agonizing decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy or risk their own health do so legally, in consultation and accordance with their own conscience and faith.”

Dr. LeRoy H. Carhart, RCRC Board Member and the lead plaintiff in Gonzales v. Carhart and Stenberg v. Carhart, released the following statement:
“I am devastated by today’s decision. I have taken this issue to the Supreme Court twice because I care deeply about the health of my patients and all women. When the Supreme Court considered this issue seven years ago, they agreed that women’s health was a paramount concern and doctors, not politicians, were in the best position to decide what procedures were safest. What a difference seven years, a new President, and two new justices, can make.

“Those who support this law are trying to outlaw all abortions, one step at a time. But at the expense of women’s health? At the expense of good medicine? How can that be justified? I took an oath to provide my patients with the best medical care possible. I ask Congress and the Courts, how am I supposed to do that now?”

Statement of Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

April 18, 2007

Today's Supreme Court decision is a serious setback for women's health and for a woman's ability to follow her conscience in medical decisions. As well, it is a blow to the basic responsibility of medical professionals to inform patients of all medical options.

While there is no question of our commitment to the value of all human life, we are alarmed that the Court has taken a step toward valuing a potential person over the woman whose life may be at risk.

The Roberts Court has, as feared, begun to move away from the respect for women's health and well-being that has characterized previous abortion decisions.

This decision moves us closer to the time when sectarian religious viewpoints will govern medical decisions for all Americans, whether they share those viewpoints or not.

In 2003, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Board of Directors opposed this legislation because support for it has been built by deception and fear, because it is so broad that it will unlawfully interfere with access to abortion generally, and because it lacks the morally, as well as legally, required health exception. While the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice does not advocate for abortion or or take positions on specific abortion procedures, we do advocate for women's right to make medical decisions according to their faith and conscience as well as with factual, compassionate medical advice.

We will continue to work for women's right to make the medical decisions they deem best as well as for reducing the need for abortion through family planning and sexuality education.