Last Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark 5-4 ruling that upheld the federal government's ban on partial birth abortions. In a stinging dissent, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg called the decision ""alarming.""
While many right-wing groups celebrate and left-wing groups commiserate, it seems as though most people have missed the central issue entirely. It is not abortion and it is not the supposed ""right to life"" or ""right to choose"" that is important in this instance. It is the makeup of the Supreme Court itself that should be concerning people in all parts of the political playground.
The ruling is momentous in many ways, but is perhaps most significant because it is a high profile decision in which the new court has truly tipped its hand. What can be seen there should disturb the people of the United States no matter whom they voted for.
When the Senate confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, each insisted that he would respect established precedents.
Upholding any ban on an abortion procedure would be departure enough from the precedent, but upholding the federal government's ban, which does not allow for an adequate exception when the health and life of the mother is at stake, is akin to setting the established precedent on fire.
This decision informs women that they no longer have the right to determine their own health and well being, and that the federal government is better equipped than individual doctors to make decisions about which medical procedures are best for patients.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy defended the decision by saying that it would protect those women who later had second thoughts about the procedure after the fact, a justification so outrageous that one wonders if even he took it seriously.
It is absurd to outlaw something on the basis of the possibility of future regret.
More importantly, it is disturbing that instead of justifying the ruling by demonstrating that the procedure violates a constitutional right, it is justified by the paternalistic presumption that Congress should be able to make medical decisions for women based on concerns for individual morality rather than concerns over women's health.
Conservative pundits are constantly accusing more liberal justices of ""revisionism,"" but there is no revisionism more blatant than throwing out a right that was previously deemed constitutional without showing another constitutional right that it conflicts with.
Claiming that the current Supreme Court is not eroding the rights of Americans is like saying that waterboarding (making a person think that they are drowning) isn't actually torture. Or wait... I guess the government already has been saying that, hasn't it?
The new court is making it clear that it is willing to curtail any right if doing so would be politically expedient.
Think U.S. citizens have the right to a lawyer and a fair trial? Not if you're in Guantanamo Bay, you don't. Think you have the right to organize a union? Not if big business says otherwise. Think doctors ought to be able to use whatever procedure they think is safest for their patients? Not if the Republican Party is in need of a serious morale booster.
Politics have become more important than the Constitution. What precedent could possibly be more alarming than that?
It is highly likely that the next president will have the opportunity to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice. Forget Iraq; the Constitution itself is at stake in the 2008 election. People of all political leanings should be able to figure that one out.
