Post by Moses on Jun 24, 2005 18:12:44 GMT -5
Abortion Court Cases Focus of Senate Subcommittee Hearing
On June 23, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights held a hearing to examine two U.S. Supreme Court abortion cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which together set forth the parameters under which abortions may be performed in the United States.
Chair Sam Brownback (R-KS) opened the hearing, saying, "The contentious debate since 1973 over the culture of life has proven that the American people, the democratic process, and ultimately even the federal judiciary have been ill-served by the Supreme Court's breathtaking intervention into, and circumvention of, the public debate about abortion," he said, adding, "What is striking about the criticism of these decisions is that it has come from across the political spectrum. Indeed, the Supreme Court decisions have been widely condemned by both the right and the left." Calling the Roe decision "a mistake," Sen. Brownback added, "It is estimated that around 40 million abortions have taken place in the United States. The legally-sanctioned extinguishing of these millions of innocent lives is a gross injustice in itself."
Ranking Member Russ Feingold (D-WI) said, "We cannot have a discussion about the consequences of Roe without acknowledging the realities women faced before it. We must never forget the period in our history when many women, forced to choose between continuing an unwanted pregnancy or risking their lives, chose the latter. This is not a choice we should force women to make again." In terms of the impact of Roe, Sen. Feingold said, "The years following the Court's decision have been marked by great advances in the quality of reproductive health care information and medical services available to women. Abortion-related deaths have become extremely rare, and less than 1% of abortion patients experience major complications...We must not turn back the clock."
The subcommittee heard testimony from two panels; the first panel consisted of the plaintiffs in the Roe and Doe cases, both of whom oppose the decisions. Sandra Cano, the plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton, told the subcommittee that she was unaware her name was being used in the case. "I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind." She is currently appealing the Doe decision, saying that it was "based on a lie and deceit."
Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, stated, "I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America." She too is working to reverse the court's decision, saying, "The Supreme Court has hurt me and millions of women and children. I urge you to do everything in your power to reverse Roe v. Wade."
Ken Edelin, associate dean of the Boston University School of Medicine, recounted his personal involvement with the issue of abortion as a young resident in the 1960s. "During those early years there were just a few of us who were willing to perform abortions. I felt strongly that this was a procedure that we should provide to the women who relied on City Hospital for their health care. I understood the fear and desperation that they felt." However, he said, "Performing abortions has never been easy for any doctor I know. Those of us who decided to perform abortions, whether legal or illegal [pre- or post-Roe], did so because we felt that the choice should be up to the woman who was pregnant." Telling the subcommittee that "women have been trying to control their fertility for almost as long as they have been on this earth," he added, "When women are determined to end an unwanted pregnancy only their imaginations, desperation and money limit the means that they will use! to end that pregnancy." Dr. Edelin stated that if Roe were overturned, "the potential for injury and death is too difficult to contemplate."
The second panel presented the legal aspects of the court decisions. Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, opposed the court rulings, saying that "Roe is not merely patently wrong, but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states." Further, he stated, "Roe disenfranchises the millions and millions of patriotic American citizens who believe that the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence--that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life--warrants significant protection of the lives of unborn human beings." In discussing what he called "myths about Roe," Mr. Whelan said, "The assertion that Roe 'legalized' abortion also bears on a surprisingly widespread misunderstanding of the effect of a Supreme Court reversal of Roe. Many otherwise well-informed people seem to think that a reversal of Roe would mean that abortion would thereby be illegal nationwide. But of course a reversal of Roe would merely restore to the people of the States their constitutional authority to establish--and to revise over time--the abortion laws and policies for their respective States."
While agreeing that states would be free to regulate abortion in the event that Roe were overturned, Karen O'Connor, a professor of government at American University, cautioned the subcommittee about the consequences: "Contrary to assertions that bans on abortion--including first trimester abortions--would occur in only a few states and take considerable time to enact, it is probable that many states would revive and enact immediate abortion bans. Moreover, in the absence of Roe, states would be given free reign to erode Roe; one only need look at the number of state restrictions placed on abortion provision in 2004...to know this is an all too real possibility." She continued, "The move toward criminalizing abortion could be immediate: four states (Alabama, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin) have abortion bans in place that have never been declared unconstitutional or blocked by courts. Roe's reversal could trigger these laws; that is, state o! fficials could immediately begin enforcing these bans the day Roe is overruled. Another 13 states have abortion bans on the books that have been blocked by courts as unconstitutional. If Roe was overturned, officials in such states could immediately file suits asking courts to set aside the orders that prevented enforcement of the laws. And, in the remaining states, legislators would be free to introduce and enact new severe restrictions or bans on abortion." The combined effect of this "would create a daunting, patchwork system of abortion statutes," and "for those women who are able to navigate this patchwork system, the need to travel and the increased demand for a dwindling number of abortion providers could lead to dangerous delays in the provision of abortion care," stated Ms. O'Connor.
On June 23, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights held a hearing to examine two U.S. Supreme Court abortion cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which together set forth the parameters under which abortions may be performed in the United States.
Chair Sam Brownback (R-KS) opened the hearing, saying, "The contentious debate since 1973 over the culture of life has proven that the American people, the democratic process, and ultimately even the federal judiciary have been ill-served by the Supreme Court's breathtaking intervention into, and circumvention of, the public debate about abortion," he said, adding, "What is striking about the criticism of these decisions is that it has come from across the political spectrum. Indeed, the Supreme Court decisions have been widely condemned by both the right and the left." Calling the Roe decision "a mistake," Sen. Brownback added, "It is estimated that around 40 million abortions have taken place in the United States. The legally-sanctioned extinguishing of these millions of innocent lives is a gross injustice in itself."
Ranking Member Russ Feingold (D-WI) said, "We cannot have a discussion about the consequences of Roe without acknowledging the realities women faced before it. We must never forget the period in our history when many women, forced to choose between continuing an unwanted pregnancy or risking their lives, chose the latter. This is not a choice we should force women to make again." In terms of the impact of Roe, Sen. Feingold said, "The years following the Court's decision have been marked by great advances in the quality of reproductive health care information and medical services available to women. Abortion-related deaths have become extremely rare, and less than 1% of abortion patients experience major complications...We must not turn back the clock."
The subcommittee heard testimony from two panels; the first panel consisted of the plaintiffs in the Roe and Doe cases, both of whom oppose the decisions. Sandra Cano, the plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton, told the subcommittee that she was unaware her name was being used in the case. "I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind." She is currently appealing the Doe decision, saying that it was "based on a lie and deceit."
Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, stated, "I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America." She too is working to reverse the court's decision, saying, "The Supreme Court has hurt me and millions of women and children. I urge you to do everything in your power to reverse Roe v. Wade."
Ken Edelin, associate dean of the Boston University School of Medicine, recounted his personal involvement with the issue of abortion as a young resident in the 1960s. "During those early years there were just a few of us who were willing to perform abortions. I felt strongly that this was a procedure that we should provide to the women who relied on City Hospital for their health care. I understood the fear and desperation that they felt." However, he said, "Performing abortions has never been easy for any doctor I know. Those of us who decided to perform abortions, whether legal or illegal [pre- or post-Roe], did so because we felt that the choice should be up to the woman who was pregnant." Telling the subcommittee that "women have been trying to control their fertility for almost as long as they have been on this earth," he added, "When women are determined to end an unwanted pregnancy only their imaginations, desperation and money limit the means that they will use! to end that pregnancy." Dr. Edelin stated that if Roe were overturned, "the potential for injury and death is too difficult to contemplate."
The second panel presented the legal aspects of the court decisions. Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, opposed the court rulings, saying that "Roe is not merely patently wrong, but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states." Further, he stated, "Roe disenfranchises the millions and millions of patriotic American citizens who believe that the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence--that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life--warrants significant protection of the lives of unborn human beings." In discussing what he called "myths about Roe," Mr. Whelan said, "The assertion that Roe 'legalized' abortion also bears on a surprisingly widespread misunderstanding of the effect of a Supreme Court reversal of Roe. Many otherwise well-informed people seem to think that a reversal of Roe would mean that abortion would thereby be illegal nationwide. But of course a reversal of Roe would merely restore to the people of the States their constitutional authority to establish--and to revise over time--the abortion laws and policies for their respective States."
While agreeing that states would be free to regulate abortion in the event that Roe were overturned, Karen O'Connor, a professor of government at American University, cautioned the subcommittee about the consequences: "Contrary to assertions that bans on abortion--including first trimester abortions--would occur in only a few states and take considerable time to enact, it is probable that many states would revive and enact immediate abortion bans. Moreover, in the absence of Roe, states would be given free reign to erode Roe; one only need look at the number of state restrictions placed on abortion provision in 2004...to know this is an all too real possibility." She continued, "The move toward criminalizing abortion could be immediate: four states (Alabama, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin) have abortion bans in place that have never been declared unconstitutional or blocked by courts. Roe's reversal could trigger these laws; that is, state o! fficials could immediately begin enforcing these bans the day Roe is overruled. Another 13 states have abortion bans on the books that have been blocked by courts as unconstitutional. If Roe was overturned, officials in such states could immediately file suits asking courts to set aside the orders that prevented enforcement of the laws. And, in the remaining states, legislators would be free to introduce and enact new severe restrictions or bans on abortion." The combined effect of this "would create a daunting, patchwork system of abortion statutes," and "for those women who are able to navigate this patchwork system, the need to travel and the increased demand for a dwindling number of abortion providers could lead to dangerous delays in the provision of abortion care," stated Ms. O'Connor.