CORRECTION APPENDED

The Supreme Court’s five-to-four ruling on the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion on Wednesday was hardly unexpected, given its shifting ideological balance. Nevertheless, the decision to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act marked many unfortunate firsts for the new Roberts Court. At best, this reversal of precedent is worrisome, poaching abortion rights today; at worst, it is simply wrong—the first step toward completely denying a woman’s right to choose tomorrow.

This first abortion case for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ’76 and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. is the first time the Supreme Court has supported a ban of any abortion method or barred a specific medical procedure. Despite being couched in the language of decisions past, the ruling in fact ignores the spirit of decades of precedent in order to set its own, dangerous, one. From here, there can be no question of the court’s intended direction, succinctly, albeit chillingly, put by the author of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: “The act expresses respect for the dignity of human life.”  [SEE CORRECTION BELOW]

If Kennedy and his four colleagues continue to get their way, women’s right to control their own bodies will quickly slip away. Indeed, any task that requires such a dramatic legal shift as outlawing abortion will only be accomplished by chipping away at existing protections. In fact, the common phrase for intact dilation and extraction—“partial-birth abortion”—is a conservative construct that has reframed entire schools of thought on the issue.

Meanwhile, the court’s decision, with its virtual blanket ban that glibly dismisses the value of a woman’s health, stands to put women in danger today. Despite the ignorant claims of the court’s majority, intact dilation and extraction can rescue women from grave medical situations. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the procedure as necessary at times and safest for late-term abortions. As upheld, the law only provides an exception when the woman’s life is at risk, denying doctors the broad discretion they must have to act in the best interest of their patients. The Supreme Court should recognize that physicians swear an oath to do exactly that, no matter the legal cost.

Wednesday’s ill-considered decision will have the worst possible repercussions for American women. It will propel the anti-abortion movement forward until the nation finds itself a repressive land of back-alley abortions. The Supreme Court has no more notion of what goes on in an operating room than it does in a woman’s mind—and it should not presume to legislate on either.

CORRECTION: Yesterday’s editorial “An Abortive Decision” said that last week’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart was the first abortion case for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ’76 and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts sat on the Court when it decided Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood in January 2006. The Crimson regrets the error.