Justices have pointed abortion discourse

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices Wednesday sharply questioned
attorneys on both sides of the legal battle over what opponents call partial-
birth abortions as the high court weighed whether to uphold Congress's ban
on the procedure.

In an intense morning of arguments, lawyers for the Bush administration
and supporters of abortion rights gave starkly contrasting views: A law
passed by Congress labels it a gruesome and inhumane practice. Supporters
argue that such abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy sometimes
are the safest for women.

A man in the audience began shouting midway through the proceedings,
disrupting the hearing briefly before police dragged him away.

Seven justices took part in questioning both sides about whether the
court should defer to congressional findings that these abortions are
never medically necessary. Abortion advocates disagree, saying there
is strong medical evidence to the contrary.

Justice Samuel Alito , hearing his first abortion cases since joing the court
earlier this year, sat silently through two hours of arguments. Justice
Clarence Thomas was sick and did not attend, Chief Justice John Roberts
announced.

"We have no evidence in the record" as to how often such a situation arises?
Roberts asked.

"No, your honor," replied attorney Priscilla Smith, who argued for striking
down the federal law.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the rationale that abortion opponents
are using in the case, pointing out that the assertion that partial-birth abortion
is a particularly gruesome procedure also could apply to the most commonly
used method of abortion in the second trimester.

"I don't think so, Justice Ginsburg," Solicitor General Paul Clement replied.

Ginsburg asked whether the procedures in the two types of abortions are
"basically the same," making it hard to distinguish whether a doctor could
be prosecuted for performing the banned method.

"I just don't think the record supports" that notion, Clement responded.

At issue is the fate of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which Congress
passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003.

Six federal courts on both coasts and in the Midwest have struck down the
law as an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an
abortion that the Supreme Court established in its landmark Roe v. Wade
ruling in 1973.

A day earlier, abortion was on several state ballots. In South Dakota, voters
repealed a state law that virtually outlaws abortions, an issue that itself could
end up before the court.

California and Oregon voters rejected measures that would have required
that teenagers get their parents' consent before having an abortion.

A long line of people hoping for a seat inside stretched across the court's
plaza hours before the session was to begin. Dozens of people camped
through a rainy night in Washington to ensure their place near the head
of the line.

Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, but abortion opponents say
it accurately describes "a rarely used and gruesome late-term abortion
procedure that resembles infanticide," as Solicitor General Paul Clement
said in court papers. Clement will argue the case for the administration.

Abortion-rights proponents dispute almost every aspect of the government's
case, including the name for the procedure. They say the law has a much
broader reach than the government claims and would threaten almost all
abortions that take place after the third month of pregnancy.

Doctors most often refer to the procedure as a dilation and extraction or
an intact dilation and evacuation abortion. It involves partially extracting
a fetus from the uterus, then cutting or crushing its skull.

The procedure appears to take place most often in the middle third of
pregnancy. There are a few thousand such abortions, according to rough
estimates, out of more than 1.25 million abortions in the United States
annually. Ninety percent of all abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy, and are not at issue.

By a 5-4 vote, the court invalidated a similar law in Nebraska in 2000
because it encompassed other abortion methods and did not contain an
exception that would allow the procedure to preserve a woman's health,
an underpinning of Supreme Court abortion rulings.

Two things have changed in the past six years, the composition of the
court and Congress' involvement in the issue by tailoring a law to overcome
the objections raised by justices in the Nebraska case.

Abortion opponents are optimistic the court will uphold the law because Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, part of the majority in the 2000 case, has retired and her
place was taken by Justice Samuel Alito.

Bush appointed both Roberts and Alito, and most legal analysts believe that
neither man will be especially supportive of abortion rights.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing voter following O'Connor's
departure, dissented so strongly in the Nebraska case that many court
observers believe he is unlikely to switch sides.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned
Parenthood, 05-1382.

On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion_7