The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a 2005 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals declaring the federal Partial—Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 unconstitutional.  The Second and Ninth Circuits have also ruled the statute unconstitutional. (See here.) This case will be a very important indicator of the "conservative" jurisprudence of the Court's newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

Proving that even the most hardened liberals recognize the depravity of partial birth abortion, today's New York Times' headline reads:  "Justices To Review Federal Ban On Disputed Abortion Method."  That's right, even the Times is afraid to use the term "partial birth abortion" because it knows that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to this procedure. 

An ABC News poll from January 2003 shows that 69% of Americans oppose partial birth abortion, and fully 86% of Americans oppose abortion after 6 months of pregnancy, which is when many partial birth abortions occur.

The idea that the United States Constitution enshrines the "right" to destroy a viable fetus, in the most brutal manner, and for the most trivial of reasons, is historically, intellectually, and ethically dishonest.  It is also the most scientifically gruesome bit of "jurisprudence" inflicted on this country.  This new case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to correct this travesty.  Sadly, I have little confidence that Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer will fulfill their responsibilities.

Steven M. Warshawsky      2 22 06