Questions and answers about abortion rights

Advertisement

Text size: small | medium | large

Gary Jacobsen
Published: May 26, 2008

Abortions should be safe, legal and rare
— Planned Parenthood

On May 20, a federal appeals court in Richmond overturned for the second time Virginia’s law on late-term abortions. The court ruled that the law created an “undue burden” on women by going beyond the guidelines set last year by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

I and many others argued against the Virginia law when it was passed in 2003, principally because it appeared to rest on shaky constitutional grounds. No matter. The politicians in Richmond passed it anyway. The bill was authored by Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Manassas, a far right politician who has long opposed abortion rights.

Before Virginia’s elected representatives go down this road again, they need to acquire at least a rudimentary knowledge of abortion rights. Perhaps the following questions and answers will be helpful to them:

Question: Does the U. S. Constitution establish abortion rights?

Answer: Yes, but indirectly. The High Court settled this issue in Roe v. Wade by holding that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution establishes a right of privacy that is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Question: Does the Roe decision allow abortions right up to the day of delivery?

Answer: Yes and no. The Court said that a gestation period covers three trimesters, consisting of approximately 12 weeks each. Only during the first trimester does a woman have an unrestricted right to terminate a pregnancy. In the second, she may terminate the pregnancy, but only at a full-service medical facility. During the third trimester, she may not have an abortion unless her life or health is in jeopardy.

Question: How have the states handled third-trimester abortion cases?

Answer: Late term procedures (24 or more weeks) are extremely rare — less than one percent of the total. Nevertheless, the states have ample authority under Roe v. Wade to restrict third-trimester abortions. In Virginia, for example, two physicians besides the attending physician must certify that a late-term procedure is needed to preserve the life or health of the woman before it can be performed.

Question: Did the U. S. Supreme Court later modify its original position concerning second-trimester abortions?

Answer: Yes. In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the High Court stated in a 5-4 decision that a Missouri law that required doctors to perform second-trimester viability exams was constitutional. However, the Court declined to specifically overturn Roe.

Question: Don’t the “unborn” have rights?

Answer: Mr. Justice Blackmun, writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, stated that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

Question: Has the Roe v. Wade case ever been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court?

Answer: Yes. In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the U. S. Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, stressing the need for stare decisis (stand by decisions), and for other reasons.

Question: Didn’t Congress pass a federal law in 2003 to outlaw IDX (intact dilation and extraction) abortions in certain late-term procedures?

Answer: Yes. The U. S. Supreme Court considered multiple challenges to the law, but in the 2007 case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled 5-4 to approve it. As a practical matter the law has had little effect, since less than one percent of all abortions come under the law’s purview.

Sources:

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. (2007)

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)   

Gary Jacobsen lives in Woodbridge

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( Paul Ross ) on June 09, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Jacobsen, your MSNBC article illustrated the typical frenzied strategy of the abortion mentality: cite a few rare extreme cases of severely handicapped children… or horrific rapes… or brutal incest…and use that to justify the rest of the 1.21 million abortions in the US.  It’s a typical snowjob.  Besides which, the article provided no backing to your original article—that VA’s ban on partial birth abortion was somehow unconstitutional.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on June 09, 2008 at 11:55 am

Think you know all about late-erm abortions? Go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24844532/ and find out the truth.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( mrbill ) on June 04, 2008 at 11:04 pm

ggj,how do you define ‘so-called “pro-lifers” ‘?

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( barnun ) on June 02, 2008 at 10:04 am

Gary,
yes, the discussion is about rights and you also voiced your opinion. You stated
“I and many others argued against the Virginia law”. so, you’ve worked to mold the laws to allow the rights that you think should be present. You fight for a womans right to terminate the life of her child. We have discussed that partial birth abortion is in fact natural child birth of a viable child. The child is stopped just short of daylight and terminated. This is a child that could be birthed at that time as a healthy child. The mother obviously is capable of the birth since she is doing it as part of the termination. So, since you’ve already weighed in with your opinion to argue against the law, please tell us how you, in your mind, separate this type of termination vs if the child was given just one more push, not forcefully stopped, 2 more seconds to daylight the child would be born and was then terminated. 2 inches and 2 seconds differentiates legal procedure and life in prison. You want to discuss rights. Have you ever heard these words before “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.“ You argue for the mothers right of pursuit of happiness but what about the *Life* of the innocent? Hitler thought the jews and the blacks had no inherent rights to life either. we’ve terminated far more lives than he ever dreamed of. How do you justify the differences ? This is not a religious based question. Life either has value, or it doesn’t.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( mrbill ) on June 02, 2008 at 3:05 am

ggj,what’s the difference between being pro-abortion rights and being pro abortion despite your argument of the law?

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on June 01, 2008 at 9:35 am

This whole discussion is about abortion rights, not about abortion, but I guess the so-called “pro-lifers” haven’t figured that out yet.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( mrbill ) on May 31, 2008 at 2:00 am

ggj, if one of your children had to resort to english and/or mandarin to get an abortion, what would you do?

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( phdee ) on May 30, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Just remembered, baernum:  As a reader of dime store novels ( so you allege) and sharecropper stories, let me say that the statements you msade about a young girl getting raped reminded me so much of my Southern rasising, where that’s what the whites always said that about blacks and integration. I now can see where your racism against hispanics has its origin.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( barnun ) on May 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm

phdee, you’re way way off topic. you seem very confused again today. please try to get some help.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( phdee ) on May 30, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Barnum I forgot.  I don’t have Hispanic neighbors. You, like all the anti-immigrant crowd, claim it is only the hispanics who murder, rape, and commit other crimes.  The Americans just don’t do any of that.  So, I have nothing to worry about.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Post a Comment

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.


Tags relating to this article:

  • No tags are associated with this article.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:



Email This Print This AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Feed Add to My Yahoo!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement