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

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( phdee ) on May 30, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Barnum: you are a conservative republican, just like swine Del. Bobby G. Marshall, who CON SISTENTLY bases his legislative action s on the Catholic religion. No doubt you vote for this Republican conservative pig. M<aybe you should enlighten Bobby G. He is a Rep darling running for office.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on May 30, 2008 at 11:15 am
phdee, the right and wrong of taking a life is not based on religion. Do you have children ? Do you value Their life? Do you think the law should value the life of your children ? The abortion laws also allow some disturbing actions. If your neighbor raped your 11 yr old daughter, the law allows him to take your daughter out of state without your consent to have an abortion to conceal the crime. You’re ok with this ? Now tell us again, do you really value your children ?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on May 28, 2008 at 8:22 am
You and perhaps others need to read sections 18.2-72, 18.2-73 and 18.2-74 of the Code of Virginia to learn what abortion procedures are allowed and which are not allowed. Stop guessing. Read what the law says.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sam B ) on May 27, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Mr. Jacobsen, I was asking how, in your opinion, is the VA law on “shaky constitutional ground” and what about it the court found to be an undue burden above and beyond Gonzales v. Carhart. I cannot recall the details of the law and would like my opinion of your column to be well-informed. If explaining the specifics would be a 1,000-word essay, I can manage with a bill number or the name of the case and appeals court circuit number. A findlaw.com link would be helpful, but if you do not have it immediately available I can do a search. Thanks.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Paul Ross ) on May 27, 2008 at 5:10 pm
No, Mr. Jacobsen, you certainly took a position. You “summarized” some of the court rulings justifying abortion—in the context of your opposition to the Virginia ban on partial birth infanticide. Note that you did not name the Virginia law, misleadingly implying that the ban would affect all “late term abortions.“ The ban would have prohibited a specific, gruesome procedure. Also, Roe v. Wade’s delineation of allowable trimester procedures was made moot by Doe vs. Bolton and subsequent rulings. An abortion can be procured in the US at ANY stage of pregnancy for ANY reason whatsoever. You misleadingly stated otherwise. Right now the only limitations in place are the partial birth abortion procedure, some state line limits for minors and a few parental consent stipulations. What other constitutional right should be RARE? We celebrate the exercise of all other constitutional rights.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( phdee ) on May 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Yelp all you anti-abortionists want, but the matter is really none of your business. It a decision to be made by the individual concerned. You simply have no say in someone else’s business, whether you think it is right or wrong, or against YOUR religion.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Paul Ross ) on May 27, 2008 at 4:34 pm
As a military officer and Iraq veteran sworn to defend the Constitution, I was disgusted with this convoluted defense of the “constitutional right” to kill unborn children, in the May 27 column, “Questions and answers about abortion rights.“ It added nothing but hubris to Roe v. Wade’s already twisted constitutional logic (creating rights to “privacy” and abortion under the Constitution where none exists). Moreover, the column completely sidestepped the issue of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to over-turn the Virginia ban on partial-birth infanticide—materially indistinguishable from the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act, which was upheld by the US Supreme Court. How ironic that Roe v. Wade used the 14th Amendment to decide that unborn children are not “persons”—the same Amendment which over-turned the US Supreme Court 1857 Dred Scott decision that declared slaves and freed slaves were not “citizens.” And how bizarre that two liberal activist judges are able to thwart the will of the democratically elected legislature and governor of Virginia to ban a gruesome, medically unnecessary procedure wherein the baby is mostly delivered, only to have its skull punctured and brains sucked out, in order to deliver a dead baby. Some constitutional right.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on May 27, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Read my column carefully. I am not objecting to anything. I am merely summarizing court decisions. Again, read the column c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( barnun ) on May 27, 2008 at 10:59 am
I still think the laws are full of holes and double standards. a child is viable at about 27 weeks so no child that is viable should ever be subject to abortion. A child that is still born is subject to a death certificate and funeral but a viable child that is terminated is just discarded. Also, there is never any discussion of mens rights in the abortion laws. A woman could have a child against the fathers wishes and yet he is “responsible” but at the same time a woman could terminate a mans child against his wishes, hold him responsible and that is somehow her right. There is no balance in this area. This is why is referred to as women’s rights, not equal rights.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sam B ) on May 27, 2008 at 10:47 am
Mr. Jacobsen, would you fill me in on specifically what it was about the VA law that you and the federal appeals court objected to? Thanks.
Report Inappropriate Comment