Interpretation of the Carhart opinion-Roe wins. The Abortion debate is over.

[modestyblase]

This is by no means an exhaustive view of my take on the case. I will write that up over the next few days.

Neither democrats or republicans should dismay or rejoice over the recent Carhart decision. It does not "win one" for any side, nor does it infringe on rights or standing precedents. In fact, while it upholds the privacy clause of Roe, it also accepts further restrictions on abortion(not privacy)by means of regulating healthcare(in this case, a medical procedure), and remands in large part the responsibility for more potent legislation to the states. Anything promoting the tenth amendment is a damned good thing. While I do see possible implications of state violations of individual liberties being made into federal cases, it is only one of a myriad of possibilities, and is one we the people should keep watch of. Further, I think this case is checks and balances at its finest: Congress made moral judgments about abortion, and SCOTUS defined it in such a way as to disspell the "moral" aspect of the act. Further, by the fact that this narrowly defines what is and is not acceptable abortion legislation, this case can be used to overturn standing laws requiring notice and the like. A damn fine victory for privacy. I applaud the decision.

While I abhor Scalia and his arrogant "interpretations", I find myself increasingly fond of Justice Roberts. His adherence to stare decisis precedents, particularly in a case that must have tried his personal beliefs, is honorable. I almost have a crush on the man!

Most notable is the following: "by interpreting Casey's
requirement of a health exception so it becomes tantamount
to allowing a doctor to choose the abortion method
he or she might prefer. Where it has a rational basis to
act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the State
may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures
and substitute others".

That is a very powerful judicial opinion. This limits Congress' ability to legislate on abortion, limiting to medical regulation.

Roe is still the law of the land, and more importantly its precedent as a RIGHT TO PRIVACY is beautifully upheld.

This case ends the "abortion" debate, and the use of Roe in regards to abortion, once and for all.

[domer]

Modesty, being otherwise oppressed at the moment (well, not the exact moment) with mounting a defense in a muder case, I'll have to defer reading the abortion decision until tonight, if my Irish Whiskey promotes thoughts of baby-like organism's getting mutilated. I don't know how else to put it. Viability aside, still the paramount concern if not the immediate focus, intrauterine photos of fetuses (which look like babies!) stick in my memory to make me run for the hills, usually, when the topic of abortion comes up. I am enough of an indelibly-marked (psychological) Catholic to have a great sensitivity to the anti-abortion position and the principles and sentiments from which it swells. But so too, I am enough of a pluralist and (get this!) a "humblist" (deferring to other views when the entire gestalt calls for it), especially when it comes to women, to bring me to a "modified pro-choice position," that is, one accepting abortion as a practice desired by and needed by others under principles and practices yet unclear, unsettled, or ultimately-untested but which, on balance, must carry the day as our (interpreted) constitutional law has been held to require.

In this particular case -- which, of course, I haven't yet read -- it seems to me that there has been an encroachment at the margins -- and it is at the margins where rules start to crumble. First, it seems, there was an encroachment on privacy,  specifically "physician-patient" choice, by eliminating a procedure authorized by medical principles and practice and usage, which had theretofore been employed by well-meaning individuals as the procedure of choice, for various medical reasons, to terminate a problematic pregnancy. But where the sting really comes in, it seems, is the failure of the Court to preserve the procedure where the life of the mother is genuinely threatened. This latter situation arguably not only brings the "regulation of an authorized and heretofore accepted medical practice" to its logical extreme but in doing so crosses a line into another realm entirely.

[modestyblase]

"Also unavailing, however,
is respondents’ contention that an abortion regulation must
contain a health exception if “substantial medical authority supports
the proposition that banning a particular procedure could endanger
women’s health, ” Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 938. Interpreting Stenberg
as leaving no margin for legislative error in the face of medical uncertainty
is too exacting a standard. Marginal safety considerations, including
the balance of risks, are within the legislative competence
where, as here, the regulation is rational and pursues legitimate
ends, and standard, safe medical options are available. Pp. 31–37.""

I'm not well-read on medical profession regulations, by either statute or precedent. Certainly, Stenberg is a case I'll be pulling and reading soon. The sentiment of the opinion is that since alternative procedures exist, this one specific procedure is unnecessary, and unecessarily cruel, and so the alternatives are welcomed in its stead. The interesting thing about the way this is worded-and its definition is narrowly defined-is that it makes not a single sweeping statement. Each matter of fact is specifically noted and opined on.

The opinion does not limit any right to abortion, or other procedures available, and allows the procedure where it may be necessary. In effect, it is granting doctors the freedom to get creative with there reasons of "why" the procedure was performed.

I'm simply amazed at how such an opinion effectively renders the debate of abortion over by setting a precedent over *how* abortion itself can be legislated. Of course, I am not an attorney, and may be misinterpreting something, or even missing some between the lines stuff. So to that end, I look forward to your opinion after you've reviewed it.

And good luck with your case.