In a highly controversial ruling last April, the Supreme Court, for the first time since 1973, made a decision to limit a woman’s right to an abortion—but activists are worried that the Court could do much more than just that.

The Federal Abortion Ban, also known as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in 2003, bans a certain method of abortion, known as a “partial-birth” abortion or dilation & evacuation (D&E), used only in the second trimester. This procedure has always been one of the most highly controversial forms of abortion, and thus the law was immediately challenged and made its way to the nation’s highest court.

 

Questions of Constitutionality

In a 5-4 vote last April in the cases of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court voted to uphold the ban. However, it is interesting to note that several years ago, when Sandra Day O’Connor was still on the bench, the court voted against upholding a similar ban because it didn’t contain an exception for protecting a woman’s life. The new 2003 ban does not contain any exceptions for protecting a woman’s life, yet the court chose not to follow the precedent established by the prior case. This issue of exceptions for saving a woman’s life has long been a constitutional sticking point for abortion rights activists.

A Scathing Dissent

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, currently the only female justice on the bench, read the dissenting opinion and made it very clear how much she opposed this ban. This is her first time in years delivering an oral dissent, which speaks volumes to how important this case is to her.

"She’s sounding an alarm and wants people to take notice," said Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families. She noted in her dissent that the “differently composed” court, which welcomed two new justices in the last few years, “asserts that its ruling furthers the Government’s interest in “promoting fetal life.” But the Act scarcely furthers that interest,” she says. Ginsburg also referred to the ruling as an “alarming decision” which is “an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.”

Implications for the Future

Some activists see the ban as a minor setback, such as Planned Parenthood, who told their supporters the new law would affect only a few abortions, since the D&E method is considerably less common than earlier, first-trimester methods of abortion. However, many more activists see the ruling as opening the door to allowing further restrictions on abortion, with the potential to gradually erode away the effects of Roe v. Wade.

Many consider it an attack on women’s rights, and a stepping stone for further reactionary moves. Some states have already started drafting further abortion bans, leading some to believe this ruling could be the first of many that could limit the rights of American women in various ways.