ConfirmThem

By Alexham Posted in SCOTUS — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

You can read it here.

I will highlight key excerpts from the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence below the fold.

From Justice Kennedy's majority opinion:

"Compared to the state statute at issue in Stenberg, the Act is more specific concerning the instances to which it applies and in this respect more precise in its coverage. We conclude the Act should be sustained against the objections lodged by the broad, facial attack brought against it."

"Some doctors, especially later in the second trimester,
may kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation."

"Dr. Haskell's approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and 'the process has evolved' since his presentation."

"Whatever one's views concerning the Casey joint opinion, it is evident a premise central to its conclusion 'that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life' would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments of the Courts of Appeals."

"We conclude that the Act is not void for vagueness, does
not impose an undue burden from any overbreadth, and is
not invalid on its face."

"The Act's ban on abortions that involve partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the Government's objectives. No one would dispute that, for many, D&E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life. Congress could nonetheless conclude that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act requires specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition. Congress determined that the abortion methods it proscribed had a 'disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant,' . . . and thus it was concerned with 'draw[ing] a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide.'"

"Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well."

"While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained . . . . Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."

"In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used, confining themselves to the required statement of risks the procedure entails. From one standpoint this ought not to be surprising. Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue . . . . It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State . . . . The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form."

"The State's interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion."

"A zero tolerance policy would strike down legitimate abortion regulations, like the present one, if some part of the medical community were disinclined to follow the proscription. This is too exacting a standard to impose on the legislative power, exercised in this instance under the Commerce Clause, to regulate the medical profession."

Justice Thomas's concurrence:

"I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, has no basis in the Constitution."

(post in progress)