"I believe the decision [the 1992 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood] was like planting a bunch of seeds, and we're just starting to see the shoots popping out of the ground," said Roger Evans, who is in charge of litigation for Planned Parenthood of America. "
-- From "Tests of 'Roe' more frequent since justices upheld late-term abortion ban in '07," a story in today's Washington Post written by Robert Barnes.
Courtesy of the Internet, you can click here to read Barnes's 1,905-word-long article in its entirety. Since you are no doubt busy, let me highlight a few of the key points.
Barnes' "hook" is Nebraska's historic "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." In effect, he works backwards in order to explain how and why Nebraska was able earlier this year to enact this first-in-the-nation law on a vote of 44 to 5.
The core of Barnes' narrative is unassailable. Pro-lifers read Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision and concluded that The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (Nebraska's law) could pass muster, as well.
In upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions, Kennedy looked at the joint opinion in the 1992 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood and concluded that "it is evident a premise central to its conclusion" that "the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life"--a premise that would be "repudiated," he wrote, if the Court affirmed the lower court's judgment that the law was unconstitutional.
"The justices have not revisited the issue of abortion since [2007]," Barnes writes, "but the decision has emboldened state legislators to pass an increasing number and variety of restrictions in hopes that a changed court will uphold them."
Indeed, pro-lifers, always ready and willing to offer the Justices food for thought, have picked up the pace in the state legislatures. One of the subsequent fruits of pro-lifers' labor is Nebraska's potentially agenda-shifting "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act."
As demonstrated by the emphasis of NRLC's State Legislative Strategy Conference held earlier this month, it is quite true, as Barnes writes, that pro-lifers are using Nebraska's law as a model for legislation in other states. NRLC's Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch played a key role in drawing up the bill which was introduced by Nebraska Speaker Mike Flood and she is the source and resource that state legislators and NRLC state affiliates are turning to for guidance.
So why is Nebraska's law so significant? Why does it so unnerve pro-abortionists? The law seeks to establish that the state has a "compelling interest" not just in the child who is "viable" (an ever-shifting benchmark), but also in protecting the life of the child who is "pain-capable," as well. Much medical evidence establishes that point at no later than 20 weeks.
Barnes writes that "Kennedy's [2007] ruling was shot through with references to government's interest in protecting the unborn and in making sure women knew the consequences of their actions. …One outgrowth of the decision's expansive language" is an even greater emphasis on ensuring that women can give an informed consent to a life-and-death decision.
And pro-lifers are placing initiatives in the legislative hopper to enact or beef up informed consent law, such as ensuring that ultrasounds are available to women contemplating abortion. But there's more.
At the State Legislative Strategy Conference, NRLC talked about laws to prevent public funds from being used to subsidize health insurance that covers abortion as permitted by the ObamaCare; and (at the other hand of the life spectrum) fighting the increasingly common practice by which so-called ethics committee in health care facilities authorize denial of lifesaving medical care---including food and fluids--against the will of the patient or his or her surrogates.
We read in the Barnes' story once again pro-abortion suggestions that their failure to challenge the Nebraska law in court doesn't mean they won't. "Some abortion rights supporters say privately that a challenge might come if another state adopts Nebraska's model, as seems likely," Barnes writes.
Okay. If that's the only reason they took a pass (after strongly hinting they couldn't wait to take the law into court), let's be sure we pass similar legislation this session in a dozen different states.
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: December 28, 2010
