The Courts and Abortion

I was conflicted when I heard about the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on a specific type of abortion, called intact dilation and extraction, or D and E. This type of abortion is typically used when a woman is 20 to 23 weeks pregnant and before the fetus is viable.

Proponents of the new measure argue that D and E is an unnecessary measure and that other methods can be used. Contrary to what I originally believed, the ban does not prevent all later pregnancy abortions, but just this specific type, according to The New York Times.

The law is perfectly clear, said Douglas Johnson, legal director for National Right to Life, which opposes most abortions. To violate it, Mr. Johnson said, a doctor has to plan to deliver vaginally a living fetus and then deliberately kill it when it is leaving the womb.
It is permissible to kill the fetus while it is in the womb, Mr. Johnson said, adding, “Anything goes inside the womb."

Earlier, the article explained,

The Supreme Court decision on Wednesday to uphold a ban on a type of abortion, has huge political implications but, as a practical matter, is unlikely to have much of an effect.

This is the cause of much of my confliction. Should law be used to make political statements? Upholding the ban doesn’t really change very much in the ability of a woman to have an abortion, but both sides of the abortion debate acknowledge its significant political impact. In this sense, the court has misused its resources. What did the court really change or do? They chose to rule on an issue that was much more a political matter, than one with a major concern of legality.

The decision also raises serious questions about the new court and opens the door for future decisions which are likely to please pro-life advocates. I am wary of the idea of trying to legislate morality and I believe the abortion debate is an issue of morality. There is also the issue of whether or not abortions, especially those occurring later in a pregnancy than usual, are a medical issue. If so, should the court really be regulating them?

I am still not sure about the decision. As D and E abortions seem less humane and there are other options available, I am not entirely opposed to the idea of ending this specific kind of abortion. At the same time, I question the means through which it was ended. Did the court actually have a right to do this? I think other avenues would have been more appropriate.