Tough decisions. Nina Totenberg. God I would love to have her job. Anyhow, the radio woke me up to this story. And I found myself completely immersed in the case GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CARHART et al.

Held: Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a womans right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception.

Specifically in Ginsberg’s dissent using Justice Kennedy’s own words. As Nina reported here… The Supreme Court Abortion Decision on Abortion

Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 571 (2003)

I think my actual words out loud were “you tell ’em Ruthy.” I have to say, I am and always have been 100% pro-choice. But I am and always have been 100% pro-life as well. No way to make it nice, abortion is ending a life. No matter what the trimester. My God, there’s just no easy answer. I mean read about this procedure. Cruel? Inhumane? I think so.

In the usual second-trimester procedure, dilation and evacuation(D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraskas, is a variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as intact D&E.The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull.

Studying Roe v. Wade academically was a huge eye opener for me. Legally? Ugh, I disagree with the Court legislating from the bench. But at the same time, creating the right was essential to the rights of women. I assumed that Casey solidified this right, and all the talk and worry over the new Justices wouldn’t mean a roll back of Roe. I mean how could we? We live the year 2007? That will never happen. Sigh. It hasn’t happened yet. And perhaps? Perhaps (after I read the decision I will know better how i feel about this because the media sure has me thinking otherwise) but perhaps, it isn’t the slippery slope. Perhaps this case will stand alone? Ginsberg’s Dissent

Todays decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a womans health.

Ugh. Tough decisions. No right answers. Scary day for women in America, it looks to be so… not necessarily because of this particular decision, but what it could mean in the future. Must read case before speaking further.