Back
Next 
Back
Next |
and the Stenberg v. Carhart Decision |
|
The supporters of the bans were naturally outraged at the outcome of the Stenberg decision. Justice Kennedy was quoted as saying, “The state chose to forbid a procedure many decent and civilized people find so abhorrent as to be among the most serious crimes against human life. The court closes its eyes to these profound concerns,” (Kaiser Daily Report). Joining Kennedy in the minority vote were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, however, suggested how to draft a new ban, and stated that if the Nebraska law had banned only the D&X procedure and included an exception for a woman's health and life, then “the question presented would be quite different than the one we face today,” (Lexis-Nexus Universe). But with the other states holding similar bans, the Stenberg decision means that the current action in lower courts overturning the bans will likely stand and other laws prohibiting the “partial-birth abortion” procedure might be challenged. Even more than two decades have passed since the Supreme Court upheld a woman's right to an abortion, however the debate continues over the legality and morality of induced abortion. Pro-life and pro-choice activists continue to battle over the issue. It appears, however, with the recent developments in abortion legislation, such as the Supreme Court's Carhart decision, coupled with the September, 2000 FDA approval of the RU 486 “abortion pill”, that the predominant ideology of our country at this moment is one which supports the pro-choice point of view. This ideology may change, depending on the new leadership, and the role this leadership views it must play in the control of medical options offered to women. It is known that the Bush/Cheney Republican position is one of pro-life, and when it comes time to appoint new Supreme Court justices, it is likely that candidates with pro-life views may be more seriously considered. To find out where current justices stand on the issue of abortion, click here. To contact your local senator to express an opinion on this issue, click here.
There may never
be a common ground as far as induced abortion is concerned, but perhaps
if we are armed with greater exposure to all the nuances of the arguments
and committed to an educated engagement in the process, steps can be taken
toward an end to the controversy.
|
|
*Key Factors: The Pro Life and Pro Choice Movements *Evaluation of H.R.1122 and the Stenberg v. Carhart Decision |
The implications for social work are
many. In reproductive health-care settings, for example, if restrictions
are placed on abortion procedures, the effects of such legislation on our
clients can be devastating. Restricting medical procedure options
that account for a woman’s future fertility, life, or the compromised life
quality of the fetus, will produce much unbearable pain, grief, and loss.
But the implications for practice does not stop with the individuals this
issue touches. It expands towards the society as a whole. Social
workers are armed with professional knowledge of systems, policies, and
avenues for action, and it is ingrained in the