New York Times, April 19, 2007
Court Ruling Catapults Abortion Back Into ’08 Race
By ROBIN TONER
WASHINGTON, April 18 — Both sides in the abortion struggle predicted that the Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday would escalate the drive for new abortion restrictions in state legislatures and push the issue of abortion rights — and the Supreme Court — squarely into the 2008 presidential election.
The decision was a major victory for social conservatives, a validation of their decade-long strategy of pushing for step-by-step restrictions on abortion while working to change the composition of the Supreme Court.
“This decision is a powerful and timely reminder of the enormous significance of presidential elections and their pivotal impact on the makeup of the Supreme Court,” said Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
“Thank God for President Bush,” Mr. Land said, “and thank God for Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.”
Clarke D. Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life, said the decision would restore power to the states and make it easier to enact “common-sense regulations” on abortion. The “partial-birth” ban, aimed at a type of abortion known medically as intact dilation and extraction, was the product of years of effort by abortion opponents in states and on Capitol Hill. The legislation was twice vetoed by President Bill Clinton and, in a previous version, ruled unconstitutional by a different makeup of the Supreme Court.
Abortion rights advocates said they were shaken by the 5-to-4 ruling upholding the ban and asserted that the ruling cut to the heart of the protections of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision recognizing a constitutional right to abortion. They said it also underscored the stakes of the 2008 presidential election, arguing that the next president will almost certainly appoint a justice who could shift the balance of the court on Roe itself.
Abortion rights supporters clearly hoped for a replay of the abortion politics of the late 1980s, when the majority for Roe was also considered uncertain, mobilizing advocates into a more potent political force.
“Until this decision, I think a lot of people were skeptical about whether Roe could be overturned,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “But there clearly is no longer a presumption that women’s health will be protected by the courts.”
The reaction from the presidential candidates was quick and along party lines, and largely seemed aimed at their party’s base, which frames primary elections.
Republicans, who have worked hard to court conservatives opposed to abortion, hailed the decision as a long overdue stand against an “unacceptable and unjustifiable practice,” as Senator John McCain of Arizona, put it. “It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures,” he added.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the Republican former mayor of New York and a longtime supporter of abortion rights, said the court “reached the correct conclusion."
Democrats denounced the decision as an “alarming” retreat from years of Supreme Court precedent safeguarding women’s health, in the words of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois.
“I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women,” Mr. Obama added.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, also described the decision as “a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health.”
The reaction among independent and moderate voters will be closely watched.
Until now, even some elected officials who supported abortion rights were uncomfortable dealing with the procedure singled out in the 2003 law. . Abortion opponents considered the legislation a valuable teaching tool to highlight what they asserted was the extraordinary reach of the Roe decision. On final passage in the Senate in 2003, 17 Democrats joined with 47 Republicans to support the ban.
But some Democrats said this new court decision could change the political landscape, just as the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case did, by striking moderates as an unwarranted government intrusion into medical decisions.
On Capitol Hill, Democratic abortion rights leaders vowed to push for legislation that would codify the Roe decision, a long-sought goal of liberals. But activists on both sides said that was an uphill battle.
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California and a staunch supporter of abortion
rights, said she planned to reintroduce that legislation. But she acknowledged,
“We’ve got a lot of work to do.”