Yet when you read the comments from abortion advocates, including the Democratic presidential contenders, this newspaper's editorial, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's dissent, you get the sense that Roe v. Wade is just about to be overturned. They fear that the secret weapon of a long line of abortion cases - the exception that would allow the procedure if the health of the mother was threatened, as opposed to her life - is now in jeopardy because the court allowed the federal ban to stand without the broader health exception. Why is this little known and less understood exception so important? Because it acts like an eraser that takes all limits that the public believes are in place to limit abortion (such as a limit on abortions performed in the ninth month of pregnancy) and nullifies them, thus creating, not as some have falsely asserted "a reproductive right - carefully limited," but in practice a completely unlimited right to abortion.
Some abortion opponents have suggested just the opposite. They have panned the decision as another typical legally contorted Justice Kennedy opinion on this issue that does virtually nothing. I would recommend reading the first 10 pages of the decision, if you want to get a feel for the horrific facts of this case. Kennedy's opinion validates the law, while affirming the case he dissented from just six years ago, which struck down the last partial-birth statute, but with the two important caveats. He throws on the scrap heap the fail-safe argument of the abortion industry that as long as there could be some hypothetical chance, no matter how small, that the health of the mother, including physical, mental and financial, could be affected, then any law limiting abortion is unconstitutional. Now this exception is treated like all others in the law, something that must be specifically proved, instead of a general presumption that is disprovable. In addition, even if the health exception is proved, its application can be limited instead of invalidating the whole law.
The most disturbing aspect of the angry comments of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and company is they are railing against a bill that does nothing more than give rights to the unborn that we currently give to animals - to be treated somewhat humanely and with dignity. Can you imagine their response if we were talking about banning the euthanizing of puppies by stabbing them with scissors at the base of their skulls and suctioning their brains out? Which one of them would dare oppose such a thing?
This is a small victory for civilization, for our humanity and humaneness toward the more than one million unwanted innocent babies who will have their hope of life dashed by abortion this year. Yes, they will still die, but at least they will have a better chance to do so with some modicum of dignity.
Eleven years ago, a lone baby's cry resonated through the Senate. Today, for the first time in 35 years, the cries of thousands of unborn children were heard by the Supreme Court. Let us hope it is not the last time.