[Gonzales v. Carhart upholds] a ban on a rare procedure that may or may not yield any health benefits. If a comparably rare and nonessential form of surgery were banned in any other context than abortion, it's doubtful that the ruling would have even been newsworthy. What makes it newsworthy is the way that politicians have reacted to it. Read more...
Background: Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) - The "Partial Birth" Abortion Ruling
Background: Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) - The "Partial Birth" Abortion Ruling
Other Perspectives:
Scott P. Richert, About.com Guide to Catholicism
For the pro-life movement, Gonzales v. Carhart is a sign of hope, but there is still a long way to go before the lives of the unborn are once again protected in the United States. Even more important than Supreme Court decisions is prayer for the end of abortion. Read more...
Kathy Gill, About.com Guide to U.S. Politics and Current Events
[T]he Court has aligned itself with a conservative Congress and a conservative President bent on ignoring both medical testimony and previous Court decisions requiring medical exceptions to preserve Constitutionality. As a consequence, the Court has ruled that in a case of "medical uncertainty" (i.e., lack of 100% unanimity), politicians have the right to decide which medical procedures are legal and which are illegal. Read more...
