Several newspapers recently published editorials on the U.S. Supreme Court's announcement that it will hear arguments in the Department of Justice's appeal to reinstate a federal law banning so-called "partial-birth" abortion. Summaries appear below.

Editorials

• Chicago Sun-Times: It is "no surprise" DOJ's appeal to reinstate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act came "about a nanosecond" after newly appointed Justice Samuel Alito joined the court, a Sun-Times editorial says. According to the editorial, although Alito testified during his confirmation hearings that he has respect for precedent and would not rule based on his personal beliefs, the "newly reconstituted court might endorse the Bush administration appeal." The editorial says that while abortions performed after 24 weeks' gestation are "hideous," the procedure is "so rare" it is only "conducted under extreme circumstances," adding, "This is a health issue, not a political one" (Chicago Sun-Times, 2/27).
  


• Las Vegas Review-Journal: Although abortion-rights advocates are "chewing their fingernails" over President Bush's new appointments to the Supreme Court, there are "no pending cases that could potentially lead to the demise of Roe v. Wade" -- the 1973 Supreme Court decision that effectively outlawed state abortion bans -- a Review-Journal editorial says. The Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments in the federal ban on partial-birth abortion is an issue "dotting the periphery," the editorial says. Even some abortion-rights advocates are not opposed to the ban, "which does nothing to undermine basic abortion rights," the editorial says, concluding, "That's something the high court should consider" (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2/24).
  


• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Although "[p]revious rulings have made it clear the government cannot ban women from seeking an abortion when their health is at risk," the recent confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito to the court could mean that a "majority of the justices want to think again, or perhaps just slam the gavel down for a predetermined outcome enacting a partial theft of women's rights," a Post-Intelligencer editorial says. "If the justices begin nibbling away at Roe v. Wade on partial birth," legislation banning abortions in states such as South Dakota "might provide a case that would let them wipe out the right to choice," the editorial says (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2/24).
  


• Tennessean: The Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments over the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act would not have happened "had the members of the court not changed" since a 2000 Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban was ruled unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the life of the pregnant woman, a Tennessean editorial says. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's departure "could well flip the court on this abortion issue," the editorial says, concluding, "The public should just ask that the current court be as cognizant of the paramount issue of women's health as the previous court was" (Tennessean, 2/25).



• Washington Times: Although it is "surprising" that the court decided to hear arguments, it might be "a sign that the court is preparing to overturn" its previous ruling striking down a similar Nebraska law in 2000, a Times editorial says. If Alito and newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts "really are in the mold of Justices [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas ... then the days when partial-birth abortion is a constitutionally sanctioned procedure may be coming to an end," the editorial concludes (Washington Times, 2/24).

Opinion Piece

• William Saletan, Slate: A different way to think about the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban debate is not "whether you're for or against abortion" but "how confident you are that an unwelcome medical scenario will never happen," Saletan, a Slate national correspondent and author of "Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War," writes in an opinion piece. Saletan writes that while previous federal court opinions discuss "numerous health conditions which, according to doctors who testified, make partial-birth abortion possibly the safest procedure for the woman," groups that oppose abortion rights say that physicians might interpret a health exception "too broadly." He adds, "But whom do you trust less: Doctors who apply the exception too broadly, or politicians who categorically dismiss it?" Saletan writes, "If doctors err in using partial-birth abortion when they should rely on a different procedure, the number of additional fetuses killed is zero," adding, "But if lawmakers err in ruling it out, every case they screw up is a woman subjected to medical risk" (Saletan, Slate, 2/24).