Abortion and the Supreme Court

Résumé du document

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of the American society. Even after Roe v Wade, a 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court permitting abortion, the debate has always been of topical interest. In this feature of The Economist published on the 4th of March 2006, a South Dakota's bill that would entirely ban abortion is considered. The reconstituted Supreme Court, after the nomination of John Roberts and Samuel Alito as Justices, will probably have to rule on that state decision. But the journalist rather presents this event as a symbol, and insists on the fact that other threats hang over the thirty-three-year-old abortion right. After a summary of the article, I will comment upon abortion in the USA, the role the Supreme Court has to play in this skirmish and the political consequences of a decision concerning abortion.

Extraits

[...] The state's governor, Mike Rounds, opposes abortion, but he vetoed a previous ban in 2004 on the grounds that it had little chance of success in federal courts and would in the meantime put the state's other restrictions on abortion in constitutional jeopardy. Mr Rounds is now hinting that he may sign the new version, remarking that “abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives”. If he does sign it into law, legal battles are sure to follow. During the debate over the measure, South Dakota's legislators were told that a donor had pledged $1m to defend the ban in the court. [...]

[...] She took a pseudonym, Jane Roe. She lodged a complaint on behalf of all pregnant women, saying the ban on abortion wasn't constitutional. The prosecutor was called Henry Wade. “Jane lost her lawsuit but appealed against this decision. So the SC decided to consider her case in 1973. In 1973 the SC voted Roe v Wade providing women with abortion rights, according to different constitutional principles such as equality between men and women, or the respect of private life. In 1992 the states were allowed to restrict abortion condition. [...]

[...] Conservatives make noise because of South Dakota's decision, but the journalist points out that they win little battles, day after day, which call abortion right into question. Let's move on to the commentary to try and understand what the situation of abortion in the USA is, and what could be the consequences of a pro-life decision of the SC, concerning either South Dakota's ban or partial-birth abortion. Those consequences would not only be democratic but also political. (Abortion in the USA) And first, why and how abortion has been authorized in the USA. [...]

[...] In Mississipi, were the rules are very strict already, a committee in the legislature has just voted to ban virtually all abortions. Elsewhere, conservatives are erecting psychological barriers, such as requiring abortion clinics to show women ultrasound pictures of the foetus. And battles are ragging over morning-after pills: conservatives want to make them hard to get; supporters of abortion rights want to provide them over-the-counter and require pharmacies to sell them. Bibliographie The Economist, March 4th 2006, pop quiz” Histoire et civilisation des Etats-Unis, J-P. Martin et D. [...]

[...] Pro-lifers are people who defend life and consider abortion as a murder; so they try to prevent women from having an abortion. They are opposed to pro-choicers, who claim the woman's right to decide if she wants a child or not. Pro-lifers sometimes demonstrate outside abortion clinics or use very strong methods: they have already set fire to clinics or even killed doctors practising abortion; in 1998 in Buffalo, doctors Slepian and Press, who were the only ones in the whole area to dare to practise abortion, were murdered. [...]