National Organization for Women

Search:


Sign up:

to choose from our lists


email thisSend, printable versionPrint or Bookmark and Share Share/Save this page    |  Shop Amazon

Selections from Justice Ginsburg's Dissenting Opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood

April 18, 2007

In the joined cases of Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion that eloquently and thoroughly states the errors of the majority decision. Below are excerpts from her opinion. Download her 25-page dissenting opinion here (PDF).

Today's decision is alarming.... It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices.

Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.

Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution—ideas that have long since been discredited.

The Court's hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed.

Though today's opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of "the rule of law" and the "principles of stare decisis."

In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court — with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.

email thisSend, printable versionPrint or Bookmark and Share this page

join or give to NOW

stay informed

to choose from our lists


Say It, Sister! Blog

NOW Foundation

NOW PACs

NOW on Campus

Easy Online Shopping!
ERA Yes Support NOW by shopping the NOW Store!
Or try our amazon.com store amazon.com for NOW staff picks and all amazon.com items

 
 
 

Actions | Join - Donate | Chapters | Members | Issues | Shop | Privacy | RSSRSS | Links | Home

Copyright 1995-2009, All rights reserved. Permission granted for non-commercial use.
National Organization for Women