While Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling to uphold the 2003 Congressional act banning partial birth abortion certainly highlights a deep division among the American public, there seems to be no disagreement that it will profoundly impact the future of abortion in this country, giving those on both sides of the contentious issue reason to take note.
For the first time since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Court has prohibited a specific medical procedure and provided no exception for women's health in a 5-4 opinion, with the majority penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The blanket ban is the most problematic part of the Court's ruling, although we are also troubled by its patriarchal tone.
We would like to voice our support for the dissenting opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and for her energetic defense of a fundamental but imperiled woman's right to and interest in her own health.
One of the reasons that this decision has energized both sides of the abortion debate is that it has broad implications.
The precedents set by this decision are at odds with the Supreme Court's previous rulings on the right to choose. All students at Tufts, no matter where they fall in the pro-life to pro-choice spectrum, should be concerned about the implications of removing the topic of women's health from a reasoned debate on the issue.
It is important for everyone who holds strong feelings regarding abortion policy to be clearly informed about the content of this ruling. The majority opinion concluded that it is not legal for doctors to perform a procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, referred to in the text as "D&E."
Also called "partial birth abortion," intact dilation and extraction involves the partial removal of a fully intact fetus before the crushing or piercing of its skull to allow passage through the cervix.
This procedure differs from a still legal and standard D&E, where the fetus is dismembered in utero. Both intact D&E and standard D&E may be performed starting around 12 weeks of pregnancy.
What is even more unsettling than the ambiguous distinction made here is the majority's decision that the Congressional act in question will not endanger a woman's health.
When it comes to a woman's health, we agree with Justice Ginsburg that as long as "substantial medical authority" believes a procedure to be necessary, it should not be subject to prohibition.
A woman's doctor is best suited to determine the procedure that will preserve her wellbeing, and should have the ability to perform that procedure if the fully-informed woman agrees.
In fact, according to an article published in yesterday's Washington Post, some doctors assert that intact D&E is necessary to reduce the risk of bleeding, infection and permanent injury.
The majority justices have created a situation in which women whose health is at risk due to pregnancy must navigate a complex court system to obtain the right to a safer abortion; they cannot stand weeks or months of waiting before their needs are addressed.
Since a substantial and credible part of the medical community has come forth to vouch for the importance of intact D&E in preserving a woman's health, the majority opinion then appears to attack a woman's control over her body.
The patronizing tone taken by Justice Kennedy's opinion is especially worrisome. He expressed concern that the emotional trauma of an abortion would be compounded for a woman who learned after the fact the exact details of the intact D&E procedure used by her doctor.
As Justice Ginsburg articulated in her dissent, the solution for this problem would be required full disclosure on the part of doctors, not proscribing entirely the medical act.
Justice Kennedy's attitude is a throwback to an era when women were not trusted to make autonomous decisions.
It is with great disappointment that we see this new direction emerging from the Supreme Court. Supporters and opponents of abortion should question this opinion which places in jeopardy the health of American women.
