c. 2006 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ After years of disappointment with Supreme Court decisions on abortion, religious conservatives say they expect significant legal changes after the high court agreed Tuesday (Feb. 21) to consider the constitutionality of a federal law banning a controversial type of late-term abortion.

“With two new judicial conservatives on the Supreme Court, this could signal the end of the abortion lobby’s stranglehold on the court,” said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Washington-based Traditional Values Coalition, which hopes the high court will end the protracted battle over a “grisly procedure” her organization opposes.

The case, involving a procedure critics call “partial-birth abortion,” will be heard this fall. It is considered a key test of whether a Supreme Court with two new members will shift direction on one of the nation’s most hotly debated social issues.

The dispute involves a law approved by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003 making it a crime for doctors to perform the procedure known medically as intact dilation and extraction.

The procedure, which Bush called an “abhorrent practice,” involves partial removal of the fetus from the womb and a puncturing of the skull, and is used to terminate pregnancies in the second and third trimesters.

Doctors who perform the procedure contend it is the safest method of abortion when the mother’s health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.

The decision to hear Gonzales vs. Carhart this fall was made by a court with two new members, including Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who took his place on the bench for the first time Tuesday. Alito replaced retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a supporter of abortion rights.

Abortion was a major issue in the fight over Alito’s nomination and that of new Chief Justice John Roberts.

The presence of Alito and Roberts has kindled renewed hope among some religious groups that their opposition to abortion might be reflected by the court.

Mathew D. Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative law firm based in Orlando, Fla., said the court’s acceptance of the case “marks the first action of the high court in a new direction. I believe this court will be more faithful to the rule of law.”

His group is one of many that plan to file briefs with the court in support of the ban. Another is the American Family Association.

“We look forward to the new court’s consideration of the case and fully expect a victory for the cause of the unborn,” said Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the association’s Center for Law & Policy in Tupelo, Miss.

The American Center for Law and Justice plans to file a brief representing members of Congress who support the ban.

“With the new make-up of the high court, we are encouraged that the justices will determine that the government does have a vital and compelling interest in preventing the spread of the practice of abortion into infanticide,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the Washington-based legal group.

“We’re hopeful the high court will determine that the national ban is not only proper, but constitutional as well.”

The congressional ban never took effect after being struck down by federal courts in Nebraska, New York and California. The courts found the federal law lacked necessary exceptions for cases where a woman’s health was at risk.

Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, would like the high court to address that aspect of the law.

“We … hope the Supreme Court will make it clear that whatever a `health exception’ means, it cannot be carte blanche for getting an abortion at any time for any reason,” he said.

Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on “pro-life activities,” agreed.

“Partial-birth abortion is not necessary for women’s physical or emotional health,” she said. “Extensive testimony reveals that there is no maternal health reason why such a gruesome and inhumane procedure must be performed.”

The decision to reconsider the issue comes nearly six years after the high court voted 5-4 to strike down a Nebraska state partial-birth abortion law because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother. In that case, O’Connor was a pivotal fifth vote.

Even with O’Connor’s retirement, there are five clear votes to uphold Roe vs. Wade. But supporters of abortion rights worry that the arrival of Roberts and Alito to the high court, along with this latest case, could signal the start of a rollback of the right of a woman to choose how to handle a pregnancy.

“There’s no question this is an opportunity, first of all, to see exactly how anti-Roe these justices are, how serious they are about further cutting back and reducing the remaining protections under the original Roe … decision, which was that a woman’s health and life ought to be the paramount concerns,” said Marjorie Signer, spokeswoman for the Washington-based Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Nancy Keenan, president of Washington-based NARAL Pro-Choice America, agreed, saying the court’s willingness to take the federal case “means the core principle of protecting women’s health by Roe vs. Wade is in clear and present danger.”

The case to be heard in the fall comes from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of doctors. A federal trial judge ruled the law unconstitutional, and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed last summer.

MO/JL END BANKS/COHEN

(Robert Cohen writes for The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J.)

Eds.: Mathew is cq in the 9th graph below.