The Washington Post on Monday examined the "visible rift" between a coalition of protestant and Roman Catholic groups and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson about the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in April to uphold a federal law banning so-called "partial-birth" abortion (Cooperman, Washington Post, 6/4). The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the law, overturning the rulings of three appeals courts.

President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S 3) into law in November 2003, and several groups filed lawsuits alleging that it is unconstitutional because of the absence of an exception for procedures performed to protect the health of the pregnant woman. In place of a health exception, the federal law includes a long "findings" section with medical evidence presented during congressional hearings that, according to supporters of the law, indicates the procedures banned by the law are never medically necessary.

The law says a physician who performs the banned procedures could face criminal prosecution, fines and up to two years in jail. The law allows an exception for cases in which the life of the woman is in danger (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 5/10).

According to the Post, Dobson and many other antiabortion group leaders applauded the ruling in the case, called Gonzales v. Carhart. However, the heads of five small protestant and Roman Catholic groups in an open letter to Dobson published as advertisements on May 23 and May 30 in the Colorado Springs Gazette and the Washington Times, respectively, called the decision "wicked" and said Dobson is misleading Christians by praising it.

Brian Rohrbough -- president of Colorado Right to Life, who signed the letter -- said, "All you have to do is read the ruling, and you will find that this will never save a single child because even though the justices say this one technique is mostly banned -- not completely banned -- there are lots of other techniques, and they even encourage abortionists to find less shocking means to kill late-term babies." The heads of the American Life League, Operation Rescue/Operation Save America and Human Life International also signed the letter.

A Focus on the Family spokesperson said that Dobson would not comment on the letter. Tom Minnery, vice president of Focus on the Family, said that Dobson hailed the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling "because [Focus on the Family], and most pro-lifers, are sophisticated enough to know we're not going to win a total victory all at once. We're going to win piece by piece." He added that Focus on the Family "firmly believe[s] there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling."

Chuck Donovan, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, said that the letter is "a bit bizarre" and that it "might be an attention-getting device" for some of the people who signed it (Washington Post, 6/4).

The letter is available online on the Colorado Right To Life Web site.

AP/Houston Chronicle Examines Recent Ginsburg Opinions, Dissents
The AP/Houston Chronicle on Monday examined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent opinions and dissents. According to the AP/Chronicle, the "more personal tone" of her writings, especially in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart, suggests that she might not be as "comfortable" working with Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts as she was in working with former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist (Sherman, AP/Houston Chronicle, 6/4).

Ginsburg, a former women's rights lawyer, in her dissent said the majority opinion to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is "alarming," adding that it "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by [the Supreme Court] -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the majority ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart and another recent ruling in which Ginsburg dissented both "reflected a paternalistic attitude toward women in the workplace and their role in society more generally." Shapiro added that the cases "touched a raw nerve" in Ginsburg "beyond disagreeing with the majority decision" (AP/Houston Chronicle, 6/4).

"Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.