The Tech - Online EditionMIT's oldest and largest
newspaper & the first
newspaper published
on the web
Boston Weather: 82.0°F | Mostly Cloudy

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Guam's Abortion Law

By Lyle Denniston
The Baltimore Sun


The law that goes the furthest to criminalize abortion failed Thursday when a federal appeals court struck it down as a violation of Roe vs. Wade.

Just six days before the Supreme Court will hear pleas to overrule Roe, the landmark 1973 abortion decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down a 1990 law in the U.S. territory of Guam, declaring:

"It would be both wrong and presumptuous of us now to declare that Roe vs. Wade is dead."

The Circuit Court said that the Supreme Court, in deciding Roe, went through the process of balancing pregnant women's interests against some states' interest in protecting fetal life, "and came to a result that has affected the lives and rights of millions of people."

It added: "It is not for this court to discard that precedent."

Two other federal appeals courts, however, have ruled that the Supreme Court itself has discarded at least a major part of the Roe ruling. Those two Circuit Courts -- in Philadelphia and Minneapolis -- have concluded that Roe is no longer "the law of the land."

The Philadelphia court's decision, issued last November in a Pennsylvania case, is the one the Supreme Court will be reviewing at a public hearing Wednesday morning.

If the Supreme Court does not strike down Roe altogether in that case and leaves some issues for a later case, it appears that the Guam case would be the next one to reach the justices next fall.

The San Francisco court's opinion Thursday said of the Guam law: "It is difficult to imagine a more direct violation of Roe."

No state law goes as far to criminalize abortion. The Guam law allows for pregnant women themselves to be prosecuted for the crime of abortion, and it makes no exceptions when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.

Moreover, abortion is a crime throughout pregnancy. There are only two exceptions: when two doctors, who must practice independently of each other, agree that "there is a substantial risk" that the pregnancy, if continued, will threaten the woman's life or "gravely impair her health."

The Circuit Court, in voiding that law, said that the "act gives not a nod toward Roe. With two narrow exceptions, it simply negates the rights and interests of the pregnant woman and forbids her to terminate her pregnancy from the moment of conception."

It then declared that, if Roe is still a binding decision, the Guam law is "clearly unconstitutional."

The tribunal then considered and rejected the territory's argument that the Supreme Court has undermined the Roe ruling by more recent decisions, in 1989 and 1990. Guam had argued -- as the two other courts of appeals concluded -- that the recent voting patterns of five of the justices show that Roe has lost majority support.

"The bits and pieces assembled by Guam," the San Francisco court declared, "fall short of compelling us to do that which the Supreme Court itself has declined to do -- overrule Roe vs. Wade."

The court chastised the territory's lawyers for making "little" mention of the interests of pregnant women in the abortion decision. "No matter how it is characterized," it said, "the right of a woman not to be forced to endure a pregnancy and birth is an extremely important one."