It's time to tackle Roe v. Wade

Despite overheated and predictable rhetoric from pro-choice advocates in reaction to the Supreme Court's upholding of the federal ban on partial-birth abortion, they do have one thing right. This ruling will probably open the door to court challenges intent on reversing Roe v. Wade.

Good. A lot has changed since 1973, when the Roe case legalized abortion in the United States.

Even though the partial-birth decision is welcome, it's important to realize what last week's ruling regrettably won't do -- substantially reduce the number of abortions. The court pointed out that of the 1.3 million abortions performed each year in this country, 85 to 90 percent occur in the first trimester of pregnancy, when the right to abort is virtually unchallenged legally. And as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a dissenting opinion, the ruling outlaws only a specific procedure. Women and their doctors will simply choose a different late-term procedure to abort the child.

Ginsburg also chastised the majority opinion, by Justice Anthony Kennedy, as hostile to Roe v. Wade because it refers to the obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions as "abortion doctors." And Ginsburg doesn't like the majority calling a fetus an "unborn child" or worse yet, a "baby."

I guess the truth hurts.

But plainspoken language is exactly what's needed for a long-overdue re-examination of the standards set forth in Roe. For too long, pro-choice advocates have hidden behind emotion-laden rhetoric to avoid discussing the medical and societal changes that have moved us beyond the central standards established in Roe.

Back in the early 1970s, Roe was cheered because having a baby virtually ended a woman's opportunity to establish a career, and thus, financial security and a social identity outside of marriage. Those conditions no longer exist. Maternity is not the professional death knell it once was. Many businesses offer flexible hours, telecommuting and job sharing to hold on to valuable employees who are also mothers.

Third party-child care is close to becoming a government-bestowed right. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act requires employers to give parents up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, if they want it, to care for a newborn. Today, women are choosing to leave the work-force to start a family rather than choosing an abortion to stay on the job.

As significant as these societal improvements are, they pale in comparison to the medical advances made in the 35 years since Roe became the law of the land. Back in 1973, it was medically incomprehensible that a 22-week, 10-ounce fetus could survive outside the womb. But last fall, Amillia Taylor came into the world under those circumstances. She is the youngest living preemie on record. Viability just isn't what used to be.

Perhaps the biggest benefit of last week's ruling is that it puts the abortion debate right back into the political arena. Like it or not, every presidential candidate now must offer his or her judgment on whether the ruling on partial-birth abortion is a step in the right direction.

If the debate is to be meaningful, the pro-choice people must be intellectually honest. The "health of the mother" exception for an abortion is one area. On the surface, the exception sounds reasonable, but it's been used as a Grand Canyon-sized loophole. Abortion advocates have used the "health of the mother" phrase as synonymous with "life of the mother" in order to achieve, virtually, abortion on demand.

The con game is still alive and kicking. The health issue was a central argument used by opponents of the partial-birth abortion ban that was before the court. But Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman pointed out recently that the Kansas Health Department found that of the 182 partial-birth abortions performed in that state in 1999, none was actually to protect the mother's health.

Last week's decision, officially known as Gonzales, Attorney General v. Carhart et al., should be required reading. But heed this warning: some of the opinions are graphic.

In that respect, the court's explicit language does us a service, because at stake isn't merely politics or a constitutional right. It's life itself.