Although yesterday was the last day of oral arguments in the United States Supreme Court's current term, the justices have two very difficult and controversial decisions to make by this summer. Both cases involve very passionate and emotionally charged social issues focusing on the rights of women and the rights of homosexuals, but also relating to issues of morality and First Amendment rights.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard the first case since 1992 that addresses abortion and abortion rights. The court intends to make a ruling by June on the constitutional legitimacy of a Nebraska law banning a specific method of pregnancy termination. The decision in the Stenberg v. Carhart case will either uphold or overrule the Nebraska ban on a procedure called dilation and extraction, or more commonly known as "partial birth abortion." While 30 other states have passed "partial birth abortion" bans, this case has made it to the Supreme Court because of the vagueness in the Nebraska law's language.
Six justices support the fundamental right to abortion, and the opinions expressed by several vocal justices seemed to suggest that the court will deny the Nebraska law.
Abortion, by nature, is an extremely contentious issue that incites visceral reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. Abortion rights activists and opponents have been demonstrating outside the Supreme Court this week in an attempt to voice their concern and their convictions. For those of the liberal persuasion, over-turning the Nebraska law is essential to protecting the rights, interests and health of women. For those of the conservative persuasion, this law is necessary for banning a very specific procedure, and as the Nebraska attorney general claims, "drawing a bright line between infanticide and abortion."
Unfortunately, the subtleties in the wording of the Nebraska law, if upheld, could create a slippery slope for the prohibition of other abortion procedures.
This case speaks to the extreme difficulty inherent in issues that raise passionate concerns about constitutional rights and human morality. One cannot read or hear the description of this procedure without feeling uncomfortable, and perhaps even nauseous. Few would disagree on that point. Still, as Simon Heller, the lawyer arguing to overturn the Nebraska law said, "Every abortion procedure involves fetal demise. They all do." It is important to consider the legal repercussions and social impact of such vague law that could indeed create a slippery slope.
And yesterday, the Supreme Court heard yet another contentious case concerning the rights of homosexuals, and that also raised questions about the First Amendment and the freedom of expression and association. In the case of the Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale, the highest court in our country has to make a decision about whether the Boy Scouts, a service organization that is seemingly inclusive to millions of members, can exclude gay leaders. This case came to the attention of the Supreme Court from a ruling in the N.J. Supreme Court that called the dismissal of an openly gay troop leader against New Jersey's anti-discrimination law.
James Dale, the troop leader who was dismissed from the Boy Scouts is a representative for the larger gay community fighting to oppose discrimination and bring progressive thinking into the public policy spotlight. In fact, this case complements the legislation just passed in Vermont that legalizes civil unions between same-sex couples.
Like the abortion case, this case highlights issues of morality being posed against constitutional rights. The Boy Scouts, citing first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association, want the ability to define their message and they assert that homosexuality is not consistent with their organization's ideas. The consequences of the ruling in this case are equally troubling because a decision to allow the dismissal or banning of homosexual troop leaders could create a slippery slope that would lead to the dismissal and banning of homosexual members from the Boy Scouts.
In the broader picture, both of these cases also speak to the consideration voters must give to their electoral decisions in the upcoming presidential election. It is likely that the next president will be entrusted with the powerful responsibility to appoint three new Supreme Court Justices. This is arguably one of the most important issues in the presidential campaign because the next president could have a serious impact on the ideology and decision making of the Supreme Court for many years to come.
