Gruesome and constitutional.(possible interpretations of partial-birth abortion laws)

NEW YORK, AUGUST 27

HERE are some useful givens in the matter of the partial-birth-abortion litigation.

In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court promulgated (vouchsafed?) a right to abortion. Although the decision was qualified, it was quickly interpreted by both sides as being pretty much categorical in its interpretation.

The advocates of Roe read into the language, and quite reasonably so, that the health of the mother was the critical consideration. If her health were invoked as a reason to proceed with abortion, then that consideration became paramount.

Critics of the decision stayed up late at night seeking to find means to keep abortion rights from being categorical, in the sense that the rights to free speech are such. The primary matter that needed thought was the whole business of the health of the mother. When a doctor is asked to cite health as a reason to go forward into the later trimesters, is he actually talking about health defined as survival?

The attempt has been made to modify abortion rights to relate in a substantial way to the "health" of the mother. Is it supposed that, if the abortion were denied, the mother would die? Be crippled?

But formulations so arrant were not acceptable to the totalists. They held that the health of the mother is subjectively relevant. A doctor can advise that the health of the mother requires abortion because otherwise the mother would become morose, or disoriented, or whatever.