This law and the court's decision have received a paucity of public comment, leaving the majority uninformed about the issue.

It was a surprise that the current court found a way to sustain this law in light of the prior court's reversal, as unconstitutional, of a very similar Nebraska law that had stated essentially the same thing. There are several aspects of the congressional act and of the court's subsequent decision that are alarming.

First, the act was intentionally given a very misleading name, intentionally implying that it applies to abortions that occur at birth, i.e. at the end of a full-term pregnancy; whereas, in fact, as clarified in the court's decision, this act applies principally to second-trimester abortions, those in the fourth to sixth months, and those most commonly performed for medical indications and prior to fetal viability.

Parents with legitimate concerns that their fetus may be malformed may elect to have an amniocentesis performed. Such a study can detect the vast majority of serious fetal abnormalities; however, it is not without risks. One complication is an unintended spontaneous abortion.

The later in the pregnancy this procedure is performed, the less likely will an unintended premature labor occur. In order to minimize these unintended abortions, an amniocentesis may be delayed until the second trimester. Second, Congress, with the support of this court, has now established a precedent, arrogating to the courts power to dictate to physicians exactly what and how a particular procedure is to be performed. This act, as interpreted by the court, dictates to the physician the only acceptable techniques for second-trimester abortions.

If not operating using a technique as prescribed by the court, the physician may be guilty of a criminal act that can result in a jail term. Further, the legal wording omits any mention of or exception for the health of the mother.

This incursion by legislators and lawyers into medical practice and medical judgment is unprecedented. Perhaps it could be condoned if it were intended to increase the safety or outcome for either mother or fetus, but it does neither. Indeed, the Supreme Court requires techniques that not only increase the risks to the mother but also require a truly gruesome dismembering mutilation of the fetus.

Moreover, it is also unusual - likely unique in the history of the American jurisprudence - that a court's decision has been split so clearly and precisely along the religious convictions of the justices themselves. All of the justices of the majority, and only these five, are practicing Roman Catholics. The position of the Papacy on all abortions, and its flagrant disregard for the mother's welfare, has long been well-known.

To mention this may be viewed as politically incorrect, but such an anomalous vote by the Supreme Court deserves comment.

Those zealots opposed to any abortion regardless of circumstances have to acknowledge there may be disastrous unintended consequences that cannot be foreseen.

---

* WALLACE H. RING is a retired Salt Lake anesthesiologist.