By Michelle Martínez, Asst. News Editor -

Coinciding with the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the trial of Scott Roeder began last Friday. Roeder is being charged with murdering George Tiller, one of the nation’s only late-term abortion doctors in Wichita, Kansas.

On May 31, 2009, Roeder shot and killed Tiller in the foyer of the doctor’s church. Though Roeder publicly admitted to shooting Tiller, he pled not guilty of first degree murder, since he said he carried this out in order to “save unborn babies.” Roeder and his defense team are hoping to make the trial less about who killed Tiller, and more about why he was killed. Judge Warren Wilbert of Sedgwick County District Court, however, stated that the case cannot be turned into a debate over abortion, and such a “necessity defense” may therefore not be presented.

It is not only abortion rights groups, but also pro-life activists across the nation that have condemned Roeder’s actions. William Cody, vice president of the Pro-Life Club and A&S ’11, said that the pro-life movement has always condemned violence. “Every pro-life movement immediately condemned the shooting,” he said. “Scott Roeder has no association to any credible pro-life group.”

Numerous national pro-life movements note that the trial is not at all meaningful to their movement, since the acts are inherently unethical and stray from the principles held by most who are pro-life.

In spite of disallowing the use of Roeder’s alleged “necessity” motive in court, Wilbert is allowing Roeder’s defense team to argue that the killing can be considered voluntary manslaughter. In Kansas law, voluntary manslaughter is defined as killing with an “unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.” The possibility of lessening the charge from one of murder to voluntary manslaughter has abortion rights groups greatly worried that the Tiller trial might set a precedent convincing extremists that it is a worthwhile sacrifice that only carries up to five years in prison. Many on the pro-life side of the issue agree. “[Roeder's] murder of Tiller was absolutely wrong and he deserves to be punished accordingly,” Cody said.

Other late-term abortion providers like Warren Hern call the decision to allow this defense a “death sentence” for himself and his colleagues. But giving hope to abortion rights groups, as well as other advocates for Roeder’s conviction, is the fact that even though Wilbert has allowed Roeder to defend charges of manslaughter, it is not yet known whether the jury will be permitted to reach a verdict based on that charge. Most importantly, in order to satisfy the definition of voluntary manslaughter, Roeder’s defense must prove that there was an imminent threat to a third party.

So far, no state has ever declared a fetus a “third person.” Another obstacle for Roeder is that there was no legitimate imminent threat, given that Tiller was shot at church and not at his abortion clinic. Furthermore, District Attorney Nola Foulston is in the process of building a strong case against Roeder, proving that his actions were meticulously premeditated. Among the evidence that she intends to present to jurors is a receipt for ammunition bought shortly before the murder, a Wichita motel registry for a day Tiller happened to miss church, as well as Roeder’s calendar, which had the day of the killing highlighted.

By Kevin Fagan, Associate News Editor -

In a contentious 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided last week to overturn decades-old restrictions on the way campaigns are financed by allowing corporations, advocacy groups, and labor unions to donate an unlimited amount of money to candidates. This decision not only overturned the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act, but also two prior high court rulings (Austin vs. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission). This decision is more wide-reaching than previous decisions that simply revised precedent on election law, rather than replace it.

The vote came down along traditional ideological lines, with the conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia voting for the overturn while John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor voted against the measure. Swing vote Anthony Kennedy pledged his support for the reversal early in the process, making it easier for Samuel Alito and John Roberts to shape the complete overturn given that they knew they had the necessary votes.

For liberals and anti-corruption activists, this ruling represents the worst possible outcome. Corporations and other special interests will have a greater impact on the election conversation, while individual donations could be crowded out by the immense wealth of corporations and certain advocacy groups. Some argue that senators, congressmen and presidential candidates might be tempted to vote a certain way depending on the monetary support they could receive from corporations during the next election cycle. Particularly for Congressional representatives who typically have relatively low fundraising totals and elections every two years, an especially large donation from one corporation can make the difference between getting the word out to voters by television or radio and being forced to rely on word-of-mouth and phone banking.

For conservatives and free speech advocates, this decision comes as a welcome relief after decades of restrictions. It allows corporations and labor unions to be able to fully participate in the judicial process for the first time in about thirty years. Despite their immense wealth, corporations are owned by shareholders, many of whom only own a few shares, while labor unions and advocacy groups receive donations and dues from their members. Conservatives argue that allowing this money to go towards candidates is not a corruption of the political process, but rather a simple execution of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. They argue it is not right to exclude anyone from the political process.

To help moderate what they view as the negative consequences of this ruling, Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Charles Schumer, Senate Rules Committee Chairman, are looking into enacting new legislation. The legislation they are thinking about would require shareholder approval of campaign advertisements run by corporations, and would require the CEO of the company to come on air and approve the message being conveyed. Other possible provisions include barring foreign-owned subsidiaries and American corporations receiving public assistance from financing ads. If passed, such restrictions could be subject to another Supreme Court ruling to determine their constitutionality.

On the other hand, some conservatives feel that the current composition of the Court would allow it to consider a case that would challenge current limits placed on contributions to a federal candidate. Currently, individuals are limited to giving $2,400 to a candidate per election and $30,400 to a national party committee, according to the Federal Election Commission. A challenge to these limits appears unlikely to arise in the near future, though where the Court might go in its proclamations of constitutionality in the long-term is unknown.