The Controversial Law: Partial Birth's Legal Battle

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law that prohibits a form of late termination of pregnancy called partial-birth abortion, referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. Under this law, any physician who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus is subject to fines, imprisonment, or both. The law was enacted in 2003 and its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. The statute includes two key findings by Congress: first, that partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited; and second, that it poses serious risks to the long-term health and lives of women.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

The statute defines "partial-birth abortion" as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion:

> "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."

The law makes it a crime for any physician or other individual to knowingly perform a partial-birth abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. The penalty for violating the law includes fines, imprisonment for up to two years, or both.

The constitutionality of the law was challenged immediately after it was signed, with three U.S. district courts declaring it unconstitutional due to its omission of an exception for the health of the woman. However, on April 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in a 5-4 decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, finding that the statute does not violate the Constitution.

The procedure

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law that prohibits a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. The procedure is used in the second trimester, from 15 to 26 weeks, most of which occurs before viability.

Partial-birth abortion is a term used by Congress to describe a procedure that crosses the line from abortion to infanticide. It involves the doctor delivering a substantial portion of the living child outside of the mother's body, either the entire head in a head-first delivery or the trunk past the navel in a feet-first delivery. The child is then killed by crushing its skull or removing its brain by suction.

This procedure is used in the middle and last months of pregnancy when dismembering a child becomes more difficult due to stronger bones and ligaments. The mother undergoes two to three days of cervical dilation, increasing her risk of infection and subsequent preterm births. After this, the doctor can partially deliver the child "intact" before killing it and completing the delivery.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines "partial-birth abortion" as:

> "An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."

The Supreme Court's role

• Striking Down Nebraska's Ban: In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled against a state ban on partial-birth abortion in Nebraska. In the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court opined that such a ban placed an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions as it lacked an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the "health" of the mother. This decision set a precedent that influenced lower courts' rulings on the federal ban.
• Lower Court Challenges: After Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, three different U.S. district courts declared the law unconstitutional due to the absence of a health exception for the woman. These lower courts cited the precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973) and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). This led to a series of appeals that eventually reached the Supreme Court.
• Upholding the Constitutionality: In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, upheld the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The Court distinguished this case from Stenberg v. Carhart, finding that the federal ban more clearly defined the banned procedure. This ruling affirmed the Act's prohibition of a specific abortion method.
• Impact on Abortion Rights: The Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart had significant implications for abortion rights in the United States. The ruling allowed states to place restrictions on specific abortion procedures, potentially impacting the availability of abortions nationwide.
• Shifting Composition: The composition of the Supreme Court has evolved over time, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Joseph Alito, who are considered conservative. This shift in the Court's composition may have influenced its willingness to revisit and rule on abortion-related cases, including those related to partial-birth abortion.
• Interpreting "Health": The Supreme Court's interpretation of the term "health" in abortion cases has been a point of contention. In Doe v. Bolton (1973), the Court's broad interpretation of "health" to include "all factors" related to a woman's "well-being" has been cited by pro-life supporters as rendering legal restrictions on abortion meaningless. This interpretation has had a significant impact on subsequent abortion cases, including those involving partial-birth abortion.

In summary, the Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape surrounding partial-birth abortion. Its decisions, from striking down state bans to upholding the federal ban, have had far-reaching consequences for abortion rights and the interpretation of relevant legislation. The Court's evolving composition and interpretation of key terms continue to influence the ongoing debate surrounding abortion in the United States.

The political landscape

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003. The law prohibits a specific method of late-term abortion, referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction, and in the statute as "partial-birth abortion".

The debate around the law was influenced by broader discussions on abortion rights and the role of the government in regulating abortion procedures. Pro-life supporters welcomed the law as a necessary step to protect the life of the unborn child and to distinguish abortion from infanticide. They argued that partial-birth abortion was a gruesome and inhumane procedure that was never medically necessary. On the other hand, pro-choice groups objected to the statute primarily because it did not include an exemption if the health of a woman was at risk. They argued that the lack of a health exception jeopardised women's health and placed doctors in a difficult position.

The passage of the law and the surrounding political landscape reflected the ongoing debate and polarisation around abortion rights in the United States, with strong opinions and advocacy from both sides.

Public opinion

Supporters of the law, including anti-abortion groups and pro-life advocates, argue that partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary. They believe that the procedure poses serious risks to the long-term health and safety of women and that it blurs the line between abortion and infanticide. Some also argue that the law is necessary to protect the life of the fetus, which they consider a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections.

On the other hand, opponents of the law, including abortion rights activists and women's health organizations, argue that the ban is a first step toward trying to outlaw all abortions. They believe that the law violates the Constitution by not including an exception to protect women's health, not just their lives. They also argue that the law is crudely crafted, difficult to interpret, and hopelessly vague. Some opponents highlight the lack of a health exception, which could force women to carry to term fetuses with no chance at life or exacerbate serious health conditions.

Frequently asked questions