The Abortion Law: Is The 2007 Ruling Still Relevant?

In 2007, the US Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which prohibited a specific abortion procedure called partial-birth abortion or intact dilation and extraction. This law is still in effect.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibits a specific form of late-term abortion

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law that prohibits a specific form of late-term abortion known as "partial-birth abortion" or "intact dilation and extraction". This procedure is typically used in the second trimester, from 15 to 26 weeks, and involves the partial delivery of a living fetus before an act is performed to kill the fetus. The 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 Act makes it a crime for any physician or individual to knowingly perform such an abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother due to a physical disorder, illness, or injury. The father of the fetus, if married to the mother, and the maternal grandparents, if the mother is under 18, are authorised to take civil action. Additionally, a defendant can request a hearing before the State Medical Board to determine if the procedure was necessary to save the mother's life. Importantly, the mother herself cannot be prosecuted under this Act.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003, after an eight-year congressional fight. The Act was supported by 218 Republicans and 63 Democrats in the House, and 47 Republicans and 17 Democrats in the Senate. It faced opposition from some who argued that it lacked an exception for the health of the woman. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged and, in 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the Act in a 5-4 decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, finding that the Act pertained only to a specific abortion procedure and was sufficiently clear in its definition.

The Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The ruling was a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia. The Court's decision reversed a previous ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), which had deemed a Nebraska law prohibiting partial-birth abortions unconstitutional.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003. The Act prohibited a specific abortion procedure known as "partial-birth abortion" or intact dilation and extraction, which is used in the second trimester of pregnancy. The law made it a crime for any physician to "knowingly perform[s] a partial-birth abortion" and imposed penalties of fines, imprisonment, or both.

The constitutionality of the law was immediately challenged, and three U.S. district courts ruled it unconstitutional, citing the lack of an exception for the health of the mother. The federal government appealed these rulings, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court held that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act did not impose an undue burden on a woman's due process right to obtain an abortion. The Court found that there was uncertainty in the medical community over whether the banned procedure was ever necessary to preserve a woman's health. The Court also distinguished the case from Stenberg v. Carhart, noting that the federal statute in Gonzales was more specific and clear in defining the prohibited procedure.

The ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart was controversial and was seen as a shift in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence toward restricting abortion rights. The decision was criticised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote a dissenting opinion joined by three other justices. Ginsburg argued that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent and failed to take into account the health of the mother.

The Gonzales v. Carhart ruling had a significant impact on the abortion debate in the United States, setting a new legal precedent and paving the way for additional abortion restrictions at the state and federal levels.

The Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart did not include an exception to protect women's health

The Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003. The Act prohibited a specific abortion procedure called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as "intact dilation and extraction".

The Supreme Court's ruling did not include an exception to protect women's health. The Court found that there was "uncertainty [in the medical community] over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman's health". The Court further held that, in the past, it had given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.

The Court's decision was criticised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who argued that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent and "refuse[d] to take Casey and Stenberg seriously". Ginsburg took issue with the lack of a health exception, writing that "the absence of a health exception burdens all women for whom it is relevant—women who, in the judgment of their doctors, require an intact D&E because other procedures would place their health at risk".

The Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart prioritised the state's interest in promoting respect for human life over a woman's interest in protecting her health

The Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which prohibited a specific form of late-term abortion known as "partial-birth abortion" or "intact dilation and extraction". The Court's decision prioritised the state's interest in promoting respect for human life, as well as the state's interest in preserving and promoting fetal life, over a woman's interest in protecting her health.

The Court found that there was uncertainty in the medical community regarding whether the banned procedure was ever necessary to preserve a woman's health. In the past, the Court had given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty. The Court also found that the Act did not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion, as there were alternative safe abortion procedures available.

The Court's ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart was controversial and was interpreted as signalling a shift in Supreme Court jurisprudence towards restricting abortion rights. The ruling was criticised by some medical groups and publications, who argued that it endorsed the substitution of congressional legislation for medical judgement.

The Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart was criticised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for undermining women's struggle for equality

Observing that the majority opinion in Carhart did not touch upon the question of whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were valid, Justice Ginsburg wrote, "Casey's principles, confirming the continuing vitality of 'the essential holding of Roe,' are merely 'assume[d]' for the moment... rather than 'retained' or 'reaffirmed'". She concluded by criticising the majority for abandoning the principle of stare decisis, writing that "a decision so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power".

Frequently asked questions