Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Ban

Last year, the United States Supreme Court heard two cases, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart, which address the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and the constitutionality of that Act, given that it does not provide exceptions for the health of the woman. According to the SCOTUSBLOG, the Supreme Court has upheld the ban in considering these cases.

Although the decision was apparently issued this morning and does not yet appear on the Supreme Court site (update: the decision is now available), Ginsberg reportedly made the following remarks in dissent: “the Court’s opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman’s health.”

Update: (all updates below this point) SCOTUSBLOG has a copy of the opinion as a PDF

A fair portion of the debate over this topic has been whether the procedure is ever “necessary.” One notable statement in the opinion regarding this question: “Medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts. See Hendricks, supra, at 360, n. 3. The medical uncertainty over whether the Act’s prohibition creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude in this facial attack that the Act does not impose an undue burden.”

Ginsberg’s dissent quoted above references the opinion of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Here is a copy of the amicus brief ACOG filed, which included the following:

The Act purports to ban so-called “partial-birth abortions;” however, “partial-birth abortion” is not a medical term and is not recognized in the field of medicine. The Act defines “partial-birth abortion” in a way that encompasses a variation of dilatation and evacuation (D&E), the most common method of second-trimester abortion, in which the fetus remains intact as it is removed from the woman’s uterus. The Act’s definition also encompasses some D&E procedures in which the fetus is not removed intact.

Over 95% of induced abortions in the second trimester are performed using the D&E method. The alternatives to D&E in the second trimester are abdominal surgery or induction abortion. Doctors rarely perform an abortion by abdominal surgery because doing so entails far greater risks to the woman. The induction method imposes serious risks to women with certain medical conditions and is entirely contraindicated for others.

The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women’s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation’s leading medical schools. ACOG has thus concluded that an intact D&E “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman, and only the doctor in consultation with the patient, based on the woman’s particular circumstances can make that decision.” [ACOG Statement of Policy on Abortion (reaffirmed 2004)]

ACOG objects to the 2003 federal ban because it exposes women to serious, unnecessary health risks and does not include any exception to protect women’s health. In addition, ACOG objects to the Act’s vague and overly broad terms because doctors will be unable to determine whether their actions are prohibited by the Act. As a result, the Act will deter doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to safely perform induced abortions.

Coverage:
-Washington Post – via AP
-Feministing
-Thoughts of an Average Woman
-Tennessee Guerilla Women
-Firedoglake
-RH Reality Check
-Tiny Cat Pants (also, next 3 were found via TCP)
-Father Knows Best – Slate
-Pandagon
-Bitch PhD
-Belly Tales
-womenshealth.gov, via HealthDay News
-more roundup from Feministing
-2008 Presidential Candidates on the Ruling – via New York Times
-Salon
-Feminist Law Professors
-Our Bodies, Our Blog and more from OBOB

-Related: My Late Term Abortion – Gretchen Voss, in The Boston Globe

Previous Related Posts:
-Supreme Court Abortion Case: Gonzales v Planned Parenthood – 11/5/06
-Arguments Up From Gonzales v Carhart – 11/8/06
-Gonzales v Planned Parenthood Argument Transcript Available – 11/8/06

Also, newer:
-American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Responds to Supreme Court Decision
-Physician Commentary on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003