Thanks for signing up to receive the latest information from the Center for Reproductive Rights!
As a valued partner in the Center’s work, here are a few other things you can do to stay connected:
- or -
11.24.08 - On November 8, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two challenges to the Federal Abortion Ban, also known as the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003."
Filing date: 10/31/2003
Plaintiff(s): Leroy Carhart, M.D., William G. Fitzhugh, M.D.,William H. Knorr, M.D.,And Jill L. Vibhakar, M.D., on behalf of themselves and the patients they serve.
Center Attorney(s): Janet Crepps
Co-Counsel/Cooperating Attorneys: Jerry M. Hug (local counsel)
Summary: On November 8, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two challenges to the Federal Abortion Ban, also known as the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." In both the Center for Reproductive Rights' case (Gonzales v. Carhart) and Planned Parenthood's case (Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood), the lower appellate courts had declared the Federal Ban unconstitutional on the basis of well-established legal precedent requiring abortion restrictions to provide an exception whenever needed for the protection of women's health. Just seven years earlier, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional because, like the Federal Ban, it did not contain a health exception. In the intervening years, the evidence supporting the need for a health exception had not changed. Nonetheless, in April 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Ban and effectively overturned 30 years of precedent, signaling that women's health is no longer a paramount concern for the Court. The only change that had taken place in the intervening years since Stenberg v. Carhart was in the make-up of the Court, with the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was pivotal in protecting women's personal freedoms, and the addition of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
The Center opposed the Federal Ban for many reasons:
The Supreme Court's decision in this case also paves the way for state legislatures and Congress to enact additional bans on abortions, including those that doctors say are safe and medically necessary.