"We should assume that this is only the beginning. The Justices have shown their cards. Despite assurances that they would uphold precedents, the Court has now kicked open the door for states to impose broader restrictions on Roe, restrictions that will sacrifice women's health for the sake of ideological gains." Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights
WASHINGTON, D.C. – (April 18, 2007) – Today, in its ruling upholding the Federal Abortion Ban case, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overturned 30 years of precedent and announced that women’s health is no longer a paramount concern. The Center for Reproductive Rights said the Court’s decision paves the way for state and federal legislatures to enact additional bans on abortions, including those that doctors say are safe and medically necessary.
"The Court has dramatically reduced the ability of doctors to provide services that, in their opinion, are the safest / best options to protect women's health," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "This Court believes that Members of Congress – not doctors – are in the best position to make medical decisions for their patients. This is a terrifying development, one with implications far beyond the abortion debate. Every American who cares about women's health, and doctors' ability to treat their patients appropriately, should be alarmed by this ruling."
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), appellate courts declared the ban unconstitutional citing previous law established over the last thirty years.
The Center opposed the ban for many reasons:
- It bans safe and effective abortions, which impermissibly burdens the right to obtain an abortion before viability.
- It fails to make any exception to the ban when a woman's health is at stake, which violates established constitutional protections that have been in place for 30 years.
- It uses broad language subject to wildly different interpretations that cover steps doctors routinely take in performing abortions in the second trimester, thus making it impossible for doctors to understand exactly what is prohibited.
- Decisions involving pregnancy and medical care should be left to women and their doctors, not politicians.
- It is part of a larger agenda to outlaw all abortions.
The Supreme Court was here before. Just six years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, the Center argued against an almost identical Nebraska law. The Court found that ban unconstitutional and exposed so-called "partial-birth abortion" bans for what they are: extreme and deceptive attempts to prohibit a wide range of safe abortions performed in the second trimester.
Nothing changed since the Stenberg v. Carhart decision. No new facts or evidence emerged to justify the Supreme Court revisiting this case. The only change 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 A. Alito. "It took just a year for this new Court to overturn three decades of established law. Today's ruling is a stunning assault on women's health and the expertise of doctors who care for them," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Read more on the Federal Abortion Ban's history > >
Gonzales v Carhart In-Depth
