12/29/2005 - Jan. 4th Teleconference for Reproductive Health Rights Groups
12/16/05 - FDA Court Date Rescheduled
12/13/05 - Center Study Exposes Government Neglect Of Women’s Health In East And Southeast Asia
12/8/05 -Launch of Women of the World East and Southeast Asia
11/29/05 - Statement on Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
11/18/05 - Supreme Court Should Not Review Federal Abortion Ban Case, Center’s Brief Argues
11/17/05 - Victory for Reproductive Rights in Peru
11/14/05 - GAO's Report on FDA's Plan B Decision Process Confirms Center's Lawsuit
10/31/05 - Judge Alito’s Nomination is Deeply Troubling, Says Center for Reproductive Rights
10/12/05 - Center Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief
9/27/05 - Brief Against Supreme Court Review of Federal Abortion Ban Case
9/15/05 - Missouri Law Shuts Down Only Abortion Clinic in Southwest Missouri
9/15/05 - Federal Court Strikes Michigan Abortion Ban for Third Time
9/08/05 - Kansas
9/05/05 - Roberts' Nomination to Chief Justice
9/05/05 - Passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist
9/01/05 - 8 Questions Senators Must Ask Roberts
8/26/05 - Shame On the FDA: More Deception and Delay
8/9/05 - Leading Reproductive & Women’s Rights Organization Hold Press Conference
8/05/05 - Politics of Pataki Veto Highlight Need For FDA Action
7/19/05 - Center for Reproductive Rights Alarmed by Roberts Nomination
8/03/05 - When Voters Learn of Roberts’ Record, Support Plummets According to Focus Groups
7/14/05 - For First Time in NCLR’s History, Briefing on Reproductive Rights of Hispanic Women to be Held at Annual Conference
7/8/05 - Key Victory In Appeals Court Against 2003 Federal Abortion Ban
7/6/05 - To Protect Future Generations, Senate Must Require Full and Open Disclosure of Supreme Court Nominee’s Views, Constitutional Litigators Say
7/01/05 - Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Retires: Dramatic Change in Supreme Court Puts Reproductive Rights at Risk
6/23/05 - Law Endangering Young Women Challenged in Federal Court: Health Care Providers Say Law Imperils Health and Lives of Florida’s Young Women
6/23/05 - The Benefits of Roe v. Wade Are Clear: Center for Reproductive Rights’ Response to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on Roe
6/20/05 - Civil Rights Chief from U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York Joins Center
6/14/05 - Groups Ask Court to Block Abortion Ban: Leading Reproductive Health and Rights Groups Say Michigan Law Would Prohibit Virtually All Abortions in the State
6/2/05 - Court Stops Virginia’s Third Attempt to 6/2/05 - Outlaw Safe Abortions
6/1/05 - Court Strikes Down Mississippi Abortion Law: Women in State Narrowly Escape Virtual Ban on Second Trimester Abortion
5/19/05 - Tulsa Clinic Challenges Teen Abortion Act as it Hits Governor’s Desk
5/12/05 - The FDA Under Evangelical Influence on Plan B Decision? No Surprise There
4/27/05 - Teen Endangerment Act: Putting Politics Before Teens’ Well-Being
4/13/05 - FDA Commissioner Crawford, No More Stalling!
4/12/05 - U.S. Government’s Appeal in Federal Abortion Ban Case Heads to Court for the First Time
4/10/05 - Alaska Supreme Court to Review Injunction on State’s Teen Abortion Law
3/23/05 - Yet Another Excuse from the FDA on Delaying Plan B Decision
3/15/05 - Statement on the Teen Endangerment Act
3/14/05 - Michigan Abortion Ban Put on Hold While Challenge Proceeds
3/10/05 - Responding to India Supreme Court Decision on Country’s Sterilization Practices
3/4/05 - As World Eases Restrictions on Abortion, U.S. Becomes More Restrictive, Study Finds
3/2/05 - What’s Missing from the Beijing Platform?
3/1/05 - Women’s Health Care Providers Challenge Michigan Law Banning Virtually All Abortions
2/14/05 - Center for Reproductive Rights Appoints New Director of International Legal Program
1/21/05 - Center Sues FDA for denying Women Over-the-Counter Access to Emergency Contraception
1/21/05 - Statement from the Center for Reproductive Rights on the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
1/05/05 - Alberto Gonzales: Three Questions the Attorney General Nominee Must Address
print this page | email this page | join mailing list
Court Stops Virginia’s Third Attempt to Outlaw Safe Abortions
Learn More

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declared a Virginia abortion ban unconstitutional and held "the lack of a health exception alone provides a sufficient basis for invalidating restrictions on a woman’s right to have an abortion." The 2003 law, deceptively called "the partial-birth infanticide" act, was also written so broadly that it would outlaw the most common and safest abortion procedures starting as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy. Doctors could even face criminal prosecution for attending to women who have suffered miscarriages.

The legal challenges against the Virginia law began in June 2003 when the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of Richmond Medical Center for Women, Dr. William Fitzhugh and their patients.

"Anti-choice forces across the country best take heed: you’re not fooling anybody but yourselves. Today, yet another federal court has found these dangerous abortion bans unconstitutional because they not only fail to protect women’s health, they shamelessly endanger it," said Priscilla Smith, Director of the Domestic Legal Program at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Last year, a lower court struck down Virginia’s abortion ban. Five years ago, another similar Virginia statute was ruled unconstitutional. Both laws mirror a Nebraska statute struck down by the Supreme Court in 2000 and the first-ever federal abortion ban signed by President George W. Bush in 2003—struck down by three federal courts. The Center brought the lawsuits against the federal and Nebraska bans and both Virginia laws.

As the Fourth Circuit Court held, citing the Supreme Court, "a woman’s interest in protecting her health is at the core of her ‘constitutional liberty… to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy.’ This enduring principle—which the dissent either ignores or minimizes—was recognized in Roe v. Wade…"

These laws are part of an ongoing deceptive campaign by the anti-choice movement to limit, if not, eliminate abortion access. Proponents claim that the term "partial-birth abortion" refers to one specific procedure. But, in fact, the term has no medical meaning and has been defined in statutes so broadly as to sweep into its net some of the safest procedures used. The term also suggests that it is about abortions taking place at birth, in other words, at full term or "late term." But nothing in these laws limits their application to post-viability abortions and, in reality, appears not to impact any post-viability abortions at all.

Learn more about bans on abortion throughout the country.