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
Supreme Court Should Not Review Federal Abortion Ban Case, Center’s Brief Argues

More Info

New York, NY—Today, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a brief in opposition to the federal government’s request that the United States Supreme Court review the appellate court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart. In that ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down the "Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003," holding that it is unconstitutional because it fails to provide any exception to the ban when a woman’s health is at stake.

"For more than thirty years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a woman’s health and safety must remain a doctor’s paramount concern,"said Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "The federal abortion ban fails that test every time. This law robs doctors of the ability to protect their patients’ health, while raising the risks to their health at the same time."

As the Center’s brief argues, the Supreme Court addressed this issue just five years ago in the Center’s case, Stenberg v. Carhart. In that ruling, the Court struck down a similar Nebraska statute. The only difference between that case and Gonzales v. Carhart is that there is even more evidence now that the ban will put women at risk. In this case, twelve physicians, many from prominent medical institutions all over the country, testified that enforcing such an abortion ban without a health exception would significantly undermine the safety of abortion services. Therefore, the brief asserts, the Court should deny the government’s request that the Court review the Eighth Circuit’s ruling.

President Bush signed the federal abortion ban into law in 2003. Shortly thereafter, three challenges to the law were brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood Federation of America in separate federal courts on behalf of their clients. Last year, all three trial courts declared the law unconstitutional because it contains no exception for the woman’s health. Two of the courts, including the court in this case, also held that the law is unconstitutional because it is so broad that it would outlaw some of the safest abortion procedures performed as early as 12 weeks in pregnancy. The other two cases are pending in the courts of appeals.

The plaintiffs in Gonzales v. Carhart are Dr. LeRoy Carhart; Dr. William G. Fitzhugh; Dr. William H. Knorr; and Dr. Jill L. Vibhakar.