Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Pub. L.108–105 (text) (PDF) | |
Statutes at Large | 117 Stat. 1201 |
---|---|
Codification | |
Titles amended | 18 |
U.S.C. sections created | 18 U.S.C. § 1531 |
Legislative history | |
| |
United States Supreme Court cases | |
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) |
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (
Provisions
This statute prohibits a method of
The statute includes two findings of Congress:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion ... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. (2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
The statute also provides that:
A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Hadley Arkes commented, in an editorial in the National Review, "[t]hat provision went even further than the law was obliged to go, for as the American Medical Association testified during the hearings, a partial-birth abortion bore no relevance to any measure needed to advance the health of any woman."[5]
Citing the Supreme Court case of
Partial-birth abortion defined by law
The phrase "partial-birth abortion" was first coined by Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee.[8] The phrase has been used in numerous state and federal bills and laws, although the legal definition of the term is not always the same. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines "partial-birth abortion" as follows:
An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)
In the 2000 Supreme Court case of
Legislative and judicial history
The Republican-led Congress first passed similar laws banning partial-birth abortion in December 1995, and again October 1997, but they were vetoed by President Bill Clinton.[8][14]
In the House, the final legislation was supported in 2003 by 218 Republicans and 63 Democrats. It was opposed by 4 Republicans, 137 Democrats, and 1 independent. Twelve members were absent, 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats.[15] In the Senate the bill was supported by 47 Republicans and 17 Democrats. It was opposed by 3 Republicans, 30 Democrats, and 1 independent.[16] Two Senators were absent, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), a supporter of the bill, and John Edwards (D-NC), an opponent of the bill.
The only substantive difference between the House and Senate versions was the Harkin Amendment expressing support for Roe v. Wade.[17] A House–Senate conference committee deleted the Harkin Amendment, which therefore is absent from the final legislation.[1] On November 5, 2003, after being passed by both the House and the Senate, the bill was signed by President George W. Bush to become law.
The constitutionality of the law was challenged immediately after the signing. Three different U.S. district courts declared the law unconstitutional.[18][19][20] All three cited the law's omission of an exception for the health of the woman (as opposed to the life of the woman), and all three decisions cited precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973) and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). The federal government appealed the district court rulings, which were then affirmed by three courts of appeals.[21][22][23] The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Carhart case on February 21, 2006,[24] and agreed to hear the companion Planned Parenthood case on June 19, 2006.[25]
On April 18, 2007, the
Public opinion
A Rasmussen Reports poll four days after the court's decision found that 40% of respondents "knew the ruling allowed states to place some restrictions on specific abortion procedures". Of those who knew of the decision, 66% agreed with the decision and 32% were opposed.[28] An ABC poll from 2003 found that 62% of respondents thought partial-birth abortion should be illegal; a similar number of respondents wanted an exception "if it would prevent a serious threat to the woman's health". Additional polls from 2003 found between 60–75% in favor of banning partial-birth abortions and between 25–40% opposed.[29]
Clinical response
In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of
References
- ^ U.S. Government Printing Office(PDF)
- ^ a b Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-19. ("The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as 'intact D&E', 'dilation and extraction' (D&X), and 'intact D&X' ... For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E. ... A straightforward reading of the Act's text demonstrates its purpose and the scope of its provisions: It regulates and proscribes, with exceptions or qualifications to be discussed, performing the intact D&E procedure.")
- ^ Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), in which the Court stated: "In sum, using this law some present prosecutors and future Attorneys General may choose to pursue physicians who use D&E procedures, the most commonly used method for performing previability second trimester abortions."
- ^ See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), in which Justice Ginsburg stated in concurrence: "As the Court observes, this law does not save any fetus from destruction, for it targets only 'a method of performing abortion'."
- ^ Hadley Arkes, Talking Partial-Birth Abortion, National Review (October 13, 2004).
- ^ Amicus Brief of Christian Legal Society in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (2006-08-03).
- ^ "D&X / PBA PROCEDURES: Reactions to the 2003 federal law." ReligiousTolerance.org Retrieved April 18, 2007.
- ^ a b Rovner, Julie (21 February 2006). "'Partial-Birth Abortion': Separating Fact From Spin". NPR.org.
- ^ Abortion Bans: Myths and Facts. American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed April 14, 2006.
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) - ^ "Defending the Innocent" Washington Times 2003. Retrieved May 3, 2007.
- ^ Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ____ (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-30. ("If the intact D&E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.")
- ^ U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 74, Section 1531, "Partial-birth abortions prohibited".
- ^ Gorney, Cynthia. Gambling With Abortion. Harper's Magazine, November 2004.
- ^ Maureen L. Rurka, "The vagueness of partial-birth abortion bans: deconstruction or destruction?." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 89.4 (1999): 1233-1268. Online
- ^ House Roll Call No. 530, (2003-10-02).
- ^ Senate Roll Call No. 402 (2003-10-21).
- ^ Senate Roll Call on Harkin Amendment.
- ^ Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft, Order Granting Permanent Injunction, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support Thereof, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (June 1, 2004)
- ^ National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, Opinion and Order, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (August 26, 2004)
- ^ Carhart v. Ashcroft, Memorandum and Order Archived 2007-02-03 at the Wayback Machine, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska (September 8, 2004)
- ^ Gonzales v. Carhart, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (July 8, 2005)
- ^ Planned Parenthood Federation v. Gonzalez, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (January 31, 2006)
- ^ National Abortion Federation v. Gonzalez Archived 2006-12-14 at the Wayback Machine, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (January 31, 2006)
- ^ Supreme Court Docket, Gonzales v. Carhart (No. 05-380), providing copies of briefs, courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- ^ Supreme Court Docket, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (No. 05-1382), providing copies of briefs, courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- ^ Yahoo! News, 2007-04-18.
- New York Times. Retrieved August 27, 2009.
- ^ Most Who Know of Decision Agree With Supreme Court on Partial Birth Abortion Rasmussen Reports. April 22, 2007. Retrieved on April 26, 2007
- ^ Abortion and Birth Control. PollingReports.com Retrieved April 26, 2007
- ^ "Induction of fetal demise before abortion" (PDF). Retrieved 2019-07-09.
- ^ Hern, Warren M. (22 Oct 2003). "Did I violate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban?". slate.com. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
- ^ Goldberg, Carey (2007-08-10). "Shots assist in aborting fetuses". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-09-16.
External links
- ReligiousTolerance.org: D&X Procedure (aka Partial Birth Abortion) – All sides
- American Right To Life's list of dozens of anti-abortion leaders who condemned the PBA "ban" as a scam.
- Gina Gonzales as told to Barry Yeoman, "I Had An Abortion When I Was Six Months Pregnant," Glamour