Congressional Fact-Finding

Gonzales v. Carhart

Issues

In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban without including an exception to the ban for cases in which the health of the mother is at risk. Does the absence of the health exception make the Act unconstitutional? 

 

A group of doctors, led by Dr. Leroy Carhart, sued the federal government, alleging that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional. Because the Act does not provide an exception for procedures that would preserve the mother’s health, Carhart contends that the Act poses an undue burden on women seeking an abortion, particularly where substantial medical evidence demonstrates that certain procedures covered by the ban are necessary and safer than other procedures. Carhart also contends that the Act is unconstitutionally broad and vague, because the Act can be read to ban standard abortion methods. The government argues that the Act does not constitutionally require a health exception, because congressional findings demonstrate that any health risks that the ban poses to women are too infrequent and insubstantial to constitute a risk significant enough to amount to an undue burden that invalidates the Act entirely. The Court’s decision will determine whether governmental interests in protecting potential life and prohibiting procedures that resemble infanticide outweigh a woman’s constitutional right to choose an abortion without the government placing substantial obstacles in her path. Advocates on both sides of the abortion debate view a decision to uphold the Act as a significant first step to future restrictions on the availability of abortions. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, notwithstanding Congress’s determination that a health exception was unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is invalid because it lacks a health exception or is otherwise unconstitutional on its face. 

In 2003, Congress passed and President George W. Bush later signed into law the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 (“Ban”). Carhart v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir. 2006). The Ban outlaws the performance of any abortion during which the doctor partially delivers the fetus prior to taking an overt act that causes the death of the fetus. 18 U.S.C. §1531(b) (2003).

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0

Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

Issues

Given congressional findings that the techniques comprising partial-birth abortion would never be necessary to preserve the mother’s health, does the lack of such a health exception or any other facial flaw in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 render the ban unconstitutional? 

 

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has held that “liberty” encompasses a woman’s right to choose abortion. Although states may regulate abortion after the fetus has reached viability, they may only do so if their regulations provide an exception for procedures that are necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. In 2000, the Court invalidated as unconstitutional a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortions that lacked a health exception, based on district court evidence of the medical necessity of such a procedure. Congress subsequently determined that such a health exception was unnecessary, because the procedures used for partial-birth abortion, in Congress’s view, are never necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother. Congress then enacted the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. In 2004, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America sued to have the Act declared unconstitutional and enjoined. The Supreme Court will now take up the constitutionality of the Act.

 

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether, notwithstanding Congress's determination that a health exception was unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is invalid because it lacks a health exception or is otherwise unconstitutional on its face. 

    In 2003, Congress enacted the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (“Ban”), which defined “partial-birth abortion” as “deliberately and intentionally vaginally deliver[ing] a living fetus . . . for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and perform[ing] the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.” 18 U.S.C.

    Submit for publication
    0
    Subscribe to Congressional Fact-Finding