Simmons, Jannace & Stagg
Gonzales V. Carhart
In the Gonzales v. Carhart case, an abortion doctor named Carhart who performed partial-birth abortions sued the United State Attorney General stating that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by President Bush in 2003 was unconstitutional because it did not allow an exception to protect the mother's health, only one that protected the mother's life. According to the ban, a pregnant woman could have a partial-birth abortion only when her life was at risk. Carhart felt that the ban needed to also have the ability to have this procedure when her health was at risk. The case also questioned whether Congress had the right to ban this procedure based on the decision in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case.
When the law was declared unconstitutional by the district court, it was appealed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling, citing the Stenberg v. Carhart case, where the Supreme Court ruled that all bans on abortion procedures had to have an exception to allow the woman to have the procedure if her health was at risk. The case was then appealed again, and went to the Supreme Court.
The question was whether or not a health exception was required in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and whether the ban was unconstitutional for any reason as it stood because it threatened a woman's right to have an abortion as protected under Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court decided that there was no threat on a woman's right to have an abortion as a result of this ban, and that the Congress had the right to ban the procedure. The decision was a five to four decision, and did not contradict Roe v. Wade because partial birth abortions are performed after a child has reached viability, and abortions prior to viability is what is protected under Roe v. Wade.
Click here to learn more about Debra L. Wabnik of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg
