Term: 2006
Docket: 05-380
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Leroy Carhart, Et Al.
- Pro
05-380 GONZALES V. CARHART DECISION BELOW:413 F3d 791 CERT. GRANTED 2/21/2006 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (the Act), Pub. L. No. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201 (to be codified at 18 U .S.C. 1531), prohibits a physician from knowingly performing a "partial-birth abortion" (as defined in the statute) in or affecting interstate commerce. § 3, 117 Stat. 1206-1207. The Act contains an exception for cases in which the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, but no corresponding exception for the health of the mother. Congress, however, made extensive factual findings, including a finding that "partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother." § 2(14)(0), 117 Stat. 1206. The question presented is as follows: 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. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-3379
In the 2006 case of Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Leroy Carhart et al., the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, marking a significant shift in American abortion laws and reversing previous rulings that protected this right under certain circumstances. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003 but had been blocked from enforcement due to legal challenges claiming it violated constitutional rights established by Roe v Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992). In a close decision with five justices supporting and four dissenting, the court ruled that the ban did not impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions as there were still other legal methods available for late-term terminations.
In the dissenting opinion for Gonzales v. Carhart, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision was alarming as it failed to protect a woman's right to make autonomous decisions about her own health and body, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. She criticized the court for not considering medical uncertainty surrounding partial-birth abortions and disregarding previous rulings that protected women’s rights in case of significant health risks. Furthermore, she contended that banning this procedure without an exception for women's health was unconstitutional according to precedent set by Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). The ban also violated principles of stare decisis because it ignored factual findings from prior cases regarding similar bans' impact on women’s safety and wellbeing during pregnancy terminations. Lastly, she expressed concern over how this ruling could pave way for further governmental intrusion into personal privacy rights related to family matters.
