Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

From Free net encyclopedia

This article documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Public Law 108-105, HR 760, S 3) (1) (or "PBA Ban") is a United States law that bans partial-birth abortion made in or affecting interstate commerce. Partial-birth abortion is defined in the law as:

an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.

The PBA ban passed both chambers of Congress with sizeable bi-partisan majorities: 281-142 in the House of Representatives and 64-34 in the United States Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5th, 2003. At the time it became law, whether it would take legal effect in all 50 states was uncertain due to several court challenges. The bill was declared unconstitutional by federal judges in San Francisco, California, New York and Lincoln, Nebraska before it could be implemented. On February 21, 2006, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on the lower court ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart (for further information on the political and legal issues surrounding the bill, see Abortion in the United States).

In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court had struck down a similar Nebraska law, stating that an exemption for the health of mothers would be necessary for such a ban to be constitutional. While the PBA bill does not contain a general exemption for the health of the mother, it does have an exemption to save her life. The bill states that it "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

1 Status of the Law
2 References
3 External links

[edit]

Status of the Law

The law has never been enforced.

[edit]

June 1, 2004

Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of California struck it down on June 1, 2004 on three grounds (2):

Because it places an 'undue burden' (i.e., "a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.") on women seeking abortion.
Because its language is unconstitutionally vague.
Because it lacks constitutionally-required provisions to preserve women's health.

A nationwide injunction was withheld while waiting for similar decisions from the Federal Courts of Nebraska and New York.

(Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft)[1]

[edit]

August 26, 2004

New York District Judge Richard C. Casey found the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional. He ruled that the act must contain exceptions to protect a woman's health.

(NAF v. Ashcroft) [2]

[edit]

September 8, 2004

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, a George H.W. Bush appointee, in Nebraska concluded that, "the overwhelming weight of the trial evidence proves that the banned procedure is safe and medically necessary in order to preserve the health of women under certain circumstances. In the absence of an exception for the health of a woman, banning the procedure constitutes a significant health hazard to women."

"The court does not determine whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional or unconstitutional when the fetus is indisputably viable," Kopf wrote.

(Carhart v. Ashcroft)

[edit]

July 8, 2005

Three judges of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis unanimously agreed, "Because the Act does not contain a health exception, it is unconstitutional."

(Carhart v. Gonzales)[3]

[edit]

January 31, 2006

Two federal appeals courts on opposite sides of the country declared the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, January 31, 2006, saying the measure lacks an exception for cases in which a woman's health is at stake.

The first ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hours later, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued a similar decision in a 2-1 ruling.

[edit]