| Gonzales v. Carhart | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 8, 2006 Decided April 18, 2007 | |
| Full case name | Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Petitioner v. LeRoy Carhart, et al.; Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Petitioner v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al. |
| Docket nos. | 05-380 05-1382 |
| Citations | 550 U.S. 124 (more) 127 S. Ct. 1610; 167 L. Ed. 2d 480; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 4338; 75 U.S.L.W. 4210 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Questions presented | |
| 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. | |
| Holding | |
| The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional. Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. United States Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act | |
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.[1] The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose ruling had the same effect as that of the Eighth Circuit.
The Supreme Court's decision upheld Congress's ban and held that it did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion, "under precedents we here assume to be controlling",[2] such as the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In a legal sense, the case distinguished but did not overrule Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), in which the Court dealt with related issues. Gonzales was widely interpreted as signaling a shift in Supreme Court jurisprudence toward a restriction of abortion rights, occasioned in part by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor and her replacement by Samuel Alito.[3][4][5]
The Court found that there is "uncertainty [in the medical community] over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman's health", and in the past the Court "has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty."[2]
- ^ Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) Archived 2008-11-29 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
- ^ Greenhouse, Linda (April 19, 2007). "Justices Back Ban on Method of Abortion". New York Times. Retrieved August 27, 2009.
- ^ Charo RA (2007). "The partial death of abortion rights". N Engl J Med. 356 (21): 2125–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMp078055. PMID 17452437.
- ^ Annas GJ (2007). "The Supreme Court and abortion rights". N Engl J Med. 356 (21): 2201–7. doi:10.1056/NEJMhle072595. PMID 17476003.