"Partial-birth abortion" ban loses 1st round

The decision is the first among the three lawsuits filed in the federal courts. Experts expect the Supreme Court to have the final say.

By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. June 21, 2004.

The federal court ruling that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional helps ensure that Congress will stay out of the patient-physician relationship, some physicians say.

But other doctors continue to oppose the abortion procedure and hope that other courts will declare the law enforceable.

The ruling, issued earlier this month by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, supports the California Medical Assn.'s arguments.

"We believe generally that Congress should not impose itself in clinical decision-making," said the group's CEO, Jack Lewin, MD.

The CMA filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, which the Planned Parenthood Federation of America brought against the federal government. The lawsuit challenged the act, which outlaws "partial-birth abortion" -- a nonmedical term lawmakers and some opponents use to refer to intact dilatation and extraction -- and creates criminal punishment for physicians who perform the procedure. The CMA's brief did not offer an opinion on abortion but on government interference with the practice of medicine.

"If Congress were to legislate a medical procedure like this, it may open the door for lawmakers to make decisions on other medical issues usually left up to physicians," Dr. Lewin said. "You wouldn't want Congress opining on whether penicillin is an appropriate treatment for strep throat."

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees.