Supreme Court decision on intact D&X likely to spur state attempts to expand abortion restrictions

Justices found the late-term abortion law -- even without a health exception -- constitutional because of the lack of evidence to show the procedure is medically necessary.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. May 7, 2007.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Act has some physicians concerned that it opens the door for the government to intrude on the physician-patient relationship. Other doctors said the ruling is a narrow one and praised the first federal restriction on an abortion procedure since abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade in 1973.

But one thing is clear, said advocates on both sides of the debate. The decision in Gonzales v. Carhart is likely to spur abortion-control measures in the states.

In its 5-4 ruling on April 18, the high court found the federal law constitutional, even though it lacks an exception for cases when a woman's health is in jeopardy. "Partial-birth abortion" is a nonmedical term that refers to intact dilation and extraction. The statute imposes criminal punishment on physicians who perform the procedure, except to save the pregnant woman's life.

The majority of justices concluded that there is not enough scientific evidence to show that the method is medically necessary, and therefore, the ban does not impose an undue burden on women's access to late-term abortions.

"The court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "Medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts."