Bush administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court on Monday to reinstate the first federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure, arguing that what critics call a partial-birth abortion should be outlawed because it is gruesome and is "never medically indicated" as a safer surgical procedure.
The government's appeal asks the court to overturn the decision of a U.S. appeals court in St. Louis, which struck down the federal law as unconstitutional.
It came on the same day the Senate took up the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States. If, as expected, he is confirmed later this week, the Roberts court could put some new limits on abortion during its first term, which begins Monday.
The dispute over this type of abortion -- known medically as intact dilation and extraction -- amounts to a rerun of a case heard five years ago by the Supreme Court, but the outcome this time is in doubt because the makeup of the court is changing.
In 2000, the justices ruled 5-4 to strike down a Nebraska law that made it a crime for a doctor to remove much of a fetus intact during a mid-term abortion. This procedure is used by some doctors who perform abortions in the fifth or sixth month of a pregnancy.
In the past, the Supreme Court had said that women can choose to end their pregnancies until the time a fetus can live on its own, which occurs after the sixth month of a pregnancy. These later-term abortions are more complicated than early abortions, and only a few doctors perform them.
In Nebraska, for example, Dr. Leroy Carhart was the only physician who performed mid-term abortions, and in 1997 he filed a legal challenge to a state law banning "partial birth" abortions, contending that the law was unconstitutional. He testified that the "intact" removals were safer and less risky than other methods because there was less chance of bleeding and infection.
Source
The government's appeal asks the court to overturn the decision of a U.S. appeals court in St. Louis, which struck down the federal law as unconstitutional.
It came on the same day the Senate took up the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States. If, as expected, he is confirmed later this week, the Roberts court could put some new limits on abortion during its first term, which begins Monday.
The dispute over this type of abortion -- known medically as intact dilation and extraction -- amounts to a rerun of a case heard five years ago by the Supreme Court, but the outcome this time is in doubt because the makeup of the court is changing.
In 2000, the justices ruled 5-4 to strike down a Nebraska law that made it a crime for a doctor to remove much of a fetus intact during a mid-term abortion. This procedure is used by some doctors who perform abortions in the fifth or sixth month of a pregnancy.
In the past, the Supreme Court had said that women can choose to end their pregnancies until the time a fetus can live on its own, which occurs after the sixth month of a pregnancy. These later-term abortions are more complicated than early abortions, and only a few doctors perform them.
In Nebraska, for example, Dr. Leroy Carhart was the only physician who performed mid-term abortions, and in 1997 he filed a legal challenge to a state law banning "partial birth" abortions, contending that the law was unconstitutional. He testified that the "intact" removals were safer and less risky than other methods because there was less chance of bleeding and infection.
Source