Late-term abortion ban ruled unconstitutional
 | |
| |
|  VIDEO |
 A judge blocks the Bush administration from enforcing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
|
RELATED |
• FindLaw document: Order
|
|
(CNN) -- The U.S. District Court in San Francisco declared unconstitutional a federal law banning late-term abortions Tuesday.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton concluded that the act posed an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose a second-trimester abortion; was unconstitutionally vague; and lacked an exemption to protect the mother's health.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 imposed criminal and civil penalties on "[a]ny physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion."
Tuesday's ruling enjoined law enforcement officials from enforcing the act. Challenges have also been filed in Nebraska and New York.
The White House issued a statement saying President Bush "strongly disagrees with today's California court ruling, which overturns the overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress that voted to pass this important legislation."
"The president is committed to building a culture of life in America and the administration will take every necessary step to defend this law in the courts," the statement said.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic nominee, released a statement saying he had voted to restrict late-term abortions "but only where there was a clear exception for life or health of women."
"George Bush pushed through a different piece of legislation that failed to protect the health of women, and that is what the court struck down today," Kerry's statement said.
It went on to say that if Kerry is elected, he would "appoint judges that are committed to upholding the Constitution, not pursuing an ideological agenda."
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the law could have made illegal abortions just 12 to 15 weeks into a pregnancy.
"Today's ruling is a landmark victory for medical privacy rights and women's health," said Gloria Feldt, the federation's president.
"The Ashcroft Department of Justice can no longer threaten Planned Parenthood doctors with the daunting specter of criminal prosecution for putting their patients first."
In a written statement, Bush's campaign chairman, Marc Racicot, called the ruling "tragic" and said it shows why "America needs judges who will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."
"A majority of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion, and Judge Hamilton's decision flies in the face of Congress passing and President Bush signing legislation banning such horrible acts of violence," Racicot said.
"John Kerry's judicial nominees would similarly frustrate the people's will and allow this grotesque procedure to continue," Racicot continued.
"Americans from across the political spectrum oppose partial-birth abortion because they support a culture of life, but John Kerry returned to the Senate last year to oppose the partial-birth abortion ban.
"Today's ruling is a stark reminder of the clear choice Americans will face in November," Racicot said.
The law affected abortions carried out late in the typical 40-week pregnancy, but before the fetus is considered viable.
Such primarily second-trimester abortions usually involve a procedure known to doctors as "dilation and extraction," but referred to by opponents as "partial-birth abortion." During the procedure, the fetus is partially removed and its skull collapsed.
Many doctors against the law
Most medical organizations opposed the law.
In the materials submitted before Congress, the two largest medical organizations, the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, agreed in their opposition to the act but disagreed about "partial-birth abortion."
The AMA said it was ethically opposed to "partial-birth abortion." The ob/gyn organization expressed the belief that there are circumstances in which partial-birth abortion "may be the most appropriate and safest procedure to save the life or health of a woman," Hamilton wrote.
Proponents of the act had said such procedures were never necessary to preserve the health of a woman and in fact posed significant risks to the woman.
"The opposite is true because the act, as written, may force pregnant women to undergo a procedure that is less safe under their particular circumstances," Hamilton wrote.
She called the act's language -- which compares the procedure to the "killing of a newborn infant" -- "grossly misleading and inaccurate."
She added that it appeared to have been intentional as well. "Congress was aware that the act as written applied to previable fetuses."
