Skip to content
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Pro Bono Program
    • Creative Council
    • Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • What if Roe Fell? U.S. Abortion Laws Map
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
    • Global Advocacy
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Events
    • Press Releases
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • What if Roe Fell? U.S. Abortion Laws Map
    • Take Action Toolkit
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Make a Gift Now
    • Be a Champion
    • Join the Advocates Council
    • Become a Major Donor
    • Give Through Your Donor-Advised Fund
    • Make a Gift In Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Leave a Legacy
    • More Ways to Give
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Donate
icon-hamburger icon-magnifying-glass Donate
icon-magnifying-glass-teal
Center for Reproductive Rights - Center for Reproductive Rights - search logo
search Close Close icon
Center for Reproductive Rights -
Menu Close Menu Close icon
Donate

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Pro Bono Program
    • Creative Council
    • Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • What if Roe Fell? U.S. Abortion Laws Map
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
    • Global Advocacy
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Events
    • Press Releases
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • What if Roe Fell? U.S. Abortion Laws Map
    • Take Action Toolkit
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Make a Gift Now
    • Be a Champion
    • Join the Advocates Council
    • Become a Major Donor
    • Give Through Your Donor-Advised Fund
    • Make a Gift In Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Leave a Legacy
    • More Ways to Give
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Related Content

Issues:

Abortion

Regions:

United States

Work:

Reporting on Rights

Type:

Publications, Fact Sheets

Follow the Center

Donate Now

Join Now

  • Hidden

02.01.2006

Reporting on Rights Abortion United States Publications

First-Ever Federal Ban on Abortion Violates Women’s Rights

Justin Goldberg

Share this Story

  • facebook
  • Twitter
  • linkedin
  • Email id


On June 28, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a sweeping state ban on abortion. Despite that ruling, Congress passed an almost identical law that was signed by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a legal challenge to the ban—the first-ever federal ban on abortion–on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the lead plaintiff in the 2000 Supreme Court trial. After the federal law was struck down in all lower courts, in 2006 the Supreme Court announced that it would review the Center’s case.


U.S. Supreme Court: Abortion Ban Is Unconstitutional


In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), the Supreme Court overturned a Nebraska statute banning abortion, deceptively called a “partial-birth abortion” ban. The Center for Reproductive Rights represented LeRoy Carhart, M.D., the Nebraska physician who challenged the ban. The Court’s decision exposed these bans for what they are: extreme and deceptive attempts to outlaw abortion even early in pregnancy. Moreover, these bans jeopardize women’s health: “a State may promote but not endanger a woman’s health when it regulates the methods of abortion.” Carhart, 530 U.S. at 931 (citations omitted).


First, the Court found that the ban would outlaw the safest and most commonly used methods of second-trimester abortion, and therefore constituted an undue burden on women’s right to obtain abortions. Nebraska’s law banned not only the intact dilation and extraction (D&X) technique, it also prohibited the most commonly used second trimester abortion method, dilation and evacuation (D&E), of which D&X is one variant.


Second, the Court ruled that women have the right to choose the safest method of abortion throughout pregnancy, and that this right was violated because the ban lacked an exception for women’s health. As the Court’s opinion states: “the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences.” 530 U.S. at 938.


New Ban, Same Flaws


In Carhart, the Supreme Court made it clear that, under the Constitution, legislation restricting methods of abortion must be specific and must not ban the most commonly used methods. Furthermore, such legislation must contain an exception for the woman’s health. But the new federal law defies the Court’s ruling on both scores.


First, the law does not prohibit one abortion technique at one stage of pregnancy, it prohibits the safest and most commonly used techniques in the second trimester.


Second, the law contains no health exception. Its drafters contended that the banned procedures are never necessary to protect a woman’s health. This, however, was precisely the argument rejected by the Supreme Court in Carhart.
The law is thus unconstitutional despite the declaration in Congressional findings that the legislation is exempt from the Supreme Court’s analysis in Carhart.


Exposing the Deceptive Abortion Ban


Anti-choice extremists have propagated two myths about so-called “partial-birth abortion,” to mask the wide impact this would have on all abortions.


Deception #1: “Partial-birth abortion” bans target a specific procedure


Despite a deceptive public relations strategy that has tried to advance this myth, the new federal ban is not limited to a specific procedure. In the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case, Carhart, proponents of the statute attempted to convince the Supreme Court that the ban was limited to D&X. But the Court noted “there is no language in the statute that supports it.” 530 U.S. at 918. In fact, the Nebraska legislature rejected an amendment that would have limited the law to only one narrowly defined procedure or to abortions performed late in pregnancy.


Deception #2: These laws ban abortions only late in pregnancy


The new law contains no reference to the stage of pregnancy to which its harsh penalties apply. This law would also ban safe and effective abortions. Forty states already ban third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at stake.


Medical Groups Reject Bans As Extreme


So-called “partial-birth abortion” bans criminalize many abortion procedures with severe penalties on doctors that include imprisonment and fines. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which represents over 90 percent of all physicians specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, rejected the bans as “inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.” (ACOG Statement of Policy, January 12, 1997)


In Carhart, the Supreme Court majority cited with approval the “highly plausible” record developed in earlier phases of the case, as well as the amicus brief submitted by ACOG and other health experts (see 530 U.S. at 936), which summarized the opinions of all major medical groups supporting a woman’s right to choose the safest method of abortion, including, in some instances, the D&X technique.




Stenberg v. Carhart
:



The Center for Reproductive Rights prevailed in the courts, Congress and the media to defeat bans on abortion. The Center for Reproductive Rights won before the ultimate authority on the Constitution, the Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling rejected a ban on abortions that would have prevented women from obtaining the safest and most appropriate medical procedures recommended to them by their own doctors.



By passing the 2003 federal abortion ban, the President and anti-abortion forces in Congress have flouted Supreme Court precedent. Furthermore, the new law ignores years of testimony by medical experts revealing the dangers this ban poses to women’s health. It also ignores the opinions of the American public, which has rejected the deceptive language of this ban through ballot initiatives.



In 2004, three federal judges across the country declared the “Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003” unconstitutional in separate cases, recognizing the law as a threat to women’s health. The following year, three appellate courts upheld those decisions. Then on February 21, 2006, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Center’s case, Gonzales v. Carhart.

Related Posts

Adams & Boyle, P.C. et al v. Slatery, et al: Order

Abortion,United States,Reporting on Rights

MKB Management Corp v. Burdick: Order Adopting Settlement Stipulation

Order from the trial court adopting the settlement stipulation awarding attorney's fees and costs from the state of North Dakota.

Abortion, Anti-Choice Harassment, Legal Restrictions, Maternal Health, Access to Quality Care,United States,In the Courts, Engaging Policymakers, In the States (USA), Reporting on Rights

MKB Management Corp v. Burdick: Eighth Circuit Court Decision

Abortion, Anti-Choice Harassment, Legal Restrictions, Maternal Health, Access to Quality Care,United States,In the Courts, Engaging Policymakers, In the States (USA), Reporting on Rights

Sign up for our newsletter.

The most up-to-date news on reproductive rights, delivered straight to you.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Footer Menu

  • Careers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

Center for Reproductive Rights
© (1992-2021)

Use of this site signifies agreement with our disclaimer and privacy policy.

Center for Reproductive Rights
This site uses necessary, analytics and social media cookies to improve your experience and deliver targeted advertising. Click "Options" or click here to learn more and customize your cookie settings, otherwise please click "Accept" to proceed.
OPTIONSACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
CookieDurationDescription
_ga2 yearsThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_UA-6619340-11 minuteNo description
_gid1 dayThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form.
_parsely_session30 minutesThis cookie is used to track the behavior of a user within the current session.
HotJar: _hjAbsoluteSessionInProgress30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjFirstSeen30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjid1 yearThis cookie is set by Hotjar. This cookie is set when the customer first lands on a page with the Hotjar script. It is used to persist the random user ID, unique to that site on the browser. This ensures that behavior in subsequent visits to the same site will be attributed to the same user ID.
HotJar: _hjIncludedInPageviewSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjIncludedInSessionSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjTLDTestsessionNo description
SSCVER1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for online advertising by creating user profile based on their preferences.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
CookieDurationDescription
_fbp3 monthsThis cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
fr3 monthsThe cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE1 year 24 daysUsed by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
IMRID1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for storing the start and end of the user session for nielsen statistics. It helps in consumer profiling for online advertising.
personalization_id2 yearsThis cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
TDID1 yearThe cookie is set by CloudFare service to store a unique ID to identify a returning users device which then is used for targeted advertising.
test_cookie15 minutesThis cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
CookieDurationDescription
adEdition1 dayNo description
akaas_MSNBC10 daysNo description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional1 yearThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others1 yearNo description
geoEdition1 dayNo description
next-i18next1 yearNo description
SAVE & ACCEPT
Powered by CookieYes Logo
Scroll Up