Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | I | Issues in Law & Medicine

Gonzales v. Carhart.

Publication: Issues in Law & Medicine
Publication Date: 22-JUN-07
Format: Online
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Full Article Title: Gonzales v. Carhart.(woman's right to abortion )

Article Excerpt
HELD: The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is not void for vagueness and does not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on overbreadth or lack of health exception. The State has the power to restrict abortions after viability and has legitimate interests from the pregnancy's outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus.

**********

These cases required the Court to consider the validity of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Act), 18 U.S.C. [section] 1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), a federal statute regulating abortion procedures. In No. 05-380 (Carhart) respondents were LeRoy Carhart, William G. Fitzhugh, William H. Knorr, and Jill L. Vibhakar, doctors who perform second-trimester abortions. These doctors filed their complaint against the Attorney General of the United States in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. They challenged the constitutionality of the Act and sought a permanent injunction against its enforcement. Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F. Supp. 2d 805 (2004). In 2004, after a two week trial, the District Court granted a permanent injunction that prohibited the Attorney General from enforcing the Act in all cases but those in which there was no dispute that the fetus was viable. Id. at 1048. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 413 F. 3d 791 (2005).

In No. 05-1382 (Planned Parenthood) respondents were Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, and the City and County of San Francisco. The Planned Parenthood entities sought to enjoin enforcement of the Act in a suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Planned Parenthood Federation of Am. v. Ashcroft, 320 F. Supp. 2d 957 (2004). The City and County of San Francisco intervened as plaintiff. In 2004, the District Court held a trial and it, too, enjoined the Attorney General from enforcing the Act. Id. at 1035. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 435 F. 3d 1163 (2006).

The Act proscribes a particular manner of ending fetal life. Abortion methods vary depending to some...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!



More articles from Issues in Law & Medicine
Defending Life 2007: A State-by-State Legal Guide to Abortion, Bioethi..., June 22, 2007
Doctors Talking with Patients/Patients Talking with Doctors: Improving..., June 22, 2007
The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.(Brief article)(Book rev..., June 22, 2007
A Death Retold: Jesica Santillan, the Bungled Transplant, and Paradoxe..., June 22, 2007
Dispelling the Myths of Abortion.(Book review), June 22, 2007

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.