Changes

In '''''Gonzales v. Carhart''''' 550 U.S. ___ (pending publication) (Decided: 18 April 2007), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], by a 5-4 margin, upheld the federal statute banning [[partial birth abortion]].  The Court overruled numerous lower court decisions holding the law unconstitutional.

In '''''Gonzales v. Carhart''''' 550 U.S. 124 (April 18, 2007), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], by a 5-4 margin, upheld the federal statute banning [[partial birth abortion]].  The Court overruled numerous lower court decisions holding the law unconstitutional.

== Material Facts ==

== Material Facts ==

The [[Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003]] banned the use of a highly controversial [[abortion]] procedure, "dilation and extraction" (D&X), otherwise known as "intact dilation & evacuation" (Intact D&E).  The procedure, proponents of the Act argued, resembles infanticide.  Congress argued that its use demeaned the medical profession, and banning such a procedure furthered the interests of correcting this problem, and also represented a furtherance of the state's interest in unborn life, the third "[[Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey|Casey]] Factor."  Congress provided that D&X could be used where the life of the mother would otherwise be threatened, but not where only the health of the mother was threatened.  This exception was omitted against the direct requirement of [[Stenberg v. Carhart]], and Congress sought to justify this omission on the grounds that Congress had made [[findings]] that D&X was profoundly unhealthy or, at least, lacked any health benefits.  The Act also commanded that the Supreme Court pay heed to these findings.

The Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003<ref>18 U.S.C. § 1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV).</ref> banned the use of a highly controversial [[abortion]] procedure, "dilation and extraction" (D&X), otherwise known as "intact dilation & evacuation" (Intact D&E).  The procedure, proponents of the Act argued, resembles infanticide.  Congress argued that its use demeaned the medical profession, and banning such a procedure furthered the interests of correcting this problem, and also represented a furtherance of the state's interest in unborn life, the third "[[Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey|Casey]] Factor."  Congress provided that D&X could be used where the life of the mother would otherwise be threatened, but not where only the health of the mother was threatened.  This exception was omitted against the direct requirement of [[Stenberg v. Carhart]], and Congress sought to justify this omission on the grounds that Congress had made [[findings]] that D&X was profoundly unhealthy or, at least, lacked any health benefits.  The Act also commanded that the Supreme Court pay heed to these findings.

The Act was challenged immediately upon its passage.  Lower courts in different circuits issued permanent injunctions against the enforcement of the Act, accepting the plaintiffs' arguments that the Act was,

The Act was challenged immediately upon its passage.  Lower courts in different circuits issued permanent injunctions against the enforcement of the Act, accepting the plaintiffs' arguments that the Act was,

== Justice Ginsburg's Dissent ==

== Justice Ginsburg's Dissent ==

Justice Ginsburg, dissenting with three other Justices<ref>Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer, J.J., dissenting.</ref>, argued that "liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt," citing a famous quote from ''Casey'', and that the Court had impermissibly muddled previous doctrines by banning a procedure that could be used pre-viability, and therefore permissibly under ''Casey'' and ''Roe''.   

Justice Ginsburg, dissenting with three other Justices,<ref>Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer, J.J., dissenting.</ref> argued that "liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt," citing a famous quote from ''Casey'', and that the Court had impermissibly muddled previous doctrines by banning a procedure that could be used pre-viability, and therefore permissibly under ''Casey'' and ''Roe''.   

She also argued that Congress' "findings" that D&X was never safe or healthy were actually written and presented by unqualified or suspect doctors with little experience in abortion medicine, and no experience in D&X.  On the contrary, when full evidence was taken and read next to this unqualified testimony (as it was at the district court level in the cases leading to ''Carhart''), D&X did possess some health benefits, which she cited.<ref>These are fairly gruesome, but in brief involve the possibility of D&E leaving damaging fetal remnants in the mother's uterus.</ref>  She also protested that the state's interest in fetal life was being advanced - after all, the Act saves no lives, only provides for a ''different'' method for abortion.

She also argued that Congress' "findings" that D&X was never safe or healthy were actually written and presented by unqualified or suspect doctors with little experience in abortion medicine, and no experience in D&X.  On the contrary, when full evidence was taken and read next to this unqualified testimony (as it was at the district court level in the cases leading to ''Carhart''), D&X did possess some health benefits, which she cited.<ref>These are fairly gruesome, but in brief involve the possibility of D&E leaving damaging fetal remnants in the mother's uterus.</ref>  She also protested that the state's interest in fetal life was being advanced - after all, the Act saves no lives, only provides for a ''different'' method for abortion.