SAN FRANCISCO (ABP) — A federal judge in California has declared unconstitutional a federal law that attempts to ban certain medical procedures that abortion-rights opponents call “partial-birth” abortions.
Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of San Francisco, in a decision handed down June 1, ruled the law — passed last year by Congress and signed into law by President Bush — was unconstitutionally vague in its definitions of the acts and procedures it prohibits. Hamilton accepted virtually all the arguments put forth by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which filed suit to block the law.
She also said the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act violates previous Supreme Court and appeals-court decisions requiring any law limiting abortion procedures to grant exceptions in cases where a woman's health may be at risk.
In addition, Hamilton determined that the law is unconstitutional because it bans procedures that physicians could be forced to use due to complications from otherwise legal abortion procedures, which she said would discourage abortion providers from performing all abortions.
Most obstetric and gynecological experts do not use the term “partial-birth abortion,” and it is not recognized in mainstream medical literature. Most medical sources call the procedure “intact dilation and extraction,” or “intact D&E.” It occurs when a fetus is partially removed from its mother's womb, and then a medical instrument is inserted into its skull to enable the physician to suction out its contents, thus decompressing the skull and making it easier to remove the fetus from the mother's body.
However, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does not explicitly ban only intact D&E procedures, making the law too vague, Hamilton said.
“Accordingly, the court concludes that the definition of 'partial-birth abortion' contained in the act encompasses several second-trimester abortion procedures in addition to intact D&E,” she wrote in her decision. “Physicians may perform each element contained in the act's definition in any D&E procedure [other than intact D&E], and in the course of certain induction abortions and treatment of spontaneous miscarriages as well.”
In faulting the law for its chilling effect on all abortion procedures, Hamilton said, “A majority of the physicians who testified noted that because they 'fear prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment,' the wide net cast by the act could have and has already had the effect of impacting all previability second trimester abortion services that they provide to their patients.
“Even if this court were to accept the government's argument that the phrase 'partial-birth abortion,' as used by Congress, is commonly associated with the intact D&E procedure, the use of that phrase does not limit the scope of the act to intact D&Es.”
Congress attempted to get around the constitutional restrictions by including a set of “findings of fact” along with the bill. The findings — drawn from the testimony of physicians who oppose the procedure — concluded that the procedure was never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. However, conclusive studies on the rare procedure do not exist, and many other medical professionals and organizations disagree.
The White House quickly condemned Hamilton's decision. “Partial-birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that must be ended once and for all,” Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said in a statement released shortly after the ruling became public.
Noting the fact that the law passed with large, bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, McClellan continued, “The president strongly disagrees with today's California court ruling…. 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.”
Other abortion opponents went further in their criticism of the decision, claiming Hamilton was attempting to thwart democracy. “The decision … is a sign that courts are not afraid to ignore democratically enacted laws in favor of the abortion-on-demand agenda,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council. “Her decision is not simply a threat to unborn children but to the democratic process.”
Both Perkins and Christian Coalition President Roberta Combs took special note that Hamilton was an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, an abortion-rights supporter.
Justice Department officials vowed to appeal the decision. Similar lawsuits opposing the law are pending in federal courts in Nebraska and New York, and the case is likely to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Hamilton's ruling applies to the approximately 900 Planned Parenthood clinics around the country, as well as Planned Parenthood physicians performing abortions in other facilities.
Judges had already halted enforcement of the law's penalties on physicians, pending the case's ultimate outcome.
-30-