National Abortion Federation Blog: Saporta Reporter

Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a Virginia abortion ban by a vote of 6-5. The decision reversed a 2-1 panel ruling in May 2008 that struck down the law on grounds that it would impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain abortion care.

The 2008 ruling affirmed the same court’s 2005 decision to strike down the abortion ban, a ruling that prevented Virginia’s law from taking effect. However, in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal abortion ban and ordered the appeals court to reexamine the Virginia ruling. Like the federal law, Virginia’s act prohibits certain abortion procedures after the first trimester and lacks an exception to protect women’s health.

In his dissenting opinion to the Wednesday decision, Judge M. Blane Michael emphasized that the Virginia law could also impose criminal liability on doctors who seek to perform legal abortions.

"This result places an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain a pre-viability second trimester abortion -- a constitutional right repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court," he wrote.

>Learn more about abortion rights in the states.
>Learn more about the federal abortion ban.

Labels: Federal Abortion Ban, state legislation

In this month’s Vogue, writer Lori Campbell shares her experience with a complicated pregnancy and her decision to obtain a second trimester abortion. In 1998, 22 weeks into a wanted pregnancy, Campbell was diagnosed with an incompetent cervix. Her water broke, and doctors told her she would likely go into labor within a week and her fetus would have only a one percent chance of survival and was almost guaranteed to have severe disabilities including brain damage.

Campbell and her husband made the choice to terminate the pregnancy using a procedure that has since been outlawed by the Supreme Court. During her experience, Campbell notes the one thing that never factored into her decision was politics. Unfortunately, last year’s Supreme Court decision to ban certain abortion procedures placed politics above protecting women's health. When the Court issued its decision in April, Campbell says she “couldn’t help thinking, they cannot know what they are doing.”

Labels: abortion bans, Federal Abortion Ban

Here is the press release we issued today:

Washington, DC - Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, released the following statement today urging members of Congress to sponsor and support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA):

Labels: abortion bans, access, Federal Abortion Ban, Roe v. Wade

NAF condemned a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. The Bush Court clearly put politics ahead of protecting women's health.

"This decision is a major setback for women's health," said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of NAF. "It undermines the health protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and opens the door for politicians to pass additional laws that could further jeopardize women's safety."

The federal abortion ban interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and the ability of doctors to make appropriate medical decisions. We will be working with our member physicians to ensure that women continue to have access to safe, quality abortion care.

NAF has been on the forefront of challenging this dangerous ban and we need your support to continue our efforts to protect women's health.

> Donate now

Labels: abortion bans, access, Federal Abortion Ban, Roe v. Wade

Here is the press release we issued today:

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court’s decision will endanger women’s health.

“Today’s decision has placed politics above protecting women’s health,” said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of NAF. “This ruling is a set back for all Americans who believe politicians should not legislate medical decision-making. The decision disregards the opinion of leading doctors and medical organizations that oppose the ban because it is harmful to women’s health.”

The Court ruled today on two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called by its sponsors the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.” The two cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country.

A third challenge to the ban, National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put that case on hold until the Supreme Court issued a decision in the other two cases. Today’s Supreme Court decision requires that the ban be upheld in this case as well.

“Today’s decision undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women’s health must remain paramount,” said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The decision invites politicians to meddle even further into the doctor-patient relationship by passing additional restrictions on abortion.”

Leading doctors and medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of OB-GYNs in this country, opposed the federal ban.

Congress passed the federal abortion ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including the decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to today’s opinion: “Though today’s opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of ‘the rule of law’ and the ‘principles of stare decisis.’”

Today’s cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.

Labels: abortion bans, Federal Abortion Ban, Roe v. Wade

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon issue a decision in two legal challenges to a federal ban on abortion. The Federal Abortion Ban was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. This dangerous and extreme measure prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy, abortions that doctors say are safe and among the best to protect women's health.

The ban was immediately challenged in three federal courts and was struck down in every court as a danger to women’s health. On November 8, 2006, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two of these cases, Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America. A third challenge to the federal abortion ban, NAF v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians. That case is now on hold, pending a Supreme Court decision in the other two cases.

Abortion bans jeopardize women’s health. The National Abortion Federation is closely monitoring these cases, and we will alert you when the Supreme Court decision is issued in these cases.

>Learn more about the Federal Abortion Ban.

Labels: abortion bans, Federal Abortion Ban

ACLU and National Abortion Federation Call on Court to Hold Women's Health Paramount

The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument today in two legal challenges to a federal ban on abortion. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in each of the cases. Both organizations have called on the Court to hold women's health paramount by affirming lower court decisions striking down the ban.

"This is a dangerous and broad ban prohibiting abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy – abortions that doctors say are safe and among the best to protect women's health," said Vicki Saporta, NAF President and CEO. "Politicians should not legislate medical decision-making; women should be able to make decisions and receive care based on their individual circumstances."

Before the Court today were two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act" by its sponsors: Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians and decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in July 2005, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country and decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in October 2005. Both circuit courts struck down the ban because it fails to protect women's health. In addition, the Ninth Circuit found that the ban prohibits an array of safe abortion methods.

A third challenge to the federal abortion ban, NAF v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In January 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that the ban requires a health exception and asked for further legal briefing to determine how to remedy the violation. That case is now on hold as the other two cases go before the Supreme Court.

"Only six years ago, the Supreme court struck down a nearly identical ban because it endangered women," said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "We are hopeful the Court will follow its own lead and stop this sweeping ban."

Medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, oppose the federal ban.

Congress passed the federal ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including the decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart. Courts have consistently struck down the bans for two reasons: their broad language prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy, and they lack exceptions to protect women's health.

Today's cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.

NAF is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. NAF members care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year in the United States and work at clinics, doctors' offices, and hospitals throughout the country, including premier teaching hospitals.

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The NYCLU is the New York affiliate of the ACLU.

For more information, visit: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights and www.prochoice.org.

Labels: abortion bans, Federal Abortion Ban

The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on November 8, 2006, in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood about the constitutionality of the federal abortion ban, passed by Congress and signed by the President in 2003. The sweeping ban prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy, abortions that doctors say are safe and among the best to protect women's health.

The law was immediately challenged in three lawsuits, including a lawsuit brought by NAF. Every court that has considered the ban has struck it down as unconstitutional. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a similar ban in Stenberg v. Carhart, and other courts around the country have struck down such laws finding that the bans prevent doctors from providing abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy and that the bans endanger women's health.

NAF opposes the federal abortion ban because it jeopardizes women's health and interferes with the ability of health care professionals to make appropriate medical decisions. Other medical organizations also oppose these bans.

>Read NAF's amicus briefs on Gonzales v. Carhart (PDF file, 175K) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (PDF file, 81K)

>Read more information about the cases

Labels: abortion bans, Federal Abortion Ban

Here is the press release we issued today with the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union:

The American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court calling on the Court to continue to hold women's health paramount when it hears argument on November 8th in challenges to a federal ban on abortion. These groups urged the Court to affirm lower court decisions striking down the ban.

"This law prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy that doctors say are safe and among the best to protect women's health," said Vicki Saporta, NAF President and CEO. "We hope that the Supreme Court will recognize the danger this ban poses to women's health and allow doctors to continue to make decisions based on their best medical judgment."

The Court is set to review two challenges to the federal abortion ban - called the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act by its sponsors - during the 2006 Term: Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians and decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in July 2005, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country and decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in October 2005. Both circuit courts struck down the ban.

A third challenge to the federal abortion ban, NAF v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In January 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that the ban requires a health exception and asked for further legal briefing to determine how to remedy the violation. That case is now on hold as the other two cases go before the Supreme Court.

"Decisions involving pregnancy and medical care should be left to a woman and her doctor," said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Such decisions should not be mandated by politicians."

Medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, oppose the federal ban.

Congress passed the federal ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite the numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including a decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart. Courts have consistently struck down the bans for two reasons: their broad language prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy, and they lack exceptions to protect women's health.

Today's brief in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the second friend-of-the-court brief filed by the ACLU and NAF. On August 11, 2006, both organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Gonzales v. Carhart.

NAF is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. NAF members care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year in the United States and work at clinics, doctors' offices, and hospitals throughout the country, including premier teaching hospitals.

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The NYCLU is the New York affiliate of the ACLU.

For more information, visit: www.federalabortionban.org

Labels: abortion bans, Federal Abortion Ban

Challenges to Roe

In the current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. Alexi Wright and Ingrid Katz report on the lack of abortion access and the Federal Abortion Ban in the U.S.

The article notes:

As new legislation is passed, the courts will hear more cases that challenge Roe, and physicians may increasingly risk their careers and their lives if they choose to provide abortions. With each new decision to limit abortion, more American women lose their access. Whether the Supreme Court ultimately upholds or overturns the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, one thing is certain: poor women in rural America are bearing the brunt of these decisions, and some may pay with their lives.

Labels: abortion bans, access, Federal Abortion Ban, Roe v. Wade

Today, the New York Times has an in-depth article examining the changes on the Supreme Court and how they could affect the Court’s ruling on the Federal Abortion Ban (FAB). Next term the Court will rule on a case filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenged the constitutionality of the ban. There are two other cases challenging the FAB, including our case, NAF v. Gonzales, which is still in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Also, I forgot to mention that yesterday was Samuel Alito’s first official day on the job. The Times has an editorial welcoming him to the court.

Labels: abortion bans, Federal Abortion Ban

The Associated Press is reporting that the Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of the Federal Abortion Ban. The court will consider the ban’s lack of protections for women’s health as well as its broad language. The ban has already been struck down in the three circuit courts to hear the case.

Labels: abortion bans, Federal Abortion Ban

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed two weeks ago, but next week he begins his new job. Today’s Associated Press has an article examining Alito’s transition from nominee to associate justice.

One of the cases which may come before the Court is our case challenging the Federal Abortion Ban. Congress passed this dangerous piece of legislation in 2003. The law could have banned abortions as early as 13 weeks. After President Bush signed the bill in 2003, we immediately filed a case challenging the constitutionality of the law. Find more about our lawsuit NAF v. Gonzales.

Labels: abortion bans, Federal Abortion Ban