Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)

In 2003, the federal government promulgated a Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which categorically banned these abortions without including an exception for the health and safety of the mother. It was struck down as unconstitutional by courts in New York, California, and Nebraska. Upon appeal, the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the law was unconstitutional, based on language in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and related decisions holding that any state regulation on abortion needed to include an exception for the health of the mother. The Supreme Court heard an appeal of the Nebraska and Eighth Circuit case, which had been brought by a doctor named Carhart against the U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales.

Whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional and can be enforced against challenges asserting it violates women's rights and lacks sufficient medical exceptions.

The judgment is reversed.

This case illustrates the difference between facial and as-applied challenges to statutes. While the facial challenge failed in this case, since there are some situations in which the law does not create an undue burden, it is possible that an as-applied challenge might succeed if the woman's life is at risk. Unfortunately, as with other cases involving medical emergencies, there is no time to realistically pursue court action before doctors need to make a decision. Carhart is the most recent major case in abortion jurisprudence, and its skeptical stance toward even a health exception shows how much more conservative the Court has become since Roe v. Wade in gradually rolling back women's rights.