## Facts

- Congress enacted the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, criminalizing a defined abortion method involving deliberate partial delivery of a living fetus followed by an overt act to kill it, except when necessary to save the mother’s life.
- The statute reflected congressional findings that the prohibited procedure was inhumane and never medically necessary.
- Physicians and abortion providers filed separate federal suits seeking to enjoin enforcement, alleging the Act lacked a health exception and could be read to cover standard dilation and evacuation (D&E).
- After trials, federal district courts permanently enjoined the Act, concluding it was unconstitutional for lack of a health exception and for potential overbreadth.
- The Eighth and Ninth Circuits affirmed, relying on perceived medical disagreement about whether the banned procedure could be safer in some circumstances.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases, consolidated them, and reviewed the Act on a facial challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether the Act is facially unconstitutional because it lacks an exception allowing the prohibited procedure when, in a physician’s judgment, it is necessary to protect the woman’s health.
2. Whether the Act is facially invalid under the undue burden standard because it is overly broad and would prohibit standard D&E, thereby placing a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking previability abortions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the courts of appeals and upheld the Act against a facial challenge.
- The Court held the Act’s definition was sufficiently specific to reach the targeted intact D&E method and, properly construed, not standard D&E.
- The Court held the absence of a health exception did not make the Act facially invalid given medical uncertainty and Congress’s ability to legislate in that setting.
- The Court concluded the Act did not, on its face, impose an undue burden because it regulated a particular method and left other abortion methods available.
- The Court emphasized that case-specific medical necessity claims could be raised in as-applied challenges.

## Legal Principles

- A facial constitutional challenge requires a strong showing that the law is invalid in all, or a large fraction of, its relevant applications; that burden was not met.
- Under the undue burden framework, an abortion regulation is invalid if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before viability.
- Legislatures may regulate medical procedures amid medical and scientific uncertainty and may choose among competing medical views, so long as the regulation does not impose an undue burden.
- A statute targeting a particular abortion method may be sustained where alternative procedures remain available and the statute is drafted with sufficient specificity to avoid reaching common, lawful methods.
- The absence of a facial health exception does not necessarily invalidate an abortion method ban when the claimed need is contested and as-applied litigation remains available to address exceptional circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 on its face, ruling that the Act’s targeted definition and the availability of alternative abortion methods prevented it from imposing an undue burden, and that medical uncertainty and the availability of as-applied challenges meant a categorical health exception was not required in a facial attack.


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