Significant risks: Gonzales v Carhart and the future of abortion law

Supreme Court Review

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 1-50

  Garrow, David J ^a  

^a HOMERTON COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 47049090849     PISSN: 00819557     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1086/655168     Document Type: Review

References (316)

1. See, e.g., Charles Fried, "The Supreme Court Phalanx": An Exchange, New York Review of Books (Dec 6, 2007) (available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20877) (asserting that "Justice Kennedy's decision is incompatible not only with precedent but with his own strongly expressed profession of principle").
2. See Jenny Westberg, Grim Technology for Abortion's Older Victims, Life Advocate (February 1993) (available at http://www.lifeadvocate.org/arc/arc. htm);
3. Martin Haskell, Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion (Sept 13, 1992), in Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle 27-33 (1992),
4. cited in David J. Garrow, Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade 719, 966 n 29 (updated ed 1998). Perhaps surprisingly, no PDF copy of Haskell's paper is universally available.
5. See, however, 2nd Trimester Abortion: An Interview with W. Martin Haskell, M.D., Cincinnati Medicine 18-19 (Fall 1993).
6. Diane M. Gianelli, Shock-Tactic Ads Target Late-Term Abortion Procedure, American Medical News 3 (July 5, 1993).
7. Joyce Price, Pro-Life Attack on Partial Birth Abortion Bears Fruit, Washington Times A4 (June 4, 1995).
8. Cynthia Gorney, Gambling with Abortion, Harper's Magazine 33, 38 (Nov 2004).
9. In the nation's premier newspapers, the phrase first appeared in the Washington Post on June 14, and two days later in the New York Times.
10. See Kevin Merida, Antiabortion Measures Debated; House Republicans Push for New Restrictions in Several Areas, Washington Post A4 (June 14, 1995);
11. and Jerry Gray, Emotions High, House Takes Up Abortion, New York Times Al 9 (June 16, 1995).
12. See alsoTamar Lewin, Method to End 20-Week Pregnancies Stirs a Corner of the Abortion Debate, New York Times A10 (July 5, 1995).
13. S 1692, 106th Cong, 1st Sess, defined the "partial-birth" procedure as "an abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally (a) vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially outside the body of the mother; and (b) performs the overt act that kills the fetus while the intact living fetus is partially outside the body of the mother."
14. The state statute voided by Stenberg, Neb Rev Stat Ann § 28-326(9) (Supp 1999), defined a prohibited "partial-birth" abortion as "deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child."
15. HR 4965, 107th Cong, 2d Sess, § 2(13).
16. Id at § 3(b)(1).
17. Succinct but comprehensive summary accounts of congressional activity on partial birth abortion bills from 1995 through 2003 appear in both U.S. House of Representatives, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Report 108-58, 108th Cong, 1st Sess, 12-14, and Jay Alan Sekulow, et al, Amicus Brief of the American Center for Law and justice, et al, Gonzales v Carhart, No 05-380 (filed May 22, 2006), 18-25.
18. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, 3 Suits Filed to Block an Abortion Bill That Bush Intends to Sign. New York Times A30 (Nov 1, 2003).
19. Carhart v Ashcroft, 287 F Supp 2d 1015 (D Neb 2003).
20. See also Carhart v Ashcroft, 292 F Supp 2d 1189 (D Neb 2003) (continuing the temporary restraining order indefinitely).
21. National Abortion Federation v Ashcroft, 287 F Supp 2d 525 (SD NY 2003). Although unreported, an additional TRO also was issued in the San Francisco case.
22. See Planned Parenthood Federation of America v Ashcroft, 320 F Supp 2d 957, 967 (ND Cal 2004).
23. 287 F Supp 2d at 1016, 287 F Supp 2d at 526.
24. Stenkrg v Carhart, 530 US 914, 932 (2000).
25. Id at 934 (quoting 11 F Supp 2d at 1125-26).
26. Id at 938.
27. Id at 950 (quoting 505 US at 884).
28. Planned Parenthood Federation of America v Ashcroft, 320 F Supp 2d 957, 1002 (ND Cal 2004).
29. Id at 971.
30. Id at 977-78.
31. Id at 1019.
32. See also Neal Devins, Tom Delay: Popular Constitutionalist? 81 Chi Kent L Rev 1055, 1060 (2006) (describing how "[a]n increasingly ideological, increasingly polarized Congress sees hearings as staged events in which each side can call witnesses who will explain their views to the public," rather than call "nonpartisan witnesses").
33. 2:4 Id (referencing M. LeRoy Sprang and Mark G. Neerhof, Rationales for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy, 280 JAMA 744 [1998]).
34. Id at 1019-20.
35. Id at 1023.
36. Id at 1024.
37. National Abortion Federation v Ashcroft, 330 F Supp 2d 436, 482 (SD NY 2004).
38. Id.
39. Id at 488.
40. Carhart v Gonzales, 331 F Supp 2d 805, 1012 (D Neb 2004).
41. Id at 1015.
42. Id at 1016.
43. Id at 1016, 1017. Judge Kopf held the act unconstitutional both for its lack of a health exception and because it contravened Casey and Stenberg's "undue burden" standard. Id at 1048, 1031.
44. Carhart v Gomales, 413 F3d 791, 796 (Sth Cir 2005).
45. Id at 796, 797. The Eighth Circuit did not reach Judge Kopfs conclusion that the act also constituted an undue burden.
46. Id at 803-04.
47. Paul D. Clement, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Gonzales v Carhart, No 05-380 (filed Sept 23, 2005), 17.
48. Id at 20 (quoting 530 US at 932 and adding emphasis).
49. Paul D. Clement, Reply Brief for the Petitioner, Gonzales v Carhart, No 05-380 (filed Dec 2, 2005), 3.
50. Id at 8. In a footnote, quoting from Turner Broadcasting System v FCC, 520 US 180, 195 (1997) and adding emphasis, Clement explained that "the precise inquiry is whether, 'in formulating its judgment, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.'" Id at 8 n 4.
51. Planned Parenthood Federation of America v Gonzales, 435 F3d 1163 (9th Cir 2006).
52. National Abortion Federation v Gonzales, 437 F3d 278 (2d Cir 2006).
53. Id at 291.
54. Id at 292.
55. Id at 296.
56. Id at 293 n 9.
57. Id at 300 n 11 (citing U.S. v Ballin, 144 US 1 [1892]).
58. Paul D. Clement, Supplemental Brief for the Petitioner, Gonzales v Carhart, No 05-380 (filed Feb 14, 2006), 5.
59. Gonzales v Carhart, 546 US 1169 (2006).
60. See also Linda Greenhouse, Justices to Review Federal Ban on Disputed Abortion Method, New York Times Al (Feb 22, 2006) (observing that "[a] lower court's invalidation of a federal statute has an almost automatic claim on the justices' attention").
61. Paul D. Clement, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Gonzales v Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No 05-1382 (filed May 1, 2006), 2.
62. See also Paul D. Clement, Reply Brief for the Petitioner, Gonzales v Planned'Parenthood Federation of America, No 05-1382 (filed May 25, 2006), 1 (same).
63. Gonzales v Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 126 S Ct 2901 (2006).
64. Paul D. Clement, Brief for the Petitioner, Gonzales v Carhart, No 05-380 (filed May 22, 2006), 10, 11 (quoting Act § 2[14][G]).
65. Id at 11.
66. Id at 16-17.
67. Id at 18.
68. Id at 19 n 3 (quoting 530 US at 931, 932, 938).
69. Id at 20.
70. See also id at 26 (reiterating the phrase "significant health risks").
71. Id at 29, 31.
72. Id at 39, 40.
73. Id at 40, 41.
74. Priscilla J, Smith, Brief of Respondents, Gonzales v Carhart, No 05-380 (filed Aug 10, 2006), 2;
75. Eve C. Gartner, Brief of Planned Parenthood Respondents, Gonzales v Planned Parenthood Federation of Anterica, No 05-1382 (filed Sept 20, 2006), 24.
76. Smith, Brief of Respondents, 15 (quoting Marbury v Madison, 5 US [1 Cranch] 137, 177 [1803]).
77. Id at 16, 18.
78. Id at 34, 38.
79. Gartner, Brief of Planned Parenthood Respondents, i, 10, 15.
80. Id at 23, 24, 43.
81. Id at 32 (quoting 505 US at 850 and 539 US at 571).
82. Paul D. Clement, Reply Brief for the Petitioner, Gonzales v Carhart and Gonzales v Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Nos 05-380 and 05-1382 (filed Oct 25, 2006), 7 n 3. That note went on to acknowledge that "Congress held two post-Stenberg hearings in which it heard testimony from two physicians . . , who had not previously testified . . . and received new documentary evidence."
83. Id at 11.
84. Id at 1, 18.
85. Id at 15, 21.
86. Id at 25.
87. See also Paul D. Clement, Brief for the Petitioner, Gonzales v Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No 05-1382 (filed Aug 3, 2006), 32 (stating that PBABA "applies only where the person performing the abortion has the specific intent, at the outset of the procedure, to deliver the requisite portion of the fetus for the purpose of performing the ultimate lethal act").
88. Transcript of Argument, Gonzales v Carhart, No 05-380 (Nov 6, 2006), 19.
89. 546 US 320 (2006).
90. Id at 328-29. The Ayotte Court acknowledged that this preference had not governed its most recent prior abortion case, as "the parties in Stenberg did not ask for, and we did not contemplate, relief more finely drawn" than the voiding of the entire Nebraska partialbirth ban statute.
91. Id at 331.
92. Id at 331-32. Following New Hampshire's June 2007 repeal of the statute, the District Court dismissed the case as moot.
93. See Planned Parenthood of Northern New England v N.H. Attorney General, 2007 WL 329709 (D NH 2007);
94. see also Pam Belluck, New Hampshire to Repeal Parental Notification Law, New York Times A22 (June 8, 2007);
95. Norma Love, N.H. Repeals Parental Notice Law, Union Leader (Manchester) A2 (June 30, 2007).
96. Transcript of Argument (cited in note 73), 20. See also Jeffrey Rosen, Partial Solution, New Republic 8 (Dec 11, 2006) (highlighting Justice Breyer's effort to point the Court toward "allowing the federal ban to be enjoined only for specific categories of medical conditions in which substantial numbers of doctors believe that D&X abortions are safer than D&E abortions").
97. Id at 21, 23.
98. Id at 28-29, 30.
99. Id at 31, 36-37. In subsequent colloquies, Smith erroneously stated that "doctors perform the same dilation protocols whether they are going to perform a D&E or an intact D&E" and that "they are always looking for a minimal amount of dilation."
100. Id at 40, 41.
101. Id at 50.
102. Transcript of Argument, Gonzales v Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No 05-1382 (Nov 8, 2006), 4.
103. Id at 5.
104. Id at 6.
105. Id at 14-15.
106. Id 16, 25.
107. Id at 42, 43, 44.
108. Id at 44, 46.
109. Id at 51-52.
110. Id at 53.
111. Linda Greenhouse, Justices Hear Arguments on Late-Term. Abortion, New York Times A25 (Nov 9, 2006).
112. See also Lyle Denniston, Commentary: Kennedy Vote in Play on Abortion, Scotusblog (Nov 8, 2006) (available at http://www.scotusblog.com/ wp/commentary-and-analysis/commentary-kennedy-vote-in-play-on-abortion/);
113. Joan Biskupic, Abortion Case Draws Throngs to High Court, USA Today A3 (Nov 9, 2006);
114. and Charles Lane, No Pointers to Ruling in Abortion Case, Washington Post A3 (Nov 9, 2006).
115. 530 US at 957, 959, 960, 964, 965.
116. Id at 961.
117. Id at 962-63.
118. Id at 963, 966.
119. Id at 967.
120. Id at 969-70, 978.
121. Id at 979.
122. See also Hill v Colorado, 530 US 703, 765, 780, 790 (2000) (Kennedy, J, dissenting) (calling abortion "a profound moral issue," suggesting abortion may be "a profound moral wrong" and terming abortion an act of "profound moral consequence").
123. 127 S Ct 1610 (2007).
124. Id at 1619.
125. Id at 1625, 1631, 1632.
126. Id at 1620, 1621.
127. Id at 1626, 1627 (quoting 505 US at 877).
128. See also Hill v Colorado, 530 US 703, 791 (Kennedy, J, dissenting) (invoking "the reasoned, careful balance" which Kennedy said "was the basis for the opinion in Casey").
129. Id at 1627.
130. Id.
131. Id at 1627-28.
132. Id at 1628.
133. Id at 1621.
134. Transcript of Argument, Gonzales v Planned Parenthood Federation of America (cited in note 82), 11.
135. Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1628, 1629.
136. Id at 1629.
137. Id at 1630.
138. Id at 1631, 1632.
139. Id at 1632.
140. Id at 1632, 1633 (quoting 505 US at 874).
141. Id at 1633.
142. See text at note 104.
143. Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1633.
144. Id at 1634.
145. Linda Boston Schlueter, Brief of Sandra Cano, et al, Gonzales v Carhart, No 05-380 (filed May 22, 2006), 22-24.
146. For a discussion of this brief prior to Justice Kennedy's citation of it, see Reva B. Siegel, The New Politics of 'Abortion: An Equality Analysis of Woman-Protective Abortion Restrictions, 2007 U 111 L Rev 991, 1025-26 n 142.
147. Id at 1, 2.
148. See, e.g., Nancy Stearns, Brief Amicus Curiae on Behalf of New Women Lawyers, et al, Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, Nos 70-18 and 70-40 (filed Aug 2, 1971), 7 (arguing that "[c]arrying, giving birth to, and raising an unwanted child can be one of the most painful and long-lasting punishments that a person can endure").
149. Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1634.
150. 505 US at 852.
151. See also Hill v Colorado, 530 US 703, 791 (2000) (Kennedy, J, dissenting) (also quoting Casey's "fraught with consequences" language).
152. Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1634.
153. Id (quoting 505 US at 873).
154. Id. See also Hill v Colorado, 530 US 703, 792 (Kennedy, J, dissenting) (calling abortion "one of life's gravest moral crises").
155. 505 US at 882.
156. Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1635.
157. See 546 US at 328 ("it would be unconstitutional to apply the Act in a manner that subjects minors to significant health risks").
158. See 505 US at 880.
159. Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1635.
160. Id at 1636.
161. Id.
162. Id at 1637.
163. Id.
164. Id.
165. Id at 1637-38 (internal citation omitted).
166. Id at 1638.
167. Id.
168. Id at 1640 (Thomas, J, concurring).
169. See Allan Ides, The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 and the Commerce Clause, 20 Const Comm 441 (2003-04);
170. Robert J. Pushaw, Jr., Does Congress Have the Constitutional Power to Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion? 42 Harv J Leg 319 (2005).
171. See also Brannon P, Denning, Gonzales v Carhart: An Alternate Opinion, 2006-2007 Cato Supreme Ct Rev 167.
172. Neal Devins, How Congress Paved the Way for the Rehnquist Court's Federalism Revival: Lessons from the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban, 21 St John's J Leg Comm 461, 464, 466 (2007).
173. Id at 466.
174. Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1641 (Ginsburg, J, dissenting).
175. Id at 1646, 1647.
176. See text at note 116 (quoting 127 S Ct at 1633).
177. Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1650 (Ginsburg, J, dissenting) (quoting 127 S Ct at 1633).
178. Id (quoting 127 S Ct at 1633, 1638).
179. Id at 1651, 1652.
180. Id at 1653.
181. Tony Mauro, High Court Upholds Ban on "Partial Birth" Abortion, Legal Times (April 19, 2007) (available at http://www.law.com/jsp/ article.jsp?id= 1176887056341) (quoting Sckulow).
182. Dr. Douglas W. Laube, ACOG Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (April 18, 2007) (available at http://www.acog.org/ from_home/publications/press_releases/ nr04-18-07.cfm).
183. See also R. Alta Charo, The Partial Death of Abortion Rights, 356 New England J Med 2125 (2007);
184. Michael F. Greene, The Intimidation of American Physicians-Banning Partial-Birth Abortions, 356 New England J Med 2128 (2007);
185. and George J. Annas, The Supreme Court and Abortion Rights, 356 New-England J Med 2201 (2007).
186. Bonnie Scott Jones, A Sharp Reversal (April 18, 2007) (available at http://www.scotus blog.com/wp/commentary-and-analysis/a-sharp-reversal- commentary-from-the-center-for-re productive-rights/).
187. Lyle Denniston, Commentary: Some Consequences of Carhart II(April 18, 2007) (available at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/commentary- some-consequenccs-of-car hart-ii/).
188. Id.
189. Linda Greenhouse, In Reversal, Justices Back Ban on Method of Abortion, New York Times Al (April 19, 2007).
190. Jack Balkin, Gonzales v Carhart-Three Comments (April 18, 2007) (available at http:// balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/gonzales-v-carhart-three- comments.html).
191. Id.
192. See also Michael C. Dorf, Supreme Court Partial Birth Abortion Ruling (April 18, 2007) (available at http://michaeldorf.org/2007/04/ supreme-court-partial-birth-abortion .html).
193. Additionally see Joanna Grossman and Linda McClain, New Justices, New Rules: The Supreme Court Upholds the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Findlaw (May 1, 2007) (available at http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/ commentary/20070501_mcclain.html),
194. and Joanna Grossman and Linda McClain, Gonzales v. Carhart: How the Supreme Court's Validation of the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Affects Women's Constitutional Liberty and Equality, Findlaw (May 7, 2007) (available at http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20070507_mcclain.html) (both highlighting how Justice Kennedy's emphasis upon "emotional consequence" directly echoed Planned Parenthood v Casey).
195. Jack Balkin, The Big News About Gonzales v Carhart-It's the Informed Consent, Stupid (April 19, 2007) (available at http://balkin.blogspot.com/ 2007/04/big-news-about-gonza les-v-carhart.html).
196. Denying the Right to Choose, New York Times A26 (April 19, 2007),
197. A U-Turn on Abortion, Los Angeles Times (April 19, 2007) (available at http:// www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-abortion 19apr 19,0,4748632.story?coll =la-opin ion-leftrail).
198. Grina Kolata. Anger and Alternatives on Abortion, New York 'Finies A11 (April 21. 2007).
199. Sec also David J. Garrow, Don't Assume the Worst, New York Times A15 (April 21, 2007) (stating that the "extremely limited" ruling will affect only a "tiny percentage" of abortions).
200. Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000, 35 Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 6, 13 (2003).
201. David Brown, Data Lacking on Abortion Method, Washington Post A8 (April 19, 2007).
202. Lawrence B. Finer, et al, Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives, 37 Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 110 (2005).
203. See also Rachel K. Jones, et al, Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services. 2005, 40 Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 6 (2008).
204. Lawrence B. Finer, et al, Timing of Steps and Reasons for Delays in Obtaining Abortions in the United States, 74 Contraception 334(2006). In 1999, only 1.5 percent of all abortions, or a total of 9,643, were performed at or after 21 weeks' gestation.
205. See Stephen T. Chasen, et al, Dilation and Evacuation at >20 Weeks: Comparison of Operative Techniques, 190 Am J Obstetrics and Gynecology 1180 (2004).
206. Id.
207. Phillip G. Stubblefield, et al, Methods for Induced Abortion, 104 Obstetrics and Gynecology 174, 179 (2004).
208. David G. Savage, Enigmatic Jurist Recasts the Debate on Abortion, Los Angeles Times A22 (April 22, 2007).
209. Rebecca A.Jackson, et al, Digoxin to Facilitate Late Second-Trimester Abortion: A Randomized, Masked, Placebo-Controlled Trial, 97 Obstetrics and Gynecology 471 (2001) ("in our nonrandom telephone survey of 20 D&E providers nationwide, 95% reported its routine use for terminations at or after 20 weeks gestation");
210. Eleanor A. Drey, et al, Safety of Intra-Amniotic Digoxin Administration Before Late Second-Trimester Abortion by Dilation and Evacuation, 182 Am J Obstetrics and Gynecology 1063 (2000).
211. Jackson, et al, 97 Obstetrics and Gynecology at 472 (cited in note 171).
212. Stubblefield, et al, 104 Obstetrics and Gynecology at 179 (cited in note 169), expressly states that an intact D&E "requires 2 or more days of laminaria treatment to obtain wide dilation of the cervix." See also Finer and Henshaw, 35 Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health at 13 n (cited in note 164), who likewise state that intact procedures entail "deliberate dilation of the cervix, usually over several days."
213. Jackson, et al, 97 Obstetrics and Gynecology at 471 (cited in note 171). See also National Abortion Federation, 2007 Clinical Policy Guidelines (available at http://www.prochoice.org/ pubs_research/publica_ons/downloads/ professional_education/cpgs_2007.pdf), 20 n 16 ("In addition to achieving fetal demise, fetocidal agents induce softening of fetal cortical bones").
214. Id at 475.
215. See also Drey, et al, 182 Am J Obstetrics and Gynecology at 1063 (cited in note 171) ("both the patient and the clinician may prefer to abort a dead fetus").
216. Drey, et al, 182 Am J Obstetrics and Gynecology at 1063, 1066 (cited in note 171). See also National Abortion Federation, 2001 Clinical Policy Guidelines at 20, n 16 (cited in note 174) (calling intra-amniotic digoxin and similar injections "safe, effective regimens").
217. Jackson, et al, 97 Obstetrics and Gynecology at 472, 474 (cited in note 171).
218. Id at 474.
219. Savage, Enigmatic Jurist (cited in note 170).
220. E-mail message from Eve C. Gartner (Deputy Director, Public Policy Litigation and Law, PPFA) to David J. Garrow, Nov 28, 2007 (on file with the author).
221. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, PPFA Manual of Medical Standards and Guidelines, May 2007.
222. This manual unfortunately is not publicly available, but its May 2007 Digoxin Injection update is on file with the author.
223. Id.
224. Rebecca Vesely, Courts Force New Abortion Methods, Oakland Tribune (June 4, 2007) (available at http://findarticles.eom/p/articles/mi_qn4176/ is_20070604/ai_n19199832/print).
225. Id.
226. Kim Kozlowski, Abortion Procedure Fuels Debate, Detroit News (July 30, 2007) (available at http://cul.detmich.com/detnews_jul30_2007/ detnews_jul30_2007.html).
227. Id.
228. See also Carole Joffe, The Abortion Procedure Ban, Dissent 57, 58 (Fall 2007).
229. Carey Goldberg, Shots Assist in Aborting Fetuses, Boston Globe (Aug 10, 2007) (available at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/ 10/shots_assist_in_aborting _fetuses/).
230. Id.
231. National Public Radio, Morning Edition (April 26, 2007) (available at http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.phprstoryld = 9843340).
232. See also Patrik Jonsson, Ultrasound: Latest Tool in Battle Over Abortion, Christian Science Monitor (May 15, 2007) (available at http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0515/p03s03-ussc.htm).
233. William Saletan, Window to the Womb, Washington Post B2 (April 29, 2007).
234. Id.
235. See Jeffrey M. Jones, Slim Majority Approves of Supreme Court Following Partial-Birth Ruling, Gallup News Service (May 15, 2007) (available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/27592/Slim-Majority-Approves-Supreme- Court-Following-PartialBirth-Ruling.aspx),
236. and Abortion and Birth Control (available at http://www. pollingreport.com/abortion.htm).
237. A Pew Research Center poll, conducted during August 2007 and using the exact same language as the Gallup question, showed 75 percent of more than 3,000 respondents choosing "illegal" and only 17 "legal" (available at http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm).
238. In contrast, an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in mid-July 2007 used a very differently and perhaps less clearly worded question-"The Supreme Court recently up-held a federal restriction on the procedure known as partial birth abortion, banning the procedure except when a woman's life is at risk. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision?"-that resulted in only 55 percent of respondents choosing "approve" versus 43 percent who said "disapprove" (also available at http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion .htm).
239. Gallup Poll, May 10-13, 2007, and Jan 20-22, 2006 (available at http://www .pollingreport.com/abortion,htm).
240. Lydia Saad, Public Divided on "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life" Labels, Gallup News Service (May 21, 2007) (available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/27628/Public-Divided-Pro Choice-vs-ProLife- Abortion-Labels,aspx).
241. Id. The partisan breakdown on that latter question was 17 percent for Republicans and H percent for Democrats.
242. CBS News/New York Times Poll, May 18-23, 2007, July 7-17, 2007, and Sept 4-9, 2007 (available at http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm).
243. Brian Rohrbough, et al, An Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson, May 23, 2007 (available at http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/openletter).
244. See also Alan Cooperman, Supreme Court Ruling Brings Split in Antiabortion Movement, Washington Post A3 (June 4, 2007). A few abortion opponents had voiced similar criticisms as early as 1997.
245. See Garrow, Liberty and Sexuality at 738 (cited in note 2) (quoting Matt Trewhella and Judie Brown).
246. Id.
247. Stephanie Simon, Absolutists Turn Against Other Foes of Abortion, Los Angeles Times Al (June 6, 2007).
248. Garrow, Liberty and Sexuality at 673, 702-14 (cited in note 2);
249. David J. Garrow, Abortion Before and After Roe v. Wade, 62 Albany L Rev 833, 842-43, 846-48 (1999).
250. See also David J. Garrow, A Deadly, Dying Fringe, New York Times A27 (Jan 6, 1995).
251. Georgia HR 536 (available at http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/ search/hr536.htm). See also Andy Peters, Ga. Legislators Have Roe in Their Sites, Fulton County Daily Report (Feb 4, 2008) (available at http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?individual_SQL = 2%2F4%2F2008%4021037);
252. Mike Billips, House Panel Tables Human Life Amendment, Macon Telegraph (Feb 21, 2008) (available at http: //www.macon.com/206/story/273390. html).
253. James Bopp, Jr. and Richard E. Colcson, to Whom It May Concern, Pro-Life Strategy Issues 2 (Aug 7, 2007) (available at http://www.personhood.net/docs/BoppMemoranduml .pdf).
254. Id at 3.
255. Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1641 (Ginsburg, J, dissenting).
256. Id at 1640 (quoting 505 US at 851).
257. 505 US at 851. Casey also employed "autonomy" in four additional instances, twice speaking of "personal autonomy" and once each invoking "economic autonomy" and "physical autonomy," Sec 505 US at 857, 860, 861, 884.
258. Bopp and Coleson, Pro-Life Strategy Issues at 3, 4 (cited in note 202). See also id at 11 (arguing that if an embryonic personhood case reached the current Supreme Court, a majority is "likely to switch to a more absolutist equal protection rationale for the abortion right, and all current regulations on abortion would be subject to, and likely would be struck down under, this new rationale").
259. Id at 5, 6.
260. Id at 6-7, 8, 9.
261. Robert J. Muise, to All Concerned Pro-Life Supporters, Response to Bopp & Coleson Memo of August 7, 2007 re: Pro-Life Strategy Issues (Sept 24, 2007), 1, 2, 3 (available at http://www.personhood.net/ docs/MuiseResponse.pdf).
262. Id at 3, 4.
263. Id at 9, 10, 11.
264. Nicholas Riccardi, Foes of Abortion Shift to States, Los Angeles Times Al (Nov 23, 2007).
265. Judith Graham and Judy Peres, Rights for Embryos Proposed, Chicago Tribune (Dec 3, 2007) (available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ nationworld/chi-eggsdec03,1 ,3297674.story?).
266. See Herring v Richmond Medical Center for Women, 127 S Ct 2094 (2007),
267. and Nixon v Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, 127 S Ct 2120 (2007).
268. See also Jerry Markon, Va. Law to Be Reconsidered in Wake of High Court Ruling, Washington Post B6 (April 24, 2007).
269. See National Abortion Federation v Gonzales, 224 Fed Appx 88 (2d Cir 2007).
270. See Utah Women's Clinic v Walker, No 2:04CV00408 PGC, May 31, 2007 (D Utah);
271. see also Court Lifts Partial-Birth Injunction, Salt Lake Tribune (June 1, 2007).
272. See Christensen v Doyle, 249 F3d 603 (7th Cir 2001).
273. See also Christensen v Doyle, 530 US 1271 (2000).
274. J. B. Van Hollen to Scott Fitzgerald and Michael Huebsch, May 31, 2007, at 7 (available at http://www.doj.state.wi.us/ag/opinions/2007_05_31Huebsch- Fitsgerald.pdf).
275. See also Patrick Marley and Stacy Forster, Abortion Ban Unenforceable, Van Hollen Says. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (May 31, 2007) (available at http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id = 613359).
276. Northland Family Planning Clinic v Cox, 487 F3d 323, 336 (6th Cir 2007),
277. See also Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri v Drummond, No 07-4164-CV-C-ODS (WD Mo), 2007 WT, 2463208 (Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order), and 2007 WL 2811407 (Order Granting Preliminary Injunction) (applying the undue burden test to abortion regulations and citing Gonzales v Carhart, 127 S Ct at 1626-27, as authority).
278. Northland Family Planning Clinic, 487 F3d at 337. The Sixth Circuit also observed that "the Supreme Court's holding in Stenberg pertaining to the need for a health exception to otherwise valid D&X prohibitions was modified somewhat in Gonzales." Id at 340 (emphasis added). Early in 2008 the Supreme Court denied both Michigan's and the Thomas More Law Center's petitions for certiorari in the case without reported dissent.
279. See Cox v Northland Family Planning and Standing Together to Oppose Partial-Birth Abortion v Northland Family Planning Clinic, 2008 WL 59327 and 59328.
280. See Louisiana Acts 2007, No 473, § 1 (Louisiana RS 14 § 32.10-11 and 40 § 1299.35.17).
281. Doug Simpson, La. Becomes First State to Outlaw Late-Term Abortion Procedure, Associated Press (July 13, 2007) (available in LexisNexis Newswires File).
282. Tony Mauro, Abortion Ban Back at 4th Circuit, Legal Times (Oct 29, 2007) (available at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id= 1193389426200). As Mauro and other journalists also noted, at oral argument a majority of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel hearing Richmond Medical Center for Women v Herring on remand from the Supreme Court (see note 215 above) sounded unpersuaded by Virginia's effort to revive its previously enjoined state partial-birth ban statute in light of Gonzales.
283. See also Robert Barnes, Judges Appear Hesitant on Virginia "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban, Washington Post A10 (Nov 2, 2007).
284. Jeffrey Rosen, The Dissenter, New York Times Magazine 50 (Sept 23, 2007).
285. Id. Justice Stevens also volunteered a critical opinion of Justice Harry A. Blackmun's opinion for the Court in Roe v Wade. "In all candor, I think Harry could have written a better opinion. I think if the opinion had said what Potter Stewart said very briefly [in an additional concurrence], it might have been much more acceptable, instead of trying to create a new doctrine that really didn't make sense." Stevens added that "a better opinion might have avoided some of the criticism."
286. See Lawrence v State, No PD-0236-07, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Nov 21, 2007 (available at http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/ HTM.LopinionInfo.asp?OpinionID= 16213 and at 2007 WT. 4146386). The Court upheld the application of Texas's murder statute, which allows capital punishment for anyone who knowingly and intentionally murders more than one individual, to a man who killed his girlfriend whom he knew was pregnant with a four- to six-week-old embryo. The court held that the Texas Penal Code's definition of an individual as "a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization" does not conflict with federal constitutional protection of abortion, for the federal case law "has no application to a case that docs not involve the pregnant woman's liberty interest: in choosing to have an abortion."
287. See Keisler v Dunkle, CA No 07-3577, ED Pa, Nov 8, 2007 (permanently enjoining abortion opponent John D. Dunkle, pursuant to the FACE statute, from publishing the names and personal data of abortion clinic staffers or patients, and ordering the federal government to "monitor the Defendant's website and weblog to ensure that Defendant is in compliance with the terms of this Order");
288. and Doron Taussig, The Terrorist and the Baby-Killer, Philadelphia City Paper (Jan 31, 2008) (available at http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2008/ 01/31/the-terrorist-and-the-bahykiller).
289. See also Lisa Wangsness, New Law Expands Abortion Buffer Zone, Boston Globe Bl (Nov 14, 2007),
290. and John C. Drake, Buffer Zone Law Passes Its First Test, Boston Globe Bl (Dec 9, 2007) (detailing Massachusetts's enactment and enforcement of a statute that expands to 35 feet from clinic entrances a buffer zone that previously had required abortion opponents to remain at least 6 feet away from clinic patrons within 18 feet of clinic entrances).
291. See David J. Garrow, Roe v Wade Revisited, 9 Green Bag 2d 71, 79, 81 (2005).
292. Abortion Charges Dismissed, New York Times A15 (Dec 23, 2006);
293. Charges Against Doctor Aren't Reinstated, New York Times A28 (Dec 28, 2006);
294. Concern Over Abortion Records, New York Times A13 (Jan 9, 2007);
295. and Doctor Faces Abortion Charges front New Attorney General, New York Times A20 (June 29, 2007).
296. See also Alpha Medical Clinic v Anderson, 128 P3d 364 (Kan 2006),
297. and, for further background, Miriam E. C. Bailey, The Alpha Subpoena Controversy: Kansas Fires First Shot in Nationwide Battle Over Child Rape, Abortion and Prosecutorial Access to Medical Records, 74 UMKC L Rev 1021 (2006).
298. See Tillen: Gale, No 07-1269-JTM, D Kansas, Oct 11,2007 (available at 2007 Wl 2990558),
299. and Tiller v Corrigan, No 99,434, Kansas Supreme Court, Nov 29, 2007 (available at http://www.kscourts.org/Kansns-Courts/Supreme-Court/Orders/ 99434 Tiller2 .pdf).
300. Stephanie Simon, Pressure Rises for Abortion Provider, Los Angeles Times A10 (Sept 17, 2007);
301. Stephanie Simon, Kansas GOP Tells Candidates to Forsake Abortion Focus, Los Angeles Times A100 (Dec I, 2007);
302. Stephanie Simon, Abortion Provider Must Turn Over Files, Los Angeles "Firnes A12 (Jan 31, 2008);
303. Tiller v Corrigan, No 99, 951, Kansas Supreme Court, Feb 5, 2008 (available at http://www.kscourts.org/Kansas-Courts/Supreme-Court/Orders/99,951 -Tiller.pdf);
304. Ron Sylvester, High Court Postpones Subpoena on Tiller, Wichita Eagle (Feb 6, 2008) (available at http://www.kansas.com/213/story/303361.html);
305. Judy Peres, Abortion Foes Put Grand Jury on Case, Chicago Tribune (Feb 11, 2008) (available at http://www.chicagotrilbune.com/news/chi- abortion_peres_11feb11,0,1654594.story).
306. See State v Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, No 07 CR 0271, Johnson County District Court, Oct 15, 2007 (available at http://www .mainstreamcoalition.com/blog/ Planned%20Parcnthood%20Complaint.pdf).
307. Initiation of Action, State v Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, No 07 CR 0271, Johnson County District Court, Oct 17, 2007 (available at http://www.mainstreamcoalition.com/ blog/Planned%20Parenthood%20Complaint.pdf).
308. See also Laura Baker, Planned Parenthood Says That Charges Are All About Politics, Kansas City Star (Oct 18, 2007) (available at http://primebuzz.kstar.com/?q = node/7643).
309. See Robert D. Novak, A New Front in the Abortion Wars, Washington Post A25 (Oct 25, 2007).
310. Cheryl Wetzstein, Grand Jury to Probe Abortion-Clinic Practices, Washington Times A10 (Dec 5, 2007);
311. Diane Carroll, Grand Jury Is Selected for Planned Parenthood Investigation, Kansas City Star (Dec 11, 2007) (available at http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/398274.html);
312. Diane Carroll, Johnson County Grand Jury Hires Special Counsel, Kansas City Star (Dec 21, 2007) (available at http://www.kansascity.com/news/ local/story/412766.html);
313. Diane Carroll, Johnson County Grand Jury Seeks Abortion Recipients' Medical Records, Kansas City Star (Jan 31, 2008) (available at http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/468741.html);
314. Diane Carroll, Grand Jury Won't Indict Planned Parenthood, Kansas City Star (March 4, 2008) (available at http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/ 515892.html).
315. Finer and Henshaw, 35 Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health at 12 (cited in note 164). See also id at 13 (noting "the continuing consolidation of abortion provision at clinics, particularly specialized clinics"), and Finer, et al, 37 Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health at 111 (cited in note 166) (reporting that "providers that perform 2,000 or more abortions per year . . . performed 56% of all abortions in the United States in 2000").
316. See Joffe, The Abortion Procedure Ban at 59 (cited in note 186) (arguing that "[i]n the long run, the major impact of [Gonzales] on abortion access will likely be a chilling effect on young physicians who contemplate entering this field").