Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)
In one of the most pivotal abortion cases since Roe v. Wade, the U.S.
Does the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause because it lacks an exception for the health of the mother and is it unconstitutionally vague?
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalizes the performance of a specific abortion procedure, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment if it reasonably interprets state interest in protecting fetal life and the integrity of the medical profession, while not imposing an 'undue burden' on the right to obtain an abortion.
The Supreme Court held that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is constitutional, as it does not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion under Casey, and is not unconstitutionally vague.
Gonzalez v. Carhart is significant as it represents a substantial shift in the Court's abortion jurisprudence, endorsing federal-level restrictions and allowing more governmental authority to regulate specific medical procedures related to abortion. This decision has a profound impact on how courts balance the state interests against individual constitutional rights in the context of reproductive rights. For law students, it underscores an important evolution in the 'undue burden' doctrine and how judicial interpretations of health exceptions can evolve.