Wednesday, June 30th, 2010
AUL’s Clarke Forsythe blogs at NRO’s Bench Briefs:
Americans United for Life filed briefs in the Supreme Court in 2006 that recounted how the records in the three federal court challenges were devoid of any peer-reviewed medical evidence showing the safety and efficacy of the procedure or any increased risk to any woman from prohibiting the procedure. There was no substantial, reliable evidence that any maternal or fetal condition required the use of partial-birth abortion. Kagan altered the language, but ACOG never provided any peer-reviewed scientific data to support that language. The ACOG panel did not identify or examine any studies regarding the safety of partial-birth abortion and other abortion methods. Without consulting the panel, the ACOG executive board unilaterally added Kagan’s amendment.
The Supreme Court in 2007 upheld the federal prohibition. But the Court, based on abortion advocates’ claims of serious risks to women, held the door open to “as-applied,” or individualized, claims that a particular woman’s medical condition required a partial-birth abortion.
More than three years later, not one individualized claim by any woman claiming to need the partial-birth abortion procedure has been filed in state or federal court.
Read the whole thing here.Posted in categories: Blog, PBA, SCOTUS.
Tags: Elena Kagan