Abortion case on docket

The case concerns so-called partial-birth abortions.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- For months Samuel Alito fended off questions about his views on abortion.
Now, the new Supreme Court justice will answer.
He took the bench Tuesday, and the very first case that justices agreed to hear was on the contentious issue.
Justices announced they will consider reinstating a federal ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion. The ruling next year will coincide with the start-up of presidential campaigns.
Alito could well be the tie-breaking vote when the court decides if doctors can be barred from performing the abortion procedure. He succeeded Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate abortion-rights supporter.
Alito, as a young government lawyer, stated in a job application that he was "particularly proud" of his work on cases arguing that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion.
He also counseled other lawyers in the Justice Department in 1985 to gradually chip away at abortion rights rather than try to immediately overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
The Bush administration had sought the Supreme Court's intervention, and conservatives cheered the announcement.
"This is the front-line abortion case in the country," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents members of Congress in the case.
Even with O'Connor's retirement, there are five votes to uphold Roe.
Activists' concerns
Abortion-rights groups were worried, however, that the new court could make it easier for legislators to limit women's access to abortions.
"The stakes in this case are not whether Roe v. Wade will be overturned, but whether a major pillar of Roe v. Wade will be reconsidered," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents doctors who contested the law.
Congress had voted in 2003 to prohibit the type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull punctured or crushed.
Justices were told that 31 states had barred such abortions over the past eight years.
The Supreme Court split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law barring the same procedure because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
O'Connor, the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Alito.
Doctors' opinion
Doctors who perform the procedure contend it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.
It's not clear how often the procedure is done, but nearly nine in 10 abortions are performed in the first three months, according to government estimates.
The 2003 law was passed after nearly a decade of attempts by Republican leaders and two vetoes by former President Clinton.
The law was never put in effect. It was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York, again because it had no exception to protect women's health.
Defenders of the law maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.
The Supreme Court recently dealt with an abortion case from New Hampshire. Justices on a 9-0 vote reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.
Fifteen states urged justices to review the latest case: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia.
The case is Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.