More on partial-birth abortion ruling.

Here's the essence of Judge Hamilton's ruling this morning (see below).

1. The partial-birth abortion law is unconstitutional in three respects.
a. The statutory definition of the procedure could apply to previability D&E procedures as well as inductions. It could also apply to the interventions performed by physicians who treat a woman experiencing a spontaneous second-trimester miscarriage. Physicians may face criminal prosecution under the statute for procedures than cannot always be predicted when they begin to treat their patients. This could reduce the availability of such procedures and could have an adverse impact on the physicians who continue to do the procedures. All of this amounts to an "undue burden," as that phrase has been explained in Casey and Stenberg: the law "has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." The Nebraska law at issue in Stenberg was struck down for the same reason.
b. The law is unconstitutionally vague in two material respects: "partial-birth abortion has little if any medical significance; "living fetus" adds to the vagueness of the law because it does not pertain to viability or to the framework of Roe and Casey; and neither the "overt act" nor the scienter requirements of the statute save the law from unconstitutional vagueness.
c. Notwithstanding the extensive findings of Congress to the contrary, the Court concluded that the intact D&E procedure (referred to in Stenberg as "D&X" or "dilation and extraction") is relatively safe, and it may be safer than any of the alternative procedures under some circumstances. Therefore banning the procedure could endanger women's health. The Nebraska law at issue in Stenberg was struck down for the same reason.

2. The extensive Congressional findings in support of Congress' conclusion that intact D&E is never necessary for the health of the mother were reviewed by the court under an intermediate review standard, neither de novo (as the plaintiffs argued) nor with the extreme deference sought by the government's lawyers. Applying a standard akin to a "hard look," the court concluded that these findings were "unreasonable and . . . not supported by substanttial evidence [that] was available to Congress at the time."