An Ohio law that bans a controversial late-term abortion procedure is constitutionally acceptable and the state can enforce it, a federal appeals court ruled today.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to reverse a lower court’s ruling against the law, which had been challenged before it could take effect in August 2000.
U.S. District Judge Walter Rice of Dayton ruled in 2001 that Ohio’s law was unconstitutional because it wouldn’t allow the procedure to be used when it is safer for a patient.
Abortion provider Dr. Martin Haskell, who has a clinic in Kettering and helped develop the procedure, sued three years ago to challenge Ohio’s law. He will challenge today’s ruling, his lawyer, Alphonse Gerhardstein, said.
In February 2002, the Bush administration filed arguments in support of Ohio’s law.
Rice ruled that the law would not allow the dilation-and-extraction procedure to be used when it is safer for a patient than other alternatives. The procedure, called partial-birth abortion by opponents, involves pulling the fetus partially out of the uterus feet first. The skull is then punctured and the brain suctioned out, causing the skull to collapse and easing passage through the birth canal.
Ohio had argued that its law contains an exception that would allow the procedure when necessary — in reasonable medical judgment — to preserve the mother’s life or health.
But Rice said he found that argument ‘‘unpersuasive’’ because the procedure could be used only on patients who have conditions that would cause them irreversible harm if other abortion techniques were used.
E-mail to Friend - 
Print - 
View PDF - 
Subscribe - 
Comments RSS
