| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Partial birth abortion. |
| Posture: | Unknown. |
| Issue: | Is the federal ban on partial-birth abortions valid? |
| Holding: | Yes, but could still be vulnerable to an as-applied challenge. |
| Rule: | The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. |
| Reasoning: | The act would certainly make the prohibited conduct clear to ordinary
doctors. And the requirement of intent also helps: it's not a trap
for those who act in good faith.
We can interpret the act so that it doesn't prohibit standard D & E, so we should. The government has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. There's a rational basis here, and no undue burden. This ban furthers legitimate government objectives. |
| Dicta: | Ginsburg, dissenting: this is about a woman's ability to control her own destiny. |