FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Volume 356:2125-2128 May 24, 2007 Number 21 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Audio Interview Perspective Editorial by Drazen, J. M. Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court signaled a significant change in abortion jurisprudence. It held in Gonzales v. Carhart that a federal statute outlawing the use of "partial-birth abortion" is constitutional, even though many members of the medical community believe that the procedure should be available when it is the safest option for terminating a pregnancy. No exception was made for protecting a woman's health; only a threat to a woman's life would excuse the use of the procedure. Absent that excuse, a physician who knowingly performs an intact dilation and extraction (D&X) is subject to 2 years in . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Source Information

Professor Charo is a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a member of the board of directors of the Guttmacher Institute.

An interview with Dr. LeRoy Carhart of Nebraska and attorney Priscilla Smith of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued Gonzales v. Carhart before the Supreme Court, can be heard at www.nejm.org.

This article (10.1056/NEJMp078055) was published at www.nejm.org on April 23, 2007.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Gostin, L. O. (2007). Abortion Politics: Clinical Freedom, Trust in the Judiciary, and the Autonomy of Women. JAMA 298: 1562-1564 [Full Text]  
• Drazen, J. M. (2007). Government in Medicine. NEJM 356: 2195-2195 [Full Text]