Case Summary
**Case Summary: Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales**
**Docket Number:** 7857439
**Court:** United States Supreme Court
**Argued:** [Include Date of Argument]
**Decided:** [Include Date of Decision]
**Parties Involved:**
- **Petitioner:** Planned Parenthood Federation of America
- **Respondent:** Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States
**Background:**
This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, legislation enacted by Congress that prohibited certain late-term abortion procedures. Planned Parenthood, along with other abortion rights advocates, argued that the ban placed an undue burden on a woman's right to choose, as it did not include exceptions for the health of the mother.
**Legal Questions:**
1. Does the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act violate the constitutional right to privacy as established in Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases?
2. Is the Act unconstitutionally vague, lacking a clear definition of "partial-birth abortion"?
**Arguments:**
- **Petitioner (Planned Parenthood):**
- Argued that the ban imposes significant restrictions on a woman's right to access safe and legal abortion services.
- Contended that the legislation lacks a health exception for women, which is essential for protecting maternal health.
- Asserted that the law's language is vague and could lead to arbitrary enforcement.
- **Respondent (Gonzales):**
- Argued that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting fetal life and that the ban is a permissible regulation of medical practices.
- Maintained that the definition of "partial-birth abortion" is sufficiently clear and does not infringe upon constitutional rights.
**Decision:**
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gonzales, upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The Court found that the law did not impose an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions and offered sufficient concern for fetal life. The decision emphasized the state's interest in regulating certain medical procedures and acknowledged the legislative determination that the banned procedure was not necessary for women's health.
**Impact:**
The ruling had significant implications for abortion rights in the United States, reinforcing the authority of states to regulate abortion procedures and setting precedents for future legislation concerning reproductive rights.
**Concurrences/Dissents:**
- [Include information on any concurring opinions or dissenting opinions, if applicable.]
**Conclusion:**
Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales served as a key moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding abortion rights, illustrating the tension between legislative authority to regulate medical procedures and the constitutional protections afforded to women seeking reproductive healthcare.