WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let the Clinton administration join a Nebraska doctor's fight against a restrictive state abortion law.

The justices, in a brief order, rejected a request by Solicitor General Seth Waxman that a government lawyer be allowed to participate when the closely watched Nebraska case is argued before nation's highest court April 27.The refusal was an unusual setback for the government's highest-ranking courtroom lawyer. Such requests are granted far more often than they are rejected.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed last week, Waxman argued that the law violates some women's constitutional right to end their pregnancies.

The court's decision in the case, expected by late June, may determine the fate of 30 states' bans on a surgical procedure opponents call "partial-birth abortion."

President Clinton twice has vetoed a federal ban enacted by Congress.

The administration's brief called the Nebraska law "unconstitutional for three reasons."

The brief said the law challenged by Bellevue, Neb., doctor Leroy Carhart is written so broadly it could be enforced against more than one abortion procedure and is too vague to let doctors know just what abortion techniques are outlawed.

Even if the law is limited to a single procedure, the brief said, it unduly burdens a woman's right to abortion because "it fails to provide an exception to preserve the pregnant woman's health. The only exception to Nebraska's ban is if the outlawed procedure is necessary to save a woman's life.

"The statute therefore prohibits the method even when a physician concludes that that method is best suited to preserve the health of a particular woman," the brief said. "The ban therefore forces at least some pregnant women to forego a safer abortion method for one that would compromise their health."

The surgical procedure at issue involves partially extracting a fetus, legs first, through the birth canal, cutting the skull and draining its contents. Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term. Doctors call the method dilation and extraction, or D&X.

View Comments

Although the Nebraska law and legal dispute focuses on the D&X procedure, far more may be at stake. Abortion-rights advocates say the court's decision could broadly safeguard or dramatically erode abortion rights, depending on what state legislatures can consider when regulating abortions.

The Supreme Court has not issued a major abortion ruling since 1992 when it reaffirmed the core holding of its 1973 decision in a case called Roe vs. Wade. That landmark ruling said women have a constitutional right to abortion.

A federal appeals court struck down the Nebraska law along with those in Iowa and Arkansas. But nearly identical laws in Illinois and Wisconsin were upheld by another federal appeals court.

On the Net: For the appeals court ruling: www.uscourts.gov/links.html and click on 8th Circuit.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.