April 18 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law that makes it a crime to perform ``partial birth'' abortions, allowing the first nationwide ban on a procedure as two justices named by President George W. Bush tipped the balance.

The justices, voting 5-4, said the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is constitutional even though it lacks an exception for cases posing a risk to the mother's health. The court also rejected claims that the law is so vaguely worded it would force doctors to forgo a commonly used, constitutionally protected abortion technique for fear of prosecution.

``The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The decision heralds a more receptive approach toward abortion restrictions from a court that in 2000 overturned a similar Nebraska law. Bush's appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, helped turn the tide in today's case, joining the majority. Alito's vote was especially significant because his predecessor, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined the 5-4 majority that voided the Nebraska law.

The court stopped short of overruling the 2000 case, Stenberg v. Carhart, saying the federal statute was narrower in key respects than the Nebraska law.

Medical Definition

Both laws target techniques in which a fetus is partially removed from the mother before being killed. Opponents of the procedure have dubbed it ``partial birth,'' while abortion-rights advocates say that phrase is meaningless and doesn't track any medical definition.

Bush called the procedure ``abhorrent,'' saying in a statement, ``The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life.''

The majority left open the possibility that doctors could ask a judge for permission to use the procedure for particular medical conditions that pose a risk to the mother. Doctors who violate the law face as much as two years in prison.

The law, which had never taken effect because three federal appeals courts said it was unconstitutional, is the first federal abortion restriction since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established the constitutional right to end a pregnancy. Today's case didn't challenge the validity of Roe or the 1992 decision that reaffirmed it.

`Alarming' Ruling

In dissent, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling ``alarming'' and took the unusual step of reading a summary of her opinion from the bench. She pointed to the conclusion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that the disputed procedure was proper in some cases.

``For the first time since Roe, the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health,'' Ginsburg wrote. ``The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion.''

She said the court ``blurs'' a previous line by letting Congress ban use of the procedure even if the fetus couldn't survive on its own. Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter joined Ginsburg's dissent.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also joined Kennedy's majority opinion and wrote separately to reiterate their view that the Constitution doesn't protect abortion rights.

Expressing Regret

Kennedy pointed to a court filing by a woman who says she regrets her role in an abortion case decided alongside Roe.

``It seems unexceptional to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained,'' he wrote. ``Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.''

The law is aimed primarily at a procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, or intact D&E, a relatively rare technique used by some doctors in the second trimester of pregnancy. Between 85 and 90 percent of U.S. abortions are performed during the first trimester, Kennedy wrote.

Those challenging the law said it could be used to ban other forms of abortion, including ``non-intact D&E.''

Kennedy disagreed, saying the new law ``departs in material ways'' from the Nebraska statute.

Among other differences, he said, the federal ban applies only when a doctor ``deliberately and intentionally'' performs the intact D&E procedure. The federal law also describes how far a fetus must be removed intact from the mother before the procedure will be deemed a ``partial birth'' abortion.

Criminal Liability

``Doctors performing D&E will know that if they do not deliver a living fetus to an anatomical landmark they will not face criminal liability,'' Kennedy wrote.

Abortion-rights advocates say intact D&E can reduce the risk of trauma to the uterus and cervix and is the safest method for some women with infections, bleeding or clotting disorders, heart problems and cancer of the placenta. An alternate technique involves dismembering the fetus in the uterus.

``This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety,'' said Eve Gartner, a lawyer with the Planned Parenthood Federation of American who argued against the law before the court in November. ``This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.''

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the anti-abortion American Center for Law and Justice, called the ruling ``a monumental victory for the preservation of human life.''

More Praise

Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America, also praised the decision, saying in a statement, ``It is just a matter of time before the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 will also be struck down by the court.''

The case raised separation-of-powers questions, asking whether lawmakers could substitute their factual conclusions for those of the court.

In the 2000 ruling, the majority said a health exception was required ``where substantial medical authority supports the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure could endanger women's health.'' The court pointed to evidence that some doctors believed intact D&E to be a safer procedure than other alternatives.

Congress took a contrary view in enacting the law, declaring that a ``moral, medical and ethical consensus'' exists that the disputed practice is ``never medically necessary.''

Kennedy said the court should defer to Congress, rejecting arguments that lawmakers were improperly trying to undercut the court on a constitutional question.

Scientific Uncertainty

``The court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty,'' Kennedy wrote.

Ginsburg said the law and the majority ruling ``cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court.''

Opponents of the law included Nebraska obstetrician Leroy Carhart.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: April 18, 2007 15:20 EDT