The law is the first substantial limitation on abortion since the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The current cases also appear likely to reach the high court.
Attorney A. Stephen Hut Jr., speaking for the plaintiffs, argued that the law "in its stunning breadth would . . . remove the range of abortion alternatives available to women in the second trimester." He cautioned that the evidence will include "very raw stuff" and that descriptions of the surgery were "not for the faint of heart."
Assistant US Attorney Sean H. Lane described the law as an attempt to ban an "inhumane and gruesome procedure that causes pain to the fetus."
"Evidence at trial will illuminate that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary and is an inhumane procedure that should be banned," Lane said before US District Judge Richard C. Casey in Manhattan.
He said the law was specific in banning an abortion procedure that kills a "partially born fetus just inches from birth."
The lawsuits center on a late-term procedure that many doctors refer to as "intact dilation and extraction."
In the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester and occasionally in the third, a fetus is partially delivered and its skull is punctured. An estimated 2,200 to 5,000 such abortions are performed annually in the United States out of 1.3 million abortions total.
In Nebraska, a judge said he was troubled by an apparent lack of research done by Congress before passing the law.
"I have to tell you, I don't see that Congress spent much time" adequately looking at the issue, US District Judge Richard Kopf said. "What deference then do I give Congress and its findings?"
Anthony Coppolino, who is presenting the Justice Department's case, said Congress used expert witnesses in formulating the law.
Abortion-rights groups argue that the law was written vaguely, too broadly, and in such a way that threatens the health of some mothers. They say its language could criminalize more common types of abortion and could be a step toward abolishing abortion.
Supporters of the ban contend it applies only to a late-term procedure they say is never necessary to protect the health of the mother.
The law carries a maximum two-year prison term for doctors convicted of performing the procedure.
The Supreme Court struck down a similar Nebraska law almost four years ago because it lacked an exception for procedures done to preserve a woman's health. Anticipating this problem, Congress declared that a late-term abortion "is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman" and is "outside the standard of medical care."
Abortion-rights groups say doctors may find themselves with no good alternative to the banned procedure to protect a woman's life or health if problems develop.
The American Medical Association does not encourage the use of the procedure, but says it should not be banned.
The College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that alternatives to the procedure usually exist but that in some circumstances it may be the best option.
