|TOP|Christians and other pro-lifers have welcomed the announcement Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether a federal ban on partial-birth abortion is constitutional, renewing hopes among pro-lifers that the first restriction on a specific procedure will be upheld by the justices since abortion was first legalised 33 years ago.

The current law forbids a procedure used by some doctors to remove an intact baby, normally in the fifth or sixth months, by allowing the birth to continue until the head is visible before suctioning out the brain and removing the baby.

The law has been threatened in recent months by a series of rulings by three appellate courts that affirmed lower court rulings invalidating the 2003 law. A decision from one of these appellate courts, the Eighth Circuit Court, which found against the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act, will now be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the case Gonzales v. Carhart.

The hopes of anti-abortionists have been spurred by recent changes in Supreme Court justices.

In a case in 2000, justices overturned a state prohibition on partial-birth abortion by a 5-4 majority. Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the majority, was recently replaced by the more conservative Samuel Alito on her retirement.

|QUOTE|The late chief justice William Rehnquist, who dissented in the 2000 ruling that invalidated the partial-birth abortion ban that was introduced in the state of Nebraska, was also replaced last September by John Roberts.

“I am delighted the Roberts court has decided to take this case,” Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told the Baptist Press.

He said he hopes a ruling in favour of the ban “will be the first clear signal that the Roberts court will be much more protective of human life than its Rehnquist predecessor.”

With the addition of Roberts and Alito, abortion-rights advocates remain tense over the future decision of the court on the ban.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-choice America, said the justices’ decision to grant the appeal “means the core principle of protecting women’s health as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade is in clear and present danger.”

In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court overturned state abortion bans, making abortion legal right across the country.

|AD|Cecile Richards, new president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called the action “a dangerous act of hostility aimed squarely at women’s health and safety.”

Pro-lifers remain hopeful that the ban will be upheld, however, with the chief counsel of the American Centre for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow, describing the court’s decision as “incredibly important”.

“With the new makeup of the high court, we are encouraged that the justices will determine that the government does have a vital and compelling interest in preventing the spread of the practice of abortion into infanticide,” he said.

Denise Burke, the vice president of the Chicago-based Americans United for Life, said she was “heartened by the court’s willingness to revisit this issue.”

“We are hopeful that the court will reverse course and repudiate its 2000 decision ... [that] sanctioned this type of infanticide just as it has previously renounced decisions approving racial segregation and the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II without due process of law,” she said.