No Pointers to Ruling in Abortion Case

Clement said that Congress is entitled to legislate the distinction. "The one is abortion," he said. "The other is murder."

But Smith noted that there is no such bright line because doctors performing dilation and evacuation sometimes bring out a fetus up to the midsection while trying to dismember it in utero.

Depicting the federal ban as a direct challenge to the court's authority, Smith told the court, "The only course here that preserves independence of the judiciary, that exemplifies the importance of [settled precedent], not to mention the only course that will protect women from needless risks of uterine perforation, infertility, sepsis and hemorrhage, is to hold this act unconstitutional."

The most dramatic moment of the morning came moments later, at about 10:40 a.m., when a loud voice cried out from the back of the courtroom.

"Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood!" shouted a man later identified by the court as Rives Miller Grogan, 40, of Los Angeles. He was immediately tackled and dragged out by Supreme Court police, who charged him with violating a federal law against disrupting court sessions, as well as with offenses related to resisting arrest.

Grogan's protest, the first such incident in recent memory at the court, momentarily stunned the spectators and justices and interrupted Smith, who was explaining that Congress's findings that the procedure is never medically necessary were "simply unreasonable" and so thoroughly contradicted by medical experts as to carry no legal weight.

Roberts challenged that claim, asking Smith if the "marginal benefit in safety" from using the procedure is "enough to override the state's articulated interest?"

Smith responded that doctors have testified "that the reduction in risk" from using the procedure is "significant."

Kennedy had earlier asked Smith how often in practice such risks arose, but she conceded that there were no statistics.

As if to reinforce Kennedy's concern on that point, Roberts returned to it several times during the argument, telling Smith at one point that "we don't have any record evidence about how often the complications arise, so it's hard to get a handle on exactly what the difference is in terms of safety."

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart , No. 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood , No. 05-1382. A decision is expected by July.