§ 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.

[2] Under this law, any physician "who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both".

[6] This was of particular concern when it came to anticipated arguments that such a definition would encompass "mental health", which some thought would inevitably be expanded by court decisions to include the prevention of depression or other non-physical conditions.

[9] In 2006, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart found that the 2003 act "departs in material ways" from the Nebraska law and that it pertains only to a specific abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction.

For example, the IDX procedure may be used to remove a deceased fetus (e.g. due to a miscarriage or feticide) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.

[13] The Republican-led Congress first passed similar laws banning partial-birth abortion in December 1995, and again October 1997, but they were vetoed by President Bill Clinton.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent which was joined by Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens.

The replacement of O'Connor by Alito was identified as a key difference between the 5–4 decision against the Nebraska law in Stenberg and the 5–4 support for the abortion ban in Gonzales.

[27] A Rasmussen Reports poll four days after the court's decision found that 40% of respondents "knew the ruling allowed states to place some restrictions on specific abortion procedures".

Typically, a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle.

[30][31] This is often done by providers who do not perform intact dilation and extraction procedures (as well as by those who do) because they feel the broad wording of the ban compels them "to do all they can to protect themselves and their staff from the possibility of being accused".