Posted On: 10/22/2016 10:52:59 PM
Post# of 65629
BACKGROUND
Although supporters of "partial-birth abortion" bans claim that they prohibit only a single procedure known to the medical community as dilation and extraction or D&X, the Nebraska law, like the laws of more than two dozen other states, does not mention the D&X procedure. Rather, the law sweeps much more broadly, prohibiting the performance of an array of abortion methods used throughout pregnancy. And, like similar laws throughout the country, the Nebraska law provides no health exception and only a narrow life exception.
The ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and our state affiliates have participated in challenging similar laws in ten states. In addition, the Project submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court urging it to invalidate the Nebraska ban
read more here source
https://www.aclu.org/other/stenberg-v-carhart...rect/12513
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
STENBERG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, et al. v. CARHART
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 99—830. Argued April 25, 2000–Decided June 28, 2000
The Constitution offers basic protection to a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833. Before fetal viability, a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy, id., at 870 (joint opinion), and a state law is unconstitutional if it imposes on the woman’s decision an “undue burden,” i.e., if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the woman’s path, id., at 877. Postviability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the [mother’s] life or health.” E.g., id., at 879. The Nebraska law at issue prohibits any “partial birth abortion” unless that procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life. It defines “partial birth abortion” as a procedure in which the doctor “partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the . . . child,” and defines the latter phrase to mean “intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the [abortionist] knows will kill the … child and does kill the … child.” Violation of the law is a felony, and it provides for the automatic revocation of a convicted doctor’s state license to practice medicine. Respondent Carhart, a Nebraska physician who performs abortions in a clinical setting, brought this suit seeking a declaration that the statute violates the Federal Constitution. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Nebraska’s statute criminalizing the performance of “partial birth abortion ” violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe. Pp. 3—27.
full copy of decision here
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html
Abortion Bans: In the States
Abortion bans are a deceptive and unconstitutional attempt to prohibit abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy. These bans dangerously interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, banning abortions that doctors say are safe and among the best to protect women’s health. Prior to Gonzales v. Carhart (“Carhart II”). courts – including the United States Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart (“Carhart”) – considered these bans, and repeatedly and consistently struck them down for two reasons:
1.The bans’ broad language prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy, and
2.The bans’ lack of health exception impermissibly endangers women’s health.
read full scripted here
https://www.aclu.org/other/abortion-bans-stat...ans-states
Although supporters of "partial-birth abortion" bans claim that they prohibit only a single procedure known to the medical community as dilation and extraction or D&X, the Nebraska law, like the laws of more than two dozen other states, does not mention the D&X procedure. Rather, the law sweeps much more broadly, prohibiting the performance of an array of abortion methods used throughout pregnancy. And, like similar laws throughout the country, the Nebraska law provides no health exception and only a narrow life exception.
The ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and our state affiliates have participated in challenging similar laws in ten states. In addition, the Project submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court urging it to invalidate the Nebraska ban
read more here source
https://www.aclu.org/other/stenberg-v-carhart...rect/12513
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
STENBERG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, et al. v. CARHART
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 99—830. Argued April 25, 2000–Decided June 28, 2000
The Constitution offers basic protection to a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833. Before fetal viability, a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy, id., at 870 (joint opinion), and a state law is unconstitutional if it imposes on the woman’s decision an “undue burden,” i.e., if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the woman’s path, id., at 877. Postviability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the [mother’s] life or health.” E.g., id., at 879. The Nebraska law at issue prohibits any “partial birth abortion” unless that procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life. It defines “partial birth abortion” as a procedure in which the doctor “partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the . . . child,” and defines the latter phrase to mean “intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the [abortionist] knows will kill the … child and does kill the … child.” Violation of the law is a felony, and it provides for the automatic revocation of a convicted doctor’s state license to practice medicine. Respondent Carhart, a Nebraska physician who performs abortions in a clinical setting, brought this suit seeking a declaration that the statute violates the Federal Constitution. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Nebraska’s statute criminalizing the performance of “partial birth abortion
full copy of decision here
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html
Abortion Bans: In the States
Abortion bans are a deceptive and unconstitutional attempt to prohibit abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy. These bans dangerously interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, banning abortions that doctors say are safe and among the best to protect women’s health. Prior to Gonzales v. Carhart (“Carhart II”). courts – including the United States Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart (“Carhart”) – considered these bans, and repeatedly and consistently struck them down for two reasons:
1.The bans’ broad language prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy, and
2.The bans’ lack of health exception impermissibly endangers women’s health.
read full scripted here
https://www.aclu.org/other/abortion-bans-stat...ans-states
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
