PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Carhart v. Stenberg”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1999

Carhart v. Stenberg.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision that had held Nebraska's statute banning partial-birth abortion to be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lower court had permanently enjoined enforcement of the statute. Nebraska's Partial-Birth Abortion Act prohibited "an abortion procedure in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing the delivery." A physician who performs abortions had challenged this statute as being vague and overly broad. The lower court had ruled that the statute was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment since it banned the common dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure thereby creating an undue burden for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus becomes viable.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed2001

Lochner redeemed: family privacy after Troxel and Carhart.

At least since its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court has differentiated its review of abortion laws from its scrutiny of other intrusions on family privacy. Whereas abortion restrictions are reviewed under the middling "undue burden" standard, incursions on other family-related liberties, including marriage, kinship, and child rearing are said to be subject to the strict scrutiny ordinarily employed in the defense of fundamental rights. This Article contends that the Court's most recent decisions in this context give reason to reconsider both sides of that equation. Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down Nebraska's ban on "partial-birth" abortions, suggests that the Court's scrutiny in the abortion context will be more aggressive and rigid than most had supposed. At the same time, its decision in Troxel v. Granville, limiting states' authority to order grandparent visitation over the objects of a parent, suggest that there is more fluidity in the Court's review of other family liberties than is conventionally assumed. Together the cases signal a convergence in both sorts of family-privacy controversies toward a common standard of "reasonableness." That standard bears, for many, an uncomfortable association with the much-maligned "natural law-due process formula" of the Lochner era, but Professor Meyer argues that it is precisely the right approach in the context of family privacy. Although more rigid doctrinal formulae are sometimes preferred on the ground that they constrain judicial judgment, here they are undesirable precisely because they obscure the value judgments that are inevitably at the core of every family-privacy decision.

Abortion, Legal↗