PLS 460 Stenberg v Carhart

PLS 460 Stenberg v Carhart - must include a health...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Stenberg v Carhart 530 U.S. 914 (2000) CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In an action brought by plaintiff physician challenging the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-328 (Supp. 1999), which criminalizes performance of "partial birth abortions," the Court granted certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to consider the appeal of defendant state attorney general from a decision that found the statute to be unconstitutional. OVERVIEW: Plaintiff physician filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-328 (Supp. 1999), which criminalized performance of "partial birth abortions." The district court found the statute unconstitutional, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked any exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. Where substantial medical authority supported the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure could endanger women's health, a prohibitory statute
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: must include a health exception when the procedure is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. The statute was also unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose a more common abortion procedure, thereby unduly burdening the right to choose abortion itself. The Court rejected a proffered narrowing interpretation of the statute because it conflicted with statutory language, and held that it was not required to certify the interpretation question to state court because the statute was not fairly susceptible to a narrowing construction. OUTCOME: The Court ruled the statute unconstitutional because it lacked any exception for preservation of health of the mother and because it imposed an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose a more common abortion procedure, thereby unduly burdening the right to choose abortion itself. The Court rejected proffered narrowing interpretation of statute....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online