choose one of the safest methods of abortion. “Partial birth abortions” are not ethical
because the child has developed from a fetus to a human being and performed during the
trimester period of the women’s pregnancy. At this point in the child’s life, we can
consider that the child is almost a human being and it is inhumane. Killing an unborn
child is exterminating the existence of soul. This dismemberment in the womb can cause
complications to the women’s health even if “partial birth abortion” methods were said to
be one of the safest. Any abortion procedures can increase maternal mortality and never
guarantees full recovery for women. Also, women can go through psychological remorse
post abortion and become depressed. On the other hand, the ban on “partial birth
abortion” limits women the right to choose this type of abortion. This refers to anti-
choice. Women should have the freedom to decide what they want to do to their body.
In conclusion, Carhart’s lawsuit against the Nebraska law banning “partial birth
abortion” was monumental in that it allowed physicians to keep their state license and
practicing their specialized abortions freely without being punished by the court system.
The Supreme Court’s decision siding with Carhart helped relieve the undue burden on
women and gave them the freedom to choose their preference of terminating their
pregnancy. Furthermore, the Court’s decision for the Nebraska law to be reworded with a
constitutional basis was beneficial for future state abortion cases by including “separate”
in the statute. By making the law unconstitutional, the government has less control over
the citizens’ interests.
Works Cited
Lawecommons.luc.edu
. <lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1084&context=facpubs>.
Oyez. Stenberg v. Carhart
. Ed. n.d. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. 14 Sep 2016.
<;.
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
. <;.
