You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 52.91.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪JJMC89‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 05:26, 2 September 2024.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 04:57, 27 November 2021
- Expiry of block: 04:57, 27 November 2024
Your current IP address is 52.91.194.66. The blocked range is 52.91.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((Use mdy dates|date=September 2023))
((Multiple issues|
((more footnotes needed|date=April 2014))((original research|date=April 2014))((more citations needed|date=May 2023))
))((Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Stenberg v. Carhart
| ArgueDate = April 25
| ArgueYear = 2000
| DecideDate = June 29
| DecideYear = 2000
| FullName = Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al. v. LeRoy Carhart
| Docket = 99-830
| USVol = 530
| USPage = 914
| ParallelCitations = 120 S. Ct. 2597; 147 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 743; 2000 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 4484;68 U.S.L.W. 4702; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5252; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 6977; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3802; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 496
| Prior = Judgment for plaintiff, 11 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/11/1099/2288933/ 1099] ([[D. Neb.]] 1998); affirmed, 192 [[F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/192/1142/594073/ 1142] ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|8th Cir.]] 1999); [[certiorari|cert.]] granted, ((ussc|528|1110|2000|el=no)).
| Subsequent = 
| Holding = Laws banning partial-birth abortion are unconstitutional if they do not make an exception for the woman's health, or if they cannot be reasonably construed to apply only to the partial-birth abortion (intact D&X) procedure and not to other abortion methods.
| Majority = Breyer
| JoinMajority = Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg
| Concurrence = Stevens
| JoinConcurrence = Ginsburg
| Concurrence2 = O'Connor
| Concurrence3 = Ginsburg
| JoinConcurrence3 = Stevens
| Dissent = Rehnquist
| Dissent2 = Scalia
| Dissent3 = Kennedy
| JoinDissent3 = Rehnquist
| Dissent4 = Thomas
| JoinDissent4 = Rehnquist, Scalia
| LawsApplied = [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]; Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28—328
| Superseded = ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' (2022)
))

'''''Stenberg v. Carhart''''', 530 U.S. 914 (2000), was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark decision]] of the [[US Supreme Court]] dealing with a [[Nebraska]] law which made performing "[[partial-birth abortion]]" illegal, without regard for the health of the mother.<ref>((ussc|name=Stenberg v. Carhart|530|914|2000)).</ref>  Nebraska [[physician]]s who performed the procedure contrary to the law were subject to having their medical licenses revoked. The Court struck down the law, finding the Nebraska statute criminalizing "partial birth abortion[s]" violated the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]], as interpreted in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' and ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.

The Court would later uphold a similar, albeit federal statute, in ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'' (2007).

==History==
[[LeRoy Carhart]], a Nebraska physician who specialized in late-term abortions, brought suit against [[Don Stenberg]], the [[Attorney General]] of Nebraska, seeking [[declaratory judgment]] that a state law banning certain forms of [[abortion]] was unconstitutional, based on the undue burden test mentioned by a dissenting opinion in ''Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health''<ref>((ussc|name=Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health|link=|volume=462|page=416|pin=|year=1983)).</ref> and by the Court in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]''.<ref>((ussc|name=Planned Parenthood v. Casey|link=|volume=505|page=833|pin=|year=1992)).</ref> Both a [[United States District Court|federal district court]] and the [[United States Court of Appeals|U.S. Court of Appeals]] ruled in favor of Carhart before the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.<ref>((ussc|name=Stenberg v. Carhart|volume=530|page=914|pin=922-23|year=2000))</ref>

The Nebraska statute prohibited "partial birth abortion", which it defined as any abortion in which the physician "partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing the delivery."<ref>((ussc|name=Stenberg v. Carhart|volume=530|page=914|pin=922|year=2000))</ref>  The most common type of abortion performed is [[suction-aspiration abortion]] which consists of a vacuum tube inserted into the [[uterus]]; others consist of what is known as "D&E" ([[dilation and evacuation]]), which is usually used during the second trimester because of the increased size of the fetus. The procedure dilates the [[cervix]], dismembers the fetus, and then removes the body parts with non-vacuum instruments, and, in some cases, uses curettage inside the uterus so that the remaining fetus can be evacuated. Dr. Carhart wanted to use a modified version of this called "D&X" ([[Intact dilation and extraction|Dilation and Extraction]]), which, rather than commencing curettage inside the uterus, extracts part of the fetus first and then begins the process of dismemberment. Carhart stated that he wanted to perform this procedure because he believed it would be safer and would involve fewer risks for the women; it lowered the risk of leaving potentially harmful fetal tissue in the uterus, and it minimized the number of instruments physicians needed to use.

Experts in fetal development provide markedly different assessments of the kind and degree of pain (if any) experienced by the fetus (''see [[Fetal pain]]''). Although in the second and third trimesters the [[nervous system]] is largely in place, the level of consciousness or awareness of the fetus is a matter of debate. Experiments aimed at measuring fetal pain have yielded results that are somewhat open to interpretation, given that measurable reactions of the fetus to stimuli may not correspond directly to an adult experience of pain.

The medical and scientific questions surrounding partial-birth abortion are impacted in the public arena by political and special interest considerations, resulting in a certain degree of media hype surrounding this case. Proponents of abortion rights on the one hand and those in opposition to abortion rights on the other both decry what they describe as myths regarding this procedure that have passed into mainstream American debate on the issue.

==U.S. Supreme Court ruling==
The case was argued in 2000.  The first issue was the lack of an exception for the woman's health.  The state of Nebraska took the position that D&X abortions were never medically necessary, meaning that an exception was not needed.  Secondly, it was inquired on whether or not the law could be construed to apply to other forms of abortion, in which case it would violate the "right to privacy" interpreted from the Constitution, as described in the ''Roe'' and ''Casey'' decisions.  The law had never been certified to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, as it had been challenged two days after the law was passed.

===Opinion of the court and concurring opinions===
Justice [[Stephen Breyer]], in writing the opinion of the Court, cited ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' and said that any abortion law that imposed an undue burden on a woman's "right to choose" (right to abortion) was unconstitutional.  He said that causing those who procure abortions to "fear prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment" was an undue burden, and therefore declared the law to be against the Constitution.  Justices [[John Paul Stevens]], [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], [[David Souter]], and [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] all agreed that the law was unconstitutional, but Ginsburg wrote a separate opinion, as did O'Connor.  Ginsburg stated plainly that a state could not force physicians to use procedures other than what they felt in their own judgment to be the safest, that this was part of the "life and liberty" protected under the Constitution.  O'Connor agreed, saying that any such procedural law would have to be applied only to prevent unnecessary partial-birth abortions, and would have to include an exception for the health of the woman (as this law did not).  Justice Stevens also filed a separate opinion. He noted that government had no right to force doctors to perform any procedure other than what they felt would be the safest.

===Dissents===
Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] dissented.  Kennedy claimed this type of law was allowed by their ruling in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', which allowed laws to preserve prenatal life to a certain extent.  He called [[Sandra Day O'Connor]]'s opinion a "repudiation" of the understandings and assurances given in ''Casey''.  Justice Kennedy also detailed what he deemed a constitutionally protected alternative to partial-birth abortion. In a short separate opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that he did not join ''Casey'' but felt that Justice Kennedy had applied its precedent correctly, and thus joined his opinion.

Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] read his dissent from the bench when the decision was announced, stating that abortion was not a right contained in the Constitution, and sharply criticized the majority and concurring opinions.  Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], along with [[Antonin Scalia]], and Thomas had consistently said that they did not believe abortion is a protected right, and had pointed out that "privacy" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.  Thomas also pointed out in his dissenting opinion that even if abortion was a woman's right, the law in question was not designed to strike at the right itself.  He reminded the others that many groups, including the [[American Medical Association]], had concluded that partial-birth abortion was very different from other forms of abortion, and was often considered [[infanticide]].  Thomas further noted that the gruesome nature of some partial-birth abortions has caused personal trauma in the doctors performing them.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia recalled his prior dissent in ''Casey'' in which he had criticized the undue burden standard as "doubtful in application as it is unprincipled in origin."  What constitutes an undue burden is a value judgment, argued Scalia; it should therefore be no surprise that the Court split on whether the Nebraska statute constitutes an undue burden.  Scalia moreover chastised Kennedy for feeling betrayed by the majority.  Scalia declared that the ''Stenberg'' decision was not "a regrettable misapplication of ''Casey'',"&mdash;as Kennedy claimed&mdash;but "''Casey'''s logical and entirely predictable consequence".  Denouncing the undue burden standard of ''Casey'' as illegitimate, Scalia called for ''Casey'' to be overruled.

==Effects of the decision==

By a 5–4 majority, the Nebraska law was struck down, as were all other state laws banning partial-birth abortion. Three years later, however, the federal government enacted a [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act|Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]]. This law did not include an exception for the health of the woman, as Justice O'Connor said it must. Congress inserted findings into the law saying that the procedure is never needed to protect maternal health. Although several federal judges struck down this federal law, citing the precedent of ''Stenberg v. Carhart'', it was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]].''

==References==
((Reflist))

==Further reading==
*((Citation |last1=Breen |first1=John M. |last2=Scaperlanda |first2=Michael A. |year=2006 |title=Never Get out'a the Boat: ''Stenberg v. Carhart'' and the Future of American Law |journal=Connecticut Law Review |volume=39 |issue=1 |pages=297 )).
*((Citation |last=Holsinger |first=Melissa C. |year=2002 |title=The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: The Congressional Reaction to ''Stenberg v. Carhart'' |journal=NYU Journal Legislation and Public Policy |volume=6 |pages=603 )).
*((Citation |last=Smolin |first=David M. |year=2001 |title=Fourteenth Amendment Unenumerated Rights Jurisprudence: An Essay in Response to ''Stenberg v. Carhart'' |journal=Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy |volume=24 |issue=3 |pages=815–839 |pmid=16594113 )).

==External links==
<!--*((wikisource-inline|''Stenberg v. Carhart''))-->
*((caselaw source
 | case=''Stenberg v. Carhart'', ((ussc|530|914|2000|el=no))
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/530/914
 | findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/530/914.html
 | justia=http://supreme.justia.com/us/530/914/case.html
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep530/usrep530914/usrep530914.pdf
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-830
 ))

((US14thAmendment|dueprocess))

[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:Right to abortion under the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Right to privacy under the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:United States abortion case law]]
[[Category:United States privacy case law]]
[[Category:United States substantive due process case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]]
[[Category:2000 in United States case law]]
[[Category:History of women in Nebraska]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Stenberg v. Carhart (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Caselaw source (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Citation (view source) (protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:First word (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:If between (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox SCOTUS case (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case/courts (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Last word (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:More footnotes needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Multiple issues (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Multiple issues/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Original research (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SCOTUS URL Docket (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:SCOTUS URL Docket New (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Spaces (view source) (protected)
Template:Str find (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Template other (view source) (protected)
Template:Tomorrow (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:US14thAmendment (edit)
Template:Use mdy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ussc (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Template:Yesno-no (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:· (view source) (protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Italic title (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Stenberg v. Carhart.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenberg_v._Carhart"