Talk:Stenberg v. Carhart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated start-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] PP v. Casey

Ferrylodge removed the mention of Casey from the intro a month and a half ago. I have restored it with a slight changing of words. I read the opinion again and the idea that "the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution" is being violated comes from Casey, as clearly indicated in multiple places in the text.

• 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.
• Held: Nebraska’s statute criminalizing the performance of “partial birth abortion[s]” violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe. Pp. 3—27.
• The Nebraska statute lacks the requisite exception “for the preservation of the … health of the mother.” Casey, supra, at 879 (joint opinion). The State may promote but not endanger a woman’s health when it regulates the methods of abortion. Pp. 11—19.
• The Nebraska statute imposes an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to choose an abortion. See Casey, supra, at 874 (joint opinion). Pp. 20—27.

So I disagree that Casey should not be in the first paragraph. Casey did not involve so-called "partial birth abortion" any more than Roe v. Wade involved them. because the opinion is citing Casey as precedent for their decision. As the text makes clear, the two cases are related.-Andrew c 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Casey case is now explicitly mentioned and linked four times in this article, including in the introduction. In contrast, Roe v. Wade is linked zero times. This gives undue weight to Casey.Ferrylodge 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Roe appears 2 times in the text of Carhart, while Casey appears 6 times. If we include the dissents, then its 136 uses of "Casey" vs. 38 uses of "Roe". How is that undue weight? Case is mentioned more in the decisions, so it is not undue weight to mention Casey more in an article about the decisions. However, I have made a change in the intro to mention both cases. I believe it is important to mention these precedent in the intro. On top of that, its ok to have a little redundancy in the lead because it is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. Hopefully my change is a good compromise.-Andrew c 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's okay. Now that you've buttered me up at my talk page, I'll go along with anything.  :-) Seriously, though, I'm not sure that the full case cites are needed for Casey and Roe. It kind of clutters up the text. Sure, the full cite is okay at the beginning for Stenberg, but when other cases are mentioned the full cite is not needed, I don't think. My usual practice is to do a footnote when another case is mentioned for the first time, and the footnote would include the full cite. But it's up to you.Ferrylodge 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)