Carhart

The majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart is nothing but an extract from the 2008 Republican Party platform.

Balkinization 2007

Similarly, in Carhart II, what seems to matter is the sanction the state wants to withhold from a medical procedure that appears just awful.

Balkinization 2007

The true ground for the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart is that Stenberg v. Carhart was crushingly and horribly wrong, as a matter of first principles of constitutional understanding.

Balkinization 2007

Includes links for lots of the testimony in Carhart, briefing papers, timeline of the challenges to the Act and links to related cases.

Supreme Court set to hear 2 Challenges to the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Act this October 2006

See [my comment #47, with the TAP link and quote] (And see, of course, Justice Ruth Ginsburg’s dissent in Carhart:

Matthew Yglesias » Rice Slams Non-Inclusive United States 2009

(Gonzales v. Carhart is hardly the most compelling illustration of this reality: Casey itself overruled two prior abortion decisions and altered, slightly, the legal framework of Roe -- on the ground that "stare decisis" required it.

Balkinization 2007

Nebraska's Attorney General Jon Bruning called Carhart "one sick individual."

Catholic Exchange 2009

But in a cases such as Carhart or the school board cases from this week, where it becomes clear that the case will be decided 5-4 or 6-3, where unaminity is impossible, that is, "in cases where greater unaminity cannot be served by a narrower opinion, Roberts can still serve his principal goal by a clearer opinion."

"John Roberts, Centrist." Ann Althouse 2006

Carhart, a 5–4 decision, upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

The Conservative Assault on the Constitution Erwin Chemerinsky 2010

Carhart, laws regulating abortion will be struck down only if they are an undue burden for a significant fraction of women.

The Conservative Assault on the Constitution Erwin Chemerinsky 2010