Search Details

Word: nebraska (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...written could be interpreted as including the D&E procedure. And, according to Carhart, even in first-trimester procedures "fetal elements" sometimes enter the vagina before the fetus is dead, meaning that zealous prosecutors could use the law against doctors performing virtually any abortion. In fact, the Nebraska legislature passed up opportunities to more narrowly define the law to include only D&X, which abortion-rights have interpreted as an attempt to target a wider range of procedures...

Author: By Zachary R. Heineman, | Title: Court Must Reaffirm Choice | 5/2/2000 | See Source »

...Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not create an "undue burden" for any woman making "the decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability." In striking down the Nebraska statute law last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, ruled that the statute's language was broad enough to encompass the D&E procedure, imposing an "undue burden" on the woman seeking an abortion. Most of the lower federal courts that have addressed partial-birth abortion bans have ruled based on the "undue burden...

Author: By Zachary R. Heineman, | Title: Court Must Reaffirm Choice | 5/2/2000 | See Source »

...Ginsberg said. "This law doesn't serve the health of the woman. It doesn't serve the life of the fetus." By prohibiting the D&X procedure, which has been recognized as a better alternative in some cases, the law would be detrimental to a woman's health. The Nebraska statute allows for exceptions only to preserve the life--not the health--of the mother. Though a small distinction, upholding this portion of the law could be construed as a major shift because it places a higher priority on the life of the fetus than on the health...

Author: By Zachary R. Heineman, | Title: Court Must Reaffirm Choice | 5/2/2000 | See Source »

...Nebraska law does not make sense on a number of grounds, both legal and moral. The state appears to feel that it is taking a stand against infanticide by trying to ban a procedure that removes the fetus intact while implicitly supporting one that removes it in pieces. As Justice O'Connor told Mr. Stenberg, "Both [D&X and D&E] are rather gruesome procedures." Therefore, it seems that were the state to target one, it should logically target the other...

Author: By Zachary R. Heineman, | Title: Court Must Reaffirm Choice | 5/2/2000 | See Source »

Many people certainly consider second-trimester abortions to be troubling and gruesome. But just because the court invalidates the Nebraska statute does not necessarily mean that it believes all elective pre-viability abortions should be legal. If the court desires to change its stance on a woman's right to a second-trimester abortion, it should leave the door open for a future ruling on a more narrowly defined statute...

Author: By Zachary R. Heineman, | Title: Court Must Reaffirm Choice | 5/2/2000 | See Source »

Previous | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | Next