Gonzales v Carhart
Background- 2003 President Bush signed Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Carhart, a doctor among others who preformed late term abortions, sued to stop the act from going into affect. They claim it was unconstitutional due to the "undue burden" on the right to abortion. They also claim that the act was to broad towards what kinds of abortions and towards what conditions an abortion is legal.
Issue- Is this Act a constitutional violation towards personal liberty under the fifth amendment and are abortions necessary to protect the mothers health?
Decision- 5 to 4 in favor of Gonzales
Opinion- I believe the act was constitutionally vague/ unconstitutional because it didn't specify under what circumstances an abortion could be preformed, and that no type of abortion that is banned can be inferred. According to Stenberg v. Carhart even though abortions are never medically necessary they are still legal.
State who for Judges and needs precedent and use of term 'undue burden'
ReplyDelete