Sternberg V. Carhart Stenberg V. Term Paper

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 1630 words ( 5 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 3

Page 1 of 5

This absolute right effectively means that the Court has determined that the fetus is not a human being prior to viability. Therefore, the effects on a fetus cannot be considered when deciding whether or not an abortion procedure is legal. The fact is that, pre-viability, even if a doctor where to completely deliver an intact fetus, it would be unable to survive outside of the womb. Therefore, a doctor performing a partial-birth abortion is not committing infanticide, as suggested by the dissent, because Roe has established that non-viable fetuses are not yet human beings.

Furthermore, while Roe and Casey recognize that states have an interest and protecting potential human life, a statute limiting partial-birth abortion does not further a state's interest in protecting potential human life. The statute in question does not proscribe abortion, but merely limits the methods by which a woman may have an abortion. Therefore, Nebraska cannot argue that the statute protects potential human life. On the contrary, Nebraska bases its arguments on preventing cruelty to unborn or partially born children, which is not one of the compelling state interests established in Roe or Casey.

Stuck Writing Your "Sternberg V. Carhart Stenberg V." Term Paper?

View All Our Example Sternberg V. Carhart Stenberg V. Term Paper

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

Given that the statute may have the effect of impeding a woman's right to choose an abortion by denying her access to the safest and most painless method of abortion, without furthering a state's interest in protecting potential human life, the statute places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose and is unconstitutional.

Conclusion

The Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, and held that Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. 28-328(1) (Supp. 1999), was unconstitutional.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. 28-328(1) (Supp. 1999).

Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).

Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Sternberg V Carhart Stenberg V " (2007, April 15) Retrieved June 28, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/sternberg-carhart-stenberg-38555

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Sternberg V Carhart Stenberg V " 15 April 2007. Web.28 June. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/sternberg-carhart-stenberg-38555>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Sternberg V Carhart Stenberg V ", 15 April 2007, Accessed.28 June. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/sternberg-carhart-stenberg-38555
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example