>
>Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was a 1992 decision, not one "this year," so
>can't be what they're referring to.
>
>NARAL must mean Stenberg v. Carhart, the 5-4 decision saying that laws
>banning
>so-called "partial birth" abortions are (at least, as commonly written)
>unconstitutional. There's info about the Carhart case at
>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html .
>
>NARAL's claim is both hypocritical and inaccurate. Justice Kennedy, who
>was
>one of the four dissenting votes in Carhart, voted with the majority in
>Casey,
>and it doesn't appear his opinion has changed. Kennedy's dissent in Carhart
>still seems to support Casey's "undue burden" standard, he just doesn't
>feel
>that banning the "partial birth" proceedure but keeping other proceedures
>available constitutes an undue burden.
>
>I think Kennedy's opinion is wrongheaded in many ways; but there's no
>reason
>to think he'd vote to overturn Roe entirely, as NARAL knows very well. But
>if
>they admitted that, they'd have to admit that Roe has a 6-3 majority, and
>is
>more secure now than it was in either of the last two elections.
>
>I say the claim is hypocritical because the candidate they support has
>pledged
>to sign legislation banning late-term abortions - legislation pretty
>similar
>to what the court struck down in Carhart (although a little bit saner
>because
>Gore would make an exception to protect the mother's health, whereas the
>law
>in Carhart only had an exception to protect the mother's life).
>
>--BD
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 9:18 PM
>Subject: Re: Sarah Jessica Parker pressed into service
>
>
>:
>: The case referred to is probably Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which
>replced
>: the Roe trimester structure with the O'Connor "undue burden" standard for
>: what a state can't do to limit a woman's right to choose. An "undue
>burden"
>: is one that tees off Justice O'Connor. --jks
>:
>: >
>: >
>: > > The [NARAL] ad asks viewers to "please consider" the fact that a 5-4
>: > > Supreme Court decision this year "narrowly protected" Roe v. Wade,
>: > > noting, "A single vote saved a woman's right to choose."
>: >
>: >Does anyone know what decision that are referring to and where I could
>: >find a summary?
>: >
>: >Michael
>: >
>:
> >__________________________________________________________________________
>: >Michael Pollak................New York
>City..............mpollak at panix.com
>: >
>:
>: _________________________________________________________________________
>: Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>:
>: Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>: http://profiles.msn.com.
>:
>
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.