Talk:Gonzales v. Carhart

message: Merger. (Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood) and   It's the right thing to do, since the Supreme Court consolidated the cases.  If I end up writing the article, I'll merge them. ---Axios023 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge: Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood into Gonzales v. Carhart 

message: I'm a bit confused. If you say the Court "struck down the statute", I can only assume the statute in question is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, since it's the only law in question here. Yet, the decision was in favor of keeping the Act. Huh? LordAmeth 00:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the article says that some of the lower courts "struck down the statute."  The Supreme Court said they were wrong.Ferrylodge 00:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see that now. I don't know how I missed that. Thanks. LordAmeth 09:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support or Opposition? 

message: Why the mention of "privacy" in the Decision section of the article? It sounds like somebody wants readers to believe that the justices ignored the issue of privacy when they shouldn't have. It sounds weasely. Srnec 02:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rephrased.  Hopefully, it sounds less weaselly now.  I think it's an important point that Justice Ginsburg is seeking to ground this right in equality rather than privacy, and that the Court didn't mention privacy at all.Ferrylodge 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is a significance to it, but I thought the wording was suggestive (and therefore POV or OR). It's improved now, though it still seems to kind of pop out of the blue (the mention of privacy). Srnec 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's still rather distracting to the flow of the article in the current place maybe simply state in the decision that because the court "assumed" Casey was binding, that none of the justices felt the need to go into the rationale behind it. Jon 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Privacy?

message: It's been mentioned a lot on NPR and other news sources the difference that the change from O'Connor to Alito has made on the outcome... Do you think this is relevant and how should it be included (and do you know of any good sources for it?). gren グレン 05:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is speculation, and wouldn't belong in the article. Jon 13:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was my speculation, no.  But, I was referring to news items I heard about the change of court membership.  It's definitely legitimate providing we cite it well.  I was just curious if anyone knew of good sources for it. I forgot who was talking about it on NPR. gren グレン 04:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps in another article, but definately not on the supreme court decisions. None of the others speculate (even sourced) on if supreme court makeup had been different at the time of the decision, and neither should this article. If someone places a news commentary on if O Conner had still been on the court, then someone else would find news commentary on how Cassey and a host of other 5-4 decisions would have turned out differently if Bork had been confirmed and cluter up all those decisions. Jon 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is relevant. I heard it on NPR as well, and of course they are a reputable source. If someone was to look up this article many years from now, they should know that the different court makeup (due to Bush) is a key factor in the court's decision to in essence go against the precedence set by Roe v. Wade. Unsuspected 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All this needs to be reliably sourced, but would offer this comment: There appear to have been three major consequences resulting from the center moving from O'Conner to Kennedy. First, O'Conner was a constraining influence on Kennedy and the end of this influence highlights Kennnedy somewhat more to the right than first appeared. Kennedy had agreed to use the same (somewhat vague) language in Casey as O'Conner; it now appears they actually meant different things by phrases like "undue burden" etc., and the Court's opinions will from here on be based Kennedy's more conservative interpretation. Second, O'Conner, was also a constraining influence some of the Court's liberals, and now that she is gone the dissent appears to feel free to move to the left of where O'Conner was and support Ginsberg's new approach. Third, a new coalition, led by Kennedy appears to have formed: The Court's two new conservative Justices joined Kennedy rather than offering their own opinion. The result is that the let's-reverse-Roe vote had only two Justices, which turned out to be smaller than it has been for some time previously. --Shirahadasha 21:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jon.  Speculation on that subject would open up a can of worms.  If someone wants to simply mention that the make-up of the Court has changed since Carhart, that might be okay, but to include our own speculation --- or the speculation of others --- about the ramifications would not belong here.  The place for that kind of thing would be (if anywhere) at the biographical pages for George Bush, Samuel Alito, and/or Sandra Day O'Connor.Ferrylodge 21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Connor 

message: "The constitutional rationale of the Court's prior abortion cases (i.e. "due process") was not mentioned by any of the opinions." I've cut this sentence since it doesn't belong under the dissent section. I'm also not sure where (if any) place it belongs, this is just saying noone used this rationale; I'm sure there's a large list of rationales noone used. Jon 13:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The court in it's decision "assumed" that Casey is binding. This is probably why no one brought up this. In addition, "Due Process" in realtionship to abortion is all in the 14th Amendment, which appears to pertain only to the states and local govt. (Several abortion cases are listed on that article.) However, it's the 5th amendment that applies to the federal government and I didn't see any abortion related cases on that article at all.  Jon 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of place sentence 

message: Who is Thomas (and Scalia) chiding for bringing up the Commerence Clause in their concurrence? Thomas is specially mentioning that neither side raised the commerence clause and none of the lower courts did either. Jon 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CT is saying that he'd consider striking down the ban if it were challenged facially on commerce clause grounds, but here it was challenged on due process grounds. Plenty of analysis on the blogs on this point out there now. See, e.g., this post. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I thought he was chiding either Kennedy or Guinsberg for bringing up the issue. I didn't see in either of their opinions this, but thought I'd missed it. Jon 16:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commerence Clause 

message: All of the external links are decidedly "pro-choice".  I think for Wikipedia to remain as an impartial source of information on these types of debates there should be an equal amount of access to both sides of the issue.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carst (talk • contribs).
:Two of the three external links are against the PBA.Ferrylodge 07:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would sugest rather than deleting one of the "pro-choice" links to bring it into balance that a "pro-life" web site that is realevent to the article be found and added. Jon 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Is there room to note the debate surrounding the underlying perspectives?  Notably Kennedy's comment that "It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form." represents a paternalistic (this is descriptive, whether paternalism is justified is a separate debate) view of the state and women that underlies the whole decision.  This touched off a raw nerve for Ginsberg, a '70s liberal feminist for whom equality is defined in giving women the exact same rights and levels of protection as men.  Her dissent is interesting in this regard.   There are things at play here more than the literal legal analysis.  We could probably give room for this at a descriptive level in the main article.  The problem is that this case is so recently decided that sourcing comes from more informal sources like the feminist academics familiar with it all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.1.50 (talk • contribs).
:I think it's unwise and against WikiPolicy to venture beyond what RGB herself said in this respect. Doing otherwise would mean that we would have to make room for all amici curiae to offer their analyses and perspectives, too. I answer doubly negative if such a section must rely on "informal sources" -- see WP:RS. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, perhaps quoting Kennedy and Ginsberg verbatim as part of the sections on their arguments would be appropriate.  That his words are paternalistic is pretty self-evident, even if a full-on discussion of paternalism would be out of line.  Let them speak for themselves. Darkfrog24 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Kennedy's opinion is paternalistic in the sense that it continues to deprive women of the right to vote on the issue of second-trimester abortion.  Over 72% of women in the United States believe that second trimester abortion should be illegal.  Yet, Kennedy's opinion continues to force on women a right that the vast majority of women believe no woman should have.  My point here is that the paternalism argument goes both ways, and I would not like to see passages of these opinions selectively quoted in order to highlight only one side of the paternalism argument.Ferrylodge 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminist Perspective 

message: Good job on the general reporting and summary, my fellow wikipedians! Gautam  19:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well Done, Friends 

message: The summary chart says that the 5th Amendment was applied to this case, but there's still no quote of any of 5th amendment jusrisprudence anywhere in the opinion section. Jon 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eighth Circuit explained that it was striking down the PBA Ban based on the Fifth Amendment: "One amicus suggests Stenberg does not control because that case was decided under the Fourteenth Amendment, which, of course, does not apply to the federal government. While Stenberg was indeed a Fourteenth Amendment case, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is textually identical to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and both proscribe virtually identical governmental conduct."  SCOTUS didn't mention this explicitly, but of course they overturned the Eighth Circuit decision, meaning that SCOTUS did not think the PBA Ban conflicted with the Fifth Amendment.  I'll add something about this in the article.Ferrylodge 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote related to the 5th Amendment Jurisprudence needed

message: Does this really belong here (even sourced)? All we know here is she's a blogger / reporter and this quote appears to be more commentary instead factual statements. Jon 13:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the source is a blog  (SCOTUSBlog), which as I recall is not an acceptable source for an article, so I'm deleting that portion. Jon 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyle Denniston's commentary 

message: Apparently the decision only banned the procedure when the baby is pulled out past the navel. Is the article accurate, then, in stating that it upholds the PBA Ban Act? Tim Long 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is because the PBA banned those proceedures that perform an intact extraction beyond the navel.  The PBA did not ban partial extraction.  The navel was a reference point to determine when an extraction could become a partial birth.  It may be worth mentioning if this description is common and expected. Legis Nuntius 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "To the navel"

message: Given that the pivotal element in this case seems to have been the health issue, shouldn't there be something in the article that explains Congress's medical standing in their "findings that this intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman?"  Did Congress decide this by asking their medically qualified members, or did they take as authoritative the judgment(s) of one or more professional medical organizations?  Is the medical profession in general agreement with Congress's findings, or is it controversial among doctors as to whether D&E may sometimes protect the mother's health?  And how genuine is the "controversy"---are both sides strongly represented in professional journals or is it more in the nature of the fabricated evolution-vs-creation "controversy?"  The article seems very incomplete in this regard given the centrality of this issue in the decision.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Health

message: The text of the opinion (reference #2) explicitly states: 
 Although we review congressional factfinding under a deferential standard, we do not in the circumstances here place dispositive weight on Congress' findings. The Court retains an independent constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake.... As respondents have noted, and the District Courts recognized, some recitations in the Act are factually incorrect. See Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 482, 488-491. Whether or not accurate at the time, some of the important findings have been superseded. Two examples suffice. Congress determined no medical schools provide instruction on the prohibited procedure. Congressional Findings (14)(B), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769. The testimony in the District Courts, however, demonstrated intact D&E is taught at medical schools. Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 490; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1029. Congress also found there existed a medical consensus that the prohibited procedure is never medically necessary. Congressional Findings (1), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 767. The evidence presented in the District Courts contradicts that conclusion. See, e.g., Carhart, supra, at 1012-1015; Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 488-489; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 1025-1026. Uncritical deference to Congress' factual findings in these cases is inappropriate.
I've therefore reworded the sentence in the lead implying that the court deferred to Congress in its false medical assertions. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   "Deferred to Congress's findings..." 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gonzales v. Carhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081129195414/http://www.nrlc.org//abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm to http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It looked like the opinion of the court was split 4-2-3 (I'm not sure if the format is correct; I mean 4 majority, 2 concurring, 3 dissenting) from the official document, but I've seen some sources describe it as 5-4. I'm no expert; either way, should we add the summarized decision "split 4-2-3" to the introduction like here? (Edit: Forgot to sign this) IDontHaveAnAccountYet (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Opinion Summary 

message: Who put that as the cover, and how can it be removed? No idea who put it there or why it is there, but can someone remove it? DocZach (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the cover photo of this article a "trans flag?"