your are such a troll db... that case stands for the fact the state does have an interest in protecting the unborn child.
but it really does nothing to explain the question you refuse to answer.
Do partial birth abortions kill human beings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart
Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court that the
respondents had failed to prove that Congress lacked authority to ban this abortion procedure. Chief Justice
John Roberts, Justice
Samuel Alito, Justice
Clarence Thomas, and Justice
Antonin Scalia agreed with the Court's judgment, joining Kennedy's opinion.
The Court left the door open for as-applied challenges, citing its recent precedent in
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England. According to
Washington Post reporter Benjamin Wittes, "The Court majority, following the path it sketched out last year in the New Hampshire case, decided to let the law stand as a facial matter and let the parties fight later about what, if any, applications need to be blocked."
[18]
The Court decided to "assume ... for the purposes of this opinion" the principles of
Roe v. Wade and
Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The Court said that the lower courts had repudiated a central premise of
Casey — that the state has an interest in preserving
fetal life — and the Court held that the ban fit that interest so as not to create an undue burden. The opinion did not rely deferentially on Congress's findings that this
intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman; in fact the Court found that "evidence presented in the District Courts contradicts that conclusion." However, Kennedy wrote that a health exception was unnecessary: where medical testimony disputes Congress's findings, Congress is still entitled to regulate in an area where the medical community has not reached a "consensus."
[2]
The majority opinion held that "ethical and moral concerns", including an interest in fetal life, represented "substantial" state interests, which (assuming they do not impose an "undue" burden) could be a basis for legislation at all times during pregnancy, not just after
viability. Thus, the Court clarified that the pre-viability/post-viability distinction was not implicated in
Carhart.
[2]
In addition, the Court distinguished this case from the
Stenberg case (in which the Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law) by holding that the state statute at issue in
Stenberg was more ambiguous than the later federal statute at issue in
Carhart.
[2]
Without discussing the constitutional rationale of the Court's prior abortion cases (i.e. "
due process"), the majority opinion stated it disagreed with the Eighth Circuit's determination that the federal statute conflicted with "the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, [which] is textually identical to the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment ".
[9]
Why am I not surprised that you don't know anything about any of this?
