Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMangrum, Richard Collinen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-15T20:33:29Z
dc.date.available2013-02-15T20:33:29Z
dc.date.issued2001en_US
dc.identifier.citation34 Creighton L. Rev. 549 (2000-2001)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40369
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|No issue in the law has been more politicized the last few decades than abortion. Divergent perspectives on abortion fuel political campaigns from the presidential level on down. The abortion question, regardless of political rhetoric to the contrary, provides the first question, if not the litmus test, for Supreme Court nominees from both parties. Any comment by a legislative, judicial, or executive candidate or officer revealing a personal view on the abortion issue typecasts that candidate or officer forever as either pro abortion/pro choice or antiabortion/pro life. The label becomes part of that person's political identity. Whether others will support or criticize that officer or candidate often turns on the fundamental answer to the abortion question. Accordingly, whenever the Supreme Court enters the abortion fray, everyone listens. The Supreme Court's most recent abortion pronouncement in Stenberg v. Carhart, therefore, deserves our attention, if not devotion...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleStenberg v. Carhart: Poor Interpretivist Analysis, Unreliable Expert Testimony, and the Immportality of the Court's Invalidation of Partial-Birth Abortion Legislationen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume34en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note2000-2001en_US
dc.contributor.cuauthorMangrum, Richard Collinen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record