Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 22 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Stenberg v. Carhart.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stenberg v. Carhart Anchor | green | “since the law requires a health exception in order to validate even a postviability abortion regulation, it at a minimum requires the same in respect to previability regulation.” | 7 |
| 2 | Planned Parenthood of Northern New England v. Heed | green | “the court has indicated that an exception must be provided when the restriction would place a woman's health at risk.” | 4 |
| 3 | Richmond Medical Center For Women v. Hicks | green | “even if we assumed without deciding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the commonwealth's opinion evidence, the consideration of that evidence would not change our result.” | 4 |
| 4 | Richmond Medical Center For Women v. Hicks | green | “reproduced in every subsequent challenge to a partial birth abortion statute lacking a health exception.” | 4 |
| 5 | Guste v. Jackson | green | “insofar as it bars enforcement of the 'informed consent' requirements” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.