Effects of the storage conditions on the stability of natural and synthetic cannabis in biological matrices for forensic toxicology analysis: An update from the literature

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Abortion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ferrylodge removed the mention of Casey from the intro a month and a half ago. I have restored it with a slight changing of words. I read the opinion again and the idea that "the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution" is being violated comes from Casey, as clearly indicated in multiple places in the text.

• The Constitution offers basic protection to a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833.
• Held: Nebraska’s statute criminalizing the performance of “partial birth abortion[s]” violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe. Pp. 3—27.
• The Nebraska statute lacks the requisite exception “for the preservation of the … health of the mother.” Casey, supra, at 879 (joint opinion). The State may promote but not endanger a woman’s health when it regulates the methods of abortion. Pp. 11—19.
• The Nebraska statute imposes an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to choose an abortion. See Casey, supra, at 874 (joint opinion). Pp. 20—27.

So I disagree that Casey should not be in the first paragraph. Casey did not involve so-called "partial birth abortion" any more than Roe v. Wade involved them. because the opinion is citing Casey as precedent for their decision. As the text makes clear, the two cases are related.-Andrew c 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Casey case is now explicitly mentioned and linked four times in this article, including in the introduction. In contrast, Roe v. Wade is linked zero times. This gives undue weight to Casey.Ferrylodge 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roe appears 2 times in the text of Carhart, while Casey appears 6 times. If we include the dissents, then its 136 uses of "Casey" vs. 38 uses of "Roe". How is that undue weight? Case is mentioned more in the decisions, so it is not undue weight to mention Casey more in an article about the decisions. However, I have made a change in the intro to mention both cases. I believe it is important to mention these precedent in the intro. On top of that, its ok to have a little redundancy in the lead because it is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. Hopefully my change is a good compromise.-Andrew c 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's okay. Now that you've buttered me up at my talk page, I'll go along with anything.  :-) Seriously, though, I'm not sure that the full case cites are needed for Casey and Roe. It kind of clutters up the text. Sure, the full cite is okay at the beginning for Stenberg, but when other cases are mentioned the full cite is not needed, I don't think. My usual practice is to do a footnote when another case is mentioned for the first time, and the footnote would include the full cite. But it's up to you.Ferrylodge 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the second paragraph states that the statute banned abortions in which the physician "partially evacuates fetal material through the cervix into the birth canal before curettage." That is not how the statute read.

The text of the Nebraska statute banned "partial-birth abortion", which it defined as an abortion in which the physician "partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completely the delivery." This text can be found in the opinion.

It further defined the aformentioned phrase to mean "deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child and does kill the unborn child."

I understand that the term "unborn child" has a bit of a semantic load in the abortion debate, but I think this article should state exactly how the statute read, especially because it was never ruled upon by state courts in Nebraska.

I am new to editing Wikipedia, so I will wait to see if someone responds before I attempt to edit the article. Maybe there's a good reason for it being the way it is.

I have other problems with the article too, but I will start with this. Leave a post if you disagree with me that the sentence should be changed to the text of the statute.

Happy editing,

Green Alligator Greenalligator (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Heller was Carhart's lawyer - he's not mentioned in this article, despite his important role in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.247.140.193 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nebraska statute as cited in the Supreme Court ruling reads as follows: " "No partial birth abortion shall be performed in this state, unless such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-328(1) (Supp. 1999)."( Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 921-22 (Supreme Court, 2000)). Isn't therefore the fact mentioned that the Nebraska statute had no regard for the health of the mother inaccurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.231.43 (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@84.205.231.43: Quoting from the case: Justice O'Connor: "There is no exception under this statute, as I read it, for exceptions for the health of the woman, is that correct?" Stenberg: "--That is correct, Your Honor..." — Loverthehater (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]