Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-19. ("The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as 'intact D&E', 'dilation and extraction' (D&X), and 'intact D&X' ... For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E. ... A straightforward reading of the Act's text demonstrates its purpose and the scope of its provisions: It regulates and proscribes, with exceptions or qualifications to be discussed, performing the intact D&E procedure.")
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), in which the Court stated: "In sum, using this law some present prosecutors and future Attorneys General may choose to pursue physicians who use D&E procedures, the most commonly used method for performing previability second trimester abortions."
See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), in which Justice Ginsburg stated in concurrence: "As the Court observes, this law does not save any fetus from destruction, for it targets only 'a method of performing abortion'."
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ____ (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-30. ("If the intact D&E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.")
Gonzales v. Carhart, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (July 8, 2005)
Maureen L. Rurka, "The vagueness of partial-birth abortion bans: deconstruction or destruction?." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 89.4 (1999): 1233-1268. Online
