"Under the Court's logic, other available procedures might be deemed safe - even safer than natural childbirth - but if there
is a marginally safer alternative in the opinion of some credible professionals, the state must make it available, no matter
how morally repugnant society deems that method. This fundamental flaw - holding that the denial of a marginal health benefit constitutes the imposition of a significant health risk - permeates the Stenberg decision ..."
- National Abortion Fed'n v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 278, 291
(2d Cir. 2006), concurring opinion

"Whatever one's views on the various issues surrounding abortion, ending the life of an infant at the moment of its birth is a uniquely disturbing act. ... I am at a loss to explain how a partially born child can be excluded from the American embrace. ... Whether a health exception to a partial birth abortion ban is a necessity or a loophole -- and the proper scope of such exceptions -- strike me as altogether fair and debatable questions, but again, I believe the political process deserves some leeway in arriving at the answers."
- Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Hicks, 422 F.3d 160, 161-2 (4th Cir. 2005) (concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc)

"I think this is just too close to infanticide.
A child has been born and it has exited the uterus,
and what on Earth is this procedure?"
- Quoted in Congressional Record, Sept. 26, 1996, at S11373

"As noted by a federal appellate court: "In the eight years before the Court's decision in Stenberg, at least thirty states passed laws banning partial-birth abortions." And in the year when Congress passed the federal partial-birth abortion ban, Gallup noted that "70% of U.S. adults are in favor of the ban and only 25%
are opposed.
- Carhart v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir. 2005); L. Saad, "Gallup Poll Analyses: Abortion Views Hold Steady Over Past Year," June 2, 2003

"When I have explained the extreme permissiveness of American abortion law to people, one of the most common reactions is: 'That can't be right.' I've found that most people -- including many law professors -- have a great deal of difficulty wrapping their minds around the idea that the Court would permit the intentional destruction of a healthy infant who was capable of living outside his or her mother's body, when the mother's health (in the ordinary meaning of that word) is not in serious danger."
- "The Women of Roe v. Wade," First Things, June/July 2003, 19-23 at 20