According to the SCOTUS in Gonzales v Carhart (with which you are no doubt familiar), if it does not meet the requirements of the Partial Birth Abortion Act (with which you are also no doubt familiar), then yes. Although if Doh! is against it, that's reason enough to be for it
Unless you wish to pull the case and give a us a link I seriously doubt that case addresses whether a partial birth abortion kills a human being. I suspect it just discusses whether the killing is legally excused or not. Essentially you gave us an illogical half answer.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge Friday threw out new Texas abortion restrictions that would have effectively closed more than a dozen clinics statewide in a victory for opponents of tough new anti-abortion laws sweeping across the U.S. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel sided with clinics that sued over one of the most disputed measures of a sweeping anti-abortion bill signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry in 2013. The ruling stops new clinic requirements that would have left seven abortion facilities in Texas come Monday, when the law was set to take effect. Texas currently has 19 abortion providers — already down from more than 40 just two years ago, according to groups that sued the state for the second time over the law known as HB2. "The overall effect of the provisions is to create an impermissible obstacle as applied to all women seeking a previability abortion," Yeakel wrote in his 21-page ruling. The ruling blocks a portion of the that law would have required abortion facilities in Texas to meet hospital-level operating standards, which supporters say will protect women's health. But Yeakel concluded the intent was only to "close existing licensed abortion clinics." Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who is the favorite to become governor next year, vowed to seek an immediate appeal to try to preserve the new clinic rules. Clinics called the measures a backdoor effort to outlaw abortions, which has been a constitutional right since the Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. Under the new restrictions, the only remaining abortion facilities in Texas would have been in major cities, and there would have been none in the entire western half of the nation's second-largest state. For women in El Paso, the closest abortion provider would be in New Mexico — an option the state wanted Yeakel to take into consideration, even though New Mexico's rules for abortion clinics are far less rigorous. "It's an undue burden for women in Texas — and thankfully today the court agreed," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Woman's Health, which would have been among the clinic operators affected. "The evidence has been stacking up against the state and against the politicians who so cynically passed these laws in the name of safety." Miller said that she will now seek to re-open a clinic in the Rio Grande Valley — where there hasn't been an abortion provider for months — as soon as this weekend. The new Texas restrictions would have required clinics to have operating rooms, air filtration systems and other standards that are typically only mandated in surgical settings. Some clinics in Texas already stopped offering abortions after another part of the 2013 bill required doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. That part of the law has been upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans, where the state will now seek a second reversal. "The State disagrees with the court's ruling and will seek immediate relief from the Fifth Circuit, which has already upheld HB2 once," Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean said. Similar rules on admitting privileges have been blocked by federal courts in Mississippi, Kansas and Wisconsin. Attorneys for the state denied that women would be burdened by fewer abortion facilities, saying nearly 9 in 10 women in Texas would still live within 150 miles of a provider. Critics say that still leaves nearly a million Texas women embarking on drives longer than three hours to get an abortion. Opposition to the Texas law was so visible that Democrat Wendy Davis launched her campaign for governor behind the celebrity she achieved through a nearly 13-hour filibuster last summer that temporarily blocked the bill in the state Senate. Her opponent in November is Abbott. Paul J. Weber
your are such a troll db... that case stands for the fact the state does have an interest in protecting the unborn child. but it really does nothing to explain the question you refuse to answer. Do partial birth abortions kill human beings? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court that the respondents had failed to prove that Congress lacked authority to ban this abortion procedure. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the Court's judgment, joining Kennedy's opinion. The Court left the door open for as-applied challenges, citing its recent precedent in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England. According to Washington Post reporter Benjamin Wittes, "The Court majority, following the path it sketched out last year in the New Hampshire case, decided to let the law stand as a facial matter and let the parties fight later about what, if any, applications need to be blocked."[18] The Court decided to "assume ... for the purposes of this opinion" the principles of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court said that the lower courts had repudiated a central premise of Casey — that the state has an interest in preserving fetal life — and the Court held that the ban fit that interest so as not to create an undue burden. The opinion did not rely deferentially on Congress's findings that this intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman; in fact the Court found that "evidence presented in the District Courts contradicts that conclusion." However, Kennedy wrote that a health exception was unnecessary: where medical testimony disputes Congress's findings, Congress is still entitled to regulate in an area where the medical community has not reached a "consensus."[2] The majority opinion held that "ethical and moral concerns", including an interest in fetal life, represented "substantial" state interests, which (assuming they do not impose an "undue" burden) could be a basis for legislation at all times during pregnancy, not just after viability. Thus, the Court clarified that the pre-viability/post-viability distinction was not implicated in Carhart.[2] In addition, the Court distinguished this case from the Stenberg case (in which the Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law) by holding that the state statute at issue in Stenberg was more ambiguous than the later federal statute at issue in Carhart.[2] Without discussing the constitutional rationale of the Court's prior abortion cases (i.e. "due process"), the majority opinion stated it disagreed with the Eighth Circuit's determination that the federal statute conflicted with "the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, [which] is textually identical to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ".[9]
If by "it" you mean an abortion and it meets the requirements of the Act and of the SCOTUS, then, no, it would not be murder. It's not word games; it's the law.
when did I ask about murder... I asked if partial birth abortions killed human beings. Not if it were murder. you are either playing games or you are ignorant of the difference between murder and killing.