so-called “partial birth abortion” unconstitutional under undue burden standard). Despite the Supreme Court’s clear application of the undue burden standard in Casey and Stenberg, it has never explicitly addressed the standard’s tension with Salerno. In the instant case, while recognizing that this court has yet to address the issue, the district court followed the majority of circuits that apply the Casey and Stenberg standa .3d 1022, 1025-26 (9th Cir.1999) (noting inconsistency between Casey and Salerno, and following “great weight of circuit authority holding that Casey has overruled Salerno in the context of facial challenges to abortion statutes”), amended on denial of reh’g, 193 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.1999); Women’s Med. Prof. Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 193-96 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1036, 118 S.Ct. 1347,
holding that schlitz was overruled to that extent holding that the bankruptcy reform act effectively overruled wrenn holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi holding that casey effectively overruled salerno holding that lynch has been effectively overruled by subsequent cases