Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion established in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade. The case centered on a challenge to the constitutionality of several provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, which imposed various restrictions on access to abortion.

Background

The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 included several provisions aimed at regulating abortion, such as:

A 24-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion;

• Informed consent, requiring the woman to be provided with information about the nature of the procedure, the risks involved, and the probable gestational age of the fetus;
• Parental consent for minors seeking abortions, with the option of a judicial bypass if the minor could not or did not want to obtain parental consent;
• Spousal notification, requiring married women to notify their spouses before obtaining an abortion, except in cases of spousal abuse or where notification would cause undue harm;
• Reporting requirements for facilities providing abortions.
• Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Robert P. Casey, then the Governor of Pennsylvania, claiming that the provisions of the Act violated the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade.

Supreme Court Decision

The case was argued before the Supreme Court, which issued a plurality opinion, with Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter jointly authoring the opinion. The Court reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade, stating that the constitutional right to abortion was grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that states could not ban abortions before the point of fetal viability.

However, the Court replaced Roe's strict scrutiny standard for evaluating abortion regulations with a new standard known as the "undue burden" test. Under this test, a state regulation is considered unconstitutional if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus reaches viability.

Applying the undue burden standard, the Court upheld most of the provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. The 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, parental consent with judicial bypass, and reporting requirements were all found to be constitutional. However, the Court struck down the spousal notification requirement, holding that it imposed an undue burden on women's right to obtain an abortion.

Impact

Planned Parenthood v. Casey significantly reshaped the legal framework for abortion rights in the United States. By introducing the undue burden standard, the Court allowed states more leeway to regulate abortion, as long as the regulations did not impose a substantial obstacle to access.

The decision led to a proliferation of state laws imposing various restrictions on abortion, such as waiting periods, mandatory counseling, and targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws. The undue burden standard has been the subject of much legal debate and has played a central role in subsequent Supreme Court cases addressing abortion rights, including Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

See also

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

• Need help finding a doctor or specialist anywhere in the world? WikiMD's DocFinder can help with millions of doctors!

This article is a stub. Help WikiMD grow by registering to expand it. Editing is available only to registered and verified users. About WikiMD: A comprehensive, free health & wellness encyclopedia.