Planned Parenthood v. Casey(1992): Privacy, Abortion

t Five provisions of the PA Abortion Control Act required that a woman seeking an abortiongive her informed consent prior to the procedure, be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortionis performed, required informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an abortion, provided that women first notify their husband, and imposes certain reporting requirements on facilities providing abortion services. A three-Justice plurality (O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter) joined with STEVENS and BLACKMUN to preserve a central principle of Roe v. Wadeand strike down the provision for spousal notification.

n Majority: O’CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER: In a bitter, 5-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the PA provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortionregulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement.

n Dissent: REHNQUIST, WHITE, SCALIA, THOMAS: Abortion should be treated differently than other “privacy” cases. The right to terminate one’s pregnancy is not a historically “fundamental” right. The joint opinion does not follow precedent, it revises precedent. The states can permit abortion, but the constitution does not require them to do it (Scalia). “We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.” (Scalia)

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 757