planned parenthood v. casey
Case name: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey, et al.
Year decided: 1992
Result: 5-4, in favor of Planned Parenthood
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Due Process Clause; Ninth Amendment (right to privacy, abortion)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court's ruling upheld Roe v. Wade as well as the provisions imposed by Pennsylvania. The Court developed a new standard to evaluate laws regarding abortions and the restriction of abortions. The standard tests whether or not the state regulation imposes an "undue burden," or a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." The husband notification requirement was the only state regulation that failed to pass the undue-burden test.
Quote from majority opinion: "Numerous forms of state regulation might have the incidental effect of increasing the cost or decreasing the availability of medical care, whether for abortion or any other medical procedure. The fact that a law which serves a valid purpose, one not designed to strike at the right itself, has the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it. Only where state regulation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to make this decision does the power of the State reach into the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause."
Summary of the dissent: The dissent disagreed with the majority's ruling to uphold Roe v. Wade and strike down the spousal notification law on the grounds that Roe v. Wade was erroneously decided.
Six-word summary: Regulations that impose "undue burden" unconstitutional.
Year decided: 1992
Result: 5-4, in favor of Planned Parenthood
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Due Process Clause; Ninth Amendment (right to privacy, abortion)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court's ruling upheld Roe v. Wade as well as the provisions imposed by Pennsylvania. The Court developed a new standard to evaluate laws regarding abortions and the restriction of abortions. The standard tests whether or not the state regulation imposes an "undue burden," or a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." The husband notification requirement was the only state regulation that failed to pass the undue-burden test.
Quote from majority opinion: "Numerous forms of state regulation might have the incidental effect of increasing the cost or decreasing the availability of medical care, whether for abortion or any other medical procedure. The fact that a law which serves a valid purpose, one not designed to strike at the right itself, has the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it. Only where state regulation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to make this decision does the power of the State reach into the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause."
Summary of the dissent: The dissent disagreed with the majority's ruling to uphold Roe v. Wade and strike down the spousal notification law on the grounds that Roe v. Wade was erroneously decided.
Six-word summary: Regulations that impose "undue burden" unconstitutional.