Planned Parenthood v. Casey
505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may enact regulations to further its interest in potential life so long as they do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion pre-viability. An undue burden exists if a law's purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus, a standard which replaces the rigid trimester framework from Roe v. Wade.
Facts:
- Pennsylvania enacted the Abortion Control Act of 1982, with amendments in 1988 and 1989.
- The Act required that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent at least 24 hours prior to the procedure, after a physician provides her with state-mandated information.
- The Act required an unemancipated minor to obtain the informed consent of one parent, though it provided a judicial bypass procedure.
- The Act required a married woman to sign a statement affirming she had notified her husband of her intent to have an abortion. The law included exceptions for medical emergencies, if the husband could not be located, if the pregnancy resulted from spousal sexual assault, or if the woman believed she would be subject to bodily injury.
- The Act imposed specific reporting and record-keeping requirements on facilities that provide abortion services.
- The Act defined a "medical emergency" as a condition that, in a physician's good-faith judgment, necessitates an immediate abortion to avert the woman's death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
Procedural Posture:
- Five abortion clinics and a physician (Petitioners) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against state officials, including Governor Robert P. Casey (Respondents), seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction against the enforcement of five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act.
- After a bench trial, the District Court, a court of first instance, held all the challenged provisions unconstitutional and permanently enjoined their enforcement.
- The Respondents (Casey et al.) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the spousal notification requirement but reversed the District Court on the other provisions, upholding the informed consent, waiting period, parental consent, and reporting requirements.
- Both the Petitioners (Planned Parenthood et al.) and the Respondents (Casey et al.) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court, for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, which require informed consent, a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors, and spousal notification, impose an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Plurality - Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter
Partially Yes and Partially No. The spousal notification provision imposes an unconstitutional undue burden, while the informed consent, 24-hour waiting period, parental consent, and reporting requirements do not. The Court reaffirms the essential holding of Roe v. Wade: a woman has a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability without undue interference from the state. However, the Court rejects Roe's rigid trimester framework and replaces it with the undue burden standard. An undue burden is a law with the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion. The informed consent and 24-hour waiting period provisions are permissible because they are measures intended to ensure the choice is thoughtful and informed, and do not constitute a substantial obstacle. The parental consent requirement with a judicial bypass is also constitutional. The spousal notification requirement, however, is an undue burden because, for a significant number of women, particularly victims of domestic violence, it is likely to operate as a substantial obstacle by enabling a husband to exercise a de facto veto through control, abuse, or coercion.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
Partially Yes and Partially No. The spousal notification, 24-hour waiting period, and certain biased informational provisions are unconstitutional. While agreeing that Roe's central holding should be reaffirmed, this opinion argues that the 24-hour waiting period and the requirement to provide state-mandated materials designed to discourage abortion are also undue burdens. These provisions are not neutral health regulations but are designed to persuade a woman against abortion and rest on 'outmoded and unacceptable assumptions about the decisionmaking capacity of women.'
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Blackmun
Yes, all the challenged provisions are unconstitutional except for the medical emergency definition. This opinion concurs in reaffirming the core right to abortion and striking down the spousal notification rule, but dissents from upholding the other provisions. The Court should have applied strict scrutiny, as established in Roe, not the newly formulated and weaker 'undue burden' standard. Under strict scrutiny, the informed consent, waiting period, and parental consent provisions would be unconstitutional because they are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The undue burden test dangerously erodes the protections of Roe and leaves the right to abortion vulnerable.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, none of the challenged provisions are unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, has been a source of continuing confusion in the law, and should be overruled. The right to an abortion is not a 'fundamental right' protected by the Constitution. Therefore, state regulations of abortion should be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest. All of Pennsylvania's statutory provisions, including the spousal notification rule, rationally further legitimate state interests in protecting potential life, maternal health, and the integrity of the family. The 'undue burden' standard is an unworkable and novel standard created without constitutional basis.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Scalia
No, none of the challenged provisions are unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. The issue should be returned to the states and the democratic process. The Court's invention of an 'undue burden' test is an illegitimate act of judicial power that will only prolong the national political conflict over abortion rather than resolve it. Adhering to Roe to preserve the Court's 'legitimacy' is a contrived political calculation, not a legal principle.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark for modifying, rather than reversing, Roe v. Wade, thereby creating a significant shift in abortion jurisprudence. By replacing the trimester framework with the 'undue burden' standard, the Court gave states much more leeway to regulate abortion pre-viability. While the core right to choose was preserved, the shift from strict scrutiny to the less-demanding undue burden analysis opened the door for a new wave of state restrictions, such as mandatory waiting periods and specific informed consent scripts, that previously would have been unconstitutional. The case solidified a woman's right to choose an abortion before viability but simultaneously permitted regulations designed to persuade her against that choice, setting the stage for decades of subsequent litigation over what constitutes a 'substantial obstacle.'
