Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is a pivotal Supreme Court case that emerged in the early 1990s, challenging various Pennsylvania laws regulating abortion. The case arose after Planned Parenthood contested a statute requiring spousal notification, parental consent for minors, a 24-hour waiting period, and mandatory information regarding adoption and health risks prior to an abortion. At the time, there were concerns that the conservative majority on the Court might overturn the established precedent set by Roe v. Wade, which recognized a woman's constitutional right to abortion. The Court's decision in Casey ultimately reaffirmed this right but altered the legal framework by introducing the "undue burden" standard, which evaluated whether state regulations imposed significant obstacles to a woman's choice. Despite its reaffirmation of Roe, the ruling was contentious and drew mixed reactions from both pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates. This case laid the groundwork for future legal battles over abortion rights, particularly as subsequent rulings, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, revisited the Court's stance on abortion and ultimately led to the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The ongoing debate around Casey reflects deep societal divisions regarding reproductive rights and individual liberties.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Date: June 29, 1992
Citation: 505 U.S. 833
Issue: Abortion
Significance: Although the Supreme Court reaffirmed a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus attains viability, it rejected the trimester framework and allowed states to enact abortion restrictions that did not place an “undue burden” on the woman’s right.
In the landmark case Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to privacy that includes a right to abortions. By the early 1990s, because of several appointments by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, the court increasingly approved of regulations that made it more difficult for women to obtain abortion services. The suit Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania brought against Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey challenged a statute that required spousal notification, the consent of one parent in the case of an unmarried minor, a twenty-four-hour waiting period before abortion procedures, and the obligation of providers to give patients information about adoptions and the health risks of abortions. In previous cases, the Supreme Court had struck down similar restrictions. Before the Casey decision was announced, many observers expected that a conservative majority might overturn the Roe precedent.
In Casey, the court was extremely fragmented. Five justices voted to reaffirm a woman’s right to an abortion during the early stages of pregnancy. Three of the five, however, emphasized stare decisis (precedent) rather than constitutional principle. Five justices voted to invalidate the spousal notification requirement, and seven justices voted to uphold the other statutory regulations. In addition, a joint opinion of the controlling plurality accepted two ideas that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had advocated for several years: the rejection of Roe’s trimester framework as unworkable and the recognition of an undue burden standard for evaluating whether regulations were acceptable. The opinion spoke of a woman’s “liberty” rather than her “privacy.” Two members of the court wanted to strike down all the Pennsylvania restrictions. Four of the justices entirely rejected the idea that the Constitution protects a right to abortions. The compromises in Casey’s controlling opinion did not please either pro-choice or anti-abortion organizations.
When a majority conservative court ultimately overturned Roe in a 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Casey was consequently also overturned. The majority opinion renewed the argument that the decisions in these prior cases had been incorrect, as the Constitution does not refer to abortion and therefore does not inherently protect the procedure as a right. While anti-abortion activists praised this outcome, many others publicly condemned it as a widely harmful stripping of a fundamental human right.
Bibliography
Borgmann, Caitlin E. “Abortion Exceptionalism And Undue Burden Preemption.” Washington & Lee Law Review 71.2 (2014): 1047–87. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
de Vogue, Ariane, et al. "Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade." CNN, 24 June 2022, www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/dobbs-mississippi-supreme-court-abortion-roe-wade/index.html. Accessed 7 July 2022.
Freeman, Emma. “Giving Casey Its Bite Back: The Role of Rational Basis Review in Undue Burden Analysis.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48.2 (2013): 279–323. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Gaylord, Scott W. “Casey and the First Amendment: Revisiting an Old Case to Resolve a New Compelled Speech Controversy.” South Carolina Law Review 66.4 (2015): 951–86. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Hill, B. Jessie. “Casey Meets The Crisis Pregnancy Centers.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43.1 (2015): 59–71. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Kozicz, Ada1. “Repealing Physician-Only Laws: Undoing the Burden of Gestational Age Limits.” Hofstra Law Review 42.4 (2014): 1263–98. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.