Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
-
What was Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey?
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey was a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case that concerned abortion rights established in Roe v. Wade (1973).
In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade, that women have a right to obtain an abortion before fetal viability. However, it replaced Roe's trimester-based framework with a more flexible medical definition of viability. The Court restated that the right to privacy that undergirds a woman's right to choose an abortion derives from the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
The Court also introduced the "undue burden" standard, invalidating laws with the purpose or effect of placing substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. Ultimately, the Court upheld all provisions of Pennsylvania's abortion statute except for spousal notification.
Both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Court in 2022.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Which main issue about laws did this case focus on?
The central legal issue in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey revolved around abortion rights and state regulations. The Supreme Court was reviewing Pennsylvania statutes that mandated informed consent, a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors, and spousal notification before an abortion could be performed.
The court affirmed a woman's right to an abortion before fetal viability, but replaced the trimester framework from Roe v. Wade with the "undue burden" standard. This meant a law was invalid if it placed substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. While most of Pennsylvania's provisions were upheld, the spousal notification requirement was struck down. The case led to many suits concerning the meaning of "undue burden".
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did this case relate to the right to abortion in the United States?
The Planned Parenthood v. Casey case of 1992 reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion but replaced Roe v. Wade's trimester framework with a less restrictive standard, allowing states to regulate abortions more freely.
The Supreme Court upheld all provisions of Pennsylvania's statutes except spousal notification, including informed consent, parental consent for minors (with judicial bypass), and a 24-hour waiting period. The Court introduced the "undue burden" standard, invalidating laws that create substantial obstacles to abortions before fetal viability.
In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What was the 'undue burden' standard introduced in this case?
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court introduced the "undue burden" standard to assess abortion-related laws Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey: Introduction. This standard deems a law invalid if its purpose is to create a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus reaches viability.
The court used this standard to examine Pennsylvaniaâs abortion statutes, which included informed consent, parental consent for minors (with a judicial bypass option), spousal notification, and a 24-hour waiting period. While the court upheld all provisions except spousal notification, the "undue burden" standard became central in later abortion cases, like Whole Womanâs Health v. Hellerstedt. The Supreme Court has since overturned both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade in 2022.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did the Supreme Courtâs decision in Casey change or maintain the decision in Roe v. Wade?
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court affirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade that women have a right to abortion before fetal viability. However, it replaced Roe's trimester framework with a standard of undue burden, which says that a law is invalid if it places substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.
The Casey decision allowed states to implement waiting periods, require parental consent for minors (with a judicial bypass option), and mandate that clinics provide specific information to women seeking abortions. The Court upheld all Pennsylvania's statutes except for spousal notification, determining the others did not pose an undue burden.
Both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What lasting effects has this case had on abortion laws in the U.S.?
Planned Parenthood v. Casey redefined abortion rights established in Roe v. Wade by allowing states to impose certain regulations.
States could require informed consent, waiting periods, and parental consent for minors, provided these didn't create an "undue burden" on those seeking abortions. The Supreme Court upheld all provisions of the Pennsylvania statute except for spousal notification.
However, both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade were overturned in 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Womenâs Health Organization, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, legal case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, that redefined several provisions regarding abortion rights as established in Roe v. Wade (1973). Both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Court in 2022.
In 1988 and 1989 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, led by Governor Robert Casey, enacted new abortion statutes that required that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent, that a minor seeking an abortion obtain parental consent (the provision included a judicial waiver option), that a married woman notify her husband of her intended abortion, and, finally, that clinics provide certain information to a woman seeking an abortion and wait 24 hours before performing the abortion. Before any of these laws could take effect, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania brought suit against the governor, protesting the constitutionality of the statutes.
In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the âessential holdingâ (i.e., the basic principle) of Roe v. Wade, that women have a right to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability, but rejected Roeâs trimester-based framework for allowing states to curb the availability of abortion in favour of a more flexible medical definition of viability. The decision restated that the source of the privacy right that undergirds womenâs right to choose abortion derives from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, placing individual decisions about abortion, family planning, marriage, and education within âa realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.â The judgment also revised the test that courts use to scrutinize laws relating to abortion, moving to an âundue burdenâ standard: a law is invalid if its âpurpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.â Ultimately, the court upheld all the provisions of the Pennsylvania statute under attack except for the requirement of spousal notification.
Many suits brought after Planned Parenthood v. Casey centred on the meaning of âundue burden.â In Whole Womanâs Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Supreme Court invoked the undue burden standard to strike down two provisions of a Texas state law that had required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centres. Each of the two provisions, the court held, âplaces a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access,âŠand each violates the Federal Constitution.â
In May 2022 a draft of a majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Womenâs Health Organization, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., was leaked to a political news publication in an extraordinary breach of the traditional secrecy in which the Court conducts its deliberations. The opinion, dated February 2022, indicated that the Court had voted to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. As expected, Roe and Casey were overturned in the Courtâs official decision in Dobbs, issued in June 2022, in which Alito held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.