Pennsylvania v casey. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 2022-11-08
Pennsylvania v casey Rating:
9,2/10
336
reviews
Pennsylvania v. Casey was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1992 that addressed the issue of abortion and the constitutional right to privacy. The case arose after the state of Pennsylvania passed a number of laws regulating abortion, including a requirement that women seeking abortions must receive counseling and wait 24 hours before the procedure.
The case was brought by a group of abortion clinics and physicians, who argued that the laws violated the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the right to abortion, but modified the standard for evaluating abortion regulations.
In the majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court established a new standard known as the "undue burden" test. Under this standard, a law that imposes an "undue burden" on a woman's right to obtain an abortion is unconstitutional. An undue burden exists if the law has the effect of placing a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."
The Court also held that the 24-hour waiting period and the counseling requirement were constitutional, but struck down a provision requiring that minors obtain the consent of one parent before obtaining an abortion.
The decision in Pennsylvania v. Casey was significant because it reaffirmed the right to abortion established in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, while also providing greater guidance on how to evaluate abortion regulations. It remains a key case in the ongoing debate over abortion and reproductive rights.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY
No person undertakes such a decision lightly — and States may not presume that a woman has failed to reflect adequately merely because her conclusion differs from the State's preference. See post, at 944, 966. Population Services International afford constitutional protection. Another is that the inability to provide for the nurture and care of the infant is a cruelty to the child and an anguish to the parent. Many abused women who find temporary refuge in shelters return to their husbands, in large part because they have no other source of income. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives.
Because the informed consent requirement facilitates the wise exercise of that right, it cannot be classified as an interference with the right Roe protects. See Brief for Respondents 83-86. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right. It may delay, but does not prohibit, abortions; and both it and the informed consent provisions do not apply in medical emergencies. While there is much to be praised about our democracy, our country, since its founding, has recognized that there are certain fundamental liberties that are not to be left to the whims of an election. I cannot remain on this Court forever, and when I do step down, the confirmation process for my successor well may focus on the issue before us today. Rather, the States are granted substantial flexibility in establishing the framework within which voters choose the candidates for whom they wish to vote.
Baird, supra; Loving v. Thus, we have upheld regulations of abortion that are not efforts to sway or direct a woman's choice, but rather are efforts to enhance the deliberative quality of that decision or are neutral regulations on the health aspects of her decision. Roe is an integral part of a correct understanding of both the concept of liberty and the basic equality of men and women. Strict scrutiny of state limitations on reproductive choice still offers the most secure protection of the woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions, free from state coercion. Society of Sisters, Meyer v.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey :: 510 U.S. 1309 (1994) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
All the Justices concur, except Warren, J. The Court's decision in Hodgson v. In light of the construction given the statute's definition of medical emergency by the Court of Appeals, and the District Court's findings, we cannot say that the waiting period imposes a real health risk. The unfortunate yet persisting conditions we document above will mean that in a large fraction of the cases in which § 3209 is relevant, it will operate as a substantial obstacle to a woman's choice to undergo an abortion. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. For years after the Casey decision, the case was widely believed to be the most important abortion decision since Roe. Virginia, supra; Griswold v.
New Jersey, 429 U. Rather, the right protected by Roe is a right to decide to terminate a pregnancy free of undue interference by the State. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joined by Justice WHITE, Justice SCALIA, and Justice THOMAS, concluded that: 1. We disagree with that analysis; but we acknowledge that our decisions after Roe cast doubt upon the meaning and reach of its holding. In the case of a pregnancy that is the result of incest, where " b Unavailability of parent or guardian.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
But even when justification is furnished by apposite legal principle, something more is required. California, 'per legem terrae' and considered as procedural safeguards 'against executive usurpation and tyranny,' have in this country 'become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation. Reproductive Health Services, in loco parentis, for the fetus is not a person. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. No majority of this Court has ever agreed upon an alternative approach. While the State has an interest in encouraging parental involvement in the minor's abortion decision, § 3206 is not narrowly drawn to serve that interest. As indicated above, there is no legitimate reason to require a woman who has agonized over her decision to leave the clinic or hospital and return again another day.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
Virginia, Thornburgh, 476 U. I am 83 years old. Those sections, which require the physician to inform a woman of the nature and risks of the abortion procedure and the medical risks of carrying to term, are neutral requirements comparable to those imposed in other medical procedures. While neither respondents nor their amici in so many words deny that the abortion right invites some reliance prior to its actual exercise, one can readily imagine an argument stressing the dissimilarity of this case to one involving property or contract. . Some of those efforts may be mere unprincipled emotional reactions; others may proceed from principles worthy of profound respect. Because we set forth a standard of general application to which we intend to adhere, it is important to clarify what is meant by an undue burden.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833
It was this dimension of personal liberty that Roe sought to protect, and its holding invoked the reasoning and the tradition of the precedents we have discussed, granting protection to substantive liberties of the person. If neither a parent nor a guardian provides consent, a court may authorize the performance of an abortion upon a determination that the young woman is mature and capable of giving informed consent and has in fact given her informed consent, or that an abortion would be in her best interests. Applying this standard, the Court of Appeals upheld all of the challenged regulations except the one In arguing that this Court should invalidate each of the provisions at issue, petitioners insist that we reaffirm our decision in Roe v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U. If Roe is placed among the cases exemplified by Griswold, supra, it is clearly in no jeopardy, since subsequent constitutional developments have neither disturbed, nor do they threaten to diminish, the liberty recognized in such cases.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 1992
So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Although we must overrule those parts of Thornburgh and Akron I which, in our view, are inconsistent with Roe's statement that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn, see infra, at 40-41, the central premise of those cases represents an unbroken commitment by this Court to the essential holding of Roe. Society of Sisters, 268 U. If a fetus is not part of the constitutional population under the national constitutional arrangement, then states have no power to overrule that national arrangement by themselves declaring that fetuses have rights competitive with the constitutional rights of pregnant women. In our view, the undue burden standard is the appropriate means of reconciling the State's interest with the woman's constitutionally protected liberty. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ. Similarly, if Roe is seen as stating a rule of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, akin to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its rejection, this Court's post-Roe decisions accord with Roe's view that a State's interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims.
