Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which established the right to an abortion prior to fetal viability, the plaintiffs in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey challenged various abortion-limiting restrictions in Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act. The Act restricted public funding to abortion clinics. It also required those seeking an abortion to obtain informed consent, notify their husbands if married, wait 24 hours before proceeding with the procedure, and obtain parental consent if underage. In response, the Supreme Court created a new test that asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden,” which the Court defined as a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” This new standard of review abandoned the strict scrutiny trimester framework that was established in Roe. The Court reaffirmed the primary holding in Roe (the constitutional right to choose abortion before viability), the Court also upheld nearly all of the restrictions in Pennsylvania’s state abortion law, including parental notification/consent requirements for minors and limitations on public funding of abortions. The Court did find that the statute’s "husband" notification requirement was unlawful.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned both Roe and Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, holding that there is no fundamental right to an abortion. The case considered a Mississippi law (Gestational Age Act) prohibiting abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. Under the precedent set by Roe and Casey, this law was plainly unconstitutional because viability was believed to be the 23rd or 24th week of pregnancy. In a 6-3 decision, the Court overruled Roe and Casey, using originalist arguments to find that the U.S. Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no right is protected by any Constitutional provision, including the due process clause upon which the Roe and Casey decisions relied. The “undue burden” standard established in Casey is no longer valid law. The stare decisis framework established in Casey was also altered in the Dobbs, shifting the analysis to a more reliance-based framework. Thus, the Dobbs decision also effectively overturned the precedent about precedent, as established in Casey.

Topics

Geographical location

Keywords

Year

  • 1992

External URL

Court

Type

Jurisdiction