Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Supreme Court of the United States
April 22, 1992, Argued ; June 29, 1992, Decided
[*843] [***693] [**2803] JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, V-A, [*844] V-C, and VI, an opinion with respect to Part V-E, in which JUSTICE STEVENS joins, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV, V-B, and V-D.
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973), that definition of liberty is still [****24] questioned. Joining the respondents as amicus curiae, the United States, as it has done in five other cases in the last decade, again asks us to overrule Roe. See Brief for Respondents 104-117; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8.
At issue in these cases are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3203-3220 (1990). Relevant portions of the Act are set forth in the Appendix. Infra, 505 U.S. at 902. The Act requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the abortion procedure, and specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed. § 3205. For a minor to obtain an abortion, the Act requires the informed consent of one of her parents, but provides for a judicial bypass option if the minor does not wish to or cannot obtain a parent's consent. § 3206. Another provision of the Act requires that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband of her intended abortion. § 3209. The Act exempts compliance with these three requirements [****25] in the event of a "medical emergency," which is defined in § 3203 of the Act. See §§ 3203, 3205(a), 3206(a), 3209(c). In addition to the above provisions regulating the performance of abortions, the [***694] Act imposes certain reporting requirements on facilities that provide abortion services. §§ 3207(b), 3214(a), 3214(f).
[*845] Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners, who are five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services, brought this suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Each provision was challenged as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the regulations, and, after a 3-day bench trial, held all the provisions at issue here unconstitutional, entering a permanent injunction against Pennsylvania's enforcement of them. 744 F. Supp. 1323 (ED Pa. 1990). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the regulations except for the husband notification requirement. 947 F.2d 682 (1991). We granted certiorari. [****26] 502 U.S. 1056 (1992).Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
505 U.S. 833 *; 112 S. Ct. 2791 **; 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 ***; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 4751 ****; 60 U.S.L.W. 4795; 92 Daily Journal DAR 8982; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 663
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS 91-744 v. ROBERT P. CASEY, ET AL., ETC. ROBERT P. CASEY, ET AL., ETC., PETITIONERS 91-902 v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.
Subsequent History: [****1] As Amended July 2, 1992.
Prior History: ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
Disposition: 947 F. 2d 682: No. 91-902, affirmed; No. 91-744, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
abortion, woman, joint opinion, cases, pregnancy, undue burden, regulations, decisions, Reproductive, informed consent, viability, fetus, trimester, obstacle, overruling, invalidated, notify, stare decisis, spousal, childbirth, principles, terminate, medical emergency, husbands, Planned, waiting period, pregnant woman, provisions, legitimate interest, district court
Constitutional Law, Substantive Due Process, Privacy, General Overview, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Healthcare Law, Medical Treatment, Abortion, Right to Privacy, Scope, End-of-Life Decisions, Bill of Rights, Fundamental Rights, State Application, Criminal Law & Procedure, Domestic Offenses, Illegal Consensual Relations, Interracial Relations, Elements, Family Law, Marriage, Validity, Interracial Marriages, Search & Seizure, Civil Procedure, Special Proceedings, Eminent Domain Proceedings, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Free Press, Right to Bear Arms, Miscellaneous Offenses, Flag Desecration, Personal Decisions, Homicide, Manslaughter & Murder, Criminal Abortion, Reproductive Services, Reproductive Technology, Patient Consent, Informed Consent, Domestic Assault, Sexual Assault, Abuse of Adults, Case or Controversy, Constitutionality of Legislation, Minors, Incompetent, Mentally Disabled & Minors, Parental Notice, Nature of Marriage, Equal Protection, Parentage, Parental Duties & Rights, Consent, Abortion