Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey

Summary

The United States Supreme Court reviewed provisions of Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act, including informed-consent, 24-hour waiting-period, parental-consent and judicial-bypass, spousal-notification, and reporting requirements. The Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade, held that pre-viability abortion regulations are unconstitutional when they impose an undue burden or substantial obstacle, and upheld the challenged provisions except the spousal-notification requirement.

Holdings

1. Roe v. Wade's essential holding is reaffirmed: before viability, a woman has a constitutionally protected liberty to choose to terminate her pregnancy, subject to permissible state regulation that does not impose an undue burden.
2. The liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause includes a woman's decision whether to terminate a pregnancy before viability.
3. The rigid trimester framework established by Roe is rejected as unnecessary and inconsistent with the State's legitimate interest in protecting potential life throughout pregnancy.
4. An undue burden exists when a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus; an undue burden is unconstitutional.
5. The spousal-notification requirement is unconstitutional because, for a significant fraction of the women to whom it applies, it operates as a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion and therefore imposes an undue burden.
6. The informed-consent disclosures and 24-hour waiting period do not impose an undue burden on the abortion right on the record before the Court and are constitutional.
7. The one-parent consent requirement and judicial-bypass procedure for unemancipated minors are constitutional.
8. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements are generally constitutional, but the provision requiring reporting of a married woman's reason for failing to notify her husband is unconstitutional because it imposes the same undue burden as the spousal-notification requirement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Roe v. Wade's essential holding should be overruled.
2. Whether the Due Process Clause protects a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability.
3. Whether the rigid trimester framework of Roe should be retained.
4. Whether the undue-burden standard governs previability abortion regulations.
5. Whether Pennsylvania's medical-emergency definition imposes an undue burden.
6. Whether Pennsylvania's informed-consent disclosures and 24-hour waiting period impose an undue burden.
7. Whether Pennsylvania's spousal-notification requirement imposes an undue burden.
8. Whether Pennsylvania's one-parent consent and judicial-bypass provisions for minors are constitutional.
9. Whether Pennsylvania's abortion reporting and recordkeeping requirements impose an undue burden.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded