Case Brief Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Abortion Restriction)

[FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (PRIVACY + ABORTION) - DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT] PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CASEY - UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT - 505 U.S. 833 (1992) RULE OF LAW: A state abortion regulation placing an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion is invalid if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. 1) FACTS AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND - [material facts] Planned Parenthood (plaintiff) sued Casey (defendant), the Governor of Pennsylvania, in federal district court for the purpose of challenging five restrictions on abortion under Pennsylvania law. Most significantly, the Pennsylvania statute required informed consent and a 24-hour waiting period for all women prior to undergoing the procedure. All minors seeking an abortion were required to obtain the informed consent of at least one parent, while a married woman had to show that she notified her husband of her intent to abort the fetus. [procedural history] The district court issued judgment for Planned Parenthood, but the court of appeals upheld all Pennsylvania provisions except the requirement of spousal notification. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. 2) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a state restriction on abortion that requires informed consent and a 24-hour waiting period is unconstitutional. 3) HOLDING (O’CONNOR) No. The holding of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is reaffirmed, but only with respect to the viability test. Trimester framework is overruled. In Roe the Court held: (1) a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the state; (2) a state may restrict abortions after fetal viability as long as it passes a law that exempts pregnancies that endanger the woman’s life or health; and (3) a state has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus. 4) RATIONALE (i) PRECEDENT Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is reaffirmed and governs the case. WOWEN’S RIGHT TO ABORT A NON-VIABLE FETUS SHALL NOT BE INTEREFERED. STATES CAN RESTRICT ABORTION AFTER VIABILITY, ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF PROTECTING WOMAN’S LIFE OR HEALTH. Precedent holdings should be overturned only if changing circumstances render the established rules unworkable. Although medical advances have moved the moment of viability for a fetus to an earlier date, the central holding of Roe remains relevant. (ii) EXAMINATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT – FRAMEWORK TRIMESTER RULE IS OVERRULED PENNSYLVANIA ABORTION CONTROL ACT (restrictions to abortion providers and women seeking abortion): - Women must give informed consent to abortion. - Women must receive state-published information on abortion procedure at least 24 hours before the abortion. - For minors, a parent must give informed consent. - Married women must sign a statement in which they assess they notified the husband [discussed]. - Abortion providers must keep records and report information. It is improper to completely prohibit a state from regulating abortion before the end of the first trimester. Before the first trimester ends, a state can constitutionally issue reasonable regulations for abortion to help ensure that women are properly informed about their decision to abort. ONLY THE SPOUSE NOTIFICATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (iii) UNDUE BURDEN THEORY (“trimester framework test” is no longer valid) [O’CONNOR + KENNEDY + SOUTER] CRISTICS TO THE TRIMESTER FRAMWORK: Instead of adhering to the trimester framework for judging the constitutionality of the regulations, a new undue burden test is hereby created for determining whether a regulation impermissibly interferes with a woman’s right to an abortion. [ABORTION RESTRICTION + BEFORE VIABILITY + SUBSTANTIAL OBSTACLE] An undue burden exists if its purpose or effect is to place a (i) substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion (ii) before the fetus attains viability. 5) CONCURRENCE / DISSENTING OPINIONS: A) STEVENS: [ROE shall be applied entirely – also trimester framework] The doctrine of stare decisis applies in this case. The plurality’s holding in Roe has been successfully applied for two decades and is a part of the national framework and dialogue on the issue of abortion. States have a right to regulate abortion after viability, but the plurality is incorrect to overrule the trimester framework established in Roe. Both the states’ interest in protecting the life of the unborn fetus, as well as a woman’s interest in having a right to an abortion can be served without overruling the trimester framework. B) BLACKMUN: State restrictions on abortion violate a woman’s right to privacy by (1) requiring her to carry a fetus despite severe physical intrusion and risk of bodily harm and (2) depriving her of the right to make her own decision about reproduction and family planning. State restrictions on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy implicate constitutional guarantees of gender equality in that states can essentially force women to endure childbirth and embrace motherhood against their will. Strict scrutiny should be applied to state restrictions on abortion. The right to an abortion should be established as a fundamental right incapable of being overturned by future decisions or voter initiatives at the ballot box. C) REHNQUIST: The historical traditions of the American people do not justify holding the right to an abortion as a fundamental right protected by strict scrutiny review. Instead, a “rational relationship” test should be adopted as the sole criterion for determining the constitutionality of any state restrictions on abortion. D) SCALIA: [ABORTION IS NOT EVEN A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT] The permissibility of abortion and the limitations placed upon it should be resolved by citizens voting in the political process rather than by courts. The decision of whether to permit abortion is left to the states, as there is no federal right to an abortion in the Constitution. The Constitution is silent about such a right, and the longstanding traditions of American society permit abortion to be prohibited by states. 1