Casey Abortion Case Study

The ruling of Roe v. Wade included three key ideas. The first key idea was that women had the right to choose to have an abortion during the stage of pregnancy when the fetus had little chance of survival outside the womb and that women were able to obtain an abortion within unreasonable interferences from the state. The second idea confirmed a state’s power to restrict abortions when a fetus could live outside the womb, except in the case when the mother’s life was at risk. The final key idea that was decided in the ruling was that the state has interests in both the health of the women and the life of the fetus (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).

1. The issue before the Supreme Court on the case of Roe v. Wade was on abortion. In august 1969 a single pregnant woman based in Texas wanted to get rid her pregnancy through an abortion. But her doctor denied the request on a reason that it was against the Texas law. Then Jane Roe identified by the media as Norma McCorvey sued her doctor for refusing to abort her baby she sought legal help and filed against henry wade, district attorney for Dallas County, Texas. Jane Roe argued that the law of Texas was unconstitutional. She later on requested an injunction to restrain Henry Wade. Roe’s lawyer claimed Texas abortion law violated her rights under due process clause of the 14th amendment.

In the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Casey fought against the state of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Abortion Control act. The restrictions required the woman to give a written informed consent, seek parental consent if she was a minor, and notify her husband if she married. With the same violation of the fourteenth amendment as the Roe v. Wade case, the courts saw favour to Casey. While the majority of the restrictions were supported by the courts, the requirement of the husband’s notification was not. The result of this case added support of the decision of Roe

• Spousal Notice – This provision did not hold up in court because the spousal notice was deemed unconstitutional in the case of Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) (Casebriefs, n.d., Pennsylvania General Assembly, 1982).

The holding of this case is that the Pennsylvania provisions are upheld, and a new standard was made. Roe was reaffirmed and states have to determine the validity of each law put in place to restrict any abortion.

In 1973, the Supreme Court made a decision in one of the most controversial cases in history, the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), in which abortion was legalized and state anti-abortion statues were struck down for being unconstitutional. This essay will provide a brief history and analysis of the issues of this case for both the woman’s rights and the states interest in the matter. Also, this essay will address the basis for the court ruling in Roe’s favor and the effects this decision has had on subsequent cases involving a woman’s right to choose abortion in the United States. The court’s decision created legal precedent for several subsequent abortion restriction cases and has led to the development of legislation to protect women’s health rights. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was a historic victory for women’s rights, it is still an extremely controversial subject today and continues to be challenged by various groups.

Casey was another case that the Supreme Court had debated on to decide the rights of states to limit an abortion. This was a case that was against the legislature of Pennsylvania called the Abortion Control Act which required informed consent and 24 hours of waiting period before an abortion. This Abortion Control Act also required minors who wanted to have an abortion to get their parents consent and married woman were require to notify their husband of an abortion plan. The ruling of the case was 5 to 4 in which the court allowed the restrictions provided by the act but also stopped the state from creating an undue burden strict rules that may stop the woman decision to an abortion. The case ruled in favor of the state that required woman who want an abortion to be inform of the procedure, receive consent from their husbands, and wait 24 hours. Also, if a minor want to get an abortion they need to obtain parental consent, without violating the right to abortion as guaranteed by Roe vs. Wade. As Justice O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter

and informed process before committing to the act of abortion. This case challenged four provisions enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature, believing these provisions restricted fundamental rights to women obtaining an abortion as established in Roe v. Wade. The provisions included spousal notification, information disclosure, Wade (Seward par. 4). Not only were the provisions upheld, but the idea of “undue burden” was established in the decision (Seward par. 4). The idea of “undue

Whether a woman decides to terminate or continue her pregnancy is her decision. Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter state, “Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principle of morality, but that cannot control our decision” (“Planned Parenthood v. Casey” Cornell 6). In other words, one’s morality should not contribute towards the issues concerning abortion but through the law. In this case, not restricting women from making their own personal decisions over reproduction as protected by the ruling in Roe. Often many individuals let their morality or religious beliefs intervene with a decision that will affect many. Including, Justice Blackmun stating, “By restricting the right to [abortions], the State conscripts women's bodies into its service, forcing women to continue their pregnancies…” (“Planned Parenthood v Casey” Cornell 25). Significantly, States making an abortion difficult to obtain is basically forcing women to continue their pregnancy. By restricting abortions, the undesired child has an opportunity in going to the foster care system where many await to be adopted or mistreated by their guardian. Therefore, stare decisis in Casey was correct because it will stop women from having an unwanted

REASON The court held that it is the primary responsibility of the pregnant women’s physician to determine the termination of pregnancy during the first trimester. During the second trimester, the State is allowed to intervene in the termination of an unborn fetus with legitimate interest in the pregnant women’s health. The State would intervene by regulating the procedures surrounding the women’s health. In the third trimester, the State may regulate the procedures surrounding the women’s health and even prohibiting the abortion altogether, keeping the pregnant women’s health a top priority. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the lawsuit regarding pregnancy, is an exception to the general rule that a difference must occur during each stage of the judicial review, and not only when the action is proposed. The Does complaint searching for injunctive relief was solely based on the contingencies which might or might not have occurred. It was irrelevant for the Court to decide Dr. Hallford’s case for injunctive relief, because once the Supreme Court found the laws unconstitutional, the Texas Government were not allowed to enforce them. The dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist was that the right to an abortion is not widely accepted by everyone, and that the right to privacy on the matter of abortion is not constitutionally involved in this case. In addition, Justice White made his dissenting opinion based on the constitutional foundations surrounding Jane Roe and the Does, stating: "In every other case, there was something in the Constitution you could point to for support. There, nothing.” Justice White would later conclude that he would return the issue back

In Casey, the plurality opinion began with the pronouncement, “[l]iberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” Ironically, the ensuing holding failed to create a clear standard for abortion laws, thereby guaranteeing decades of continued doubt about how severely states may regulate before they cross the “undue burden”

The district court held that the Texas abortion laws violated the right to privacy implied under the Ninth Amendment and extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause.

There are several things to learn about this particular aspect of the legal system, however, the one that stuck out the most is the understanding of words when it comes to certain laws. The meaning of words in a written law and how people interpret or understand them is extremely important, especially when dealing with such a controversial case. For example, Roe has two vital rulings that are based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that “no state shall deprive any ‘person’ of ‘liberty’” (pg. 7). The Justices, who decided this case, interpreted the terms “liberty” and “unborn” in certain ways that favored their ruling in Roe v. Wade. According to Forsythe, the Justices first “interpreted ‘liberty’ to include a ‘right to privacy’ and held that abortion is part of that right to

What a horrible feeling it is to walk around each and everyday knowing that out there, somewhere, a murderer in a white lab coat at Planned Parenthood is ripping a clump of cells, incapable of consent, from a woman's uterus that could be the perfect child for another family. Due to abortion rates being at an all time high, the number of adoptable children is at low. Some 1.06 million abortions take place each year. That is 1.06 million children that could be given to a deserving family, but I have thought of the perfect solution that will successfully decrease the number abortions: fetal auctions.

This case study involves Ann Jones, who was diagnosed 5 years ago as a chronic paranoid schizophrenic. She currently spends most of her time institutionalized as she has shown to be incapable of living independently. Recently, Ann was found to be pregnant and it is unclear how she became pregnant. Ann wants to keep the baby, but Ann's psychiatrist declares she is incompetent to raise a child. The physical and mental conditions of the baby are at risk due to some medications Ann took prior that increase the probability of birth defects. The pregnancy period is also a concern for Ann's mother, who believes the regular check-ups, as well as the labor and delivery process, will make Ann's condition worse.