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).

• 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

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

idea of “undue burden” was established in the decision (Seward par. 4). The idea of “undue

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” line. In the decades following the Court’s decision in Casey, states have aggressively pushed back against abortion rights by passing a host of ever more restrictive statutes. With the new focus on women’s “right to know” as opposed to the fetus’s “right to life,” anti-abortion activists have found increased success in the battleground over abortion access. By holding that there must be some limit on what the state can

Abortion had been officially outlawed in the state of Texas since 1854. McCorvey and her co-plaintiffs argued that this ban violated rights given to them in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The attorneys hoped that the court would find merit under at least one of those areas when deciding their ruling.

According to RRA, the state Statute violates the U.S. Constitution on five separate ground, as follows:

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.

A 24-year-old woman was mysteriously found dead in her mother’s house in Battle Creek days after she had an abortion, and police are still trying to determine her cause of death.

Many of the decisions related to life can be postponed for some duration of time. A single decision that cannot wait for long is the hard decision regarding whether or not to carry on with the pregnancy. A decision like this requires an immediate action. Talking with someone is helpful or other professional counselors- in addition to one's boyfriend of a husband. Concisely, no individual has the right to make a judgment on one's reasons for having an abortion. Since the landmark ruling in 1973 US Supreme Court that legalized, premature birth, many laws - both federal and state laws- have either been suggested or passed (Wallis, 2005). This makes this issue to be the most contested and exceedingly plugged range in the field of solution. A large portion of these laws are ordered by court arrange and are in this manner not enforceable. They show a variety of dubious decisions, including procurements to build suitability before end, parental or spousal warning, mandatory holding up periods, mandatory wording for advising sessions, dissent of open subsidizing, disavowal of open stores for directing, focused on regulations particular to premature birth suppliers, and procurements against particular fetus removal procedures.

In today’s decision, this case was brought because Governor Mike Pence of Indiana signed House Bill 1337 making it illegal for women to seek an abortion on a discriminatory basis on the grounds of gender, race, or disability. Specifically, the law: Prohibited a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability. The day after Governor Pence signed the law, Planned Parenthood challenged the law in a Federal District Court claiming it was unconstitutional. The District Court agreed and issued an immediate

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.