Casey's Argument Against Abortion

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).

"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential

In contemporary America it can be argued that nothing is more contentious and controversial of an issue than abortion. From the vehement pro-life movement to the impassioned pro-choice coalition, this policy issue is one that has become increasingly important in our society. This debate has raised important questions regarding the value of human life, at what stage of development does a fetus have it’s constitutionally ensured rights take hold over that of the mother and at what stage can a state start regulating abortions.

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

For many years abortion has been the topic of controversy among the political, social and religious spectrum. Each holds individuals with dichotomous views on the legality of abortion. In recent times, the topic of abortion has returned to the courts to challenge political and religious opposing views. In this case, Texas has attempted to combine their religious perspective of abortion into the political sphere by demanding laws restricting abortion practices in clinics. On the other hand, liberal women and women’s rights groups are demanding the unconstitutionality of these restrictions. Therefore the restriction of women’s reproductive rights in laws that are being implemented in Texas should be rejected because of its potential threat

• 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).

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833(1992), was case reaffirming the Roe v.Wade decision. It further challenged the constitutionally of several statues in the State of Pennsylvania

Planned parenthood V Casey: An abortion law required informed consent as well as a 24 hour waiting period prior to any abortion procedure in Pennsylvania. Any married woman had to state that her husband was in fact knowledgeable of this intention. Additionally, any minor seeking an abortion requires the consent of a parent. These laws were challenged by many clinics specializing in abortion, as well as many doctors. An appellate court upheld all of these stipulations with the exclusion of the married woman.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade ruled a state law that banned abortions, except in the cases of risking the life of the mother, unconstitutional (Garrow 833). The Court ruled that states were forbidden from regulating or outlawing abortion performed during the first trimester of a woman’s pregnancy, could pass abortion regulations if they were related to the health of the mother in the second and third trimesters, and pass abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus in the third trimester (Paltrow 18). However, the primary concern would remain to be the mother’s health, regardless. Roe v. Wade, controversial since it was decided, divided America and continues to spark debates,

Today many topics cause controversy and division. As we go about our daily lives, somewhere someone is debating an issue of importance. Many of these debated topics are the result of previous political and judicial decisions. The Planned Parenthood v. Casey case was major in history and today remains the center of many political debates. This case had an impact on women in the United States and continues to cause a divide to this very day. Many women felt like the government was trying to take their right of privacy and choice. This specific case caused anger and continues to draw many emotions throughout the world. Planned Parenthood v. Casey of 1992 was argued because the ruling of banning abortion in the Roe v. Wade case. Abortion is a controversial topic. Many view it is a personal issue; women should have the right to their own privacy pertaining to their health.

FACTS: in 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade, women were guaranteed, under a right to privacy in which the woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, however, this right was not confirmed to be absolute. Nearly 20 years later, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the “central holdings” of Roe v. Wade were reaffirmed, by providing limits in which federal and state governments can regulate abortion. Unfortunately, conflict arose between Casey and Roe, when trying to ensure the woman still has a right to choose, which lead to allowing a prohibition of late-term abortions, unless the health of the mother was at stake. Next, in 2000, the case of Stenberg v. Carhart forced the court to consider a Nebraska state law that was passed banning late-term abortions and whether the statute was unconstitutional, which it was found to be, because the statute did not include an exception for the health of the mother and that the language used was so broad that it burdened a woman’s right to choose. Then, in 2007, the case of Gonzales v. Carhart raised the issue once again on a federal law that had been passed, the Partial-Birth Ban Act of 2003. The lower courts claimed it to be unconstitutional because of the lack of exception for the health of the mother. This Act however, was found to be constitutional and The Supreme Court decided to look once again at the precedent, under stare decisis

As the Courts continue to argue in terms of morality, their attitudes when it comes to dealing with cases concerning abortion are vague, even as they succeed in placing financial burdens on the process (Engstrom 25). Unfortunately, the ambiguity present allows for those who can’t afford their constitutional right to go through potentially harmful ‘back-alley’ abortions and risk their lives during the process (Engstrom 7). The Hyde Amendment and Supreme Court cases, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, are examples of the way Courts and Congress have placed restrictions on low-income women when it comes to obtaining an abortion (Engstrom 14). They do this through ‘back-door’ attempts that succeed in eroding at crucial legislation as they are refrained by current legislation from taking on the law directly (Engstrom 2). These restrictions can lead to horrible outcomes for women who are desperate enough to explore riskier options (McGee 102-103). Low-income women are facing limitations established by funding restrictions within the Hyde Amendment and the ambiguity of the Court in contradicting cases (Engstrom

The Constitution is the Supreme of laws of the nation, which protects the people’s rights. The Constitution includes many amendments that provide the people many unalienable rights. The founding fathers fear of tyranny influenced them to create a restriction of power for the government, and create check and balances between the different branches of government. As a result of check and balances, the judicial branch was assigned to examine the constitutionality of certain laws passed by Congress. Moreover, the judicial branch, that use the judicial review to give power to the Supreme Court to revise and ban laws that are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court tries to balance the rights of the individuals with the responsibility of the society. However, there have been many cases in which the Constitution does not say to whom the power belongs to. For example, Abortion has been a controversial issue

Casey (1992) was centered on four statutes, which dealt with access to obtaining an abortion. The statues required a woman seeking an abortion give informed consent, that a minor obtain parental consent, that a married woman notify her husband that she was having the procedure, and finally that clinics would provide certain information to a woman and then would wait 24 hours before deciding to perform the procedure. All of these statues but the one involving the married woman were upheld. This ruling continued to narrow the scope of a woman’s control over obtaining abortion, giving more and more power back to the states to regulate as they saw

In 1992, Roe v. Wade was upheld in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. However, the Supreme Court had become significantly more conservative in that time, and this ruling favored the states‘ rights to establish tighter abortion restrictions. In Pennsylvania, women were only permitted first trimester abortions if they had been given information about the fetus’s gestational state and the dangers of having the procedure. A married women was also required to inform her husband prior to having the abortion, and minors had to seek approval from at least one parent unless given a legal bypass. On top of these restrictions, there was also a mandatory 24-hour waiting period (McBride, “Casey v. Planned Parenthood”).