Planned Parenthood Vs Casey Case Summary

There is one remarkable legal battle that changed the American abortion laws to what they are now, Roe v. Wade. It took place in 1973 in Texas. Roe, Norma McCorvey, was an anonymous plaintiff against the State. The ruling, abortion is legal. It gives the mother the right of whether or not to terminated her pregnancy. However, that does not give the woman the right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason during all nine months. ?The court said that the woman may have an abortion until fetal viability, the time at which it first becomes realistically possible for a fetus to live outside the woman?s body. At that point the state?s interest

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 Supreme Court voided any state laws that stopped first trimester abortions. Roe vs Wade case was argued on December 13, 1971 and decided on January 22, 1973. The question the case asked was if abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who had an illegal abortion? Also asked was if state criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mother’s behalf. Was the district court correct in denying injunctive relief? The

In a 5-3 ruling, the justices ruled out the law and became a victory for women’s reproductive rights which leads to the significance of pro-choice

Regardless of the opinions surrounding abortion, a majority of people are familiar with the Supreme court cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. These two cases have played a tremendous role in regard to the abortion debate. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade case was ruled in favour of Roe and stated the stringent criminalization of abortion in Texas was deemed unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. The law violated the right of privacy, which implied the privacy of a woman’s decision to an abortion. Although the courts agreed with Roe, they also recognized the rights to an abortion are not absolute. Limitations to the right was based on the trimesters of pregnancy with the first trimester protecting the woman’s choice and the third trimester being acceptable for states to regulate or even ban abortions outside of therapeutic reasons.

399). The ruling in Roe V Wade continued to fuel the discussion of abortion policies in the state of Texas and continues to influence policies, laws and the agencies which address these policies today.

To help the court determine the decision for this case, they used several widely-known Supreme Court decisions to help build the framework for their ruling. The Supreme Court decisions included: Roe v. Wade (1973), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproduction (1983). In determining the ruling, the court felt that the regulations were without a rational basis. Initially, the court was in support of the provision. They argued that the admitting privileges requirement furthers health and safety in two respects by noting that the first provision serves as a “quality control mechanism” due to hospitals not wanting to grant admitting privileges to disreputable or incompetent physicians. (Clerk, 2014). The second argument was that admitting privileges ensures a continuity of care between the abortion clinic and the hospital.

• 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).

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

It is not legal for a state to deny the people personal, marital, family, and sexual right to privacy. No case in history has the court declared that a fetus, which is an infant developing in the womb, is a person. Therefore, a fetus does not have any legal “right to life”. Roe argued the Texas law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.” In Roe’s argument the issue being appealed would be that she, the plaintiff has the right to obtain an abortion whether the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother or not. An abortion is solely the mothers decision and the child is unborn therefore has no rights and need not be protected by the States or Constitutional law(Roe v Wade,

wade. “Repeated challenges since 1973 narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable” (). “Since the roe decision, anti abortion lawmakers have not been able to ban abortion outright. Instead, they have developed a very successful strategy of limiting a woman’s access to the procedure and restricting the procedures that physicians can use to perform it” (76). “The restrictions that were given made life harder for women. All of these laws are meant to dissuade a woman from going through with the abortion. Feminists oppose the restrictions. They view the laws as condescending to women, who they feel know how to make up their own minds about this personal, private decision” (77). “When they eventually make their way back to a clinic, they may be much farther along in the pregnancy, when the procedure becomes more invasive, potentially more dangerous to the mother, and much more expensive” (77). “For some clinics, the expenses brought on by TRAP laws are so high the facilities shut down. By the fall of 2014, only eight abortion clinics in Texas were still standing. Before the law, some 10,000 Texas women had to travel more than 200 miles

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

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

The Facts of the Case: The conservative state of Missouri passed a law which restricted the use of state money and means for abortions. The United States District Court of the Western District of Missouri denied the law and as well as the enforcement for the law. This decision was also supported

The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new changes, law required the informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the abortion. A girl who was a minor that was wanting an abortion required the consent of one parent. A married woman who wanted an abortion had to prove she had told her husband about her intentions to abort the child. The new changes were challenged by numerous abortion clinics and physicians. The federal appeals court upheld all of the changes except for the notification of the husband requirement. There was question that can a state require women who want to have an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and if minors who obtain parental consent, without