Pros And Cons Of Planned Parenthood V Casey

The Roe v. Wade law disallowed abortion by fabricated means aside from when the mother's life was in jeopardy. The act was translated as a “nearly complete ban on abortion.” (Hoffer, Peter. Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History, 2nd Edition (Landmark Law Cases and American Society. Kansas: University Press of Kansas. 2010. Print.) Roe believed that a woman had the right to end her pregnancy, while wade believed that our State had a responsibility to defend that unborn child . Disputed from the point it was discharged, Roe v. Wade politically separated the country tremendously, and keeps on to inspire intense discussions, legislative issues, and even brutality today.

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).

However, everything that was ruled by Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade case was contradicted, In1992, the Supreme court case “...Planned Parenthood V. Casey that said an abortion regulation was unconstitutional if it had 'the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.'” (Levy). This court ruled that the states had the right to restrict a woman's right to an abortion and prohibit public funding for the poor women that can not afford an abortion.

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.

In the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade a pregnant women, Norma McCorvey (also known as “Jane Roe”) seeked to end her pregnancy. Through the fight of the court, it was declared that most state anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional. However, many rules were set into place. In the first trimester of pregnancy (0-12 weeks), states could not interfere with any abortion. During the second semester (13-28 weeks) states could allow a regulated abortion in ways that are related to mental health or even a proscribed abortion. Within the third trimester (29-40 weeks) a women can only get an abortion if it is to preserve the health or life of the mother. Alongside Roe v. Wade, in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey, the court ruled that a state could require a woman seeking an abortion to give informed consent and to wait 24 hours and in the case of a minor they need to obtain parental consent (Ayers). Throughout abortions long history of pro-choice and pro-life, modern society needs to be fully educated on the topic so they can see how terrible pro-choice is.

The landmark "Roe v. Wade" ruling began an era of nationally sanctioned abortion rights and a new wave of controversy (History). The controversy often took shape as court cases aimed at reversal. Two pivotal cases were: The Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth and the Supreme Court declares a statute that requires parental and spousal consent for abortions unconstitutional.

The question of this case is regarding a states ability to require women seeking an abortion wait 24 hours, have consent, or parental consent. Is a state allowed to make these rules without infringing on the rights to abortion, as given in Roe V Wade?

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.

Casey is a divided judgement because none of the Justices' opinions were joined by a majority of Justices. However, the plurality decision, which was written by Justices Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy, is accepted a the lead opinion because each of its parts were agreed with by at least two other Justices', although different ones for each part. The plurality opinion overturned the strict trimester formula previously used in Roe vs. Wade which then made it a shorter time period before the State's interest in the fetus outweighed the woman's interest to abort. The plurality opinion also got rid of the husband notification requirement, saying that it would worsen situations of spousal abuse because it would give husbands too much power over their wives.

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

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 1973 “Roe vs. Wade is a historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions is in later months, based on the right to privacy.” This decision was made on January 22, 1973. (Lewis, 2015). The decision was based on the right

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

Though it was ruled that states must still make abortions available in the first trimester, it was decided in a five-to-four vote that the states retained the right to place restrictions as long as there were intended to protect the health

But in January of 1973, when the Supreme Court announced their decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court took on new life, as its decision pronounced the Court a maker of public policy. Through Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court created the blueprints for a national abortion policy. A policy that declared a woman’s right to an abortion unconditionally protected by the constitutional right to personal privacy. The framework, the general principle of Roe v. Wade was properly decided. The Constitutional right of personal privacy should be interpreted to include a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. However, some areas of the Court’s decision are flawed, particularly their decision to divide pregnancy into trimesters.