Katana VentraIP

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the restoration of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right.[1] Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.[2]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey, et al.

505 U.S. 833 (more)

112 S. Ct. 2791; 120 L. Ed. 2d 674; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 4751; 60 U.S.L.W. 4795; 92 Daily Journal DAR 8982; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 663

Judgment and injunction for plaintiffs, 686 F. Supp. 1089 (E.D. Pa. 1988); injunction clarified, 736 F. Supp. 633 (E.D. Pa. 1990); judgment and injunction granted for plaintiffs, 744 F. Supp. 1323 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (regarding 1988 amendments to 1982 Act); affirmed in part and reversed in part, 947 F. 2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991); certiorari granted, 502 U.S. 1056 (1992)

Remanded, 978 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1992); motion to disqualify judge denied, 812 F. Supp. 541 (E.D. Pa. 1993); record reopened and injunctions continued, 822 F. Supp. 227 (E.D. Pa. 1993); reversed and remanded, 14 F.3d 848 (3d Cir. 1994); stay denied, 510 U.S. 1309 (1994); attorney fees and costs awarded to plaintiffs, 869 F. Supp. 1190 (E.D. Pa. 1994); affirmed, 60 F.3d 816 (3d Cir. 1995)

O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (Parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI), joined by Blackmun and Stevens

O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (Part V-E), joined by Stevens

O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (Parts IV, V-B, and V-D)

Stevens

Blackmun

Rehnquist, joined by White, Scalia, and Thomas

Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and Thomas

The case arose from a challenge to five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982; among the provisions were requirements for a waiting period, spousal notice, and (for minors) parental consent prior to undergoing an abortion procedure. In a plurality opinion jointly written by associate justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, the Supreme Court upheld the "essential holding" of Roe, which was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protected a woman's right to have an abortion prior to fetal viability.[3]


The Court overturned the Roe trimester framework in favor of a viability analysis, thereby allowing states to implement abortion restrictions that apply during the first trimester of pregnancy. In its "key judgment," the Court overturned Roe's strict scrutiny standard of review of a state's abortion restrictions with the undue burden standard, under which abortion restrictions would be unconstitutional when they were enacted for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Applying this new standard of review, the Court upheld four provisions of the Pennsylvania law, but invalidated the requirement of spousal notification. Four justices wrote or joined opinions arguing that Roe v. Wade should have been struck down, while two justices wrote opinions favoring the preservation of the higher standard of review for abortion restrictions.

§ 3205's informed consent — a woman seeking abortion had to give her informed consent prior to the procedure. The doctor had to provide her with specific information at least 24 hours before the procedure was to take place, including information about how the abortion could be detrimental to her health and about the availability of information about the fetus.

§ 3209's spousal notice — a married woman seeking abortion had to sign a statement declaring that she had notified her husband prior to undergoing the procedure, unless certain exceptions applied.

§ 3206's parental consent — minors had to get the informed consent of at least one parent or guardian prior to the abortion procedure. Alternatively, minors could seek judicial bypass in lieu of consent.

§ 3203's medical emergency definition — defining a medical emergency as "[t]hat condition, which, on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

§§ 3207(b), 3214(a), and 3214(f)'s reporting requirements — certain reporting and record keeping mandates were imposed on facilities providing abortion services.

, holding that a Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

Griswold v. Connecticut

, extending the Court's holding in Griswold to unmarried couples on the grounds of equal protection.

Eisenstadt v. Baird

, holding that the Due Process Clause protects a woman's right to obtain an abortion under certain circumstances.

Roe v. Wade

, overruling Roe and Casey.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

2022 abortion rights protests in the United States

Wharton, Linda J.; Frietsche, Susan; Kolbert, Kathryn (2006). . Yale JL & Feminism. 18 (2): 317. Retrieved May 4, 2022.

"Preserving the Core of Roe: Reflections on Planned Parenthood v. Casey"

, 597 U.S. _ (2022).

Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization

, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

Eisenstadt v. Baird

, 591 U.S. 1101 (2020).

June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (E.D. Pa. 1990).

744 F. Supp. 1323

Planned Parenthood v Casey, (3d Cir. 1991).

957 F.2d 682

Planned Parenthood v Casey, (1992).

505 U.S. 833

, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Roe v. Wade

, 579 U.S. 582 (2016).

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

. W. W. Norton & Company. 2011. ISBN 9780393935509.

Constitutional Law and Politics: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Eighth Edition

(PDF). Inter Alias. 2016. ISBN 9780991116331. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 5, 2021. Retrieved July 12, 2022.

The Supreme Court's Style Guide

Text of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, U.S. 833 (1992) is available from: Cornell  CourtListener  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 

505