Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v.

Casey (1992) 5-4 Facts: Pennsylvania passed the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act in 1982 and amended it in 198 and 1989. It included a number of restrictions and things a woman had to do to get an abortion. These restrictions where felt to be burdensome on women seeking abortions and providers so Planned Parenthood challenged the law. Issue: Essentially it is a challenge on Roe v. Wade and therefore the question is, is there a constitutional protection on the right to have an abortion? JB: The laws where upheld. Holding: Roe was upheld but changed, and the constitutional protection of the right was reaffirmed. Rationale: (Justice OConnor) Constitutional protection of the womens decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our Obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. The Doctrine of stare decisis Basically it means that they try not to overrule past case law when possible. Though the woman has a right to choose to terminate or continue her pregnancy before viability, it does not at all follow that the state is prohibited from taking steps to ensure that this choice is thoughtful and informed. We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of Roe. The fact that a law which serves a valid purpose, one not designed to strike at the right itself, has the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it. Only where state regulation imposes an undue burden on a womans ability to make this decision does the power of the State reach into the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Court then goes on to decide on each of the various parts of the Pennsylvania law. Concurring in parts Dissenting in parts: (Justice Stevens) Talks a bout a specific part of the law he thinks is also unconstitutional. Concurring in parts Dissenting in parts: (Justice Blackmun) Did not think the majority went far enough by letting some parts of the law stand. Concurring in parts Dissenting in parts: (Chief Justice Rehnquist) A womans interest in having an abortion is a form of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, but States may regulate abortion procedures in ways rationally related to a legitimate state interest. With this rule in mind, we examine each of the challenged provisions. Then goes on to disagree with the majority in their analysis of some of the provisions. Concurring in parts Dissenting in parts: (Justice Scalia) The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach this conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the concept of human life. Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion Bigamy is not constitutionally protected- because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution Says Absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American Society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.