Court reaffirms Roe but upholds restrictions

Abstract

By a 5-4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed on June 29, 1992, "the essential holding in Roe v. Wade" that prior to fetal viability, a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. After viability, a state may prohibit abortion, but only if it provides exceptions for endangerment to the woman's life or health. The Court said that both the intimate nature of the decision to terminate a pregnancy and the Court's obligation to follow precedent required it to uphold Roe's central holding. At the same time, however, the Court discarded Roe's trimester framework that severely restricted a state's power to regulate abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, saying that the trimester framework "undervalues" the state's interest in potential life, which exists throughout pregnancy. The Court also adopted a more lenient standard for analyzing the constitutionality of abortion restrictions than was permitted under Roe. It said a state may regulate abortion throughout pregnancy, as long as it does not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. The Court defined "undue burden" as a regulation that "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Under Roe, the right to abortion was deemed "fundamental" and could not be restricted unless the state could show a "compelling" interest in doing so.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

PIP: In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter wrote a joint opinion delivering the judgement of the Supreme Court. Justices Blackmun and Stevens each wrote separate opinions in which they concurred that Roe should be reaffirmed, but dissented from the adoption of the undue burden standard, the use of that standard to uphold most of the Pennsylvania law, and the discarding of the trimester framework. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia each wrote separate opinions joined by Justices White and Thomas encouraging the overturning of Roe, and the adoption of the more lenient rationally-related-to-a-state-interest standard. The joint opinion discusses stare decisis, and a generation's reliance upon Roe, women's equal participation in the nation's economic and social life as a partial consequence of their "ability to control their reproductive lives" and that no factual understanding of Roe had changed. Concluding that rather than give the appearance of "surrender[ing] to political pressure" the Court would not overrule Roe; not so with the trimester framework. The State has an interest in potential life at any stage, though the State may not impose an undue burden on a woman whose liberty interests are protected under the Due Process Clause. The Court upheld Pennsylvania's law defining medical emergency, as construed by the Court of Appeals; allowed a 24-hour waiting period for women who must 1st hear information about pregnancy and abortion to insure thoughtful informed consent; allowed a parental consent provision, with a judicial bypass; and allowed a recordkeeping and reporting requirement; but disallowed a spousal notification requirement, noting that "[a] State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."