Lecture Notes - 073106 - Katie Kerr PHL 304 July 31, 2006...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Katie Kerr PHL 304 July 31, 2006 Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, Governor of  Pennsylvania - “Essential holding” of Roe v. Wade retained and affirmed - Rejection of trimester framework (but not “critical facts”) - States interest in potential life justifies throughout pregnancy measures to  persuade the women to choose childbirth over abortion - Introduction of the “undue burden” analysis Are the following provisions constitutional? A. Informed consent provision (24 hrs) B. Spouse notification C. Parental consent Undue burden: “An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its  purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle  in the path of a woman  seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” (p. 49) Are A, B, and C “undue burdens?” A. Informed Consent Provision (24 hour waiting period)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

Lecture Notes - 073106 - Katie Kerr PHL 304 July 31, 2006...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online