PLS 460 Planned Parenthood v Casey

PLS 460 Planned Parenthood v Casey - Planned Parenthood v...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

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

Unformatted text preview: Planned Parenthood v Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992) CASE SUM MARY PROCED U RAL POSTURE: Petitioners, abortion clinics and physician, brought suit against respondents, the governor and others, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 3203-3220 (1990). The district court held that the provisions were unconstitutional. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court granted certiorari. OVERV I EW: The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that only the husband notification provision, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 3209, was unconstitutional. The Court granted certiorari. The Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis and reaffirmed the essential holdings in Roe v. Wade because that decision was still workable and its factual underpinnings had not changed. In a joint opinion, three Justices rejected Roe's t r imester framework and adopted an undue burden test for determining whether State regulations had the purpose or effect of placing substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before viabili ty. The Court agreed that 3209 imposed a substantial obstacle in a large fraction of cases and was invalid. The Court also affi rmed the holding the court of appeals that 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 3202, the medical emergency provision, did not impose an undue burden on a woman's abortion r ight. A plurality of the Court determined that 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 3214(a)(12) was also invalid because it required a mar r ied woman to provide a reason for her failure to provide notice to her husband. OU TCO M E: The Court substantially affi rmed the holding of the court of appeals, although it also found that the reporting provision related to husband notification was invalid, and remanded the case for fur ther proceedings. ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/04/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.

Page1 / 2

PLS 460 Planned Parenthood v Casey - Planned Parenthood v...

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