Planned Parenthood Vs. Caey (1992)

Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992)

In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, a Supreme Court case which took place in 1992, five

provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 were being challenged as unconstitutional under another case, Roe vs. Wade. Roe Vs. Wade was the case that first recognized a constitutional right to abortion a legal liberty under a clause in the Fourteen Amendment. The five provisions being challenged were the "informed consent" rule, the "spousal notification" requirement, the "parental consent" rule, a 24-hour waiting period, and imposition of certain reporting requirements on abortion facilities. The "informed consent" rule required that all doctors are to provide women with information about the complications and health risks of having an abortion before one could be performed. The "parental consent" rule required that women 17 years of age and younger get permission from their parent or guardian prior to having an abortion. The fourth provision required that a woman wait 24 hours before obtaining an abortion. The last provision challenged was the imposition of specific reporting requirements of facilities where abortions were performed. When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, Pennsylvania defended the Abortion Act of 1982 in part by urging the Court to overturn Roe as having been wrongfully decided. At this point, there were only two obvious supporters of Roe out of the nine Justices, so due to these circumstances, everyone was gearing up for a subsequent state-by-state campaign against the passing of specific anti-abortion laws. This case was important because it challenged a previous case that was thought to be perhaps unconstitutional, which we as Americans should not stand for. It also upheld Roe vs. Wade's right to have an abortion but lowered the standard for having analyzing restrictions of that right, invalidating one regulation but upholding the others.

The two sides of this case were the plaintiffs, who were five abortion clinics and doctors who provided abortion services, and the defendant, which was the state of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs filed suit to have the state declare the five provisions unconstitutional. During the appeal in the Third Circuit Court, the court upheld all but the husband notification requirement.

Casey is a divided judgement because none of the Justices' opinions were joined by a majority of Justices. However, the plurality decision, which was written by Justices Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy, is accepted a the lead opinion because each of its parts were agreed with by at least two other Justices', although different ones for each part. The plurality opinion overturned the strict trimester formula previously used in Roe vs. Wade which then made it a shorter time period before the State's interest in the fetus outweighed the woman's interest to abort. The plurality opinion also got rid of the husband notification requirement, saying that it would worsen situations of spousal abuse because it would give husbands too much power over their wives.

William Rehnquist, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas- those who were not included in the plurality decision- wrote or joined opinions in which they partially concurred and partially dissented from the decision.