Case name: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL v. ROBERT P. CASEY, ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Year of Decision: 1992
Facts: This was a United States Supreme Court case in which the statutory provisions of Pennsylvania regarding abortion was challenged. It required that a married woman seeking an abortion must inform and get consent from her spouse, a 24 hour waiting period, and required consent from at least one parent of a minor seeking an abortion. The parties of this case are Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, ET AL v. Robert P. Casey, ET AL.
Issue: Can a state lawfully enforce a 24 hour waiting period and require informed consent of women who want abortions, and, if a minor obtain parental consent without violating their rights guaranteed …show more content…
Wade was upheld. The court finds that all of this act, except the requirement for parental consent, proper.
Majority Reasoning: The plurality stated that the fundamental right to an abortion is written in the 14th amendment under the Due Process Clause. The court referenced the case Eisenstadt v. Baird "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." The plurality opinion decided to uphold the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade for three reasons.
1) Prior to viability, women reserve the right to the choice of obtaining an abortion without interference from the state.
2) As long as the law has exceptions for pregnancies that put the woman's health in danger, the state is able to restrict the abortion procedure.
3) The state has legitimate interests in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Year of Decision: 1992
Facts: This was a United States Supreme Court case in which the statutory provisions of Pennsylvania regarding abortion was challenged. It required that a married woman seeking an abortion must inform and get consent from her spouse, a 24 hour waiting period, and required consent from at least one parent of a minor seeking an abortion. The parties of this case are Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, ET AL v. Robert P. Casey, ET AL.
Issue: Can a state lawfully enforce a 24 hour waiting period and require informed consent of women who want abortions, and, if a minor obtain parental consent without violating their rights guaranteed …show more content…
Wade was upheld. The court finds that all of this act, except the requirement for parental consent, proper.
Majority Reasoning: The plurality stated that the fundamental right to an abortion is written in the 14th amendment under the Due Process Clause. The court referenced the case Eisenstadt v. Baird "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." The plurality opinion decided to uphold the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade for three reasons.
1) Prior to viability, women reserve the right to the choice of obtaining an abortion without interference from the state.
2) As long as the law has exceptions for pregnancies that put the woman's health in danger, the state is able to restrict the abortion procedure.
3) The state has legitimate interests in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the