[PDF] PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY,

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.: Landmark 1992 U.S. Supreme Court Case Reaffirming the ... Cases in U.S. Legal History Book 5)

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEAS PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al.: Landmark 1992 &quotPLANED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.&quotis a landmark United States Supreme case that reverberated Supreme Court CaseCourt Reaffirming the ... C throughout the nation's legal and social landscape when it occurred in 1992. This pivotal case U.S. Legal HistoryofBook centered on the deeply contested issue of abortion rights and the constitutionality a series of5) Pennsylvania state regulations that aimed to place restrictions on this contentious medical procedure.The plaintiffs, a coalition that prominently included Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, courageously challenged a slate of Pennsylvania laws that sought to introduce new conditions and requirements for women seeking abortions. These regulations encompassed a spectrum of measures, such as the stipulation of informed consent, mandatory waiting periods, and parental consent for minors seeking abortions.In a decision characterized by its plurality authored by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, the Supreme Court arrived at a nuanced and complex judgment that both affirmed and challenged the

prevailing legal landscape. The Court upheld some aspects of the Pennsylvania regulations while simultaneously striking down others. Most notably, the Court did reaffirm the core holding of Roe v. Wade (1973), which had established a woman's constitutional right to make choices about her reproductive health, including the choice to have an abortion.However, the Court chose to refine the legal standard by which the constitutionality of abortion regulations would be evaluated. This came in the form of the &quotunde burden&quottest, an intricate concept that posited that while states could indeed enact regulations on abortion, those regulations must not create an excessive or undue burden on a woman's capacity to access the procedure. This shift marked a departure from the prior &quotstrct scrutiny&quottest.Within the context of the Pennsylvania regulations, the Court grappled with a complex web of provisions. It determined that certain aspects, such as the requirement for spousal notification, exceeded the boundaries of the &quotunde burden&quotstandard and thus were deemed unconstitutional. However, other provisions, such as informed consent and obligatory waiting periods, were judged as being within constitutional bounds.The enduring significance of &quotPLANED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.&quotcannot be overstated.

Though it did not overturn Roe v. Wade, it introduced a new legal yardstick that states must consider when crafting regulations related to abortion. This case remains a touchstone in discussions surrounding reproductive rights, constitutional law, and the ongoing discourse over abortion access in the United States. The legal principles and standards established in this case continue to influence contemporary legal debates and shape the evolving landscape of women's rights and reproductive freedom.