Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Constitutional Law

substantive due processabortionundue burden standardstare decisisFourteenth AmendmentDue Process Clauselibertyabortion before viability

Facts

Pennsylvania enacted an abortion statute requiring informed consent, a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for unemancipated minors subject to a judicial bypass, spousal notification, a medical-emergency exception, and reporting requirements for facilities performing abortions. The law also required that certain information be given to women seeking abortions, including the availability of printed materials about the fetus and alternatives to abortion. The challenged provisions were attacked as burdens on a woman's ability to obtain a pre-viability abortion. The Court evaluated these provisions against the constitutional protection for a woman's decision whether to terminate a pregnancy before viability.

Issue

Whether the Pennsylvania abortion regulations unconstitutionally burden a woman's liberty to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and whether Roe v. Wade's essential holding should be retained under the Due Process Clause and principles of stare decisis.

Rule

A State may not place an undue burden on a woman's right to choose abortion before viability. An undue burden exists, and a provision is invalid, if the purpose or effect of the regulation is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability; the proper focus is on the group for whom the law is a restriction, and whether in a large fraction of the cases in which the provision is relevant it will operate as a substantial obstacle.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Colorado enacts a statute requiring every patient seeking a pre-viability abortion to attend a state-designed session in Denver where clinic staff must read a script declaring that abortion is morally irresponsible and contrary to the State's preferred family values. The statute's findings state that the law is intended to discourage abortions by making patients reconsider the decision.

If challenged on its face, which is the strongest constitutional argument against the statute under the controlling standard?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that before viability, a State may not impose an undue burden, and an undue burden exists if the purpose or effect of the regulation is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. The majority made clear that a statute with that purpose is invalid because state means must be calculated to inform the woman's free choice, not hinder it. A legislative design to discourage abortions by imposing a deterrent script directly supports facial invalidity.