Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Citation: 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1992); overruled in part by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022)
Facts
Pennsylvania enacted several abortion regulations including a 24-hour waiting period, informed-consent requirements, spousal notification, and parental consent for minors. Five abortion clinics challenged the regulations under Roe v. Wade. The case was seen as an opportunity for the Court to overrule Roe outright.
Issue
Should Roe v. Wade be overruled, and if not, what standard governs state abortion regulations?
Holding
A plurality (O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter) reaffirmed the “essential holding” of Roe (the right to abortion pre-viability, state interest in potential life post-viability) but replaced the trimester framework with the undue burden standard and upheld all of Pennsylvania’s provisions except spousal notification.
Rule
A regulation constitutes an undue burden — and is therefore invalid — if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion. State regulations that do not impose an undue burden are permissible even before viability.
Significance
Casey is critical for three reasons: (1) it preserves Roe’s core holding while replacing the trimester framework with the more deferential undue burden test; (2) the joint plurality opinion contains a landmark discussion of stare decisis and the conditions under which the Court should or should not overrule precedent; and (3) many post-Casey regulations were litigated under the undue burden standard until Dobbs (2022) eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion entirely.