Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. CaseyThe Abortion Control Act was passed in 1982 and was amended in 1988 and 1989 in Pennsylvania due to the 1986 court case, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which deemed the 1982 act unconstitutional, and the 1989 court case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which failed to reaffirm Roe v. Wade's "strict scrutiny" standard for reviewing abortion restrictions. The Abortion Control Act requires that a woman seeking an abortion must give her informed consent and specifies that she is to receive information about alternatives to abortion at least 24 hours before the procedure is performed. In the case of a minor receiving an abortion, the statute requires the informed consent of one of her parents, but provides a judicial bypass option in the event a mature minor does not wish to or cannot obtain parental consent. This law also requires that, absent certain exceptions, a married woman seeking an abortion must acknowledge in writing that she has informed her husband of her intent to have the procedure performed. The statute exempts compliance with the foregoing requirements in the case of a "medical emergency" whi
It is also not required to have an alternative signed statement if her husband cannot be located, or if the woman feels that telling her husband may result in bodily harm done to her by him or any others. The case decision claims that these matters are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Wade, the court recognized a "guarantee of personal privacy" which was broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The dissenting opinions in this case state that Roe was wrongly decided. The law gives the woman several options for notifying her partner of the pregnancy. Not only is the State depriving women of this right, but they are also forcing her to undergo the pains of childbirth and, in most instances, provide years of maternal care. The concurring justices feel that when a State restricts a woman from terminating her pregnancy, they are depriving the woman of the right to make her own decision about reproduction and family planning. A framework of this rigidity was unnecessary and in its later interpretation sometimes contradicted the State's opportunity to exercise its powers. The Supreme Court agrees that the trimester approach is not necessary any longer and is rejected. These measures must not place an undue burden. The legislation also imposes reporting requirements on facilities that perform abortions. Wade is referred to quite frequently throughout the case. Several abortion clinics and one individual physician challenged the constitutionality of this Pennsylvania law. A very well rounded reasoning for their decisions is given.
Common topics in this essay:
Roe Wade,
Fourteenth Amendment,
Control Act,
Supreme Court,
Chief Justice's,
Federal Appeals,
Court Appeals,
Supreme Court's,
roe wade,
Roe Wade's,
Obstetricians Gynecologists,
undue burden,
woman seeking abortion,
supreme court,
woman seeking,
substantial obstacle,
seeking abortion,
decision roe,
holding roe,
trimester framework,
holding roe wade,
feel decision roe,
informed consent,
abortion control act,
concurring justices feel,
|
Acceptance Essays
