Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:37:31.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Abortion on the Supreme Court Agenda: Planned Parenthood v. Casey and its Possible Consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Developments
Copyright
© 1992 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

___U.S. ___, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992).Google Scholar
410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
Casey, 112 S. Ct. at 2804.Google Scholar
Roe, 410 U.S. at 162.Google Scholar
Id. at 163–64.Google Scholar
448 U.S. 297 (1980).Google Scholar
Pub. L. No. 94439, § 209, 90 Stat. 1418 (1976). See also 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396 (Social Security Act, Title XIX, Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs).Google Scholar
Harris, 448 U.S. at 317–18.Google Scholar
___ U.S. ___, in S. Ct. 1759 (1991).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C.A. § 300a-6 (West Supp. 1991).Google Scholar
462 U.S. 416 (1983) (O'Connor, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
Id. at 453.Google Scholar
Id. at 465.Google Scholar
492 U.S. 490 (1989).Google Scholar
Id. at 519520.Google Scholar
497 U.S. 417 (1990) (Stevens, Brennan, O'Connor, J. J., plurality opinion).Google Scholar
497 U.S. 502 (1990).Google Scholar
Justice Kennedy's opinion, joined by Justices Rehnquist, White and Scalia, used the “undue burden” standard; Justice Stevens in his concurrence seemed to apply an effective “undue burden” standard, using the language of “legitimate” and “reasonable.” Justice O'Connor did not join in the part of the opinion that specifically applied the “undue burden” standard, but she has advocated this standard in the past. See supra notes 11, 15 and accompanying text.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682, 699–719 (3d Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
Id. at 698.Google Scholar
Id. at 709–15.Google Scholar
112 S. Ct. 931 and 112 S. Ct. 932 (1992).Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 112 S. Ct. at 2803.Google Scholar
Id. at 2804.Google Scholar
Id. at 2805.Google Scholar
Id. at 2806.Google Scholar
Id. at 2807.Google Scholar
Id. at 2809–10.Google Scholar
Id. at 2809.Google Scholar
Id. at 2817 (citation omitted).Google Scholar
Id. at 2816.Google Scholar
Id. at 2821.Google Scholar
Id. (citation omitted).Google Scholar
Id. at 2826.Google Scholar
Id. at 2840 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).Google Scholar
462 U.S. 416 (1983).Google Scholar
476 U.S. 747 (1986).Google Scholar
Casey, 112 S. Ct. at 2841.Google Scholar
Id. at 2847–48 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Id. at 2848.Google Scholar
Id. at 2850.Google Scholar
Id. at 2855 (Rehnquist, C.J., White, J., Scalia, J. and Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Id. at 2859–60.Google Scholar
Id. at 2860.Google Scholar
Id. at 2866.Google Scholar
Id. at 2867.Google Scholar
Id. at 2873 (Scalia, J., Rehnquist, C.J., White, J. and Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Id. at 2877.Google Scholar
See supra, text accompanying note 20.Google Scholar
H.R. 25, S. 25, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991).Google Scholar
S. 25 v.2, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (as amended, July 17, 1992).Google Scholar
Highlight Story, FOCA II: Revised Bill Being Pushed for Quick Passage, Am. Pol. Network Abortion Rep., June 26, 1992.Google Scholar
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602 (1990).Google Scholar
Ill. H.B. 3522, 87th Gen. Assembly, 1991–92 Reg. Sess. (1992).Google Scholar
Iowa H.B. 559, 71st Gen. Assembly, 2d Reg. Sess. (1992).Google Scholar
Cal. S.J.R. 27, 1991–92 Reg. Sess. (1991).Google Scholar
Haw. H.C.R. 368, 16th Leg., 1992 Reg. Sess. (1992).Google Scholar
Mass. S.B. 1079, H.R. 2934, 177th Gen. Ct., 2d Reg. Sess. (1992).Google Scholar
State Report, Massachusetts: Weld Pushes For Abortion Laws Repeal, Am. Pol. Network Abortion Rep., May 7, 1992.Google Scholar
Tamar Lewin, The Supreme Court: Long Battles Over Abortion Are Seen, N.Y. Times, June 30, 1992, at A18.Google Scholar
Ill. H.B. 3467, 87th Gen. Assembly, 1991–92 Reg. Sess. (1992).Google Scholar
Lewin, Tamar, The Supreme Court: Clinics Eager to Learn Impact of Abortion Ruling, N.Y. Times, July 1, 1992, at A1.Google Scholar
See Sojourner v. Roemer, 772 F. Supp. 930 (E.D. La. 1991); Guam Soc. of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Ada, 776 F. Supp. 1422 (D. Guam App. Div. 1990), aff'd, 962 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1992), petition for cert. filed, 60 U.S.L.W.____ (July 15, 1992) (No. ____-____); H.B. v. Wilkinson, 639 F. Supp. 952 (D.Utah 1986).Google Scholar
Feldmann, Linda, Court Dodges Direct Ruling on Roe, Christian Sci. Monitor, January 23, 1992, at 6.Google Scholar
Bruce Fein, Legal Primer For Abortion's Future, Wash. Times, January 28, 1992, at F1.Google Scholar
See supra, text accompanying note 63.Google Scholar
Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, 112 S. Ct. at 2823–24.Google Scholar
497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
Casey, 112 S. Ct. at 2810.Google Scholar