Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T22:35:36.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Arguments to Supreme Court Opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Nancy Kassop
Nancy Kassop*
Affiliation:
State University of New York, College at New Paltz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is June 30, 1992. The Supreme Court handed down its decision yesterday in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and now the analysis and debate over its immediate and longterm impact on abortion law and reproductive rights will begin for legal scholars and political leaders. But for public law specialists in political science, the intellectual curiosity about this case began many months ago, and the announcement of yesterday's decision was only the latest in a string of actions that many had already followed with great interest. In the rush to explain the significance of Casey to the public, the route by which it got to the Court and the arguments that shaped the ultimate result may be easily overlooked and dismissed by some as no longer relevant: what matters now will be to feed the public's appetite for a fastfood explanation of a high-profile case. But to public law specialists, what went before matters very much, indeed. A case is more than its outcome, and the parts that came before deserve some attention for the role they played in contributing to the final result.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 53 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1993

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

References

Case Documents

Brief for Petitioners and Cross-Respondents. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Nos. 91-744 and 91-902. October Term, 1991 (hereafter, “BP #”).Google Scholar
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Nos. 91-744 and 91-902. October Term, 1991 (hereafter, “US #”).Google Scholar
Reply Brief for Petitioners and Cross-Respondents. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Nos. 91-744 and 91-902. October Term, 1991 (hereafter, “RBP #”).Google Scholar
Oral Argument Transcript for Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. United States Supreme Court. April 22, 1992. Alderson Reporting Company, Inc. Washington, DC (hereafter, “OA #”).Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. No. 90-1662. October 21, 1991 (hereafter, “3rd #”).Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. United States Supreme Court. Nos. 91-744 and 91-902, Slip Opinion, June 29, 1992 (hereafter, “SO #,” when referring to the joint opinion. References to the separate opinions of other justices will be “SO BL#” for Blackmun, and “SO SC#” for Scalia).Google Scholar
Beal v. Doe. 1977. 432 U.S. 438.Google Scholar
Bellotti v. Baird. 1976. 428 U.S. 132.Google Scholar
Bradwell v. Illinois. 1873. 16 Wall. 130.Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.Google Scholar
Carey v. Population Services International. 1977. 431 U.S. 678.Google Scholar
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. 1983. 462 U.S. 416. (Akron I).Google Scholar
Craig v. Boren. 1976. 429 U.S. 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health. 1990. 110 S. Ct. 2841.Google Scholar
Griswold v. Connecticut. 1965. 381 U.S. 479.Google Scholar
Harris v. McRae. 1980. 448 U.S. 297.Google Scholar
Hodgson v. Minnesota. 1990. 110 S. Ct. 2926.Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York. 1905. 198 U.S. 45.Google Scholar
Loving v. Virginia. 1967. 388 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
Maher v. Roe. 1977. 432 U.S. 464.Google Scholar
Marks v. United States. 1977. 430 U.S. 188.Google Scholar
Meyer v. Nebraska. 1923. 262 U.S. 390.Google Scholar
Michael H. v. Gerald D. 1989. 491 U.S. 110.Google Scholar
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan. 1982. 458 U.S. 718.Google Scholar
Moore v. City of East Cleveland. 1977. 431 U.S. 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugler v. Kansas. 1887. 123 U.S. 623.Google Scholar
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. 1990. 119 S. Ct. 2972. (Akron II).Google Scholar
Olmstead v. United States. 1928. 277 U.S. 438.Google Scholar
Pierce v. Society of Sisters. 1925. 268 U.S. 510.Google Scholar
Plessy v. Ferguson. 1896. 163 U.S. 537.Google Scholar
Poe v. Ullman. 1961. 367 U.S. 497.Google Scholar
Rochin v. California. 1952. 342 U.S. 165.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson. 1942. 316 U.S. 535.Google Scholar
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians. 1986. 476 U.S. 747.Google Scholar
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. 1989. 492 U.S. 490.Google Scholar
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. 1937. 300 U.S. 379.Google Scholar
Whitney v. California. 1927. 274 U.S. 357.Google Scholar
Behuniak-Long, Sue. 1991. “Friendly Fire: Amici curiae and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.” Judicature 74(5), February-March: 261–70.Google Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda. 1992a. “Revealing View of Court.” The New York Times, July 1, A1, 12.Google Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda. 1992b. “Souter: Unlikely Anchor at Court's Center.” The New York Times, July 3, A1, 16.Google Scholar