Abortion on the Supreme Court agenda: Planned Parenthood v. Casey and its possible consequences.

Abstract

On June 29, 1992, the US Supreme Court released its Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey opinion. A majority of the Court reaffirmed the essential holding of the landmark Roe v. Wade case, including a recognition of a woman's guaranteed constitutional right to choose an abortion before viability. At the same time, the Court eliminated Roe's trimester framework, established a new, less stringent undue burden standard for reviewing governmental limitations upon woman's right to choose, and applied this standard in upholding the constitutionality of most of Pennsylvania's abortion restrictions. Currently, 15 states have informed consent laws, and 13 states have laws requiring waiting periods between counseling and the abortion; many states also require parental notification or consent, some with the option of judicial bypass. Now that the Court has upheld the constitutionality of restrictions such as these, it is expected that states will enforce existing provisions and impose new limitations as well. In Illinois, the proposed Abortion Informed Consent Act would require the dissemination of particular information and then impose a 72-hour waiting period between counseling and abortion. In North Dakota, a state with only 1 abortion clinic, the State Attorney General announced that he expected to begin enforcing a 24-hour waiting period. And in Tennessee, as in other states, Casey may encourage courts to lift injunctions that have prevented enforcement of waiting periods or other restrictions. Casey explicitly implicates patient autonomy, the doctor patient relationship, and the First Amendment rights of health professionals. As the Court's new interpretation of Roe suggests, the right to privacy will never be immune from redefinition.