Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, imposed several regulations on abortion providers and patients: (1) informed consent requirements mandating that specified information be provided to a woman at least 24 hours before the procedure; (2) a 24-hour waiting period following provision of that information; (3) parental consent for minors, with a judicial bypass option; (4) spousal notification for married women, subject to limited exceptions (e.g., inability to locate the spouse, pregnancies resulting from reported spousal sexual assault, or risk of bodily injury); (5) detailed reporting and recordkeeping requirements for clinics and physicians; and (6) a defined medical-emergency exception. Planned Parenthood and physicians challenged these provisions as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade. The district court enjoined several provisions. On appeal, the Third Circuit largely upheld the statute but invalidated the spousal notification requirement as an undue burden. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address both the constitutionality of the provisions and whether to reaffirm or overrule Roe.
Do Pennsylvania's abortion regulations violate the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing an undue burden on a woman's pre-viability right to choose abortion, and should Roe v. Wade be reaffirmed or overruled?
The Constitution protects a woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion prior to fetal viability without undue interference from the State. The State may regulate abortion from the outset of pregnancy to further its legitimate interests in protecting the health of the woman and the potentiality of human life, but pre-viability regulations are unconstitutional if they have the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion (the "undue burden" standard). After viability, the State may restrict or proscribe abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. In assessing whether a provision imposes an undue burden, courts consider whether the obstacle affects a large fraction of those for whom the law is relevant, and whether the law's purpose or effect is to hinder rather than merely inform or regulate.
The Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade but abandoned the trimester framework in favor of the undue burden standard. Applying that standard, the Court held: (1) informed consent and the 24-hour waiting period are constitutional; (2) the parental consent requirement with a judicial bypass is constitutional; (3) the spousal notification requirement is unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on a large fraction of affected women; and (4) the reporting and recordkeeping requirements, as construed, are constitutional. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Stare decisis and legitimacy: The joint opinion emphasized that the Court's legitimacy rests on principled adherence to precedent absent special justifications for overruling. Applying stare decisis factors, the plurality found Roe's core workable, deeply relied upon, and not undermined by doctrinal or factual changes sufficient to warrant overruling. The plurality underscored reliance interests of women and society, and warned that abandoning Roe solely due to changes in the Court's composition would damage institutional integrity. Reframing Roe: The plurality reaffirmed Roe's essential holding in three parts: (1) a woman has a right to choose abortion before viability without undue state interference; (2) after viability, states may restrict or proscribe abortion except when necessary for the life or health of the mother; and (3) from the outset of pregnancy, the state has legitimate interests in maternal health and potential life. However, the Court discarded Roe's trimester framework as overly rigid and insufficiently attentive to the State's interests prior to viability. In its place, the Court adopted the undue burden standard: a law is invalid if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in a woman's path to a pre-viability abortion. The plurality also clarified that the analysis focuses on those for whom the law is relevant and whether a substantial obstacle affects a large fraction of those cases. Application to Pennsylvania law: The informed consent and 24-hour waiting period were upheld because they were designed to ensure a considered decision and did not, on the record, impose a substantial obstacle for a large fraction of affected women, even acknowledging that some women would face increased costs, travel, and delay. The parental consent requirement was upheld because the availability of a confidential and expeditious judicial bypass protected minors' constitutional rights consistent with precedents. The spousal notification requirement, by contrast, was struck down. The Court credited evidence that many women would be exposed to domestic violence, coercion, or intimidation if forced to notify their husbands, and that the requirement would operate as a substantial obstacle for a large fraction of married women for whom the law was relevant, especially those in abusive relationships. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements were sustained as rational measures that served legitimate public health and statistical interests without creating substantial obstacles; the medical emergency exception was deemed adequate. The Court expressly overruled aspects of prior decisions (e.g., Akron and Thornburgh) that were inconsistent with the undue burden framework. Separate opinions: Chief Justice Rehnquist (joined by White, Scalia, and Thomas) and Justice Scalia separately urged overruling Roe entirely and applying rational-basis review to abortion regulations. Justice Blackmun, Roe's author, concurred in part and dissented in part, defending Roe's protections and warning about erosion of women's liberty. Although fractured in rationale, the controlling joint opinion established undue burden as the operative constitutional standard for pre-viability abortion regulations.
For three decades, Casey defined the constitutional landscape of abortion regulation. It is central to understanding substantive due process, the mechanics of stare decisis, and how courts evaluate the balance between individual liberty and state interests. The undue burden standard guided later cases, including Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), which emphasized weighing benefits against burdens, and June Medical Services v. Russo (2020). In 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overruled Roe and Casey, holding the Constitution confers no federal right to abortion. Even so, Casey remains a foundational case for law students: it illustrates how the Court preserves precedent's core while revising doctrine, articulates a nuanced test for rights-limiting regulations, and provides a rich framework for analyzing reliance and institutional legitimacy.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey reshaped abortion jurisprudence while preserving Roe's central promise for three decades. By adopting the undue burden standard, the Court gave states latitude to regulate pre-viability abortions so long as they did not create substantial obstacles, and it invalidated spousal notification based on the law's real-world impact on a large fraction of affected women. The decision demonstrates how the Court can recalibrate doctrine without discarding precedent, and how legal tests evolve to reflect practical governance concerns and institutional legitimacy.