Legal Definitions - Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) was a landmark Supreme Court case that significantly reshaped the legal landscape surrounding abortion rights in the United States. While it reaffirmed the core principle established in Roe v. Wade (1973) – that individuals have a constitutional right to an abortion before the fetus reaches viability (the point at which it can survive outside the womb) – it also introduced a new legal standard for evaluating state regulations on abortion.

Prior to Casey, state abortion regulations were reviewed under a "strict scrutiny" standard, which made it very difficult for states to impose restrictions. Casey replaced this with the "undue burden" standard. Under this new test, a state regulation on abortion was considered unconstitutional if its purpose or effect was to place a "substantial obstacle" in the path of a person seeking an abortion of a non-viable fetus.

Applying this standard, the Court upheld some state requirements, such as a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and parental consent for minors (with a judicial bypass option). However, it struck down a requirement for married women to notify their husbands, finding it imposed an undue burden on their decisional autonomy. The Court emphasized the importance of individual liberty and the right to make personal decisions about one's body and family.

Important Note: The Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) subsequently overturned both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion and returning the authority to regulate or ban abortion to individual states. However, understanding Casey is crucial for comprehending the historical development of abortion law in the U.S.

Examples of the "Undue Burden" Standard in Action (as it would have applied under Casey):

• Example 1: A state passes a law requiring anyone seeking an abortion to travel to the state capital, regardless of where they live, to obtain a special permit from a state agency before they can even schedule an appointment at a clinic. The state capital is hundreds of miles away for most residents, and the permit office is only open two days a week.

  How it illustrates Casey: This law would likely be considered an "undue burden." The requirement to travel a significant distance and navigate a limited-access bureaucratic process, unrelated to medical necessity, creates a "substantial obstacle" for individuals seeking an abortion. It makes access to care extremely difficult and costly, effectively impeding their decisional freedom in a way that Casey sought to prevent.

• Example 2: A state implements a law mandating that all individuals seeking an abortion must first receive counseling from a licensed medical professional about the procedure, its potential risks, and available alternatives, followed by a 48-hour waiting period before the abortion can be performed.

  How it illustrates Casey: This type of regulation would likely have been upheld under Casey. Similar to the 24-hour waiting period and informed consent provisions approved in the original case, these requirements are generally seen as promoting informed decision-making rather than creating a "substantial obstacle." As long as the counseling is medically accurate and the waiting period is not excessively long or designed to dissuade, it would not typically be considered an "undue burden."

• Example 3: A state enacts a law requiring all clinics that perform abortions to have operating rooms that meet the standards of a full-service hospital, even for early-term procedures that are typically performed in an outpatient setting. This requirement forces many existing clinics to close because they cannot afford the extensive renovations or new construction.

  How it illustrates Casey: This regulation could be challenged as an "undue burden." While states have a legitimate interest in health and safety, if the effect of such a stringent requirement is to drastically reduce the number of available clinics, making abortion services inaccessible for a significant portion of the population without a clear, proportional medical justification for early-term procedures, it would create a "substantial obstacle." The Court under Casey would scrutinize whether the regulation's burden on access outweighs its actual health benefits.