Supreme Court cases?

Question

What was the issue before the court in PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA vs. CASEY case?

Answer 1

it was a follow-up to Roe v. Wade.

Answer 2

Question

Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?
This issue is a hot debate..because some women think abortion has no consequence..and it also involves parental rights and information of children...the 1st I believe most mature women know what is involved in the procedure but having same day abortion isn't pulling teeth and women should be more informed on the procedure and any psychological issues that may arise.
As for minors...every single surgical procedure and medical care must accompany parental consent and knowledge...why should this be any different? We have laws stating monrs cannot have peircing without parental consent yet they can have an abortion????wheres the logic?

Answer 3

[A]n examination of Roe v. Wade, and subsequent cases, reveals a number of guiding principles that should control the assessment of the Pennsylvania statute:

To protect the central right recognized by Roe while at the same time accommodating the State's profound interest in potential life, the undue burden standard should be employed. An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.


Roe's rigid trimester framework is rejected. To promote the State's interest in potential life throughout pregnancy, the State may take measures to ensure that the woman's choice is informed...These measures must not be an undue burden on the right...


Adoption of the undue burden standard does not disturb Roe's holding that regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.


Roe's holding that 'subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation fo the life or health of the mother' is also reaffirmed...


§3203's medical emergency definition is intended to assure that compliance with the State's abortion regulations would not in any way pose a significant threat to a woman's life or health, and thus does not violate the essential holding of Roe...


Section 3209's husband notification provision constitutes an undue burden and is therefore invalid... The fact that §3209 may affect fewer than on percent of women seeking abortions does not save it from facial invalidity, since the proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom it is irrelevant...


Section 3205's informed consent provision is not an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to decide to terminate a pregnancy... Requiring that the woman be informed of the availability of information relating to the consequences to the fetus does not interfere with a constitutional right of privacy between a pregnant woman and her physician...and does not underlie or override the abortion right...


Although §3205's 24-hour waiting period may make some abortions more expensive and less convenient, it cannot be said that it is invalid on the present record and in the context of this facial challenge.


Section 3206's one parent consent requirement and judicial bypass procedure are constitutional."

Answer 4

There were several issues. Read about them yourself.