Mr. Beat presents Supreme Court Briefs
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania The 1980s
The Pennsylvania legislature passes and amends a law meant to limit abortions in the state.
What did that law require?
That a woman seeking an abortion had to give her informed consent prior to getting it.
That the doctor who would perform the procedure had to give the woman what could be interpreted
as anti-abortion propaganda at least 24 hours before the procedure was to take place.
That any girl under 18 seeking an abortion had to get the consent of one parent.
That any married woman seeking an abortion had to show that she notified her husband
of her intention to have the abortion.
And finally, the law required abortion clinics to be more transparent and keep better records
for the state to see.
In response, a group of abortion providers, led by Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania, sued Pennyslvania’s governor, Bob Casey, who had signed the law limiting
abortions in his state.
By the way, Casey was a Democrat, believe it or not.
You may remember them from like, almost every other episode of Supreme Court Briefs, but
the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, decided to help Planned Parenthood in this
case.
Ok, so the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania determined that all
those abortion restrictions were unconstitutional and forced Pennsylvania to not carry them
out.
And so, Casey appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which mostly agreed
with Casey, only concluding that the husband notification part was too much to ask since
it potentially could make women vulnerable to spousal abuse, violence, or economic insecurity
due to reactions from their husbands.
One of the judges in the Appellate Court, future Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito,
actually dissented on the husband notification part, saying it WAS reasonable.
Anyway, this time Planned Parenthood appealed, this time to the Supreme Court, who was actually
very interested in looking at another abortion case since Roe v. Wade first said it was ok
for women to have abortions.
I do have a video on that case, don’t ya know.
So here’s the thing.
The Court looked a lot different in 1992 compared to how it looked in 1973 during the Roe v.
Wade decision.
It was supposedly a much more conservative bench.
In fact, in 1992 there were eight justices on the bench appointed by Republican Presidents.
So when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22, 1992, many pro-life Americans
were hoping this case would be an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Well, as it turns out...it wasn’t.
On June 29, 1992, the Court announced that it had sided with Planned Parenthood.
Well, kind of...I’ll explain here in a bit.
It was close.
5-4.
But look, some of those supposed conservatives were on the side of Planned Parenthood.
Didn’t see that coming, amirite?
The Court released a long, complicated, multi-part decision that I will try to break down for
you now as best as I can.
For the most part, most of the Court agreed that most of the Pennsylvania law was actually
constitutional.
The requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and the 24-hour waiting period were
ok.
Now, at the same time, their decision also said the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade still
held up, saying that a woman’s decision to get an abortion implies “liberty interests”
and “privacy interests” protected by the Due Process Clause of both the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
For the first time ever, the Court created a new standard asking whether or not a state
abortion restriction had the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden,” which they
defined as anything getting in the way of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus
is able to survive outside the womb.Soooo, again, under this new standard, the only provision
of the Pennsylvania law to not pass this new undue-burden test was the husband notification
requirement.
Not only that, the Court brought up how a fetus could survive outside the womb as early
as 23 or 24 weeks instead of the 28 weeks previously understood by the Court in Roe
v. Wade.
Ya know, since technology had improved in 19 years.
Therefore, the Court said only after the point of viability could states step in and restrict
and/or regulate abortion.
Most of the dissenting justices seemed to base their argument around the fact that they
didn’t think abortion was a right, at least according to the Constitution.
Whew.
I mean, there’s more, and I oversimplified a bit there, but those are the main points.
Simply put, Planned Parenthood v. Casey made Roe v. Wade harder to overturn.
Even if Roe v. Wade was to be overturned, Planned Parenthood v. Casey probably made
it so state lawmakers would have a harder time outlawing abortions.
That all said, there’s a new abortion case the Supreme Court is soon taking on called
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Many think that the current conservative-leaning Court today could in fact use the case to
further restrict abortion.
As they hear oral arguments on this case this fall, it will be Planned Parenthood v. Casey
they mostly rely on before they make their decision, since it established pretty much
THE constitutional standard for how we look at abortion restrictions.
I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!
So what are YOUR predictions about how the Court will decide in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s
Health Organization?
Also, where do you stand on abortion?
I know, totally not controversial, right?
I’m also open to more Supreme Court case suggestions for this series, so keep them
coming.
Hey thanks for watching.