- [Narrator] Nineteen years after Roe versus Wade
the United States Supreme Court re-evaluated
the Constitutional protection afforded to
a woman's right to choose.
In Planned Parenthood versus Casey, a fractured court
reaffirmed Roe's central holding,
but disagreed on just about everything else.
The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982
imposed five restrictions on abortion providers
and women seeking abortions.
First, the Act required that the women seeking abortions
give informed consent.
Second, providers had to give women state-published
information about abortion at least 24 hours
before any abortion procedure.
Third, at least one parent had to provide
informed consent for a minor's abortion.
Fourth, married women had to sign a statement
indicating that they had notified their husbands.
Finally, the act imposed record keeping
and reporting requirements on abortion providers.
A group of abortion providers sued Robert Casey,
the governor of Pennsylvania,
challenging the constitutionality of the act.
Following a bench trial, the district court concluded
that all five of the challenged provisions
were unconstitutional.
The Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part,
concluding that only the spousal notification requirement
failed constitutional scrutiny.
The United States Supreme Court accepted the case
to re-examine Roe and consider the extent to which
a state may restrict abortion access.
A majority of the Court reaffirmed Roe's central holding,
maintaining that the Due Process clause of the 14th
Amendment prevents from states from unduly interfering
with a woman's right to abort a non-viable fetus.
Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter authored
a joint opinion.
Justices Blackmun and Stevens concurred in portions
of the joint opinion to form a five-justice majority.
The majority reaffirmed Roe's essential holding
which they defined in three parts.
First, a woman has the right to abort a non-viable fetus
without undue state interference.
Second, states can restrict abortions after viability,
so long as there are exceptions for pregnancies
that endanger a woman's life or health.
Third, states have a legitimate interest in protecting
a pregnant woman's health and the life of the fetus.
And this interest exists from the outset of pregnancy.
As for the challenged provisions, the five Justices agreed
that only the spousal notification requirement
was unconstitutional.
The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part
the Third Circuit's decision and remanded the case
for further proceedings.
But Planned Parenthood versus Casey
wasn't over yet.
Beyond those few areas of agreement,
the Court was divided.
Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter criticized
Roe's trimester framework because it undervalued
the state's interest in the potential life of a fetus.
Rather, these Justices believed that the constitutionality
of abortion restrictions should be analyzed according
to an undue-burden standard.
Under this standard, an abortion restriction places an
undue burden on a woman seeking to abort a non-viable fetus
if the regulation has the purpose or effect
of placing a substantial obstacle in her path.
Justice Stevens concurred in part and dissented in part.
Stevens defined the undue burden standard more broadly.
For Stevens, a burden is undue if it is too great
or if it lacks a legitimate, rational justification.
By this definition, and the Court's precedent,
Stevens thought that additional provisions of the act
were unconstitutional.
For Stevens, the requirement that women
be provided state-authored information about abortion
was unconstitutional.
The act's 24-hour waiting period also posed
an undue burden because it reflected outmoded ideas
about women's decision making capacity.
Justice Blackmun, who had authored the opinion in Roe,
also concurred in part and dissented in part.
He defended Roe's trimester framework and argued
that abortion restrictions should be subject
to strict scrutiny rather than the joint opinion's
undue-burden standard.
For Blackmun, restrictions on abortion survive
only if they are narrowly tailored to serve
a compelling governmental interest.
Under this standard, Blackmun argued that all
of the challenged provisions were unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices White,
Scalia and Thomas, concurred in part and dissented in part.
Rehnquist argued that Roe's essential holding
which held that abortion is a fundamental right
and that state regulations must pass strict scrutiny
was incorrect.
Rather, states can regulate abortions in ways
rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Under that standard, all of the challenged provisions
were constitutional.
Justice Scalia also filed an opinion.
Scalia noted that the constitutional text
says nothing about abortion.
Furthermore, abortion has traditionally
been prohibited in American society.
Therefore, Scalia argued that abortion
isn't a constitutionally protected liberty.
After nearly two decades of debate, the Casey court
definitively affirmed the central holding of
Roe versus Wade.
Since then, the Court's interpretation of the due-process
clause is still good law.
Abortion cases since Casey have focused on whether
a challenged restriction poses an undue-burden
on a woman's right to choose.