Abortion clinics and physicians challenged the constitutionality of 1988 and 1989 amendments to Pennsylvania’s abortion statutes, claiming they violated the due process clause of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (744 F.Supp. 1323) agreed that several sections of the statute were unconstitutional. Upon appeal, the 3rd Circuit Court (947 F.2d 682) affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court ruling. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held: 1) that the doctrine of stare decisis (the rule of precedence) requires reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade’s essential holding, that recognizes a woman’s legal right to choose an abortion before fetal viability; 2) that the "undue burden" test should be modified according to fetal viability, rather than the third trimester framework; 3) that the medical emergency definition in Pennsylvania’s statute was sufficiently broad and did not constitute an undue burden; 4) that the informed consent requirements, the 24-hour waiting period, parental consent provisions, and the reporting and record keeping requirements of the statute did not constitute an undue burden; and 5) that the spousal notification provision did impose an undue burden. The other Justices concurred in part and dissented in part on the ruling, written for the majority by O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter. [Source: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al., v Robert P. Casey, et al., 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992).]
Principles & Concepts: human dignity, respect for persons, autonomy, right to life, respect for autonomy.
