Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Navigating Abortion Rights and State Regulations in the U.S.

Access to reproductive health care will be adversely affected by the decisions that the Supreme Court makes regarding how abortion and its restrictions are evaluated in the United States (U.S.) based on Planned Parenthood v Casey. The decisions that the Supreme Court made in this case affected the initial protection that both physicians and women enjoyed in the Roe v Wade case of 1973 Roe v. Wade, 314. 1217 (1970). The anti-abortion restrictions, termed Pennsylvania, outlined in the Roe v Wade case accorded women the right to abortion. Therefore, state intervention in abortion aims to protect the fetus's life and the woman's health simultaneously. While Casey did adhere to the precedent, Planned Parenthood changed what Roe set.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

There are both the negative and positive implications of women's weakened protection to legally exercise the right to abortion. Young, minority, and poor women without the power to challenge restrictive and biased counseling and subsequent waiting periods in their need for an abortion suffer the most. The restrictions affect the women involved and the physicians and their legal protection while exercising abortion. Their job description is viewed as dangerous, resulting in a scares supply of physicians willing to specialize and conduct abortion in the future. The medical community's role is to guarantee women access to competent, yet comprehensive reproductive health. This cannot happen if restrictions are imposed to increase the cost of access to the same services and lead to a shortage of physicians. However, the affirmation accorded to the Roe v Wade ruling assured that not all abortions would be prohibited Roe v. Wade, 314. 1217 (1970).

The upheaval created nationwide by the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade reveals that the court must have had a principal basis for its holding. In reaction to this holding, many states enacted laws to prevent abortions while some developed hurdles before women were accorded the right to abortion. One such State was Pennsylvania which came up with the Abortion Control Act of 1982. This act detailed that a woman gave informed consent before being granted the right to abortion. After that, they had to wait 24 hours for education regarding abortion before they would be attended. Minors had to obtain their parent's consent unless exposed to hardships, and husbands were informed by their wives unless medical emergencies called for immediate abortion Roe v. Wade, 314. 1217 (1970). One of the requirements of the act was the registration of abortion clinics within Pennsylvania. However, Planned Parenthood, located in Southeastern Pennsylvania, initiated a lawsuit opposing the act, stating that the act violated the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling. While abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade, the 14th constitutional amendment gave protection to the right to privacy in which the right to abortion was implicit. This was the principal basis for the Roe v Wade holding.

Planned Parenthood v Casey gives an affirmation to Roe v Wade holding and further explains the authority that the State has over Roe v Wade. Some schools of thought view the decisions made in Casey as controversial regarding how the State should regulate abortion. In pursuit of protecting the mother's health and possibility to outlaw aborting a fetus termed viable makes Casey as controversial as Roe. The 1992 Casey ruling outlines the judgment with which restrictive abortion laws are judged. Overruling Roe, as stated by retired Justice John Paul Stevens in The Making of a Justice, shows the problematic satiation that proceeds an overruling. Oral argument in the privacy of a Supreme Court proceeds a five-vote on Roe, written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun.

Different principles have aided in the assessment of Pennsylvania's status. The undue burden established following the need to protect the central right that was found and the need to accommodate the State called for invalidation of the law. The invalidation of the law follows the main objective it serves regarding abortion. The restrictions that a woman seeking abortion encounters reveal that the law in place was an obstacle to a woman's right to receive an abortion before a fetus is considered viable.

The rigid trimester framework in Roe contradicted the State's interest in the protection of potential life within the duration of pregnancy (Dellinger et al., 83.). Measures that were proposed are considered vital in the mother's persuasion to consider keeping the pregnancy other than abortion. Therefore, the State insists that this persuasion ensures that the woman makes an informed decision before evaluating abortion should not be viewed as an undue burden. The State's role in the medical field's position is to ensure laws are put in place to guarantee the protection of the mother's health and the protection of potential life. This is a standard measure that the State can take regarding abortion, just like it would in another medical procedure. However, the State should refrain from any such laws that obstruct a woman from seeking an abortion. However, the adoption of the undue burden guarantees that the decision of a woman to abort should not be opposed by the State on any basis even when exemptions are made. The Roe holding to proscribe or regulate abortion unless it is the only choice regarding the protection of a woman's health or the fetus's life was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v Casey.

The precedent assures that there is certainty in the law. Casey uses cases with similar materials and sets the guidelines to decide on the claim based on the judgment that such cases received in the past (Maltz et al. 11). All the points used are abortion-related and with issues such as the importance of the woman's health and the child's life in question. The interest of the State is also considered before the undue burden is considered at every holding. The State has the part of the protection of its citizens' health and, at the same time, regulates the procedures in the medical field. Laws enacted that contradict the right of women seeking an abortion as a procedure necessary for their well-being are considered for review. The inclusion of a woman's right to undergo an abortion is also considered in the holdings before the Planned Parenthood v. Casey holding.

Works Cited

Dellinger, Walter, and Gene B. Sperling. "Abortion and the Supreme Court: The Retreat from Roe v. Wade." U. pa. l. rev. 138 (1989): 83.

Maltz, Earl M. "Abortion, Precedent, and the Constitution: A Comment on Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey." Notre Dame L. Rev. 68 (1992): 11.

Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970).t.