Can someone clarify Planned Parenthood v. Casey to me?

[TommyAtkins]

Hi everyone!

So I'm currently doing an assignment for AP US Government. I'm researching significant Supreme Court cases and I've come across Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Here's what I understand so far:

Roe v. Wade upheld a woman's right to an abortion using the 14th amendment. Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld that decision, abandoned the trimester framework regarding abortion regulation, and upheld a state's right to regulate abortions (which also happened in Roe v. Wade). It did rule one part of the Pennsylvania abortion law unconstitutional, but I feel that this isn't significant.

So in essence, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a minor victory for pro life in my eyes. However, I'm so confused at what the overall significance of this case is. It did uphold abortion but at the same time it has allowed states to pass laws restricting abortion as long as it did not impose "undue burden". When I tried looking up the legality of abortions in states it only made the issue more confusing to me. Apparently, states are still trying to pass laws banning abortion completely. Didn't Roe v. Wade already permit abortions? Also, I don't understand the whole trimester framework and "undue burden" thing. Planned parenthood v. Casey made it EASIER for states to restrict abortion, correct? "Undue burden" is such a broad idea that is less concrete than a trimester framework, allowing more state regulations that are pro life to slide.

I also don't understand how Roe v. Wade was at risk of being overturned by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I thought that they were debating over a Pennsylvania Law regulating abortion not abortion as a whole! Why is it that abortion is now at risk of being banned when only a law regulating abortion is brought under question?

I'm excited for AP US Gov next year as I love reading about Supreme Court cases and learning about our government. Many of these cases are so confusing to me though. I still don't understand the reasoning behind some decisions and how some decisions conflict with others (Tinker v. Des Moines and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier). I would appreciate it if you guys could clear up Planned Parenthood v. Casey for me!

SIDE QUESTION: I've always wondered why when researching Supreme Court cases, the 14th amendment always comes up. Its like the Supreme Court always finds a way to tie it into its decisions. Why? I've wondered what the 14th amendment has to do with abortion. I'm guessing that it has to do with the due process clause, which basically prevents states from taking away liberty, and by preventing women the right to an abortion that is taking away a liberty. The 14th amendment seems to work its way into every Supreme Court case I've read.

 

[Ernie S.]

Hi everyone!

So I'm currently doing an assignment for AP US Government. I'm researching significant Supreme Court cases and I've come across Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Here's what I understand so far:

Roe v. Wade upheld a woman's right to an abortion using the 14th amendment. Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld that decision, abandoned the trimester framework regarding abortion regulation, and upheld a state's right to regulate abortions (which also happened in Roe v. Wade). It did rule one part of the Pennsylvania abortion law unconstitutional, but I feel that this isn't significant.

So in essence, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a minor victory for pro life in my eyes. However, I'm so confused at what the overall significance of this case is. It did uphold abortion but at the same time it has allowed states to pass laws restricting abortion as long as it did not impose "undue burden". When I tried looking up the legality of abortions in states it only made the issue more confusing to me. Apparently, states are still trying to pass laws banning abortion completely. Didn't Roe v. Wade already permit abortions? Also, I don't understand the whole trimester framework and "undue burden" thing. Planned parenthood v. Casey made it EASIER for states to restrict abortion, correct? "Undue burden" is such a broad idea that is less concrete than a trimester framework, allowing more state regulations that are pro life to slide.

I also don't understand how Roe v. Wade was at risk of being overturned by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I thought that they were debating over a Pennsylvania Law regulating abortion not abortion as a whole! Why is it that abortion is now at risk of being banned when only a law regulating abortion is brought under question?

I'm excited for AP US Gov next year as I love reading about Supreme Court cases and learning about our government. Many of these cases are so confusing to me though. I still don't understand the reasoning behind some decisions and how some decisions conflict with others (Tinker v. Des Moines and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier). I would appreciate it if you guys could clear up Planned Parenthood v. Casey for me!

SIDE QUESTION: I've always wondered why when researching Supreme Court cases, the 14th amendment always comes up. Its like the Supreme Court always finds a way to tie it into its decisions. Why? I've wondered what the 14th amendment has to do with abortion. I'm guessing that it has to do with the due process clause, which basically prevents states from taking away liberty, and by preventing women the right to an abortion that is taking away a liberty. The 14th amendment seems to work its way into every Supreme Court case I've read.

Yeah, the 14th or the commerce clause figure in so many and for, at times, equally bullshit reasoning.

 

[Idadunno]

Hi everyone!

So I'm currently doing an assignment for AP US Government. I'm researching significant Supreme Court cases and I've come across Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Here's what I understand so far:

Roe v. Wade upheld a woman's right to an abortion using the 14th amendment. Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld that decision, abandoned the trimester framework regarding abortion regulation, and upheld a state's right to regulate abortions (which also happened in Roe v. Wade). It did rule one part of the Pennsylvania abortion law unconstitutional, but I feel that this isn't significant.

So in essence, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a minor victory for pro life in my eyes. However, I'm so confused at what the overall significance of this case is. It did uphold abortion but at the same time it has allowed states to pass laws restricting abortion as long as it did not impose "undue burden". When I tried looking up the legality of abortions in states it only made the issue more confusing to me. Apparently, states are still trying to pass laws banning abortion completely. Didn't Roe v. Wade already permit abortions? Also, I don't understand the whole trimester framework and "undue burden" thing. Planned parenthood v. Casey made it EASIER for states to restrict abortion, correct? "Undue burden" is such a broad idea that is less concrete than a trimester framework, allowing more state regulations that are pro life to slide.

I also don't understand how Roe v. Wade was at risk of being overturned by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I thought that they were debating over a Pennsylvania Law regulating abortion not abortion as a whole! Why is it that abortion is now at risk of being banned when only a law regulating abortion is brought under question?

I'm excited for AP US Gov next year as I love reading about Supreme Court cases and learning about our government. Many of these cases are so confusing to me though. I still don't understand the reasoning behind some decisions and how some decisions conflict with others (Tinker v. Des Moines and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier). I would appreciate it if you guys could clear up Planned Parenthood v. Casey for me!

SIDE QUESTION: I've always wondered why when researching Supreme Court cases, the 14th amendment always comes up. Its like the Supreme Court always finds a way to tie it into its decisions. Why? I've wondered what the 14th amendment has to do with abortion. I'm guessing that it has to do with the due process clause, which basically prevents states from taking away liberty, and by preventing women the right to an abortion that is taking away a liberty. The 14th amendment seems to work its way into every Supreme Court case I've read.

Start with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is about due process--every person has the right of due process--fair trial, etc., equality under the law. This means that no one can be discriminated against. All men and women are equal under the Constitution. All people have equal rights--this is why the SC said yes to SSM. Due process, in a nutshell, means equality.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Liberty = the right to privacy Personal Autonomy Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

Roe v Wade
"3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164."
Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 1973 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Facts of the Case
The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.

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?

Conclusion
Decision: 5 votes for Planned Parenthood, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process
In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Note the question.
Everything is about the question asked. When a case goes before the SC, the SC answers the question(s) asked based on evidence presented. If the question asked did not represent the true issue, or the evidence did not support the question asked, people lose cases.
The only thing that was considered a burden, a violation of rights, was the wife having to get the consent of the husband because that would be an obstacle. A minor has to have parental consent, and waiting 24 hours, people hope having to wait, women will change their minds and since it is not actually stopping or placing an obstacle in the path, it is legal.