Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Read the full opinion on CourtListener · The case as printed (Library of Congress)
Overruled
- Overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions, p. 2437: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1391 (U.S. June 24, 2022) — Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
Syllabus
The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is shown as printed in the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan (optical character recognition in older volumes, not yet checked word by word against the page).
At issue are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982: § 3205, which requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the procedure, and specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed; § 3206, which mandates the informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an abortion, but provides a judicial bypass procedure; § 3209, which commands that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband; § 3203, which defines a "medical emergency" that will excuse compliance with the foregoing requirements; and §§3207(b), 3214(a), and 3214(f), which impose certain reporting requirements on facilities providing abortion services. Before any of the provisions took effect, the petitioners, five abortion clinics and a physician representing himself and a class of doctors who provide abortion services, brought this suit seeking a declaratory judgment that each of the provisions was unconstitutional on its face, as well as injunctive relief. The District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, striking down the husband notification provision but upholding the others.
Printed on p. 833 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Held: The judgment in No. 91-902 is affirmed; the judgment in No. 91-744 is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.
Printed on p. 833 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
947 F. 2d 682: No. 91-902, affirmed; No. 91-744, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Printed on p. 833 of the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan. View the page image
Provisions
The Constitution Annotated's essays on these provisions cite this case.
- Amendment XIV, Section 1suggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt14.S1.6.4.1, pp. 2168, 2169.
- Amendment Vsuggested link
Source: Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (2022 ed.), essays Amdt5.7.6, pp. 1763, 1764.
Why it is here
The library's first set of cases is chosen by fixed rules from the Constitution Annotated (2022), which cites this case as “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)”:
- overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (table of overruled decisions)
- overruled (table of overruled decisions) and cited on 6 pages