Coun case that took place in 1992, five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abonion Control Act of 1982 were being challenged as unconstitutional under another case, Roe vs. Wade. Roe Vs, Wade was the case that first recognized a constitutional right to abortion a legal liberty under a clause In the Fourteen Amendment. The five provisions being challenged were the informed consenta€f rule, the a€cespousa| notificationa€_ requirement, the a€ceparental consentaéi rule, a 247hour waiting period, and the Imposition of certain reporting requirements on abortion facilities.
The aéteinformed consentaéi rule required that all doctors are to provide women with information about the complications and health risks of havrng an abortion before one could be performed.
The a€ceparental consentaéi rule required that women 17 years of age and younger get permission from their parent or guardian prior to having an abortion. The fourth provision required that a woman wait 24 hours before obtaining an abortion. The last provision challenged was the imposition of specific reporting requirements of facilities where abortions were performed.
When the case was brought before the Supreme Court. Pennsylvania defended the Abortion Act of 1982 in part by urging the Court to overturn Roe as having been wrongfully decided. At this point, there were only two obVious supporters of Roe out of the nine Justices, so due to these Circumstances, everyone was gearing up for a subsequent state by state campaign against the passing of specific antirabortion laws. This case was important because it challenged a preVious case that was thought to be perhaps unconstitutional, which we as Americans should not stand for.
It also upheld Roe vs. Wadea€ms right to have an abortion but lowered the standard for havrng analyzrng restrictions of that right, invalidating one regulation but upholding the others. The two sides of this case were the plaintiffs, who were five abortion clinics and doctors who provided abortion serVices, and the defendant, which was the state of Pennsylvania, The plaintiffs filed suit to have the state declare the five provisions unconstitutional. During the appeal in the Third Circuit Court, the court upheld all but the husband notification requirement. Casey is a diVided judgement because none of the Justicesa€m opinions were joined by a majority of Justices. However. the plurality decision, which was written by Justices Souter, 0a€WConnoL and Kennedy, is accepted a the lead opinion because each of its pans were agreed with by at least two other Justicesaew. although different ones for each part.
The plurality opinion overturned the strict trimester formula previously used in Roe vs. Wade which then made it a shorter time period before the Statea€ms interest in the fetus outweighed the womana€Ws interest to abort. The plurality opinion also got rid of the husband notification requirement, saying that it would worsen situations of spousal abuse because it would give husbands too much power over their Wives. William Rehnquist, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas- those who were not included in the plurality decision- wrote or jOIned opinions in which they partially concurred and partially dissented from the decision, Rehnquist and Scalia joined the plurality in upholding the parental consent, informed consent, and waiting period laws. However, they dissented in the decision of the plurality to uphold Roe and strike down the spousal notification law, saying that Roe vs. Wade was incorrectly decided, Rehnquist and Scalia joined each othera€Ws concurrences and dissents, and White and Thomas. who did not write their own opinions, joined in both.
Blackmun and Stevens wrote opinions in which they approved of the pluralitya€ms decision to uphold Roe and rejection of the spousal notification law, The did not agree, however. over the pluralitya€ws decision over the other three laws. Biackmun nor Stevensa€Ws opinions were joined by otherjustices. The judges who were on the bench during this case were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day oa€WConnor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Davrd Souter, and Clarence Thomas. The historical impact of this case was significant. It did away With one of the Abortion Acts of 1982 and it also held up Roe vs. Wade. In addition to that, the plurality also set the example and emphasized the need to stand by prior decisions, even if they were unpopular, unless there had been a change in the fundamental reasoning underpinning the previous decision.
I do not agree With this case or the Courta€ms decision because i do not agree with the case of Planned Parenthood vs, Caseya€ws foundation: Roe vs. Wade. l believe that if you allow yourself to get into a situation where you choose to make a decision that could bring an innocent life into existence. with the exception of incest and rape. and you do not want the child, it isnaewt fair to the life inside of you or the public. for the positive contributions it could make, to kill it. lta€ms also not fair to you to harm yourself in that way. Instead. I believe that you should have the baby and then give it up for adoption, and give the baby to someone who doesnaéwt have the ability to have a child of their own. That way, you do not commit murder and you dona€Wt have the unnecessary burden of guilt later. Instead, you make the new guardian happy, the new life happy, and you save yourself a lot of depressron.