Abstract
The US Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey both protects a woman's liberty to choose to terminate her pregnancy and permits the state to make it more difficult for her to exercise her choice. In their opinion on the case, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter eloquently defend constitutional protection of the right to make intimate decisions like continuing or ending a pregnancy. At the same time, they permit the state to try to persuade pregnant women not to have abortions and to make abortion harder to obtain and more costly, as long as the state's methods do not create an "undue burden" on the decision. Any restriction on abortion is a burden; whether it is "undue" (and therefore unconstitutional) depends on one's circumstances. The Court appears to view the difference between an undue burden and mere inconvenience from the perspective of privilege. The restrictions that were upheld may not significantly affect middle-class access to abortion, but they could prove insurmountable for many less privileged women.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Annas G. J., Glantz L. H., Mariner W. K. The right of privacy protects the doctor-patient relationship. JAMA. 1990 Feb 9;263(6):858–861. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dworkin Ronald. The center holds! New York Rev Books. 1992 Aug 13;39(14):29–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mariner W. K. Access to health care and equal protection of the law: the need for a new heightened scrutiny. Am J Law Med. 1986;12(3-4):345–380. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mariner W. K. Mum's the word: the Supreme Court and family planning. Am J Public Health. 1992 Feb;82(2):296–301. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.2.296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Susser M. Induced abortion and health as a value. Am J Public Health. 1992 Oct;82(10):1323–1324. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.10.1323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]