About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 (July 15, 2005)

handle is hein.crs/crsaiym0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Order Code RS22198 July 15, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Abortion: Justice O'Connor's Opinions Jon 0. Shimabukuro Legislative Attorney American Law Division Summary In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, adopted a new standard for reviewing the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion. Under the new standard, a reviewing court would consider whether an abortion restriction has the effect of imposing an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion. This report will examine Justice O'Connor's notable opinions on abortion, and explore her role in the development of the undue burden standard. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, adopted a new standard for reviewing the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion. Under the new standard, a reviewing court would consider whether an abortion restriction has the effect of imposing an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion. Although the new standard was not formally adopted by the Court until 1992 in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Justice O'Connor's opinions on abortion prior to Casey had already expressed dissatisfaction with the trimester framework established in Roe v. Wade, and an interest in considering abortion restrictions based on whether they imposed an undue burden on the right to obtain an abortion. This report will examine Justice O'Connor's notable opinions on abortion, and explore her role in the development of the undue burden standard. Justice O'Connor first addressed the legitimacy of abortion restrictions in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, a case involving five provisions of an Akron, Ohio ordinance that regulated the performance of abortions.! The five provisions imposed various restrictions on abortion, including a parental consent requirement for unemancipated minors, and a requirement that all abortions performed after the first trimester be performed in a hospital. The Court determined by a 6-3 vote that the five provisions of the ordinance were unconstitutional. After reaffirming its decision in Roe, the Court indicated that the five provisions did not comply with that decision and the trimester framework articulated in that case.2 1 462 U.S. 416 (1983). 2 For a discussion of Roe v. Wade and the trimester framework, see CRS Issue Brief 1B95095, (continued...) Congressional Research Service +o The Library of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most