- HeinOnline.org Skip to main content
Content Start

Click here to view short-term subscription options to access this document.

13 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 15 (1993-1994)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey: The Flight from Reason in the Supreme Court

handle is hein.journals/stlpl13 and id is 21 raw text is: PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CASEY:
THE FLIGHT FROM REASON
IN THE SUPREME COURT
PAUL BENJAMIN LLNTON*
a judicious reconsideration of precedent cannot be as
threatening to public faith in the judiciary as continued adherence to
a rule unjustified in reason.
- Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 405
(1970) (opinion of Justice Harlan).
INTRODUCTION
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.
Casey,1 a, bare majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v.
Wade.2 Although Roe was not directly implicated by any of the stat-
utes challenged in Casey,3 all of which could have been upheld
without overruling Roe,4 the Justices agreed to reexamine Roe be-
cause of the uncertainty regarding its continued viability and the need
to provide guidance to state and federal courts and state legislatures.5
The result of this reexamination, however, was a badly divided Court
that could not muster a majority in support of any standard of re-
*   B.A. History (Honors), J.D., Loyola University of Chicago, Associate
General Counsel for Litigation, Americans United for Life. The author gratefully
acknowledges the assistance of Mary Kate Connolly, B.A. History (Honors), Bos-
ton College, 1988, J.D. candidate, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University
of America, May 1994, and Jay W. Stein, Ph.D., Columbia University, (Public
Law and Government), in the research of this article.
1. 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992).
2. 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
3. At issue in Casey were five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion
Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989-the definition of medical
emergency, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 3203 (1990), and provisions requiring in-
formed consent and a 24-hour waiting period, id., § 3205, spousal notice, id., §
3209, informed parental consent (subject to a judicial bypass), id., § 3206, and
recordkeeping and reporting, id., §§ 3207(b), 3214(a), 3214(f).
4. Casey, 112 S. Ct. at 2803.
5. Id. at 2803-04 (Joint Opinion), 2855 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in the
judgment in part and dissenting in part).

Already a Subscriber?


What Is HeinOnline?


HeinOnline is the world’s largest image-based and fully searchable legal and academic research database. Material contained in HeinOnline is an exact replication of the original printed product, and coverage is typically comprehensive. Contact us today for a free demo of this incredible resource.

We offer annual subscriptions to all HeinOnline collections to universities, colleges, law firms, individuals, and other institutions. To request a quote or trial, please click here.

Please note: the content in the Law Journal Library is constantly changing and some content has restrictions as required per the license. Therefore, please review the available content via the following link to ensure the material you wish to access is included in the database. For a complete list of content included in the Law Journal Library, please click here.

Learn More About the Law Journal Library (pdf)
••
T B