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).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?