Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

The district court declared the law unconstitutional except for one provision requiring physicians to tell women the age of her embryo or fetus. The case then went through two appeals--on 21 October 1991, and 30 October 1992. The Court of Appeals, striking down the husband-notification provision, upheld the others. The stage was set for Supreme Court appeals by both sides.

The oral arguments began on 22 April, a month that brought 500,000 pro-choice women to the nation's capital. Kathryn Kolbert, an experienced American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer, explained the fundamental issue for the plaintiffs:

[Does] . . . government [have] the power to force a woman to continue or to end a pregnancy against her will? . . . Since . . . Roe v. Wade, a generation of American women . . . [have been] secure in the knowledge . . . their child-bearing decisions [are protected]. This landmark decision . . . not only protects rights of bodily integrity and autonomy, but has enabled millions of women to participate fully and equally in society.

Kolbert's opponent, Ernest D. Preate, Jr., followed her to the floor. He had spoken only a few words when Justice Blackmun, the 83-year old author of Roe v. Wade, interrupted, "Have you read Roe?" Preate replied, "Yes." Then, before Preate could finish his remarks, Justice O'Connor showered him with critical questions regarding the spousal notification clause. Justices Stevens and Kennedy continued her skeptical line of questioning, followed by Justice Souter.

Next, U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr, representing the administration of President George Bush, came to the lectern to attack Roe v. Wade. According to historian David J. Garrow, Souter "pressed Starr to concede that if his position prevailed, states could outlaw all abortions, except perhaps those where a pregnancy directly threatened a woman's life." Souter questioned Starr about whether a complete ban on abortions would meet the Webster case's "rational basis" standard. Starr answered that any law would have to include the life of the mother exception or else face "serious questions." Souter remarked in exasperation, "You're asking the Court to adopt a standard and I think we ought to know where the standard would take us."