Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Significance, Win Some, Lose Some, The Dark Horse, Massachusetts's Abortion Consent Act
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
Robert P. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al.
That under the due process clause of the Constitution, the 1988 and 1989 amendments to the Pennsylvania abortion law were illegal.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
29 June 1992
Judicial respect for precedent required the Court to reaffirm Roe v. Wade, the Court's 1973 decision making abortion legal in the United States. The justices declared Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act law constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part.
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989).
Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, Chapter 112, Section 12S.
- Inc. v. Kay R.I.S.E. - Significance, The King And Queen Landfill Dilemma, Community Mobilization, Impact, Further Readings
- Pete Rose Trial: 1990 - Some Losses Greater Than Winnings, Suggestions For Further Reading
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey - Significance
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey - Further Readings
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey - Win Some, Lose Some
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey - The Dark Horse
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey - Massachusetts's Abortion Consent Act
- Other Free Encyclopedias