## Facts

- Pennsylvania amended its Abortion Control Act to require informed consent with specified disclosures and a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors with a judicial bypass, spousal notification for married women, specified medical-emergency exceptions, and provider reporting and recordkeeping.
- Abortion clinics and a physician brought a federal facial challenge seeking declaratory and injunctive relief before the provisions took effect.
- The district court held the challenged provisions unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement.
- The Third Circuit upheld the informed-consent/waiting-period requirement, parental consent with bypass, the medical-emergency definition, and reporting requirements, but struck down spousal notification.
- The Supreme Court granted review and considered whether to retain or overrule Roe v. Wade and how to evaluate abortion regulations.

## Issues

1. Whether the Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose abortion before fetal viability and whether Roe v. Wade should be overruled.
2. What standard governs the constitutionality of state abortion regulations prior to viability.
3. Whether Pennsylvania’s informed consent/24-hour waiting period, parental consent with judicial bypass, spousal notification, medical-emergency definition, and reporting requirements violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Court reaffirmed Roe’s “essential holding” that the Constitution protects a right to choose abortion before viability and that, after viability, the state may prohibit abortion with exceptions for the woman’s life or health.
- The Court rejected Roe’s trimester framework and replaced it with the “undue burden” standard for pre-viability regulations.
- The Court held the spousal-notification requirement unconstitutional because it created an undue burden for a significant subset of married women.
- The Court upheld the informed-consent and 24-hour waiting-period provisions, concluding they were not undue burdens.
- The Court upheld parental consent for minors because the judicial bypass prevented the requirement from operating as a substantial obstacle.
- The Court upheld the reporting and recordkeeping provisions as permissible health and regulatory measures that did not impose a substantial obstacle.
- The Court affirmed the Third Circuit’s invalidation of spousal notification and otherwise largely sustained the remaining provisions, with remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- The Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose abortion prior to viability without state action that has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in her path.
- A pre-viability abortion regulation is invalid if it imposes an “undue burden,” defined as a substantial obstacle to obtaining a pre-viability abortion.
- The state may further interests in maternal health and potential life throughout pregnancy and may express a preference for childbirth through truthful, non-misleading information, so long as it does not impose an undue burden.
- After viability, the state may regulate and proscribe abortion, but must allow exceptions necessary to protect the woman’s life or health.
- In evaluating burdens, the Court assessed whether a provision operates as a substantial obstacle for a “large fraction” of women for whom it is relevant.

## Conclusion

The Court retained the constitutional protection for pre-viability abortion and the viability line, replaced Roe’s trimester framework with the undue-burden test, invalidated spousal notification as a substantial obstacle, and upheld informed consent with a waiting period, parental consent with judicial bypass, and reporting requirements as permissible regulations.


Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)