| dbo:abstract
|
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the imposition of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The case arose from a challenge to five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982; among the provisions were requirements for a waiting period, spousal notice, and (for minors) parental consent prior to undergoing an abortion procedure. In a plurality opinion jointly written by associate justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, the Supreme Court upheld the "essential holding" of Roe, which was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protected a woman's right to have an abortion prior to fetal viability. The Court overturned the Roe trimester framework in favor of a viability analysis, thereby allowing states to implement abortion restrictions that apply during the first trimester of pregnancy. In its "key judgment," the Court overturned Roe's strict scrutiny standard of review of a state's abortion restrictions with the undue burden standard, under which abortion restrictions would be unconstitutional when they were enacted for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Applying this new standard of review, the Court upheld four provisions of the Pennsylvania law, but invalidated the requirement of spousal notification. Four justices wrote or joined opinions arguing that Roe v. Wade should have been struck down, while two justices wrote opinions favoring the preservation of the higher standard of review for abortion restrictions. (en)
- 플랜드페런트후드 대 케이시 사건(Planned Parenthood v. Casey)은 미국 연방대법원의 판례이다. 로 대 웨이드 사건에서의 삼분법 기준을 이 사건에서 폐기하였다. 이는 의학 기술의 진전에 따라 생존가능성에 대한 종전의 기준(임신 3분기에서부터 생존가능성이 있다고 본 것)이 현실에 부합하지 않기 때문이다. 연방대법원은 이 판결에서 태아의 자궁밖 생존가능성이 있기 이전에는 여성의 권리가 태아의 권리에 우선한다고 하면서 생존가능성 이전의 낙태에 대해 ‘부당한 부담’을 부과하지 못하도록 했다. 생존가능성 후의 낙태는 금지할 수 있되 여성의 생명과 건강을 위해 필요한 경우에는 낙태를 허용하도록 했다. (ko)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey is een arrest van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof uit 1992. (nl)
- 宾州东南部计划生育组织诉凯西案（Planned Parenthood v. Casey）是1992年美国最高法院关于堕胎的具有里程碑意义的案件。根據大法官們的多数意见，法院支持1973年羅訴韋德案中确立的堕胎权。 (zh)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 57111 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:align
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-04-22 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (en)
|
| dbp:concurrence/dissent
|
- Stevens (en)
- Rehnquist (en)
- Scalia (en)
- Blackmun (en)
|
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:date
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-29 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:footer
|
- Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and Sandra O'Connor, all appointed by Republican presidents, defied expectations and helped craft the three-justice plurality opinion that refused to overturn Roe. (en)
|
| dbp:fullname
|
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey, et al. (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- A Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. (en)
|
| dbp:image
|
- Anthony Kennedy official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpg (en)
- DavidSouter.jpg (en)
- Sandra_Day_O'Connor_crop.jpg (en)
|
| dbp:joinconcurrence/dissent
|
- Rehnquist, White, and Thomas (en)
- White, Scalia, and Thomas (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Blackmun and Stevens (en)
|
| dbp:joinplurality
| |
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
|
- U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV; 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3203, 3205–09, 3214 (en)
|
| dbp:litigants
|
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey (en)
|
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
|
- O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (en)
|
| dbp:opinionannouncement
| |
| dbp:oralargument
| |
| dbp:overruled
|
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (en)
|
| dbp:overturnedPreviousCase
|
- Roe v. Wade , City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health , Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (en)
|
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:plurality
|
- O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (en)
|
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:reason
|
- WP:ROC Minority opinions have no relevance to the law of the case in U.S. jurisprudence. This belongs in the wikipedia entry for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, not here. (en)
|
| dbp:subsequent
| |
| dbp:totalWidth
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- 플랜드페런트후드 대 케이시 사건(Planned Parenthood v. Casey)은 미국 연방대법원의 판례이다. 로 대 웨이드 사건에서의 삼분법 기준을 이 사건에서 폐기하였다. 이는 의학 기술의 진전에 따라 생존가능성에 대한 종전의 기준(임신 3분기에서부터 생존가능성이 있다고 본 것)이 현실에 부합하지 않기 때문이다. 연방대법원은 이 판결에서 태아의 자궁밖 생존가능성이 있기 이전에는 여성의 권리가 태아의 권리에 우선한다고 하면서 생존가능성 이전의 낙태에 대해 ‘부당한 부담’을 부과하지 못하도록 했다. 생존가능성 후의 낙태는 금지할 수 있되 여성의 생명과 건강을 위해 필요한 경우에는 낙태를 허용하도록 했다. (ko)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey is een arrest van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof uit 1992. (nl)
- 宾州东南部计划生育组织诉凯西案（Planned Parenthood v. Casey）是1992年美国最高法院关于堕胎的具有里程碑意义的案件。根據大法官們的多数意见，法院支持1973年羅訴韋德案中确立的堕胎权。 (zh)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the imposition of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey (en)
- 플랜드페런트후드 대 케이시 사건 (ko)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey (nl)
- 宾州东南部计划生育组织诉凯西案 (zh)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- Planned Parenthoodof Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v.Robert P. Casey, et al. (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is rdfs:seeAlso
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
