. . . . . . . . "DavidSouter.jpg"@en . "1992"^^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "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 . . . "White, Scalia, and Thomas"@en . "\uD50C\uB79C\uB4DC\uD398\uB7F0\uD2B8\uD6C4\uB4DC \uB300 \uCF00\uC774\uC2DC \uC0AC\uAC74(Planned Parenthood v. Casey)\uC740 \uBBF8\uAD6D \uC5F0\uBC29\uB300\uBC95\uC6D0\uC758 \uD310\uB840\uC774\uB2E4. \uB85C \uB300 \uC6E8\uC774\uB4DC \uC0AC\uAC74\uC5D0\uC11C\uC758 \uC0BC\uBD84\uBC95 \uAE30\uC900\uC744 \uC774 \uC0AC\uAC74\uC5D0\uC11C \uD3D0\uAE30\uD558\uC600\uB2E4. \uC774\uB294 \uC758\uD559 \uAE30\uC220\uC758 \uC9C4\uC804\uC5D0 \uB530\uB77C \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131\uC5D0 \uB300\uD55C \uC885\uC804\uC758 \uAE30\uC900(\uC784\uC2E0 3\uBD84\uAE30\uC5D0\uC11C\uBD80\uD130 \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131\uC774 \uC788\uB2E4\uACE0 \uBCF8 \uAC83)\uC774 \uD604\uC2E4\uC5D0 \uBD80\uD569\uD558\uC9C0 \uC54A\uAE30 \uB54C\uBB38\uC774\uB2E4. \uC5F0\uBC29\uB300\uBC95\uC6D0\uC740 \uC774 \uD310\uACB0\uC5D0\uC11C \uD0DC\uC544\uC758 \uC790\uAD81\uBC16 \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131\uC774 \uC788\uAE30 \uC774\uC804\uC5D0\uB294 \uC5EC\uC131\uC758 \uAD8C\uB9AC\uAC00 \uD0DC\uC544\uC758 \uAD8C\uB9AC\uC5D0 \uC6B0\uC120\uD55C\uB2E4\uACE0 \uD558\uBA74\uC11C \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131 \uC774\uC804\uC758 \uB099\uD0DC\uC5D0 \uB300\uD574 \u2018\uBD80\uB2F9\uD55C \uBD80\uB2F4\u2019\uC744 \uBD80\uACFC\uD558\uC9C0 \uBABB\uD558\uB3C4\uB85D \uD588\uB2E4. \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131 \uD6C4\uC758 \uB099\uD0DC\uB294 \uAE08\uC9C0\uD560 \uC218 \uC788\uB418 \uC5EC\uC131\uC758 \uC0DD\uBA85\uACFC \uAC74\uAC15\uC744 \uC704\uD574 \uD544\uC694\uD55C \uACBD\uC6B0\uC5D0\uB294 \uB099\uD0DC\uB97C \uD5C8\uC6A9\uD558\uB3C4\uB85D \uD588\uB2E4."@ko . "172800.0"^^ . . . . . "Stevens"@en . . . "\u5BBE\u5DDE\u4E1C\u5357\u90E8\u8BA1\u5212\u751F\u80B2\u7EC4\u7EC7\u8BC9\u51EF\u897F\u6848\uFF08Planned Parenthood v. Casey\uFF09\u662F1992\u5E74\u7F8E\u56FD\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u9662\u5173\u4E8E\u5815\u80CE\u7684\u5177\u6709\u91CC\u7A0B\u7891\u610F\u4E49\u7684\u6848\u4EF6\u3002\u6839\u64DA\u5927\u6CD5\u5B98\u5011\u7684\u591A\u6570\u610F\u89C1\uFF0C\u6CD5\u9662\u652F\u63011973\u5E74\u7F85\u8A34\u97CB\u5FB7\u6848\u4E2D\u786E\u7ACB\u7684\u5815\u80CE\u6743\u3002"@zh . "Scalia"@en . . "O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter"@en . . . . "57111"^^ . "U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV; 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. \u00A7\u00A7 3203, 3205\u201309, 3214"@en . . . . . . "505"^^ . . . . . . . . "Planned Parenthood v. Casey is een arrest van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof uit 1992."@nl . . . . . "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 . . "left"@en . . "1992"^^ . . . "Planned Parenthood v. Casey is een arrest van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof uit 1992."@nl . "\u5BBE\u5DDE\u4E1C\u5357\u90E8\u8BA1\u5212\u751F\u80B2\u7EC4\u7EC7\u8BC9\u51EF\u897F\u6848\uFF08Planned Parenthood v. Casey\uFF09\u662F1992\u5E74\u7F8E\u56FD\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u9662\u5173\u4E8E\u5815\u80CE\u7684\u5177\u6709\u91CC\u7A0B\u7891\u610F\u4E49\u7684\u6848\u4EF6\u3002\u6839\u64DA\u5927\u6CD5\u5B98\u5011\u7684\u591A\u6570\u610F\u89C1\uFF0C\u6CD5\u9662\u652F\u63011973\u5E74\u7F85\u8A34\u97CB\u5FB7\u6848\u4E2D\u786E\u7ACB\u7684\u5815\u80CE\u6743\u3002"@zh . . . . "400"^^ . . . . . . . . . "1124444532"^^ . "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 . "Rehnquist, White, and Thomas"@en . "25920.0"^^ . . . . . . . . "\u5BBE\u5DDE\u4E1C\u5357\u90E8\u8BA1\u5212\u751F\u80B2\u7EC4\u7EC7\u8BC9\u51EF\u897F\u6848"@zh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Blackmun and Stevens"@en . . "Roe v. Wade , City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health , Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists"@en . . . . . "Rehnquist"@en . . "--04-22"^^ . . . . . . . . "July 2022"@en . . "Planned Parenthood v. Casey"@en . . . . . . . "172800.0"^^ . . . . . . . . . . . "Sandra_Day_O'Connor_crop.jpg"@en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "\uD50C\uB79C\uB4DC\uD398\uB7F0\uD2B8\uD6C4\uB4DC \uB300 \uCF00\uC774\uC2DC \uC0AC\uAC74(Planned Parenthood v. Casey)\uC740 \uBBF8\uAD6D \uC5F0\uBC29\uB300\uBC95\uC6D0\uC758 \uD310\uB840\uC774\uB2E4. \uB85C \uB300 \uC6E8\uC774\uB4DC \uC0AC\uAC74\uC5D0\uC11C\uC758 \uC0BC\uBD84\uBC95 \uAE30\uC900\uC744 \uC774 \uC0AC\uAC74\uC5D0\uC11C \uD3D0\uAE30\uD558\uC600\uB2E4. \uC774\uB294 \uC758\uD559 \uAE30\uC220\uC758 \uC9C4\uC804\uC5D0 \uB530\uB77C \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131\uC5D0 \uB300\uD55C \uC885\uC804\uC758 \uAE30\uC900(\uC784\uC2E0 3\uBD84\uAE30\uC5D0\uC11C\uBD80\uD130 \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131\uC774 \uC788\uB2E4\uACE0 \uBCF8 \uAC83)\uC774 \uD604\uC2E4\uC5D0 \uBD80\uD569\uD558\uC9C0 \uC54A\uAE30 \uB54C\uBB38\uC774\uB2E4. \uC5F0\uBC29\uB300\uBC95\uC6D0\uC740 \uC774 \uD310\uACB0\uC5D0\uC11C \uD0DC\uC544\uC758 \uC790\uAD81\uBC16 \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131\uC774 \uC788\uAE30 \uC774\uC804\uC5D0\uB294 \uC5EC\uC131\uC758 \uAD8C\uB9AC\uAC00 \uD0DC\uC544\uC758 \uAD8C\uB9AC\uC5D0 \uC6B0\uC120\uD55C\uB2E4\uACE0 \uD558\uBA74\uC11C \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131 \uC774\uC804\uC758 \uB099\uD0DC\uC5D0 \uB300\uD574 \u2018\uBD80\uB2F9\uD55C \uBD80\uB2F4\u2019\uC744 \uBD80\uACFC\uD558\uC9C0 \uBABB\uD558\uB3C4\uB85D \uD588\uB2E4. \uC0DD\uC874\uAC00\uB2A5\uC131 \uD6C4\uC758 \uB099\uD0DC\uB294 \uAE08\uC9C0\uD560 \uC218 \uC788\uB418 \uC5EC\uC131\uC758 \uC0DD\uBA85\uACFC \uAC74\uAC15\uC744 \uC704\uD574 \uD544\uC694\uD55C \uACBD\uC6B0\uC5D0\uB294 \uB099\uD0DC\uB97C \uD5C8\uC6A9\uD558\uB3C4\uB85D \uD588\uB2E4."@ko . . . "\uD50C\uB79C\uB4DC\uD398\uB7F0\uD2B8\uD6C4\uB4DC \uB300 \uCF00\uC774\uC2DC \uC0AC\uAC74"@ko . . "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization"@en . . . . . "833"^^ . . . . . . . . . . . "Anthony Kennedy official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpg"@en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Planned Parenthoodof Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v.Robert P. Casey, et al."@en . "Blackmun"@en . . . . . . . "Planned Parenthood v. Casey"@nl . "Planned Parenthood v. Casey,"@en . . . "171811"^^ . "O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter"@en . . . . . "Stevens"@en . "Planned Parenthood v. Casey"@en . . . "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 . . . . . "--06-29"^^ . . . . . . . "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 . . . "Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey, et al."@en . . .