Crj 201 - Planned Parenthood V Casey

CASE BRIEF

Nafisa Smith

CRJ 201

Spring 2015

Dr. Cretacci

I. Name: Planned Parenthood v Casey

II. Legal Citation: 505 U.S. 833

III. Statement of Facts:  Two Philadelphia officers observed Harry Mimms driving a car with an expired plate. They stopped the vehicle to issue a traffic ticket. One of the officers approached Mimms and asked him to step out of the car and produce his license and registration. Mimms alighted, whereupon the officer noticed a bulge under his jacket. Thinking the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked Mimms and discovered a loaded .38-caliber revolver. The other occupant was also carrying a gun. Mimms was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and for unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license and convicted. Following a denial of a motion to suppress in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Mimms was convicted. The conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

IV. Issue: Is the Pennsylvania law on abortion constitutional under the due process clause of the fourteenth ammendment?

V. Holding and Action: Yes. Affirmed in No. 91-902; in 91-744, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

VI. Rationale: O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter state that a medical emergency doesn’t place unnecessary obstacle in the way of a woman’s right to an abortion because the phrase “serious risk” is included in the definition of medical emergency. This allows for any medical condition that may result in “substantial and irreversible consequences.” They also believe that providing an informed consent is not an undue burden because an abortion is a medical procedure and just as medical procedures require informed consent, so should an abortion. There is no exception.

O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter also agree that spousal notice is an undue burden as many women are the victims of physical and psychological abuse from they’re husbands. In these instances, it may be difficult to obtain consent from the spouse. They believe that all of the provisions that were addressed are indeed constitutional, except the provision on spousal notice, because they are all health related.

VII. Concurring Opinion(s):  Stevens states that the Court’s decision to stand by stare decisis is a good decision because the previous case (Roe v. Wade) has been in effect for nineteen years and is a key factor in the state’s concepts of liberty and equality. This concept of stare decisis is also the reason for Steven’s agreement with the reaffirmation of the aforementioned case’s post viability analysis. The obligation of the state is to protect the mother over the fetus because a fetus is not a person.