| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | PA has an act requiring informed consent, a waiting period, notification of parents or spouse, etc. |
| Posture: | Unknown. |
| Issue: | Is this act constitutional? |
| Holding: | Partly. Not the spousal notification. |
| Rule: | We're affirming the central holding of Roe, but there are limitations on it. |
| Reasoning: | We should draw the line at viability. Why? Stare decisis for one.
Anyone who fails to act before viability basically consents to state
intervention.
The standard of review here is "undue burden." We reject the trimester framework-- the state has a profound interest in potential life. Also, the state may enact regulations to further the health and safety of a woman seeking an abortion. As long as the information that the state provides is truthful and not misleading, it might be ok to provide it. We draw the line at this informing-the-husband business, though |
| Dicta: | Scalia, dissenting: this is just exacerbating the problem. Roe merely enshrined a value judgment and political choice into a national controversy. |