Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

Majority reasoning

The joint opinion held that stare decisis strongly favors retaining Roe's central holding because it has not proven unworkable, women have organized their lives around the availability of abortion, and no change in facts or legal doctrine has undermined its foundations. The Court reasoned that overruling Roe now, under political pressure, would severely damage the Court's legitimacy since Roe resolved a nationally divisive issue that only the Court's continued adherence can keep from reigniting. It rejected Roe's rigid trimester framework as failing to adequately value the state's interest in potential life throughout pregnancy, replacing it with an "undue burden" standard: a regulation is unconstitutional only if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion. Applying this standard, the Court upheld the informed-consent requirements, the 24-hour waiting period, the parental consent provision, and most reporting requirements, but struck down the spousal notification requirement because it would likely deter a large fraction of affected women—particularly victims of domestic abuse—from obtaining abortions, effectively giving husbands veto power reminiscent of the invalidated spousal consent law in Danforth.

Dissent reasoning

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices White, Scalia, and Thomas, dissented in part, arguing that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled because abortion is not a fundamental right rooted in constitutional text or the nation's history and traditions, unlike marriage or contraception. He argued the joint opinion's stare decisis analysis was contrived, since it discarded much of Roe's actual reasoning while purporting to preserve a "central holding," and that the proper standard should be rational-basis review, under which he would uphold all the challenged provisions including spousal notification, which he found rationally related to the state's interest in the marital relationship and paternal involvement. Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas, separately dissented, contending the Constitution says nothing about abortion and the nation's traditions have long permitted its restriction, so the issue should be resolved by legislatures rather than courts. Scalia further argued the "undue burden" standard is standardless and manipulable, inconsistent with the joint opinion's own earlier formulations, and that the Court's stated concern for its "legitimacy" was actually a capitulation to public pressure rather than a principled application of law, comparing the joint opinion's rhetoric unfavorably to the Court's handling of Dred Scott and Lochner-era cases.