Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Brief Fact Summary.

Section 3209 of Pennsylvania’s abortion law provides that no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman without receiving a signed statement from the woman that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. Yet, many research has shown that millions of women in the U.S are the victims of regular physical and psychological abuse by their husbands.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the benefits of their spouses.

Facts.

Section 3209 of Pennsylvania’s abortion law provides that no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman without receiving a signed statement from the woman that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. While the vast majority of women notify their husbands of their decision to obtain an abortion, those, who do not, had the pregnancy as the result of extramarital affair or marital difficulties. Various studies and research have shown that there are millions of women in the U.S who are the victims of regular physical and psychological abuse by their husbands.

Issue.

Can the States require women to provide a signed statement that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion to physicians to obtain an abortion?

Held.

No. The States may not enact a law requiring women to provide a signed statement that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion to physicians to obtain an abortion and thus, section 3209 is invalid. The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, from the abuse of governmental power, when where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual’s family.

Dissent.

Justice Rehnquist

The State has legitimate interests both in protecting the interests of the father and in protecting the potential life of the fetus and the spousal notification requirement is reasonably related to advancing those state interests. By requiring a married woman to notify her husband, the provision makes it more likely that the husband will participate in deciding the fate of his unborn child. The State also has a legitimate interest in promoting the “integrity of the marital relationship,” an interest that was previously recognized as important to our society by this Court.

Discussion.

The District Court’s findings indicate that two million women are the victims of severe assaults by their husbands in a 12-month period and nearly one of every eight male partner has assaulted his wife during the year of 1985. These data suggests that should women become pregnant, they may have very good reasons for not wishing to inform their husbands of their decision to obtain an abortion and that many spousal rape victims cannot undergo an abortion as they wish. Section 3209 thus imposes a significant obstacle on women.

This Court’s holding in Danforth – the Constitution does not permit a State to require a married woman to obtain her husband’s consent before undergoing an abortion – should dictate our case. Many women who are victims of abuse inflicted by their husbands, a spousal notification requirement enables the husband to perform an effective veto over his wife’s decision, which was considered unconstitutional in Danforth.