Abortion Rights in the Us Court of Appeals

The issue of abortion has been a controversial topic that has divided the country for many years. Today, the debate has reached courtrooms and has traveled all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. In regards, to the courts and interpretation of the law, the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey has been one of the more recent cases that can be referred to. Planned Parenthood v. Casey has been used in deciding and utilizing the undue burden test in other abortion cases. From the district courts to the circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, the undue burden test is used in deciding cases and interpreting the laws that are involved with them. The undue burden test “is a test that must be applied in analyzing whether a restriction is an “undue burden” on that right, thereby rendering the restriction facially unconstitutional” (Cincinnati Women's Servs. v. Taft). If a regulation creates an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, that regulation creates “substantial obstacle” for that woman on her choice/right to have an abortion. The undue burden test has also been used throughout the U.S. Court of Appeals different circuits to decide whether to affirm or reverse rulings of the district courts. This paper will focus on the sixth, eighth and ninth circuits and how they applied the undue burden test in certain cases.

The case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey was decided on July of 1992. This case introduced the undue burden test. “Three justices rejected Roe’s trimester framework and adopted an undue burden test for determining whether state regulations had the purpose or effect of placing substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before viability” (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). Justices Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy in the plural opinion, established the precedent and standard of the undue burden test that can be used in different cases regarding the issue of abortion.

This case first started in the U.S. district court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where five abortion clinics and different physicians collectively called the Planned Parenthood, claimed the provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 were unconstitutional and wanted to stop the enforcement of the Act. The district court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, ruling that all provisions of the Act were unconstitutional. In appeal at the third circuit court, all but one provision were reversed and found constitutional. The third circuit affirmed the decision of the husband-notification provision that a woman needs to notify her husband of an abortion, finding it unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and it was here in the U.S. Supreme Court the precedent of this case was established. The Supreme Court agreed with the third circuit and affirmed the decision upholding the provisions. Under the new standard of the undue burden test, along with the husband-notification provisions, which the third circuit already ruled unconstitutional, the provision that a woman must give reason as to why she did not inform her husband of the abortion, was ruled invalid.

This case is used as a guide in the following cases to help rule on the constitutionality and decide whether or not a woman’s right is begin ignored. The following cases seen in these circuits not only address the undue burden test established in Casey, but refer to Casey for specific points of argument.

In the case of Cincinnati Women’s Services, Inc v. Taft, the plaintiff, the Women’s

Services tried to appeal the decision made by the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio that followed the two provisions in a bill regarding the regulation of abortions in Ohio. The first of the two provisions that were in question, “limited minors who sought a judicial bypass of the statutory parental-consent requirement to one petition per pregnancy (Single-Petition Rule).” (Cincinnati Women's Servs. v. Taft). The second provision that was being questioned by the Women’s Services was the In-Person Rule. This rule mandated women who wanted abortions to attend an “in-person” meeting with a doctor at least 24 hours before the abortion. This meeting was to inform from the patient of what the procedure entailed.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati originally found both provisions to be constitutional and ruled against the Women’s services. Once reaching Judge Cole, Judge Gibbons, and Judge Rogers of the sixth circuit, the ruling was reversed on the Single-Petition Rule. However, they affirmed the ruling of the In-Person Rule. According to the ruling of Judge Sandra S. Beckwith the chief District Judge, the Single-Petition rule “does