Planned Parenthood Vs. Caey (1992)

903 Words2 Pages

Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992) In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, a Supreme Court case which took place in 1992, five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 were being challenged as unconstitutional under another case, Roe vs. Wade. Roe Vs. Wade was the case that first recognized a constitutional right to abortion a legal liberty under a clause in the Fourteen Amendment. The five provisions being challenged were the "informed consent" rule, the "spousal notification" requirement, the "parental consent" rule, a 24-hour waiting period, and imposition of certain reporting requirements on abortion facilities. The "informed consent" rule required that all doctors are to provide women with information about the complications and health risks of having an abortion before one could be performed. The "parental consent" rule required that women 17 years of age and younger get permission from their parent or guardian prior to having an abortion. The fourth provision required that a woman wait 24 hours before obtaining an abortion. The last provision challenged was the imposition of specific reporting requirements of facilities where abortions were performed. When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, Pennsylvania defended the Abortion Act of 1982 in part by urging the Court to overturn Roe as having been wrongfully decided. At this point, there were only two obvious supporters of Roe out of the nine Justices, so due to these circumstances, everyone was gearing up for a subsequent state-by-state campaign against the passing of specific anti-abortion laws. This case was important because it challenged a previous case that was thought to be perhaps unconstitutional, which we as Americans should not stand for... ... middle of paper ... ...case or the Court's decision because I do not agree with the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey's foundation: Roe vs. Wade. I believe that if you allow yourself to get into a situation where you choose to make a decision that could bring an innocent life into existence, with the exception of incest and rape, and you do not want the child, it isn't fair to the life inside of you or the public, for the positive contributions it could make, to kill it. It's also not fair to you to harm yourself in that way. Instead, I believe that you should have the baby and then give it up for adoption, and give the baby to someone who doesn't have the ability to have a child of their own. That way, you do not commit murder and you don't have the unnecessary burden of guilt later. Instead, you make the new guardian happy, the new life happy, and you save yourself a lot of depression.

More about Planned Parenthood Vs. Caey (1992)

Open Document