General introduction
The case of Planned Parenthood of south eastern Pennsylvania V Robert Casey, (Governor of Pennsylvania) had as its legal issue the question as to whether a state can require women who want to procure an abortion to get consent, wait for 24 hours, if in a marriage institution, to inform their spouses and if minors, to obtain consent from the parents, without being in violation of their right to procure abortion as guaranteed by the case of Roe V Wade. In Casey’s case, the Pennsylvania legislature made amendments to its law that regulated abortion. Its new provisions incorporated consent as a requirement before one procures an abortion. This new legislation was challenged by several physicians and abortion clinics. A federal appeals court upheld the legislation with the exception of consent obtained by a wife from a husband.
Roe v wade on the other hand was a landmark case that allowed abortion. The Supreme Court in this case ruled that it is within a woman’s constitutional right to choose to procure an abortion without the government necessarily interfering since this liberty is protected under the right to privacy.
Supreme Court holding in Roe V Wade and Planned Parenthood of south eastern Pennsylvania V Robert Casey,( Governor of Pennsylvania)
The Supreme Court in the case of Roe V Wade struck down the Texas law that prohibited abortion. Consequently, the procedure became legal nationwide. Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the majority opinion stated that the court declared that the right of a woman to procure an abortion was a right entrenched in the Fourteenth Amendment under the right to privacy. The court however divided pregnancy into three trimesters and stated that the right to procure an abortion during the first trimester was under the sole discretion of the woman. In the second trimester, that right could be limited by the state to an extent where the health of the mother comes into question. In the last trimester however, the state can intervene and prohibit the procedure since the fetus can survive on its own outside the mother’s womb. The exception however is when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood V Casey affirmed the ruling made in the case of Roe V Wade that the state is prohibited from banning most abortions. It affirmed the basic principle of Roe v Wade that women have a right to procure an abortion prior to fetal viability. It however disallowed the argument by the court in Roe’s case on the three trimester rule. The reason for disallowing that reasoning was that it would be improper for states to restrict the availability of abortion in favour of a more flexible medical definition of viability. The principle basis for this holding was that this right has been derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth to the U.S Constitution.
How Planned Parenthood V Casey differs from Roe V Wade
Roe v wades is a land mark case that recognized the right of a woman to procure an abortion since the right is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment on the right to privacy. Planned Parenthood case however broadened the authority of the state to regulate the procedure.
Role of precedent in Constitutional interpretation
The Supreme Court has the discretion to exercise its power in determining the constitutionality of the federal and state government actions. How the Supreme Court make use of the precedents to determine controversial issues impelled debates over whether the Supreme Court should adhere to rules that were identified in previous decisions or overrule them. The way courts treat precedents involves long lasting questions on how the Court can sustain steadiness in law by conforming to precedent under the doctrine of ‘stare decisis’ while at the same time amending verdicts that are based on reasoning that is faulty, unworkable standards, legal doctrines which have since been abandoned, or assumptions that are outdated.
The Supreme Court however has not shown hesitation when it comes to overruling decisions which bear constitutional questions. Nevertheless, the Courts stated that for a decision to be overruled there must be a strong ground that goes beyond the scope of just disagreeing with a previous reasoning to overrule a particular precedence. Subsequently, when the Court is met by a decision as to whether a precedent that interprets the constitution should be overruled or not, the court has historically considered several prudential and pragmatic factors that seek to foster the rule of law while at the same footing balancing the cost and benefits to society of reaffirming or overruling a previous holding. These factors include but not limited to; Quality of reasoning, inconsistency with related decisions, the change in how a society understands relevant facts and the workability of a rule when it comes to its application.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the Supreme Court in the case of Planned Parenthood of south eastern Pennsylvania V Robert Casey,( Governor of Pennsylvania), did not consider the role of precedence in constitutional interpretation. In the previous ruling of Roe V Wade, it was clear that the rights delegated to a woman through the fourteenth amendment under the right to privacy had no limitations. The Parenthood case however introduced state interference in the private lives of its citizens. The rules to be applied or rather the factors to be considered in such a case which can be said to be a controversial need not to be based on just disagreeing with the previous reasoning but strong grounds as discussed earlier in this work.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.