Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

SOUTHEASTERN OF PARENTHOOD PLANNED CASEY, GOVERNOR PENNSYLVANIA et al. PENNSYLVANIA, OF et al. 29, 1992* June April Argued

No. 91-744. 1992Decided 91-902, Pennsylvania, *Together Casey, et al. v. with No. Governor of al., Pennsylvania et also on certio- Planned Parenthood Southeastern rari to court. the same judgment JJ., announced Soutee, Kennedy, and O’Connor, I, II, Parts respect to with Court opinion and delivered an JJ., joined, Stevens, and VI, in which V-C, and Blackmun III, V-A, and an J., joined, Stevens, V-E, in which Part respect to with opinion J., an filed Stevens, V-B, V-D. IV, and Parts respect opinion p. 911. Black- post, dissenting part, in and part concurring in opinion in judgment in the concurring part, concurring in opinion mun, J., filed opin- J., filed an Rehnquist, C. p. 922. post, dissenting part, in and part, in part, in dissenting part in and judgment concurring in ion Scalia, J., Thomas, JJ., joined, filed an post, p. 944. and White, Scalia, part, in which concurring judgment part dissenting in and in opinion in the JJ., joined, p. 979. J., post, Rehnquist, Thomas, C. and White and Kathryn Kolbert in cause for No. argued petitioners With her on the 91-744 and 91-902. No. respondents Lynn Paltrow, Rachael N. were Janet M. briefs Benshoof Shapiro, Wharton, Powell, John A. Linda J. Pine, Steven R. Tracy. E. Carol and Jr., Preate,

Ernest D. General of Attorney Pennsylvania, and the cause for No. 91-744 respondents petition- argued G. John him on the brief were ers in No. 91-902. With III, L. Knorr and Kate General, Chief Attorney Deputy Mershimer, Attorney General. Deputy Senior

Solicitor General Starr the cause for the argued United States as amicus curiae in No. support respondents 91-744 and him on the brief No. 91-902. With petitioners Attorney Gerson, Larkin, Assistant Paul General J. were Hungar, Moilin. † Jr., Thomas R. G. Alfred † Briefs curiae were for the State of New York et al. amici filed Abrams, York, Boone, Attorney Jerry Robert General of New Solicitor General, Burns, Attorney General, Mary Chief San Ellen Assistant Dennis, Cohen, Marjorie Fujiki, Shelley M. B. Mayerr, Donna I. ford McKernan, Attorneys General, Maine, Assistant and John Governor of Blumenthal, Carpenter, Attorney General, E. Michael Richard At Connecticut, III, torney Oberly Attorney General Charles M. General Delaware, HI, Attorney Hawaii, Warren Price General of Roland W. Burris, Attorney Illinois, Campbell, Attorney General of Bonnie J. Gen Iowa, Curran, Jr., Maryland, Joseph Attorney eral J. General Scott Harshbarger, Attorney Massachusetts, Papa, General of Frankie Sue Del Nevada, Attorney Tufo, Attorney General of Robert J. Del General of New Udall, Mexico, Jersey, Attorney Lacy Tom Thornburg, General New H. Attorney Carolina, O’Neil, Attorney General of North James E. General Island, Morales, Attorney Texas, of Rhode Jeffrey Dan General of L. Amestoy, Attorney Vermont, Payton, Corporation of General and John Columbia; by Counsel of District for the State Utah R. Van Paul Dam, Attorney General, Q. Wood, Mary Special and Anne Assistant At torney General; Sherwood, City by for the of New al. O. York et Peter Harper, Goodman, Koerner, Conrad Janice J. Leonard Lorna Bade Good man, Rubin, Mertus; Organizations by Gail and Julie for 178 S. Pamela and Sou- Justice Kennedy, O’Connor, Justice Justice delivered and Court judgment announced ter V-A, III, II, I, to Parts respect opinion by David of America Israel Agudath Weddington; for and Sarah Karlan Connell K. by Colleen al. et Institute Guttmacher Zwiebel; the Alan for Ethics Academy Medical Zimbrakos; for the American Dorothy B. and Ob- Prolife Association American for the Dellapenna; Joseph IK by Ball, Philip J. Bentley by William al. et Gynecologists and stetricians Obstetri- College the American Quinlan; for K. Murren, Maura and Allen, Laurie AnnE. Phillips, G. by Carter et al. Gynecologists and cians Ameri- Carey; for C. Taub, Sarah Klein, Nadine and Rockett, I. Joel R. Ameri- Black Ogden; for Texas W. by David Association Psychological can Greenwood; Catholics for Craig H. Joyce and J. by Lawrence Life for cans Sekulow, Jay Alan Monaghan, Patrick by Thomas al. et Life for United J. Rice, Michael Glessner, E. and Charles A. Weber, Thomas M. Walter R. Stephen by Research Sciences Social for Institute Elliot Laird; for the Fournier, by Keith A al. et of America Life for Feminists for Kaufmann; Jr., Amshoff, H. Torre, Theodore Smith Christine Stepanovich, G. John H. by Stephen al. Family et Grenen; Focus for Mary Dice and Jr., Llewellyn, L. Reed, David W. Granitto, Stephen Galebach, Gregory J. Colum- Pranschke; Knights for the J. Leonard Bull, and Benjamin W. Bopp, by James Institute Issues Anderson; Life for the A by Carl bus Educa- and Legal Defense Coleson; the NAACP for Jr., E. and Richard EUis, and Alice L. Chambers, Ronald L. by Julius Inc., al. Fund, et tional SUolrood; K. by Robert Foundation Legal Brown; National for L. Coleson, Robert Bopp and by Messrs. Inc., Life, Right National for Against Coalition Johnston; Pennsylvania for Eric Destro, Aand A Institute Gelman; the Rutherford for Phyllis by al. et Violence Domestic Johnston, Stephen Whitehead, Mr. Strahan, John IK W. by Thomas et al. Heller, Amy Neuberger, J. Brian S. Secóla, Thomas Hurst, Joseph E. Melnick, William Melton, R. Robert Jones, Stanley David R. Dougherty, Center Knicely; for the Southern Bundren, James and Bonner, IK Charles Con- Catholic Miller; States the United for Tony G. by & Ethics Law for White- Harris, K. Michael H. Phillip Chopko, E. by Mark et al. ference by Life Faculty for University for Montgomery; D. head, and Forest State American Rosenblum; Certain for G. Victor Forsythe D. Clarke by Legislators Linton; for 19 Arizona Benjamin by Paul Legislators P. by Albert Hyde et al. Henry J. Moines; Representative for D. Ronald al. et Edwards Don Todd; Representative for J. Kevin Blaustein Historians Cutler; 250 American Lloyd N. Dellinger Walter ¿am Sylvia A 844 opinion respect

V-C, and an with to Part VI, V-E, in which joins, opinion respect and an to Parts Justice Stevens IV, and V-D. V-B,

I Liberty refuge jurisprudence finds no in a of doubt. Yet holding years protects 19 after our that the Constitution right pregnancy early stages, her woman’s terminate its (1973), liberty Wade, Roe that definition U. S. questioned. respondents Joining still curiae, amicus States, United as it has done in other five cases in again last decade, asks us overrule Roe. See Brief Respondents 104-117; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8. provisions

At issue in these cases are five Penn- of the sylvania Abortion Control Act of as amended (1990). §§3203-3220 and 1989. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Relevant portions Appendix. the Act are set forth Infra, requires seeking The Act 902. that a woman an abortion give prior procedure, her informed consent to the abortion specifies provided that she be with certain information § performed. at least 24 hours before abortion is 3205. requires For a minor to obtain the Act abortion, the in- parents, provides judi- formed consent of one of her but for a bypass option cial if the minor does not wish to or cannot § parent’s provision obtain a consent. Another 3206. requires exceptions Act apply, that, unless certain a married seeking sign woman indicating an abortion must a statement that she has notified her husband of her intended abortion. §3209. exempts compliance The Act with these three re- quirements emergency,” in the event aof “medical which is §3203 3205(a), 3206(a), defined in of the Act. See §§3203, 3209(c). provisions regulating In addition to the above performance imposes reporting abortions, the Act certain requirements provide facilities abortion services. 3214(f). §§3207(b),3214(a), petitioners, effect, the took provisions any these of Before representing physician one and clinics abortion five

who provide who physicians of a class aswell as himself injunctive declaratory and seeking suit brought this services, challenged as unconstitutional provision was Each relief. injunc preliminary a entered Court District The face. its after and, regulations, of the enforcement against the tion uncon here issue provisions at the all held trial, 3-day bench Pennsyl against injunction entering permanent stitutional, (ED Pa. Supp. 1323 F. them. of enforcement vania’s affirmed Circuit Third the Appeals for 1990). of Court The regulations of the upholding all part, part reversed 2d 947 F. requirement. notification husband except the (1992). S. 1056 U. certiorari. (1991). granted We elabo- necessary to follow it Appeals found The premise to identify first the reasoning to even course rate Pennsylva- enacted statute the whether determine use 687- 2d, at 947 F. See standards. constitutional meets nia attorney for the Court, in this argument oral at And 698. position that the took statute challenging the parties overruling upheld without be can enactments none disagree with Arg. We 5-6. Oral ofTr. v. Wade. Roe Roe after decisions acknowledge our we analysis; but holding. Fur- itsof meaning reach upon the doubt cast overrule he that would admits ther, Justice Chief relationship adopt the rational holding Roe and central post, constitutionality. See criterion sole as the test legislatures as well courts federal 966. State they seek guidance as must have throughout the Union Constitution. subject in conformance address once review imperative find premises, we these Given woman rights of the define principles more respecting termina- authority the State legitimate procedures. by abortion pregnancies tion of ques- constitutional considering the fundamental After integrity, institutional principles Roe, resolved tions and the decisis, rule of stare we are led conclude this: the holding essential of Roe v. Wade should retained and once again reaffirmed. clarity

It must be stated at the outset and with that Roe’s holding, holding essential parts. reaffirm, we has three recognition right First ais of the woman to choose to viability have an abortion before and to obtain it without undue viability, interference from the Before State. strong enough State’s support are not prohibi- interests imposition tion of abortion or a substantial obstacle to right procedure. the woman’s effective to elect the Second power is a confirmation of the State’s to restrict abortions viability, after fetal exceptions if the preg- law contains endanger nancies which the woman’s life or health. And principle legitimate third is the that the State has interests pregnancy from the outset protecting of the the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that become a child. principles These do not contradict one another; and we ad- to here each.

II protection Constitutional of the woman’sdecision to termi- pregnancy nate her derives from the Due Process of Clause the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall “deprive any person liberty, of property, life, without due process of controlling law.” The word the cases before us “liberty.” Although reading a literal of might the Clause suggest governs only procedures that it by the which a State may deprive persons liberty, of years, for at least 105 since Mugler (1887), Kansas, v. 123 623, U. S. 660-661 the Clause has been understood to component contain substantive as “barring well, one government certain regardless actions of the procedures fairness of implement used to them.” (1986). Daniels v. 474 Williams, U. S. 327, 331 As Justice (joined by Holmes) Brandéis Justice “[djespite observed, ar- guments contrary to the persuasive, which had seemed to me it is process that the due settled of clause the Fourteenth as as well law substantive matters applies Amendment rights com fundamental all Thus procedure. matters Federal by the protected liberty are term within prised Whitney v. by States.” invasion from Constitution opinion). (concurring (1927) 357, S. 274 U. California, having roots their though process, due guaranties “[TJhe proce considered legem rae’ ter ‘per Magna Carta’s tyranny/ usurpation and ‘against executive safeguards dural arbitrary against also bulwarks country ‘become in this (Har (1961) ” 497, 541 U. S. Ullman, 367 v. Poe legislation.’ grounds) jurisdictional dissenting dismissal from J., lan, (1884)). 516, 532 U. S. California, v. Hurtado (quoting protected liberties substantive familiar most Bill recognized those Amendment Fourteenth Clause Process Due held haveWe Rights. ofBill incorporates most Amendment the Fourteenth Louisiana, v. g., Duncan e. See, against the States. Rights means as a tempting, (1968). It 145, 147-148 S. 391 U. lib suppose that judges, of federal curbing discretion guar already rights those than no more encompasses erty by the interference against federal individual anteed eight Amendments first provisions express U. S. California, Adamson See Constitution. Court this course dissenting). of But (Black, (1947) J., 68-92 view. accepted never suppose reason, same for the tempting, also It practices, defined only those protects Clause Process Due gov against protected were level, specific most at the Four when of law by rules other interference ernment v. Gerald H. Michael See ratified. was Amendment teenth J.). (1989) (opinion 6n. Scalia, 127-128, 110, S. 491 U. D., It is law. our inconsistent would a view such But personal a realm there is Constitution of the promise vin haveWe may enter. government liberty no mentioned Marriage is before. principle dicated marriage file- was Rights interracial ofBill in where gal century, in most States in the 19th but the was no finding aspect liberty in protected doubt correct it to be against component state interference substantive Loving Virginia, the Due Process Clause in v. 1, 12 U. S. (1967) (relying, opinion eight in an Justices, the Due Clause). examples Process Similar in be found Turner Safley, (1987); Carey Population v. 78, U. S. 94-99 in v. (1977);

Services International, 678, 431 U. S. 684-686 (1965), Connecticut, Griswold v. 381 U. S. 481-482 separate opinions majority well as in the of a of the Members (Goldberg, of the Court in joined that case, id., at J., 486-488 by Warren, J., concurring) (expressly rely C. and Brennan, J., ing process), (Harlan, on due id., concurring at 500-502 J., (same), judgment) id., concurring at 502-507 (White, J., judgment) (same); Society in Pierce Sisters, v. 268 U. S. (1925); Meyer 510, 534-535 and in Nebraska, 262 U. 390, S. (1923). 399-403 Rights

Neither the Bill specific practices nor the adoption at the States time of the of the Fourteenth Amend- ment sphere the outer marks limits of the substantive of lib- erty protects. which the Fourteenth Amendment See U. S. Const., Arndt. 9. recognized: As the second Justice Harlan

“[T]he scope liberty full guaranteed by the Due Process pre- Clause cannot be found in or limited specific guarantees cise terms of the provided elsewhere in ‘liberty’ Constitution. This is not a series of iso- points pricked lated taking prop- out terms of the erty; speech, press, religion; freedom of right keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreason- able searches and seizures; and so on. It ais rational broadly continuum which, speaking, includes a freedom arbitrary from all impositions purpose- substantial less recognizes, restraints, . . . and which also what a judgment reasonable and sensitive must, that certain in- require particularly terests scrutiny careful of the state justify needs asserted to abridgment.” their Poe v.

849 dissenting dismissal from (opinion supra, 543 UUman, grounds). jurisdictional addressing issue words these wrote Harlan Justice the Court Ullman, but v. in Poe reach not did Court full v. Connect- in Griswold later Terms position four his adopted Constitution held Griswold, we supra. icut, couple use a married to forbid permit a State not does guaranteed, later was freedom same contraceptives. That couples. unmarried Clause, Equal Protection under (1972). Constitutional S. 438 405 Baird, U. v. Eisenstadt See con- distribution sale extended was protection International, Population Services Carey v. traceptives in heard when was it now, as settled supra. It places limits Constitution Wade, Roe v. arguments in deci- basic person’s most awith right to interfere State’s on a Population Carey v. see parenthood, family and about sions Cleveland, 431 supra; East v. Moore International, Services Loving Vir- v. supra; Baird, (1977); v. Eisenstadt 494 U. S. v. supra; Skinner Connecticut, v. supra; Griswold ginia, (1942); v. Pierce U. 535 Williamson, S. 316 ex rel. Oklahoma well supra, as Nebraska, Meyer v. supra; Society Sisters, Harper, U. S. Washington g., v. integrity, e. bodily see, (1985); S. 470 U. (1990); Lee, v. Winston 221-222 (1952). U. S. California, Rochin due substantive adjudication inescapable fact interpreting the upon the Court may call process claims by tradi- capacity which same to exercise Constitution Its judgment. reasoned always exercised: courts tion simple rule. as a expression susceptible of are not boundaries policy state to invalidate free we are mean not does That permit yet does disagree; neither we choices Har- As Justice office. of our from duties shrink us to observed: lan any formula; its reduced process been “Due any code. reference be determined cannot

content through The best that can be is that said the course of represented this it Court’s decisions has the balance upon postulates respect which our Nation, built of for liberty individual, has struck between that liberty organized society. and the demands of If the supplying concept of content to this Constitutional necessity process, certainly been a rational has not judges been one where have felt free to roam where un- guided speculation might take them. The balance of speak country, which I is the balance struck this hav- ing regard history to what teaches are the traditions developed from which it as well as the traditions from living thing. which it broke. That tradition ais A de- radically departs cision of this Court which from it eould long survive, while decision which builds on what likely has survived is to be sound. No formula could judgment serve as a substitute, area, and re- (opinion straint.” Poe Ullman, S., 367 U. at 542 dis- senting jurisdictional grounds). from dismissal on (Frank- supra, See also Rochin v. California, at 171-172 Court) (“To writing furter, J., judicial for the believe that this judgment by freezing exercise of proc- could be avoided ‘due stage thought ess law’ at some sug- fixed of time or is to gest important aspect the most adjudi- of constitutional cation is a function for inanimate machines and not for judges”). good

Men and women disagree, conscience can and we suppose always disagree, some profound shall about the spiritual implications moral and terminating pregnancy, even in stage. its earliest Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive principles to our morality, most basic but that cannot obligation control our decision. Our is to liberty define the all, not to mandate our own moral code. underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can philosophic questions resolve these way in such a definitive that a woman lacks all except choice in perhaps the matter, is itself pregnancy circumstances rare those rape result health, or or life own her danger to incest. rea where doctrine constitutional conventional It posi adopt one can government disagree the people sonable Skrupa, S.U. 372 Ferguson v. g., See, e. the other. or tion S. 348U. Inc., Optical of Okla., Lee (1963); v. Williamson 726 af of state a however, assumes (1955). theorem, That 483 protected upon a intrude not does choice the which fairs disagree about might people some while liberty. Thus, disagree about saluted, or flag be should not or whether ruled we may defiled, not proposition the other. or view one compel or enforce may not a State 624 S.U. Barnette, 319 v. Ed. Virginia Bd. West See of (1989). U. S. Johnson, 491 (1943); v. Texas personal deci- protection constitutional law affords Our family contraception, marriage, procreation, relating to sions Popu- Carey v. rearing, education. and relationships, child cases Our 685. S., at U. International, 431 Services lation single, to or married individual, right of recognize “the mat- into intrusion governmental unwarranted from be free decision person as affecting a fundamentally so ters Baird, v. Eisenstadt beget child.” a to bear whether precedents “have original). Our (emphasis supra, state family life of private realm respected the 158, S. Massachusetts, 321 U. Prince enter.” cannot per- involving intimate the most matters, (1944). These central lifetime, choices may in make person choices sonal liberty autonomy, central dignity and personal heart theAt Amendment. Fourteenth protected existence, concept own one’s right define liberty is the mystery human universe, meaning, attri- define could matters about these Beliefs life. compulsion of they under formed were personhood butes the State. analysis begin our woman’sin-

These considerations terminating pregnancy it, terest in her but cannot end though originate this reason: the abortion decision within the zone of it is more than a belief, conscience philosophic unique exercise. Abortion is a is an act act. It fraught consequences for others: for the woman who implications per- live decision; must with the her for the perform procedure; spouse, sons who and assist for the family, society knowledge which must confront the procedures procedures nothing exist, these some deem short against of an act of life; and, violence innocent human de- pending potential on one’s for the beliefs, life or life that is Though aborted. abortion is it does conduct, not follow that proscribe the State is entitled to it in all instances. That is liberty because the of the woman is at stake in sense unique unique to the human condition and so to the law. subject The mother who carries a child to full term is to physical pain only anxieties, constraints, to to she must beginning bear. That these sacrifices have the of the from pride human race been endured woman with a that enno- eyes gives in the bles her of others to and the infant a bond grounds of love cannot alone be the for State to insist she suffering per- make the Her sacrifice. is too intimate and upon sonal for the insist, more, State to without its own vi- sion of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision -has history been in the course of our and our culture. The des- tiny shaped large the of woman must be to a extent on her conception spiritual imperatives own place of her and her society. in recognized,

It should be moreover, that in some critical respects the abortion decision is of the same character as the contraception, decision to use to which Griswold v. Connecti- Carey cut, Population Baird, Eisenstadt v. and Services protection. International afford constitutional We have no doubt They as to the support correctness of those decisions. liberty because relating woman’s the to reasoning Roe in the only the concerning not decisions personal they involve re- and responsibility human also but procreation meaning of people will reasonable abortion, with As it. spect for view One matters. these about opinion of differences any of creation wonder the for reverence such on based no term full to carried and welcomed ought to pregnancy and child the for provide be to will difficult how matter pro- inability to the well-being. Another its ensure cruelty to the ais infant the of care and nurture the vide intimate are These parent. thé anguish an and child char- deep, personal their and variations, infinite views Eisenstadt, Griswold, in underlay decisions our acter woman the present when concerns same The Carey. attempts to despite her perhaps reality that, confronts pregnant. become she it, avoid sought liberty Roe personal dimension was It reasoning holding invoked its protect, pro- granting discussed, we have precedents tradition was, Roe person. liberties substantive tection itself decision and, cases those extension course, degree to some in act could separate States indicated, the prenatal protecting legitimate interests own their further States legislatures to which extent life. choosing woman outweigh interests might aet both subject debate a was pregnancy her terminate following it. decisions itself Roe arguments made weight appreciate we While arguments us, before cases in State behalf should that Roe conclude formulation ultimate their reaf- may have any us reservations overruled, the by outweighed holding of Roe firming central given combined liberty we individual explication now turnWe decisis. of stare force with doctrine.

854

I—I hH A obligation precedent begins necessity, to follow with contrary necessity and a marks its outer limit. With Car- recognize judicial dozo, system we society's that no could do eyed every work if it each issue afresh case that it. raised See B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Process Judicial (1921). very concept Indeed, underly- of the rule lawof ing our requires own continuity Constitution such over time respect precedent by a indispensable. is, definition, Powell, See Stare Decisis Restraint, and Judicial 1991Jour- Supreme History nal of At 13,16. the other extreme, necessity a different prior judicial would make itself felt if a ruling clearly should to be come so seen as error that its very enforcement was for that reason doomed.

Even when the prior decision to overrule a case not, in the virtually rare, latter instance, foreordained, it is com mon wisdom that the rule of stare decisis is “inexora certainly ble every command,” and is not such in constitu tional case, see Burnet v. Coronado Co., Oil & Gas 285 U. S. (1932) (Brandéis, 393, 405-411 dissenting). J., See also Payne (1991) v. Tennessee, 501 U. 808, 842 S. J., (Souter, joined concurring); J., Rumsey, Arizona v. Kennedy, (1984). 203, U. S. Rather, when this Court reexamines prior holding, a judgment customarily its informed prudential series of pragmatic designed considerations consistency test the overruling prior decision the ideal of gauge law, the rule of respective and to costs of reaffirming overruling prior case. Thus, for exam ple, we proven ask whether the rule has to be intolera simply defying ble practical workability, & Co. v. Swift (1965); Wickham, 382 U. S. whether the rule is sub ject to a kind of special reliance that hardship would lend a consequences overruling inequity and add to the repudiation, g., cost of e. United States v. Ins. Title & Trust

855 of principles (1924); related whether 472, 486 S.U. Co., 265 no rule old the left have developed toas so far have law Patterson see doctrine, abandoned a remnant than more (1989); or 173-174 164, S.U. Union, 491 Credit v. McLean differ- so seen to be changed, come or so have facts whether application significant rule old the robbed ently, have as to (Brandéis, J., 412 supra, at Burnet, e.g., justification, or dissenting). rule central Roe’s whether may enquire we case So in on limitation rule’s the unworkable; whether found been has inequity to serious without removed power could state damage significant or upon relied have who those law’s it; whether society governed stability rule central Roe’s left years has intervening growth in the society; whether discounted anachronism doctrinal ensuing two changed far so have of fact premises Roe’s irrelevant holding somehow central its render toas decades it addressed. issue dealing with unjustifiable

1 sense noin it has opposition, engendered Although Roe Metropoli- Antonio v. San Garcia “unworkable,” see proven (1985),represent- Authority, U. S. Transit tan law state beyond simple limitation does ing itas judicial required course, has, Roe While unenforceable. choice affecting exercise state laws assessment although infringement, and government against guaranteed consequence as a remain will review such for need judi- within fall required determinations decision, the today’s competence. cial repudi- rule’s a cost counts reliance into inquiry reasonably relied who those fall on it would

ation case classic Since application. continued the rule’s following earlier heavily favor weighing reliance Payne Tennes- context, see commercial rule occurs supra,, see, planning great precision 828, where advance obviously necessity, is most surprise it is no cause for worthy some would find no sup- reliance of consideration in port of Roe. respondents

While neither many nor their amici in so deny words right that the abortion invites some reliance prior to its actual readily imagine exercise, argu- one can stressing dissimilarity ment involving of this case one property customarily or contract. Abortion is chosen as an unplanned response consequence unplanned to the activity or to the failure of except conventional control, birth on assumption that no intercourse would have occurred but holding, for Roe’s justify such appear behavior no reliance claim. Even if reliance could be claimed on that assumption, unrealistic argument might any run, reliance interest would be de argument minimis. This be would premised hypothesis on reproductive planning could virtually take any immediate account of sudden restoration authority of state to ban abortions.

To eliminate easily, the issue of relianee that however, one cognizable would need to specific limit reliance to instances activity. of sexual But to simply do this would to refuse to face the fact that for two decades economic and social developments, people organized relationships intimate and made choices that define their views of themselves and places society, their availability relianee of abor- tion in the contraception event that ability should fail. The participate women equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been ability facilitated their to con- reproductive trol their g., Petehesky, lives. See, e. R. Abor- tion (rev. 1990). Woman’s Choice 109, 138, n. 7 ed. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe exactly cannot be measured, neither can the certain overruling cost of people Roe for who have ordered thinking their living around that case be dismissed. foot- Roe’s doctrinal left legal principle has evolution No development of No 1973. they were than ings weaker implicitly decided was the ease since law constitutional obsolete survivor mere aas behind explicitly left Roe thinking. constitutional in anat stands Roe course, that recognized, of It will be doc whichever decisions, but lines two tersection pur present result case, category reads one trinal placed its itself Roe same. poses be the will exempli prominently most cases of holding succession in the (1965). See 479 U. S. Connecticut, 381 by v. Griswold fied clearly seen, Roe is so itWhen 152-153. atS.,U. Roe, 410 developments subsequent constitutional jeopardy, since in no diminish, they do threaten disturbed, nor neither liberty relat accorded protection recognized scope of family, about decisions and relationships, the ing intimate Carey g., v. e. See, a beget child. bear or not to or whether (1977); 678 S. International, 431 U. Population Services (1977). 431 U. S. 494 Cleveland, East v. Moore exemplar of only as an not seen however, Roe, mistaken) (whether liberty a rule but as Griswold affin bodily integrity, doctrinal autonomy and personal power to governmental recognizing on limits ity cases rejection. so, If its bar toor treatment medical mandate a State’s view Roe’s accord with Roe cases since our any justifying short falls protection of life in the interest Di liberty v. claims. Cruzan individual plenary override (1990); g., e. cf., 261, 278 U. S. Dept. Health, 497 Mo. rector, (1992);Washington v. 127, 135 Nevada, 504 U. S. Riggins v. g., (1990); v. e. Rochin also, see 210 S. Harper, 494 U. Califor 197 Massachusetts, (1952); v. Jacobson S. 165 nia, 342 U. (1905). 11, 24-30 U. S. generis. If the case classify Roe as sui

Finally, could one itsof clearly no erosion been there viewed, then is so holding resting original determination. central 858 ex- in was of the Court 1973 of seven Members

concurrence by majority 1983, in see Akron v. pressly of six affirmed Reproductive U. 416 Health, Inc., S. Center Akron (Akron Thornburgh I), majority 1986, five in see and Gynecologists, College and Obstetricians American expressing to the constitutional adherence U. S. despite its ruling legislative to test in some States efforts Reproductive recently, Health in Webster v. limits. More (1989), present although two of the Services, 492 U. S. way questioned in a con- the trimester framework authors judgment today, id., see with our sistent (Rehnquist, JJ.); joined by id., at 529 and J., Kennedy, C. White judg- concurring concurring part in and J., in (O’Connor, ment), majority to reaffirm or either decided validity central the constitutional declined address holding at 521 Webster, S., Roe. 492 U. See (Rehnquist, JJ.); joined by id., at 525-526 and J.,C. Kennedy, White concurring judg- part concurring J., (O’Connor, ment); joined Brennan id., J., at 537, 553 (Blackmun, dissenting concurring part part); Marshall, JJ., part concurring in dissent- id., J., at 561-563 (Stevens, ing part). in likely building upon Roe be to hand down

Nor will courts assump- consequence. a Even on erroneous decisions as holding that error error, that the central of Roe was in tion only go strength fetal to the state interest in would of protection, by recognition not to afforded the Constitu- liberty. aspect latter of decision tion to the woman’s The comfortably prior fits within the framework of the Court’s including decisions, ex rel. William- Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942); supra; Loving son, Griswold, 316 U. 535 v. Vir- S. (1967); ginia, Baird, U. 388 U. S. 1 and Eisenstadt v. 405 S. (1972), holdings 438 of “not a series of isolated which are points,” Ullman, but mark a “rational continuum.” Poe v. (Harlan, dissenting). atS., J, 367 U. 543 As we described in

859 supra, lib- International, Population Services Carey v. encompasses decisions erty those making cer- independence in in interest ‘the “includes lim- the outer While important decisions/ of kinds tain liberty] not been have [protected aspect of its among the decisions by it is clear Court, marked gov- unjustified without make individual an ‘relating personal decisions interference ernment family contraception, relation- marriage, procreation, to ” atS., 431 U. rearing education/ ships, and child omitted). (citations 684-685 apparent analysis is prong the Roe of this soundness the wom If indeed the alternative. consideration

from a beget a child deciding bear to whether interest an’s readily might as Roe, recognized the State been had not carry pregnancy to right choose a woman’s restrict interests state asserted further it, to terminate term as example. Yet Roe eugenics, for population control, suggestions. any such upon sensibly to counter relied been County, Escambia Education g., Board v. E. Arnold 1989) (CA11 upon (relying Roe 305, F. 2d Ala., 880 Constitution government violate the concluding officials County abortion); Avery coercing minor inducing (CA4 1981)(county agency 111, 115 F. 2d Burke, 660 basis undergo girl sterilization unwanted teenage trait); see also cell had sickle misrepresentation that she (relying on Roe A. 2d J. 70 N. Quinlan, In re cert, treatment), denied right medical finding to terminate (1976)). In Jersey, 429 U. S. Garger v. New sub nom. of its scope the fact is confined any Roe’s event, because other potential life, a concern postconeeption concern contracep only by implicated likely forms some to be wise and later independently Griswold under protected tion unlikely ramifica any have serious to in Roe is error cases, fixture cases. tions in

860

4 Roe’s fac of some has overtaken time how seen haveWe for allow care health assumptions: in maternal advances tual pregnancy than was in later to the mother safe abortions advances supra, 11, n. at I, Akron 1973,see in true point viability somewhat to advanced have in care neonatal Webster, 160, with S., at Compare Roe, 410 U. earlier. supra, J.); Rehnquist, see Akron (opinion C. of 515-616 at dissenting). But J., n. 5 457, and S., at I, U. 462 (O’Connor, real on the limits only of time go scheme facts these divergences from and the competing interests, of ization validity bearing of on the no premises factual point viability the earliest holding, marks central Roe’s constitutionally life is fetal in interest at which State’s nontherapeutic abor legislative justify ban adequate that constitutional unsoundness soundness or tions. viability at occurs on whether sense turns judgment in no Roe, time at the was as usual approximately weeks, today, at some mo or does it weeks, as sometimes 23 to may if fetal pregnancy, as it slightly earlier even ment in the future. enhanced capacity respiratory can somehow may viability con attainment occur, it Whenever just done since fact, has as the critical to serve tinue change say Roe’s that no is to decided; Roe was holding obsolete, underpinning its central left has factual overruling argument it. supports none point enquiry Shows to this precedential The sum way affecting any its underpinnings unweakened Roe’s engendered it has disapproval, holding. has While it central age generation come entire unworkable. An not been defining capac- liberty concept Roe’s free assume reproductive society, deci- ity to make act in women liberty personal au- going principle no sions; erosion remnant; holding doctrinal tonomy Roe’s central has left

861 precedent developments other odds with portends no Roe changes liberty; of fact personal and no analysis of for point appropriate as the viability less more or rendered have tips. of the bounds Within interests of at which balance subject analysis, the consid- then, and stare decisis normal argu- stronger customarily turns, it on which erations holding, affirming whatever with Roe’s central for ment is any for have, not of us degree personal reluctance of overruling it.

B analysis could, significant decisis case, stare In a less the sustained But point reached. stop we have at the would, com- provoked for some calls widespread Roe has debate comparable dimen- of others that case and parison between taken responded controversies to national sion Only two addressed. impress the controversies of on century present them- past from lines such decisional result each instance and in examination, selves apply principles we with the by accorded the Court reached today. with example identified line of cases first (1905), imposed sub- which York, U. 198 S. v. New

Lochner limiting legislation auton- economic on limitations stantive adopting, regulation, omy and welfare of health in favor theory Id., at 75 of laissez-faire. view, the Holmes’s Justice exempli- were (dissenting opinion). decisions The Lochner Hospital District Colum- by v. Children’s fied Adkins (1923), to be an Court held bia, 261 U. S. liberty protected contract constitutionally infringement satisfy minimum employers require women adult years Hotel Co. later, West Coast wage Fourteen standards. (1937), signaled demise S. 379 300 U. Parrish, De- overruling meantime, the Adkins. Lochner un- that seemed pression it, lesson and, had come interpretation people 1937,that the mistakable most funda- protected in Adkins rested freedom contractual capacity aof assumptions about mentally factual false satisfy levels minimal unregulated relatively market 399. supra, at Co., Hotel Coast West See welfare. human crisis of constitutional the of wrote As Justice Jackson of world older “The bench: on the came shortly he before the Court everywhere outside recognized was laissez faire (1941). Supremacy 85 Struggle for Judicial The dead.” be premised a consti- had case the earlier upon which facts The un- controversy proven be had social resolution of tutional only of their untruth history’s demonstration true, princi- of constitutional required new choice the justified but was true course, it Of announced. Hotel ple Coast West that its misperception, or by its something lost the Court that only magni- Court-packing crisis and the prescience, of lack of facts the that demonstration the clear but loss; fied the previously assumed from those different were life economic law. the old repudiation of the warranted history invites century comparison 20th that second The separate-but-equal rule employing the cases the is with equal protection Amendment’s applying the Fourteenth for Ferguson, S. Plessy 163 U. began v. They guarantee. segre- racial mandated legislatively (1896),holding 537 pro- equal of no denial transportation works public gation in separation en- that racial argument rejecting the tection, society treats machinery American by legal of forced “the Plessy considered race as inferior. black argument to consist plaintiff’s fallacy underlying of two races separation of the assumption the enforced inferiority. this badge If of stamps race with a colored but act, anything in the found reason it is not so, put construc- chooses solely race the colored because of histori- Whether, as a matter upon at 551. Id., it.” tion majority Plessy believed this in the fact, the Justices cal (Harlan, dissenting), under- this J., id., at 557, not, see jus- segregation the stated implication was standing understanding of opinion. But Court’s tification repudi- justify were stated it was the rule facts and (1954) Education, 347 U. S. Board in Brown ated question be- I). observed, the (Brown one commentator As in- discrimination “whether was in Brown the Court fore imposed in the law segregation which in that heres specific American century states certain twentieth meaning an an- find can question has And that Union. knowledge history common ground and of only on the swer places aforesaid.” times and life in facts about the Segregation Yale Decisions, 69 Lawfulness Black, The (1960). L. J. by ob life these facts addressed in Brown

The Court understanding in been the serving whatever stigmatize segregation to power of Plessy’s time of inferiority,” “badge segregated awith were those who segregation had legally sanctioned by that was clear . separate public racially point that to the just effect, such inherently unequal. 347 deemed were facilities educational upon understanding the facts Society’s at 494-495. S.,U. sought thus ruling in 1954 was was a constitutional which fundamentally deci the for the basis claimed from different day wrong Plessy it the was think While we in 1896. sion (Harlan, J., dis Plessy, supra, at 552-564 decided, see was Plessy ex recognize Court’s senting), also must we clearly facts with the odds was so planation its decision for reexamine to the decision apparent to the Court only justified but ground not Plessy alone on this was required. facts, or an on each rested and Brown Hotel

West Coast changed furnished which understanding from those facts, resolu- justifications earlier constitutional for the the claimed comprehensible re- the Court’s as was case Each tions. country or had understand, could sponse facts that to already, an ear- Court of which the but understand come to been able had not day, disclosed, own declarations as its lier comprehensible were thus perceive. decisions As the to of one merely as victories defensible, they also were (victories numbers dint of another over school doctrinal prin- constitutional were), applications of they as though but before. Court they seen not been ciple as had facts to changed life, adjudication elsewhere constitutional thought- obligations, and impose new circumstances accept overrule decision each could part Nation ful duty. constitutional response to the Court’s as a prior ease it occasion present no such us before cases Because fac- response. neither Because no such seen as could be holding our under- nor underpinnings Roe’s central tual (and other indication no changed because standing it has shown), could not the Court precedent been of weakened any justifica- prior reexamining law to be pretend dif- disposition come out present doctrinal beyond a tion ferently prior law To overrule 1973. from the Court view to the counter run that would than reason other no rest should overrule a decision eases, that repeated in our prior belief above special over and reason some g., T.Grant v. W. e. Mitchell wrongly See, decided. ease was (“A dissenting) (Stewart, (1974) J., 600, 636 U. S. Co., 416 than a ground firmer upon no change the law basic misconception popular membership invites change our political two from different is little institution this do misconception could No of the Government. branches system law to the injury lasting more serve”); Mapp Ohio, abiding mission is our (1961) dissenting). (Harlan, J., 643, 677 U. S.

C repudia- justifying the conditions the The examination Plessy by is Brown and Coast Hotel West Adkins tion price been that would enough suggest the terrible present the did. as it paid had overruled if the Court not point analysis clear, makes to this as however, our cases, analysis overruling. Our paid price for be would terrible why- explaining complete, however, without be would not only an un- holding not reach would overruling central Roe’s decisis, but would principles of stare justifiable under result judicial capacity to exercise seriously Court’s weaken Supreme of Nation Court as power and function why this would understand of law. To rule to the dedicated this Court’s necessary the source to understand it is be so and necessary preservation, its for authority, the conditions understanding as a country’s of itself relationship to the its Republic. constitutional power revealed governmental is American

The root of by the power clearly conferred instance of in the most spe- the-Judiciary and States of the United upon Constitution succeeding As each cifically upon Americans Court. support buy for rightly cannot told, Court generation are except money minor de- by spending and, its decisions its decrees. independently obedience gree, coerce cannot product legitimacy, power rather, in its lies, The Court’s people’s itself perception shows and substance Judiciary what the Na- to determine acceptance as fit it demands. to declare what law means tion’s legitimacy course is of underlying of this substance in the Constitution decisions for the Court’s the warrant legal principle the Court on which sources the lesser opinions, expressed Court’s is That substance draws. understanding a decision is such contemporary and our judicial justification act be no principled would without by apposite justification is furnished when But even all. required. something Because not principle, more legal justification principled will be every claim conscientious beyond justification claimed must accepted such, as ways speak act in dispute. take care to must The Court accept terms on the people its decisions that allow truly grounded principle, as them, as claims having, pressures political compromises social bearing principled the Court choices that such, no depends on legitimacy Thus, Court’s obliged to make. in circumstances under principled decisions making legally sufficiently plausible be to is principled character their which accepted the Nation. is perceived as such be to action principled for need The appel- any other this, or degree whenever implicated some to say, of to is not prior This case. overrules court,

late satisfactory perfectly give a cannot that course, some that People understand cases. in most explanation that fathom and language hard is the Constitution’s significant perceive able sometimes Justices Court’s their law that* eluded principles of to understand facts existing deci- departures from justify and that predecessors directly most to those be upsetting it However sions. another, replaces rule judicially derived one when affected nec- without of error accept country correction some can Court. legitimacy of essarily questioning almost would the Court however, circumstances, two overruling doubt benefit certainly to receive fail frequent beyond point first, a is, prior There cases. country’s in the Court’s belief overruling would overtax may inform variety that Despite of reasons good faith. forget such cannot overrule, we justify a decision correctly) (and as, perceived usually perceived a decision wrong. was prior decision least, a statement at the be plausibly can of error the amount limit There exceeded, should limit If that prior imputed Courts. as evidence rulings be taken prior would disturbance way given to drives principle had justifiable reexamination legitimacy of term. the short particular results vacillation. frequency of its fade with would the Court hypothetical; be described can circumstance first That per- in the Where, point now. here is to the the second a ease decides judicial duties, the Court itsof formance intensely contro- divisive way the sort as to resolve such a its comparable cases, rare, those versy Roe and reflected normal that the resolution a dimension has decision present carry. whenever the dimension It is case does not calls the con- interpretation of the Constitution the Court’s controversy their to end national tending of a national sides in the by accepting mandate rooted a common division Constitution. very having thus often, do this not asked to

The Court only our in the deci- lifetime, twice in the Nation addressed does act in But when the and Roe. Court of Brown sions precedential equally requires way, rare an its decision it to overturn and to inevitable efforts to counter force may implementation. be of those efforts Some thwart its may proceed unprincipled reactions; others emotional mere worthy respect. profound principles But whatever from only convincing may opposition the most premises be, precedent accepted could suf- justification under standards overruling the first that a later decision to demonstrate fice political pressure, anything and an but a surrender was principle repudiation unjustified which the Court authority overrule instance. So to the first staked its compelling reason to absence the most fire under would subvert Court’s a watershed decision reexamine beyond any question. legitimacy Brown v. serious Cf. (Broten II) (1955) Education, 349 U. S. Board of (“[I]t vitality go saying th[e] that the con- should without principles [announced I,] be al- in Brown cannot stitutional them”). simply disagreement yield because of lowed country’s Judiciary be of confidence in the would The loss by equally equally certain reasonable underscored unnecessarily overruling failing for another condemnation anyone paid by pressure. will be and under Some cost who approves implements or a constitutional decision where it is unpopular, to work or who refuses to undermine decision may price or to its reversal. The be criticism or ostra- force price paid by cism, be An extra be violence. will disapprove of those who themselves the decision’s results never- who terms, but of constitutional outside viewed when respect they the rule accept it, struggle because theless following, tested be so who will all those law. To in the steadfast, lest to remain implicitly undertakes constancy, promise of nothing. paid price for end power to stand long as the as given, maker binds its once understanding issue survives the decision fundamentally the commit- to render changed so promise this obligation of this From obsolete. ment any exemption when not assume should and cannot Court with the in conformance a case requires decide duty it to nothing, less be willing it would breach A Constitution. faith with its that broke no Court faith, and a breach than principle in the sensibly expect for credit people could it did that. which decision restored, but legitimacy be that diminished true It is thus Court political branches, slowly. only Unlike a new position with regain its to seek could not weakened some- could if Court even voters, and from mandate could principled character polls, its go the loss to how many Like the casting votes. of so retrieved be not must legitimacy of the individual, the anof character character be the must indeed, So, time. over be earned according the rule to aspire live people who a Nation people is not such in themselves belief law. Their understanding in- of the Court readily separable their from cases authority constitutional their to decide with vested If ideals. constitutional for their speak all others before would then, so undermined, legitimacy be should the Court’s through ability its very itself to see country its legitimacy concern Court’s The constitutional ideals. of the Nation the sake but for Court, of the sake is responsible. it is 1973,it present duty cases is clear. in the Court’s power governmental already-divisive issue confronted pro- undergo abortion, for which personal choice limit process guaranteed the due based on resolution new vided by so- or not a new Whether Amendment. Fourteenth developing its divisiveness issue, cial consensus pressure the deci- today to overrule no less than only grown more intense. pressure it, has to retain sion, like holding ex- under the essential Roe’s to overrule A decision was, error there error, if isting would address circumstances unnecessary damage profound to the cost of both at the to the legitimacy, commitment the Nation’s Court’s imperative to the es- to adhere therefore It is rule of law. today. original we do so decision, and sence Roe’s IV a consti- it follows that it is have said so far what we From liberty to termi- woman to have some freedom tutional pregnancy. the basic decision in We conclude nate her analysis which we cannot a constitutional Roe was based on liberty repudiate. unlimited, is not The woman’s so now con- cannot show its the outset the State however, that from point in fetal and at a later unborn, life of the cern for the so development in life has sufficient force the interest State’s pregnancy right can the to terminate the of woman that the be restricted. point brings much criti- to the where us, course, of

That always a criticism that inheres Roe, been directed at cism has specific from what in the the draws a rule Con- when Court general conclude, however, We stitution is but a standard. urgent the ultimate of the woman to retain that the claims destiny body, implicit in the and her claims control over her meaning liberty, require perform Lib- of us to that function. extinguished erty a not be for want of line that is clear. must give to the to us to some real substance woman’s And falls liberty carry pregnancy to determine whether to her to full term. viability, so that at be drawn should line the conclude We termi- choose right to the woman that time

before principle two this adhere pregnancy. We her nate deci- of stare the doctrine said, is have we First, as reasons. may somewhat line-drawing seem judicial of Any act sis. arbitrary, with elaborated statement, reasoned awas Roe but great face the it in reaffirmed twice haveWe great care. College Obste- Thornburgh American See opposition. I, 462 759; Akron atS.,U. Gynecologists, tricians parts of those Although overrule we must 419-420. S., at U. inconsistent view, are our which, I Thornburgh Akron legitimate interest ahas State the statement iBoe’s with unborn, see potential life life or promoting repre- cases premise of those the central 882-883, at infra, the essential this commitment unbroken sents today. reaffirm we premise which is It holding Roe. viability, as we concept of is that reason second The possibil- realistic is a there which at time Roe, is the noted womb, so outside nourishing life maintaining and ity of in rea- can life the second independent existence now protection that object of state be the all fairness son Wade, 410 Roe v. See woman. rights overrides norms, constitutional other Consistent 163. S., at U. arbitrary without appear which may lines draw legislatures may not. But courts justification. offering necessity no line there And we draw justify the lines must We sure, be To workable. viability more than other developments medical some there said, we 860, but supra, viability, see point precise affect given that limits tolerable imprecision within is an apply its discov- must who community those all medical viability line explore matter. will continue eries In of fairness. an element practical matter, has, as a also to who fails a woman might that said be sense broad some intervention State’s to the viability consented has before act developing child. the behalf of via- before pregnancy her right terminate to woman’s The ais It v. Wade. Roe principle of central bility most the renounce. liberty cannot we component of law of rule interest is the equation the of side other On the rec Court Roe The life. potential of protection the in State in legitimate interest “important and State’s ognized the supra, at Roe, life.” human of potentiality the protecting the not interest, state given this weight be to The 162. question difficult the was interest, woman’s strength the of us, each say whether to need not We do in Roe. faced valuation the when Court the Members been we had matter, would original it as before came interest state the weight is insuf its did, that Roe the as concluded, have viability even prior abortions a ban on justify ficient not matter exceptions. subject certain isit when after coming it does as instance, and first the us in before satisfied we are wake litigation Roe’s in years of nearly 20 Roe’s soundness the is not question immediate that must that precedential force issue, but resolution that concluded holding. we And to its accorded be reaffirmed. be holding should Roe essential speaks with v. Wade Roe be remembered it must Yet liberty also but only woman’s establishing clarity in potential legitimate interest “important and State’s decision portion of That supra, at 163. Roe, life.” implemen- acknowledgment and given little too been Roe has Those eases subsequent cases. in its by the Court tation deci- upon touching the abortion any regulation decided only if scrutiny, sustained be strict survive must sion inter- compelling state to further terms in narrow drawn the cases all supra, Not at 427. I, g., Akron e. See, est. reconciled can formulation under decided legitimate interests State holding itself in Roe potential protecting woman the health rely we choose tension, resolving this her. within life later cases. against the upon Roe, govern framework to Roe established trimester rigid regulations. al- construct, but Under this elaborate regulation during permitted the first trimes- at all is most no regulations designed protect pregnancy; to the wom- ter potential health, not to further the State’s interest an’s but permitted during during trimester; second are life, prohibitions trimester, viable, third when the fetus is are permitted provided or is not at the life health mother supra, Roe, of our cases stake. 163-166. Most since Roe application of from tri- have involved the rules derived g., Thornburgh v. See, mester framework. e. American Col- lege Gynecologists, supra; I, Obstetricians and Akron supra.

The trimester framework no doubt was erected to ensure right that the woman’s to choose not become so subordinate promoting to the State’s interest in fetal life that her choice theory agree, exists in but not fact. We do not however, necessary approach accomplish trimester that the this objective. rigidity unnecessary A framework was interpretation and in its later sometimes contradicted the permissible powers. State’s exercise of its Though right the woman has a to choose to terminate or pregnancy viability, continue her before does at all prohibited taking steps follow that the State is from to en- thoughtful sure this choice is and informed. Even in stages pregnancy, the earliest enact rules State regulations designed encourage her know philosophic arguments great weight there are and social brought continuing that can preg- to bear favor of nancy procedures to full term and'that there are and institu- adoption tions to allow of unwanted children as well a degree certain of state assistance if the mother chooses “ ‘[T]he raise the child herself. Constitution does not forbid city, pursuant processes, State to democratic from ex- pressing preference for normal childbirth.’” Webster v. Reproductive (opinion Services, Health S., 492 U. at 511 (1977)). 519, 521 U. S. Court) Doe, 432 (quoting Poelker provide a laws to enact free States follows It a decision to make a woman framework reasonable meaning. too, we find This, lasting profound and such has inevi the indeed premises, and central Roe’s with consistent inter has an holding the State of our consequence table . unborn. of the the life protecting est in con- do not framework, which we reject trimester the We Webster holding Roe. See essential the part of to be sider (opinion of S., at 518 U. Services, 492 Health Reproductive v. concurring in J., J.); at 529 id., C. (O’Connor, Rehnquist, (describing the trimester judgment) concurring in part and ensuring at aimed Measures “problematic”). framework the consequences for contemplates the choice woman’s that a ' recognized right the necessarily with interfere not do fetus incon- to be found been although measures those Roe, in in that announced rigid framework trimester the sistent holding itself, in Roe reading central of the logical A case. liberty woman the of the necessary reconciliation and a re- prenatal life, promoting in the State interest the framework trimester the abandon that we view, our quire, in regulation aimed previability all prohibition on rigid as a suf- framework The trimester life. fetal protection of the misconceives it its formulation in flaws: basic these from fers practice interest; pregnant woman’s nature recog- potential life, as interest State’s it undervalues Roe. nized perhaps relating save liberties to all jurisprudence

ourAs right every makes law which recognized, not infringement ipso is, facto, exercise to difficult more point. held have We example clarifies right. An an in- amounts to limitation every access ballot not States Rather, right to vote. fringement of the establishing framework flexibility granted substantial they whom' for candidates choose voters which within 780, 788 460 U. S. Celebrezze, v. vote. Anderson wish (1992). (1983); Reed, U. S. Norman v. of state right forms Numerous is similar.

The abortion increasing the might effect of incidental regulation have the availability care, whether decreasing of medical cost or procedure. any fact medical other abortion or designed purpose, one a valid law serves making right effect has the incidental itself, at the strike expensive procure an abortion more difficult or more regula Only state enough where it. invalidate cannot be ability make imposes on a woman’s an undue burden tion power the heart reach into does State this decision liberty protected See Due Process Clause. (1990) (O’Con Hodgson 417, 458-459 Minnesota, 497 U. S. concurring judgment concurring part in in in and J., nor, Reproductive Health, 497 part); Center v. Akron Ohio II) (Akron (1990) (opinion 519-520 502, U. S. Kennedy, supra, J.); Reproductive Services, at 530 Health v. Webster concurring judg- part concurring in in J., (O’Connor, ment); College Thornburgh Obstetricians American v. Gynecologists, dissent J., at 828 S., 476 U. and ing); Simopoulos (O’Connor, (1983) Virginia, 520 506, 462 U. S. v. concurring judg part concurring in in J., (O’Connor, City, ment); Mo., Inc. Kansas Planned Parenthood Assn. (1983) (O’Connor, J., concur 476, v. 462 U. S. 505 Ashcroft, part dissenting part); ring judgment I, in Akron joined by S., J., 462 U. 464 (O’Connor, White Rehn dissenting); 147 Baird, 132, 428 U. S. JJ., Bellotti v. quist, I). (1976) (Bellotti early part, ad- the most the Court’s abortion cases For Roe, 464, hered to this In Maher v. 432 U. S. 473-474 view. (1977), unquali- explained: an “Roe did not declare Court right abortion,’ an fied ‘constitutional to as District right protects seemed to think. Rather, Court unduly with her free- woman from burdensome interference pregnancy.” to terminate her See dom decide whether to

875 (“[T]he interposi (1973) 179, 198 U. S. Bolton, 410 v.Doe also unduly restrictive committee hospital abortion tion (State may 147 supra, at I, rights”); Bellotti patient’s of the giving capable of upon a minor burdens “impose undue not 297, 314 U. S. McRae, 448 consent”); Harris informed an Serv Population Carey v. supra). Cf. (1980)(citing Maker, (“[T]he must test same S., at U. International, ices individual’s an burden that regulations state applied to pregnancy conception terminate prevent to right to decide effectuating means to limiting substantially access prohibit the statutes applied state to isas decision entirely”). decision right abortion of the nature considerations These right as describe to an overstatement it is illustrate interference “without abortion an whether decide v.Mo. Central Parenthood Planned the State.” from regulations (1976). abortion All U. S. Danforth, decide ability to woman’s degree with some interfere a conse- is, It pregnancy. her terminate whether con- protestations despite the surprising that quence, not effect opinion the original Roe tained 154-155, atS., right, 410 U. recognizing absolute was framework trimester applying the experience the Court’s regulations striking some down led to deci- ultimate deprived women sense no real right recog- because far too went Those decisions sion. govern- unwarranted from right free “to be Roe is nized affecting fundamentally so matters into intrusion mental beget a child.” bear or whether decision person governmental Not all at 453. S., 405 U. Baird, v. Eisenstadt brings us to and that necessity unwarranted; is of intrusion even in framework: trimester in flaw basic other in interest the State’s practice it undervalues terms, in ftoe’s the woman. within potential life recognition the State’s express in its was Wade Roe pro- preserving and interests] in legitimate “important and teeting pregnant [and] protecting the health of the woman in potentiality of human life.” 410 U. S., at 162. The tri prom framework, mester however, does not fulfill Roe’sown protecting ise that the State has interest in fetal life or potential began by using life. Roe the contradiction the tri any regulation mester framework to forbid of abortion de signed viability. to advance that interest Id., before at 163. viability, subsequent govern Before Roe and cases treat all attempts mental to influence a woman’s decision on behalf of potential life within her as This unwarranted. treat judgment, incompatible recognition is, ment in our with the there potential is a substantial state interest in life throughout pregnancy. (opin Webster, Cf. S., 492 U. at 519 J.); (O’Connor, supra, ion I, C. Akron at 461 Rehnquist, dissenting). J., very

The notion that the State has a substantial interest potential regula- life leads the conclusion that not all tions must deemed unwarranted. Not all burdens on the right to pregnancy decide whether to terminate a will be undue. view, our ap- the undue burden standard is the propriate reconciling means of the State’s interest with the' constitutionally protected liberty. woman’s concept of an undue burden has been utilized Court as well as individual including Members of the Court, ways two of us, that could be considered inconsistent. g., Hodgson See, e. supra, v. Minnesota, at 459-461 (O’CON concurring part NOR, J., concurring judgment); supra, (opinion II, Akron J.); at 519-520 of Kennedy, Thorn burgh College v. American Gynecolo Obstetricians and gists, supra, at 828-829 dissenting); J., I, Akron (O’Connor, supra, at 461-466 dissenting); J., Harris v. (O’Connor, supra, McRae, 314; at supra, Roe, Maher v. at 473; Beal v. (1977); Doe, 432 U. S. 438, 446 supra, I, Bellotti Be 147. general cause we set application forth a standard of to which we important intend to clarify adhere, it is what is meant by an undue burden. conclu- the for is shorthand a burden finding undue anof A plac- purpose or effect the regulation has a state sion seeking an path woman of a in the obstacle

ing substantial a purpose this A statute fetus. a nonviable further State the chosen the means because invalid is the to inform calculated be must life potential in the interest which, a statute it. And hinder choice, not free woman’s other or some potential life in furthering the interest while placing a substantial effect the interest, has state valid be considered cannot choice path of woman’s a the obstacle To legitimate ends. sérving its means permissible a Justices individual or of of the opinions extent is inconsist- manner in a standard burden undue use the be should our view analysis, out what setwe ent with U. S. McCleskey Zant, 499 Cf. controlling standard. of abuse doctrine (1991) define “to (attempting 467, 489 acknowledging tension precision” after with more writ of the judgment, undue an cases). considered our among earlier II, 497 Akron See burden. an unconstitutional is burden J.). an- Understood (opinion of at 519-520 U. S., Kennedy, open previous question, left way, we answer other whether formulation, burden discussing undue opinions life in fetal interest State’s further designed a law be- decision the woman’s burden imposes undue which g., Akron e. See, viability be constitutional. could fore fetal dissenting). J., at 462-463 S.,U. I, (O’Connor, no. answer emerge. is at stake What principles should guiding

Some decision, the ultimate right to make the woman’s Regula- doing so. all others from right insulated mechanism a structural create than more do no tions which minor, guardian of parent or State, unborn respect the life profound may express wom- they obstacle are not substantial permitted, if at 899-900 infra, See right to choose. an’s exereise requirement). parental Pennsylvania’s consent (addressing right choice, effect on her a state meas- Unless it designed persuade her to choose childbirth over abor- ure reasonably goal.' upheld Regula- tion will be if related to seeking designed to the health of a woman tions foster they if not valid do constitute an undue burden. jurists premises, Even when reason from shared dis- some agreement Hodgson, Compare is inevitable. atS.,U. concurring judgment part J., 482-497 in in (Kennedy, part), dissenting in id., at 458-460 (O’Connor, J., con- curring part concurring judgment part). in in in That expected any legal application tois in the standard complexity. which must accommodate life’s do not ex- We pect respect it to be otherwise with to the undue burden give summary: standard. We this (a) protect recognized right To the central Roe v. Wade accommodating profound while at the same time the State’s potential employ in life, interest analysis we will the undue burden explained opinion. An undue ex- burden provision purpose ists, and therefore if invalid, law its place path or effect is to a substantial obstacle in the of a seeking viability. woman an abortion before the fetus attains (b) reject rigid We trimester framework of Roe v. promote profound potential Wade. To the State’s interest throughout pregnancy may life, the State take measures ensure that the woman’s informed, choice is and measures designed to advance this interest will not be invalidated as long purpose persuade as their is to the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must be an not right. undue burden

(c) any procedure, As with medical the State enact regulations safety to further the health or of a woman seek- ing Unnecessary regulations an abortion. health that have purpose presenting or effect of a substantial obstacle to seeking impose a woman an abortion an undue burden on right. analysis does burden undue (d) adoption Our reaffirm we Wade, and holding of Roe central disturb made exceptions are of whether Regardless holding. any prohibit may not circumstances, State particular her to terminate decision making ultimate from woman viability. pregnancy before via- “subsequent to holding that Roe’s (e) reaffirm alsoWe potentiality interest its promoting bility, State proscribe, even regulate, and chooses, may, it if life of human medical appropriate necessary, in except it where abortion the health or life the preservation the for judgment, S., 164-165. at U. Wade, 410 Roe mother.” Pennsylva- the assessment our control principles These validity of of the issue the turn nowwe statute, nia provisions. challenged its

V to be it believed what applied Appeals Court provisions of the upheld each' standard burden undue agree We requirement. notification except husband for burden undue refine conclusion, but with generally above. articulated principles with analysis in accordance issue. statutory at sections separate consider now We A re- other various operation of to the central isit Because of medical definition statute’s begin with we quirements, emergency is medical statute, emergency. Under physician’s of the basis which, on condition “[t]hat medical complicates the judgment, so clinical good faith im- to necessitate woman pregnant a condition death her avert pregnancy her abortion mediate of substantial risk delay serious create will bodily function.” major impairment of irreversible (1990). §3208 Stat. Cons. 18 Pa. argue con- narrow, that the definition is too

Petitioners tending possibility immediate it of an forecloses despite significant health If the con- some risks. required to we would invalidate the correct, tention were be operation provision, for the hold- restrictive essential ing of forbids a State to interfere with a woman’s choice Roe undergo procedure continuing preg- her an abortion if nancy S., constitute a threat to her 410 U. would health. McRae, S., at 164. also Harris v. 448 U. at 316. See The District that there were Court found three serious pre- conditions which would not covered the statute: eclampsia, premature ruptured abortion, inevitable Supp., Ap- membrane. 744 at 1378. as the Yet, F. Court undisputed peals observed, 2d, 700-701, at 947 F. under some circumstances each of these conditions could lead consequences. to an illness substantial and irreversible interpreted the definition could be unconstitu- While Appeals phrase manner, tional construed the Id., “serious risk” to those include circumstances. 701. emergency exception “[W]e It stated: read the medical by Pennsylvania legislature intended the assure that com- regulations pliance any way with its abortion would not in pose significant a of a threat to the life or health woman.” Spokane Inc., we Arcades, Ibid. As said in Brockett v. 472 (1985): “Normally, 491, U. S. 499-500 defer ... we to the given by construction of state statute the lower federal Indeed, courts.” we have said that we will defer to lower interpretations they court of state unless amount to law (1943). “plain” error. Palmer v. 109, 318 U. S. 118 Hoffman, “ ‘reflects] This our belief that district courts and of courts appeals interpret are better schooled and more able to the respective Frisby Schultz, laws of their States.’” 487 (1988) (citation omitted). S. to that U. We adhere today, by course that, conclude as construed Court of the Appeals, imposes emergency the medical definition no undue right. burden on a woman’s abortion B requirement. consent the informed next consider We emer- (1990). Except medical in a §3205 Cons. Stat. Pa. per- before 24 hours least requires gency, the statute the woman inform physician forming abortion of the risks health procedure, the of the nature age unborn gestational of the “probable childbirth, and in- nonphysician must qualified physician or a The child.” pub- materials availability printed woman form providing infor- describing fetus by the State lished information childbirth, assistance medical about mation agencies list of and a father, support from child about as alternatives. services adoption and other provide performed unless may not be An abortion abortion. informed writing been she has certifies woman provided been and has printed materials availability of these them. view chooses if she them pro- any medical that as establish prior decisions Our written give her require a woman the State cedure, Parenthood Planned See an abortion. consent informed respect, S., at 67. U. Danforth, v.Mo. Central challenge the stat- unexceptional. Petitioners the statute it includes because consent informed definition ute’s man- and the doctor specific information provision of reached conclusions waiting period. datory 24-hour today opinions separate filed majority the Justices opinion re- adopted in this standard burden undue and the past deci- the Court’s part some quire to overrule us prohibi- framework’s by the trimester driven sions, decisions designed to further regulations previability all tion of in fetal life. interest State’s ordi- (1983), an we invalidated U. S. I,

In Akron be seeking an abortion required woman a nance “de- specific information physieian with by her provided between choice informed woman’s signed. influence described we later As Id., at 444. or childbirth.” abortion Thornburgh College holding the Akron I v. American Gynecologists, S., 476 U. at there Obstetricians purported the infor- were two flaws in Akron ordinance: having designed mation to dissuade the woman from an was imposed rigid requirement “a ordinance specific given body all cases, that a of information be irre- patient. spective particular of the needs of the . . .” Ibid. Thornburgh To the extent I and find a constitu- Akron government requires, tional violation as it does when the giving nonmisleading information here, truthful, about procedure, the nature of the the attendant health risks and “probable gestational age” childbirth, those of and the go fetus, those eases far, too are inconsistent with Roe’s ac- knowledgment important potential an life, interest in very overruled. This is clear even terms of Thornburgh. along I Akron and Those with decisions, Dan- recognize government justifying a substantial interest forth, requirement apprised a that a woman be risks health g., supra, of abortion and E. Danforth, childbirth. 66-67. questioned well-being psychological It be cannot is a facet of health. can it be Nor doubted that most women considering impact an abortion would deem the on the fetus dispositive, attempting relevant, if not to the decision. apprehend to ensure consequences that woman the full legitimate purpose decision, her furthers the State reducing may only the risk woman elect abortion, devastating psychological later, discover conse- quences, fully that her decision was not If the informed. requires information the State to be made available to the misleading, requirement may woman is truthful and not permissible. why require We also see no reason the State doc- seeking tors to inform woman an abortion of the availabil- ity relating consequences of materials to the fetus, to the consequences even when those have no direct relation to her example point. health. An illustrates the We would think for order require that to State the it constitutional opera- transplant kidney to a consent informed to he there about information supplied with be must recipient the tion A herself. or to himself risks aswell as the donor to risks information available physician make the that requirement described was here by the statute mandated that to similar wedge the Com- attempt to outright Thornburgh “an privacy into the discouraging abortion message monwealth’s the woman dialogue between informed-consent the however, conclude, We 762. S., at U. physician.” her narrow in such defined not be need choice informed that the fetus on effect of the considerations all that terms depart from we clear, made have As we irrelevant. made that Thornburgh extent the holdings I of Akron the protecting goal of legitimate its to further permit State we at ensur- legislation aimed enacting unborn of the life in so when even informed, is mature ing a decision over for childbirth preference expresses a doing State informed be woman requiring that short, abortion. develop- relating fetal availability of information carry decide she should available assistance and the ment to ensure measure a reasonable term to full pregnancy woman might cause which one choice, informed an requirement cannot This abortion. over childbirth choose obtaining abortion, obstacle substantial considered be burden. no undue follows, there and, it “straitjacket,” suggest prior also cases Our supra, (quoting Danforth, supra, at 762 Thornburgh, given each must 8), particular information n. privacy between right a constitutional with interferes ease preliminary aAs physician. her woman pregnant us does before now noting statute it is matter, worth consent comply the informed physician to require a preponderance by a can demonstrate she he or provisions “if fur reasonably believed she evidence, that he severely ain resulted would nishing the information pa- physical or mental health effect adverse (1990). respect, § In this 3205 Stat. Pa. 18 Cons. tient/’ exercising his or physician from prevent the does not statute judgment. medical her doctor-patient relation the status constitutional

Whatever present it is context may general matter, in the aas doctor-patient rela- position. The of the woman’s derivative general more the two or override underlie does tion not right justified: right the rights is the under which autonomy. physical right family to and the decisions make doctor-patient is entitled relation here the own, itsOn a Thus, contexts. in other it receives the same solicitude give information a woman certain requirement a that doctor is, consti- obtaining part to an abortion her consent as requirement a that a purposes, from no different tutional any medical specific'information give about certain doctor procedure. argument First petitioners’ is an asserted that is left

All provide physician information right not to of a Amendment in a manner childbirth, abortion, and about the risks physician’s First by sure, To be the State. mandated Wooley implicated, speak rights see not Amendment (1977), only part Maynard, but as 430 U. S. 705 v. licensing reg subject practice to reasonable medicine, by Roe, 429 S. State, cf. Whalen U. ulation (1977). infirmity require in the see no constitutional We physician provide mandated the information ment that the by here. the State requires Pennsylvania to reconsider us statute also may require holding that in Akron I that State opposed qualified provide physician, assistant, infor- as S., 462 U. informed consent. relevant to a woman’s

mation requir- evidence on this record at 448. Since there no by provided ing give the stat- doctor information practical to a obstacle would amount in terms substantial ute seeking that it is not we conclude abortion, to a woman that the Consti- the fact reflect eases Our burden. an undue particu- to decide latitude broad gives the States tution profession- only licensed performed be lar functions suggest might those objective assessment anif even als, Williamson See performed others. could tasks same (1955). we Thus, S. Inc., U. Okla., Optical v. Lee to ensure means reasonable provision as a uphold the informed. consent the woman’s waiting be- period Pennsylvania’s 24-hour analysis of Our necessary to deemed information provision of

tween abortion under of an performance informed consent requires us to reconsider standard burden undue paral- invalidating a I Akron decision premise behind convinced we are “Nor I we said: requirement. Akron In lel decision woman’s that the legitimate concern State’s the that by a 24-hour requiring reasonably served informed be consider We atS., 450. 462 U. delay course.” a matter as important deci- wrong. idea that The to be conclusion that they follow if deliberate informed be more will sions unreasonable, as strike us does period of reflection some important infor- that directs the statute where particularly background The decision. of the part the mation become permits Appeals, avoid- the Court construed statute, as emer- a event of medical the period in waiting ance major- in the vast that shows record evidence gency and the any appreciable delay create does not ity a 24-hour cases, waiting period is a rea- theory, least, the at risk. health protect- implement State’s interest the to measure sonable amount does not that measure unborn, ing the the life burden. undue to an waiting period is nonethe- mandatory 24-hour

Whether obstacle practice is a substantial because invalid less pregnancy a closer her to terminate choice to a woman’s indicate findings Court District fact question. many to travel must women distances because of practical often effect will provider, the an abortion reach '886 waiting period day delay than a because more of much at least two seeking make abortion an

requires woman that a that in also found Court The District the doctor. visits many exposure of women will increase instances hostility of anti- harassment seeking to “the abortions F. demonstrating a clinic.” outside protestors found Court Supp., result, the District As at 1351. resources, financial the fewest who have women for those long who distances, and those travel who must those employ- husbands, difficulty explaining their whereabouts “particu- waiting period bewill others, 24-hour ers, or larly Id., at 1352. burdensome.” they respects, but do findings troubling in some

These period waiting constitutes not demonstrate the District Court that, as do not doubt We undue burden. “increasing waiting period the cost the effect of held, the delay but the District id., 1378, at abortions,” and risk potential costs and increased did not conclude Court applying Rather, delays obstacles. substantial amount regulation prohibition of all framework’s strict the trimester potential promote life be- designed interest State’s concluded viability, id., the District see fore waiting period “interest state does not further that the physician’s “infringes discretion health” and maternal judgment,” id., Yet, at 1378. medical exercise sound standard a State undue burden under the stated, we permitted persuasive favor child- measures which enact do not further a if those measures abortion, over even birth waiting period does limit a And while health interest. the standing physician’s alone, a reason to discretion, not, that is given light the statute’s of the construction invalidate it. by Appeals, emergency of the Court definition of medical say waiting findings, that the cannot the District we Court’s period imposes a real health risk. disagree that with the District Court’s conclusion

We also waiting period “particularly the burdensome” effects bur- particular A require its invalidation. women on some a Whether obstacle. necessity substantial is not den from inquiry distinct group is a particular aon falls burden women the toas even obstacle a substantial isit whether that conclude not did District the And group. that women the even an obstacle period is waiting such the before record the on Hence, it. burdened most are who not challenge, arewe facial context the us, an period constitutes waiting 24-hour the that convinced burden. undue aspects of various the argument that the with are left We be- unconstitutional requirement consent informed the demand. on way abortion they place barriers cause sug- not however, has Roe, reading of broadest Even de- on right abortion a constitutional there gested that Rather, 189. S., at U. Bolton, 410 g., Doe See, e. mand. terminate right to decide is a Roe protected right Be- by the State. interference undue free pregnancy wise requirement facilitates consent informed cause interfer- as an classified be cannot right, that exercise re- consent informed The protects. right Roe ence right. that on burden undue an is not quirement

C provides, ex- law abortion Pennsylvania’s Section shall physician no emergency, that medical cept in eases receiving without woman married aon abortion an perform her notified has that she woman from signed statement undergo abortion. is about she spouse that signed alternative providing an option of woman who man is not husband certifying her that statement located; could husband her her; impregnated assault spousal sexual is the result pregnancy notifying believes woman reported; or she has bodily inflict else someone him will cause her husband performs an who physician upon A injury her. receiving appropriate signed a married woman without revoked, statement will have his her or license liable damages. to the husband for testimony

The District heard numerous ex- pert findings regarding witnesses, and made detailed of fact the effect of this statute. These included: majority

“273. The vast of women consult their hus- prior deciding pregnancy.... bands to terminate their ‘bodily injury’ exception “279. The could not in- voked a married if husband, notified, woman whose (a) publicize would, in her belief, reasonable threaten family, her intent to have an abortion to friends or ac- (b) quaintances; against retaliate her future child cus- (e) tody proceedings; psychological or divorce inflict in- upon timidation or emotional her, harm her children or (d) persons; bodily persons other inflict harm on other family such as children, or members other loved ones; (e) deprive necessary use his control over finances to monies for herself or her children.... family

“281. Studies reveal that violence occurs in two figure, million families the United This how- States.. substantially ever, is a conservative one that under- (because battering usually reported states until it life-threatening proportions) reaches the actual number of families affected fact, domestic violence. re- every searchers estimate that one two women will be battered at some time in their life.... notify

“282. A wife not elect to her husband of her variety intention to abortion for a of rea- including sons, the husband’s concern illness, about her health, own marriage, the imminent failure of the or the opposition husband’s absolute to the abortion. ... required filing spousal “283. The consent form require plaintiff-clinics would change counseling their in- most their to reveal women and force procedures sanctions. pain criminal decision-making on timate not be could confidentiality revelations these The immune not are records the woman’s guaranteed, since subpoena.... from back- educational levels, class all Women “284. groups religious and racial, ethnic

grounds, and battered.... many phys- take on can Wife-battering abuse or “285. scope of and nature The forms. psychological ical and and range actions a broad battering cover can torturous.... gruesome and battering, been have victims women, Married

“286. throughout United Pennsylvania and killed States.... a substantial involve Battering often can “287. rape and including marital abuse, sexual

amount mutilation.... sexual for common it is situation, abuse a domestic

“288. an children abuse battering to also husband the wife.... attempt coerce frequently pregnancy notification “289. Mere family. within battering violence flashpoint for during high battering incidents number be associated can abuse the worst and often pregnancy deny battering husband . . . The pregnancy. with excuse an pregnancy as use the parentage abuse.... families. abusive typically Secrecy shrouds

“290. espe- anyone, tell Family are instructed members violence. abuse about doctors, police cially or her wives their threaten Battering often husbands outsider she tells if further abuse children A nobody her. will believe her tells violence unlikely highly to disclose therefore, is woman, battered against her the violence for fear of retaliation abuser.... directly by per-

“291. Even when medical confronted helping professionals, sonnel or other battered women battering they often will not admit to because they not admitted to themselves that are battered.. .. “294. A woman a shelter or safe house unknown ‘reasonably likely’ bodily to her husband is not to have upon by harm her her batterer, inflicted however her attempt notify pursuant to her husband to section 3209 accidentally could her disclose whereabouts her hus- band. Her fear of future ramifications would be realis- under, tic the circumstances. rape rarely

“295. Marital discussed with or others reported to law enforcement and of authorities, those reported only prosecuted.... few are It

“296. is commonfor battered women to have sexual being intercourse with their husbands avoid battered. type activity While this of coercive sexual would be spousal by many sexual assault defined Act, as may women not consider it be so and others would fear disbelief.... rape exception

“297. The marital to section 3209 can- by not be claimed women who are victims of coercive penetration. 90-day

sexual behavior other than The re- porting requirement spousal sexual stat- assault §3218(c), ute, 18 Pa. Con. Ann. Stat. further narrows sexually excep- class of abused wives who can claim the many tion, psychologically since of these women report rape years unable to or discuss for several after the incident. . .. battering

“298. Because of the nature of the relation- ship, unlikely battered women are to avail themselves of exceptions regardless to section 3209 of the Act, Supp., at 744 F. applies them.” the section

whether omitted). (footnote 1360-1362 vio- domestic studies supported findings are These (AMA) pub- Association Medical American lence. field, research in summary the recent lished country, period in this average 12-month that in indicates of severe victims are the women million two approximately survey, women partners. In a 1985 male their assaults had as- eight every nearly husbands one of reported that views year. past The AMA during the wives their saulted the na- underestimates,” because figures “marked these reporting discourages from women incidents of these ture very poor, surveys typically exclude because them, and who English women well, speak do who those survey is hospitals when or in institutions homeless family “[researchers on According AMA, conducted. partner violence true incidence agree violence severely million estimates; or four above probably double suggest prevalence year. on per Studies women assaulted physi- bewill all women to one-third one-fifth from during life- their ex-partner by partner or cally assaulted Against Affairs, Violence on Scientific Council AMA time.” average (1991) original). on Thus (emphasis in 7 Women severely nearly 11,000 women States, day in the United Many incidents these partners. male their assaulted Hanneke, & 3-4; Shields Id., at assault. sexual involve Rape, Dark in The to Marital Reactions Wives’ Battered Family Research Violence Current of Families: Side Hataling, & M. Straus eds. (D. Gelles, G. R. Finkelhor, place, wifebeating more- 1983). takes. where families In Against Violence present as well. is often child abuse over, supra, 12. Women, picture. troubling rest of fill in the studies

Other of abuse. only form the most visible Physical violence and economic particularly social forced Psychological abuse, Bat- Walker, eommon. L. women, is also isolation (1984). Many of do- Syndrome victims 27-28 Woman tered perhaps because abusers, their remain with violence mestic superior Herbert, Silver, & they perceive alternative. no Relationship: I. How and Coping an Abusive Ellard, Family Marriage Stay?, Why & the 53 J. do Women refuge (1991). temporary Many who find abused women large they part because husbands, in to their return shelters Why They Aguirre, Do Re- income. other source of have no Assn, of Social 30 J. Nat. Shelters, Wives turn? Abused (1985). Returning can be to one’s abuser 350, 352 Workers Investigation statis- dangerous. Bureau Recent Federal percent in the all homicide victims that 8.8 tics disclose Mercy spouses. & their Saltz- are killed United States Spouses States, Among in the United man, Fatal Violence (1989). Thirty percent 79 Am. Public Health 595 1976-85, J. partners. by their male are killed homicide victims of female Hearing before Home, Terrorism in Violence: Domestic Family, Drugs and Alcohol- Children, Subcommittee and Human Re- on Labor ism of the Senate Committee (1990). Cong., sources, Sess., 2d 101st respect been conducted with research that has The limited although notifying in- abortion, about an one’s husband supports volving samples representative, also too small majority findings vast District Court’s fact. The notify partners to obtain of their decision their male women many married women do not cases in which an abortion. notify pregnancy of an ex- is the result husbands, their pri- father, the husband is the tramarital affair. Where mary notify husbands that the reason women do not their experiencing marital often difficulties, husband and wife are Ryan accompanied by & Plutzer, violence. incidents of Spousal Notification When Married Women Have Abortions: Family Marriage Interaction, 51 J. & Marital (1989). findings the District Court’s re-

This information and suggest. In well- inforce what common sense would important intimate marriages, spouses discuss functioning there are child. But a to bear whether such decisions of country victims are the who of women millions of the hands psychological abuse physical regular pregnant, become these women Should husbands. their wishing inform to not very good for may reasons they have Many abortion. an to obtain of their decision husbands their may be no physical but abuse, justifiable of fears may have prior reporting abuse to consequences of fearful less may Many a rea- Pennsylvania. have of the Commonwealth provoke fur- notifying husbands will their fear that sonable exempt not are these women abuse; child of ther instances may Many fear dev- requirement. § notification 3209’s from husbands, from their psychological abuse astating of forms violence, the future of harassment, threats including verbal home, physical to the confinement possessions, destruction disclosure support, financial the withdrawal psycholog- family methods These friends. to notification of deterrent more even act as abuse ical who are physical violence, but women possibility of than § exempt 8209’snotifi-. from are not the abuse victims pregnant as many who women requirement. And cation be unable will their husbands assaults of sexual a result spousal assault, exception sexual themselves avail requires exception woman 3209(b)(3), § because days within authorities law enforcement notified report her notified of will be her husband assault, and 3128(c). anything § in this begins, If investigation once spousal assault are sexual it is that victims certain, field government; report to the extremely the abuse reluctant exempt rape will many spousal great victims hence, §3209. imposed requirement the notification from likely pre- thus requirement is spousal notification obtaining an abor- significant from of women number vent more diffi- merely little abortions a make It does not tion. impose many it will women, expensive obtain; for. cult or 894 to the ourselves blind must not We obstacle.

a substantial their for fear who of women significant number that the fact likely be de- are safety children safety of their surely if the Com- as as an abortion procuring from terred in all cases. outlawed had monwealth § is conclusion attempt to avoid Respondents imposes at no burden almost by pointing out that invalid They seeking abortions. women majority of the vast for all begin women percent of only by noting about They that of note then are married. abortions obtain who of their notify husbands their percent about women these § argue, of 3209 the effects respondents Thus, volition. own abor- who obtain percent women only one felt are women of these some argue Respondents that since tions. conse- adverse notify without their husbands be able will statute exceptions, the qualify of the one for quences will seeking abortions. percent of women one than fewer affects invalid cannot be statute asserted, the reason, it this For disagree Respondents We 83-86. for Brief See on its face. analysis. respondents’ basic method with percent of women the one analysis not end does The Legisla begins there. operates; it upon statute whom by its consistency with the Constitution for is measured tion example, we For it affects. impact conduct on those whose print newspaper to requires a say a law which not would on its is valid editorial reply an unfavorable a candidate’s policy adopt even newspapers would because most face Publishing v. Tor Co. Herald Miami the law. See absent (1974). constitu proper focus nillo, S. 241 418 U. restriction, group the law is inquiry for whom is tional irrelevant. group law whom recognition implicit gives Respondents’ argument itself Respondents points. principle, its critical one seeking who abortions percent of women speak one notify husbands their not to choose and would married controlling women class By selecting plans. of their or all all women than abortions, rather to obtain wish who §3209 that respondents concede in effect pregnant women, it is an actual whom by for to those judged reference must be we have course, as Of restriction. than an irrelevant rather than the class target even §3209’s narrower is real said, it mar- is the State: seeking identified abortions women notify their to not wish seeking who do abortions ried women qualify one do not and who intentions of their husbands requirement. The statutory exceptions notice to the of the above we document persisting yet conditions unfortunate §3209 in which the cases large fraction that in will mean ato wom- obstacle substantial operate as a relevant, it will is burden, undue an It is undergo abortion. an’s choice invalid. and therefore way our decisions with inconsistent in no conclusion

This requirements. consent parental notification upholding Baird, Bellotti v. 510-519; atS., g., 497 II, U. Akron See, e. (Bellotti II); (1979) Parenthood Planned 622 S. 443 U. Those enact- at 74. S.,U. 428 Danforth, Mo. v. Central are they constitutional, are judgment and our ments, will assumption minors quite reasonable based parents that chil- with their consultation from benefit best their parents have that their not realize often will dren assumption parallel adopt a cannot We at heart. interests women. adult about proper “deep con has a recognize a husband

We pregnancy and in his wife’s ... interest cern carrying.” Dan- development the fetus she is' growth and fa has regard he the children supra, With 69. forth, “cognizable recognized his the Court raised, thered Stanley custody. Illi v. in their interest and substantial” (1972); v. Wal Quilloin see also 651-652 405 U. S. nois, (1978); Mohammed, 441 U. S. v. Caban U. S. cott, 434 (1983). cases If these (1979); S. Robertson, 463U. Lehr v. notify ability require the mother a State’s concerned living respect to a taking with action some before the father to con- be reasonable would therefore, both, raised child interest the father’s general matter aas clude equal. interest child and mother’s of the welfare very different on a takes however, issue birth, Before regula biological that state inescapable fact It anis cast. carrying will woman respect child tion liberty the fa than on the mother’s greater impact on a far pro regulation on a woman’s state effect ther’s. scrutiny case, deserving in such doubly liberty is tected sphere private only upon the has touched the State pregnant bodily integrity very upon family but Dept. Health, 497 Director, Mo. Cruzan Cf. woman. wife and “when the Court has held at 281. S.,U. only one the view of disagree decision, on this husband the prevail. as Inasmuch can marriage partners of the two is the and who the physically child bears who woman the pregnancy, as immediately affected directly and more Dan weighs her favor.” balance two, between upon na basic rests supra, conclusion at 71. This forth, “[T]he our Constitution: marriage nature of and the ture entity mind and independent with a couple an is not marital each individuals of two association own, but of its heart makeup. If the emotional separate intellectual a right anything, indi privacy it is the right means gov single, unwarranted free from or to be vidual, married fundamentally affecting so matters into intrusion ernmental beget a or child.” to bear whether person the decision as original). (emphasis in 453 Baird, S., U. Eisenstadt v. alike, and women protects individuals, men The Constitution interfer even when that unjustified interference, state from spouses. their benefit of into law is enacted ence ago, under- long a different so when time, There was prevailed. family In standing Constitution of the (1873), of this Members three State, 16 Wall. 130 v. Bradwell principle that “a woman common-law reaffirmed separate husband, who was legal from her existence had no representative state; in the social regarded head and as her notwithstanding of this civil modifications some recent and, flowing special many rules of law from and of the status, principle in foil force dependent upon still exist cardinal Swayne joined by (Bradley, X, Id., at 141 States.” in most judgment). Only genera- concurring one JX, Field, passed that “woman is since this Court observed tion has family life,” with regarded the center of home and still responsibilities” precluded “special full attendant Hoyt legal Constitution. independent status under the (1961). are views, course, These 368 U. S. Florida, family, understanding longer consistent with our no individual, Constitution. rejection keeping under- of the common-law with our family, standing held the Court role within of woman’s permit does not a State that the Constitution Danforth consent require to obtain her husband’s a married woman prin- undergoing S., at 69. The an abortion. U. before ciples guided should be our the Court Danforth great many guides today. women who are victims For the husbands, or whose children inflicted their of abuse requirement spousal en- abuse, a notice victims of such over his wife’s to wield an effective veto ables the husband prospect of notification itself deters Whether decision. seeking hus- abortions, or whether the such women from psychological pressure through physical or force or band, obtaining prevents an abor- economic his wife from coercion, requirement will often be late, tion until it is too the notice veto found tantamount to the unconstitutional Danforth. who most rea- The women most affected this.law —those sonably notifying consequences fear the their husbands they pregnant gravest danger. in the that —are iswife child his life in the interest husband’s The empower him with this permit the State carrying not does contrary authority wife. his over troubling degree of law. common consequences reminiscent leads to view require a wife ad- right to no enforceable A husband aIf hus- personal choices. her exercises she him before vise outweighs a child potential life of the in the interest band’s woman require a married liberty, could the State wife’s postfertilization contra- uses notify she before her husband requiring statute Perhaps would be in line next ceptive. notify before husbands their women pregnant married all, if After causing fetus. to the risks conduct engaging in predi- safety is a sufficient in the fetus’ interest husband’s reasonably conclude regulation, could the State for state cate notify before husbands their should pregnant wives that Perhaps women smoking. married drinking or alcohol using contraceptives or before notify their husbands should compli- may surgery type undergoing any that before repro- in his wife’s affecting interest husband’s cations justifies notice interest organs. if a husband’s And ductive reasonably argue might any cases, one these it did not exactly held justifies what Danforth well. A consent requirement of the husband’s justify —a over his of dominion give kind to a man State their children. parents over exercise wife marriage consonant a view embodies Section repugnant to but women of married common-law status marriage nature understanding and of the present our not lose Women do rights the Constitution. secured they marry. liberty constitutionally protected when their female, male or individuals, protects all The Constitution governmental the abuse unmarried, from married supposed employed for power power, where even family. consid- These of the individual’s of a member benefit §3209 is invalid. confirm our conclusion erations D Except provision. parental consent next consider We young unemancipated woman emergency, an a medical in one of unless and may she an abortion not obtain under 18 (or as de- provides consent guardian) informed parents her provides guardian parent a nor If neither above. fined performance of an abor- authorize consent, a court young mature woman upon a determination tion given fact and in giving consent informed capable and her be in would that an abortion or consent, informed her interests. best cases ground Our before. most this over have been

We may require a today, a State reaffirm we establish, and parent the consent of seeking to obtain an abortion minor by judicial adequate provided there is guardian, or 510-519; S., at g., II, 497 U. e. Akron pass procedure. See, part concurring in J., Hodgson, at 461 S., 497 U. (O’Connor, part); at 497-501 judgment id., concurring in in (Ken dissenting in part and judgment concurring in J., nedy, atS., II, 443 U. Bellotti 440; part); S., 462 U. I, Akron precedents, our opinion). these (plurality Under 643-644 bypass judicial requirement one-parent consent view, procedure are constitutional. respecting by petitioners only argument made speak the prior decisions do not

provision to which our requirement parental is invalid consent contention that parental For requires consent. informed because argu- reprise argument their part, petitioners’ is a most requirement in respect consent to the informed ment given In- reject above. general, reasons it for the and we regarding provisions consent informed deed, some of waiting pe- respect particular to minors: the force with parents parent example, may provide riod, for opportunity young with her pregnant to consult woman the consequences decision private, of her to discuss the principles religious or moral and the values context the (opinion of at 448-449 Hodgson, supra, family. See their J.). Stevens, E requirements of reporting recordkeeping and the Under is re- performs abortions facility every which statute,

the well as stating address name and report its quired a to file entity, con- as any such related address name and the the case state- organization. In subsidiary trolling or public. becomes the information institutions, funded identi- report filed be must performed, a each abortion For re- (and physician where second the physician fying: the agency; the physician or referring facility; the quired); the prior and pregnancies prior age; number the woman’s type age; of abortion had;'gestational has she abortions any were there whether abortion; procedure; date complicate would conditions pre-existing medical abortion; where complications with pregnancy; medical the abortion determination for the applicable, basis fetus; weight necessary; aborted medically was no- whether so, if married, and was the woman whether give notice. the failure provided the basis was tice reports quarterly show- facility also file Every must by tri- down performed broken ing of abortions number (1990). Stat, §§ In all 3207, Cons. 18 Pa. See mester. had an abortion identity who woman of each events, confidential. remains recordkeeping we held S., at 428 U. Danforth, reasonably directed are provisions “that reporting respect a properly maternal health

preservation of permissible.” We privacy confidentiality patient’s provisions at issue all standard, that under think spousal constitu- relating notice, are except that here, interest they to the State’s Although not relate do tional. they to health. relate do informing choice, the woman’s patients respect to actual of information The collection it cannot research, and so medical a vital element purpose than requirements no other serve that the said re- we find that the Nor do difficult. more make abortions to woman’s impose obstacle a substantial quirements they might of some abor- the cost increase most At choice. point increased slight at some While amount. tions no such obstacle, there is a substantial could become cost showing us. the record before on re-, (12) requires reporting provision

Subsection things, among woman’s “reason a married porting other of, 3214(a)(12). § provide her husband. notice” to for failure to requires women, as condition provision in effeet This with provide the Commonwealth obtaining abortion, to an already recognized that precise we have information Like the pressing not to reveal. many reasons women places provision requirement this spousal itself, notice be invalidated choice, and must a woman’s on undue burden that reason. VI gen- running the first from a covenant Our Constitution generations. future to us and then to of Americans eration generation must learn succession. Each coherent It is a embody ideas written terms anew that the Constitution’s ages ac- than one. We aspirations more must survive interpreting responsibility to retreat from cept our precedents. light meaning our of all of covenant of the full guaranteed again the freedom to define invoke it once We liberty. promise promise, the own the Constitution’s ^{[*] [*] [*]} judgment is affirmed. The judgment 91-902 No. part, part and the and reversed 91-744 is affirmed in in No. opin- proceedings with consistent case is remanded for severability. question including ion, consideration It is so ordered. KENNEDY, O’CONNOR, OF OPINION TO APPENDIX SOUTER, JJ. AND to the Amendments the 1988 Provisions Selected Act of Pennsylvania Control Abortion (1990). STAT. CONS. 18 PA.

“§3203. Definitions. “ the basis which, emergency.’ condition That ‘Medical complicates judgment, so good clinical faith physician’s toas necessitate pregnant woman of a condition medical death her pregnancy to avert of her abortion immediate of substantial risk delay serious will create for which bodily major function.” impairment of irreversible

“§3205. consent. Informed in- performed or shall “(a) rule.—No General consent voluntary informed except duced in- performed or to be upon the abortion whom woman emergency, consent Except of medical case in the duced. only if: if and voluntary and informed is an abortion to physi- abortion, the “(1) prior to the 24 hours At least phy- referring the or abortion perform the to who is cian orally of: the woman informed has sician procedure or proposed “(i) the of nature The the to alternatives and risks of those treatment and patient a reasonable treatment procedure or whether decision to the material consider would undergo the abortion. not to or age unborn “(ii) gestational the probable The performed. is to be time the abortion at the child carrying “(iii) associated risks The medical term. child to her physi- the “(2) abortion, prior to the hours At least referring phy- the or perform abortion the who to cian is care health assistant, physician qualified or a sician, the re- whom to social worker or practitioner, technician physician, has delegated either has sponsibility been that: woman pregnant the informed printed materials publishes “(i) department The agencies list child unborn the describe which she to abortion offer alternatives and that printed materials right review to has a charge if she free provided to her copy will be it. to review chooses may available

“(ii) be benefits assistance Medical care, and neonatal prenatal care, childbirth for availability of information detailed that more printed materials in the contained assistance such department. by the published liable “(iii) child unborn father The instances even in support child, her assist pay the abortion. offered he has where omitted. rape, information the case pro- been printed “(3) materials copy A these to view if she chooses woman vided materials. writing, prior

“(4) certifies pregnant woman required to be information abortion, (3) (2) (1), has been paragraphs under provided provided. compels emergency

“(b) a medical Emergency.—Where physician inform shall abortion, performance of an possible, medical if to the prior woman, is nec- judgment an abortion supporting his indications and irre- avert substantial essary her death to avert bodily major function. impairment versible provisions “(e) who violates physician Penalty. Any— and his ‘unprofessional conduct’ guilty section of this surgery be sub- shall practice of medicine for the license proce- in accordance with suspension revocation ject or (P. 1109, L. 5,1978 the act October provided under dures Act, the Osteopathic Practice 261), Medical as known No. (P. 112), 20, 457, act of December No. known as the L. Any Act of or successor acts. 1985, Medical Practice their physician performs an who or induces abortion without first (a)(4) obtaining required by the certification subsection or knowledge or reason to that the informed consent know has not been obtained of woman shall for first offense guilty summary subsequent a offense and for each of- guilty degree. fense be of a the third misdemeanor of No physician guilty violating shall be this section for failure (a) by required to furnish the information subsection if he or by preponderance can demonstrate, she of the evidence, reasonably furnishing he or she believed that the infor- severely mation would have resulted in a adverse effect on physical patient. or mental health of the “(d) liability. Any physician Limitation on civil who com- — plies provisions with the of this section not be held civ- illy patient liable to his for failure obtain informed consent meaning abortion within the of that term as defined (P. Ill), the act of October 1975 L. 390, No. known as Malpractice the Health Care Services Act.” “§3206. Parental consent. “(a) Except General in the case of a medical emer- rule.—

gency except provided pregnant or section, in this if a years age emancipated, woman is than less and not or adjudged incompetent if she has been an under 20 Pa. C. S. §5511 (relating petition hearing; examination court-appointed physician), physician perform shall not upon her unless, in the case of a woman who is less years age, than he first obtains the informed consent pregnant parents; both of the woman and of one of her inor, incompetent, the case of a woman who is he first obtains the guardian. deciding informed consent of her In whether to grant pregnant parent such guardian consent, woman’s or only shall consider their child’s ward’s best interests. pregnancy the case of a that is incest, the result of where pregnant the act, incestuous party the to ais father the her mother. of consent only the obtain need woman parents guardian. both Unavailability parent or “(b) of —If physician the to unavailable otherwise or died manner, consent reasonable in a and time a reasonable within be guardians shall guardian or woman’s pregnant the of divorced, parents are woman’s pregnant the If sufficient. If custody sufficient. having be shall parent the consent the to guardian available legal is nor a any parent neither man- ain reasonable and time a reasonable within physician parentis standing in loco person any adult ner, consent sufficient. be shall par- both consent.—If “(c) court to the Petition consent to refuse woman pregnant guardians the or ents seek not she elects ifor anof abortion performance the guardian, the parents of her or her either consent the the in which judicial district the pleas of common court sought shall, abortion in which applicant resides hearing, au- appropriate motion, after petition or upon de- court if the perform abortion physician to thorize capable of and mature pregnant woman termines has, proposed abortion, consent giving informed consent. given such fact, preg- determines “(d) the court order.—If giving informed capable of mature is not woman nant ma- be claim to does pregnant woman ifor consent shall the court consent, giving informed capable ture upon her abortion of an performance whether determine determines If the court interests. best in her would interests best would be of an performance perform the physician authorize woman, shall abortion. pregnant proceedings. “(e) Representation —The on her court proceedings in the may participate in woman guardian litem may appoint a ad court behalf own she her that advise however, shall, court her. assist provide appointed right her with counsel, and shall a to court private appear coun- with unless she to counsel wishes such intelligently representation knowingly or has and waived sel by counsel.”

“§3207. Abortion facilities. “(b) days Reports. the date of after effective —Within performed chapter, every facility at which abortions any report update immediately upon change, a shall and file, containing following department, information: the the with “(1) facility. of Name and address the “(2) any subsidiary parent, or Name and address of organizations, corporations or associations. affiliated “(3) any subsidiary parent, or Name and address of organizations, corporations or hav- affiliated associations commonality ing contemporaneous ownership, bene- offieership any directorship other interest, ficial or with facility. reports

The information in those are filed contained which pursuant by this subsection facilities which receive to State- appropriated during period funds the 12-ealendar-month im- mediately inspect copy preceding request a such re- ports public Reports be shall deemed information. filed State-appropriated which facilities do not receive funds shall only be available to law enforcement officials, State Osteopathic Board of Medicine and the State Board of Medi- Any performance for cine use of their official duties. facility failing comply provisions this subsec- department tion shall be assessed a fine $500 day each it is in violation hereof.” “§ 3208. Printed information.

“(a) department pub- General rule.—The shall cause to be English, Spanish days lished in Vietnamese, and within 60 chapter update after this law, becomes and shall on an annual following easily comprehensible printed basis, the materials: designed in- materials “(1) indexed Geographically serv- agencies private public and the woman form pregnancy, through a woman assist available ices dependent, includ- child while upon childbirth comprehen- a include shall agencies, which adoption ing description of a available, agencies list sive manner, description they offer services including might they be which numbers, telephone printed department, option or, contacted, telephone day 24-hour including toll-free materials orally, a list such obtain, called number locality caller' agencies in description pro- shall they The materials offer. services the and availability assistance of medical on the vide information care, neonatal and care, childbirth prenatal for benefits to coerce any individual for unlawful isit and state any physician who undergo abortion, that to a woman obtaining upon without a woman performs an private according aher without or consent her informed damages in for to her liable be consultation medical to is liable of a child father the law, that at action a civil in instances child, even support of that in the assist and an abortion pay to offered has father the where pay costs of parents adoptive permits law care. neonatal and childbirth care, prenatal the woman “(2) designed inform Materials physiological characteristics probable anatomical increments gestational at two-week child the unborn repre- including pictures term, to full fertilization from two-week children development of unborn senting any information relevant increments, gestational provided survival; unborn child’s possibility di- drawings contain must pictures any or such appro- be realistic and must fetus mensions mate- stage pregnancy. the woman’s priate for designed non-judgmental and objective, be shall rials about the accurate scientific information convey only The ma- ages.' unborn child at the various gestational terial shall contain information describ- objective also em- commonly the methods of abortion ing procedures the medical risks associated with each commonly ployed, detrimental psychological such procedure, possible effects the medical risks asso- commonly of abortion and and the medical risks ciated with each such procedure associated with a child term. carrying commonly “(b) in a Format. —The materials shall be printed typeface clearly large enough legible.

“(e) Free materials under this distribution. —The required shall at no cost from the section be available department and in number to facil- any person, upon request appropriate ity hospital.”

“§3209. notice. Spousal “(a) to further notice order Spousal required. —In Commonwealth’s interest promoting integrity marital and to interests protect relationship spouse’s children within and in having marriage prena- protecting tal of that child, life no shall spouse’s physician perform abortion on a married woman, subsec- except provided (b) (c), tions he or she received a unless state- signed ment, which need not be notarized, from woman upon whom the abortion tois be that she has notified performed, her that she is about to an abortion. The spouse undergo statement shall bear notice that statement made any false therein is law. punishable by

“(b) statement Exceptions. the notice certifying —The (a) subsection required by has been need not be fur- given nished where the woman provides physician signed statement at least one of the certifying following:

“(1) Her is not the father spouse of the child. “(2) Her after spouse, effort, could not be diligent located. spousal sexual as-

“(3) a result pregnancy is The (relating spousal in section described sault reported a law en- assault), been which sexual jurisdiction. requisite having agency forcement the fur- believe “(4) has reason woman The likely to result spouse is nishing her of notice by by spouse or her upon bodily injury her infliction individual. another a notice bear shall notarized, but be not need statement

Such punishable therein made any statements false law. requirements of subsection emergency. “(c) Medical —The emergency.

(a) of medical apply case shall published, to be “(d) department shall cause Forms.—The providing the purposes of for be utilized forms (b). (a) subsections required signed statements supply adequate forms of such department distribute shall this Commonwealth. facilities to all Any'physician violates the who “(e) Penalty; civil action.— conduct,’ 'unprofessional guilty of section provisions of this and sur- medicine practice of for the license her -or and his in accord- suspension or revocation subject gery be shall 5, act October provided under procedures ance Osteopathic 261), Medical (P. as the known No. 1109, L. (P. 457, L. No. 20, 1985 December act of Act, Practice or their of Act Practice 112), as the known Medical knowingly any physician who addition, acts. successor civilly liable shall this section provisions violates any for child aborted spouse father is the who to the damages punitive thereby damages caused prevailing shall award a the court $5,000, amount part attorney of costs.” fee as plaintiff a reasonable “§3214. Reporting. promotion

“(a) of ma- purpose of rule.—For General adding by of medical to the sum life health ternal relevant compilation health knowledge through public interest protec- the Commonwealth’s and to data, promote of each abortion child, performed a report tion of the unborn forms it. prescribed be made to the department shall patient by the individual identify shall not The forms report information: following and shall include name “(1) who of the performed Identification physician sec- as required by abortion, concurring physician 3211(c)(2) on unborn child to abortion tion (relating second weeks physician or more gestational age), 3211(c)(5) facility and the where the section required the referring and of physician, abortion was performed if service, any. or agency

“(2) state in which woman resides. The county “(3) The woman’s age.

“(4) abor- The number of pregnancies prior prior tions the woman.

“(5) the unborn child at the The gestational age time of the abortion.

“(6) of procedure performed prescribed type the abortion. and the date of

“(7) medical conditions of woman Pre-existing if known, and if which would complicate pregnancy, any, the abor- medical which resulted from any complication tion itself.

“(8) for the medical of the The basis judgment physi- cian the abortion who the abortion that was performed either the death necessary prevent pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible impairment woman, where an abortion major function bodily 3211(b)(1). has been to section performed pursuant “(9) The the aborted child for any weight 3211(b)(1). to section performed pursuant “(10) that a medical Basis for medical any judgment existed which excused from emergency physician of this compliance any provision chapter. reported under required be

“(11) information The gestational 3210(a) (relating determination section age). upon a performed was

“(12) the abortion Whether spouse to her notice whether so, if and, woman married given, the was spouse her If no notice given. was pro- for failure reason the indicate also report shall notice. vide facility an abor- which facility. Every “(f) Report — any during Commonwealth performed within is

tion showing report department with file year shall quarter hospital performed within abortions number total report shall year. This quarter during facility that other or trimester each performed abortions total show also in- public available be report Any shall pregnancy. facility State- receives only if the copying spection and period im- 12-calendar-month within funds appropriated reports report. These filing mediately preceding department by the prescribed formaon submitted shall it not enable, whether facility indicate will which facility indicates If the funds. State-appropriated receiving funds, State-appropriated receiving it is form on unless confidential report as regard its department shall conclude to causes which evidence other it receives funds.” State-appropriated facility receives dissenting concurring part Stevens, Justice part. joined opinion I have Court’s portions of the

The shall disagree. I I those important than more agreement, significant areas comment first therefore my disagreement. character explain the limited then f-H unquestionably concluding correct in controlling significance ain case doctrine of stare decisis has notwithstanding concerns kind, of this an individual Justice’s holding Wade, about the merits.1 The central of Roe (1973), “part our for almost two S. 113 has been of law” U. Mo. v. Danforth, decades. Planned Parenthood Central (1976) concurring part in 52, 101 J., 428 and U. S. (Stevens, dissenting protec part). sequel It to the in was a natural liberty tion individual established Griswold v. Con (1965). Carey Popula necticut, 381 U. See also v. S. (1977) International, tion Services S. 678, 687, 431 U. result). concurring part concurring in J., and (White, overruling The societal costs of Roe at this late date would integral part Roe of a under enormous. is an correct standing liberty equality concept of both the and the basic of men and women. my provides agree- decisis also

Stare a sufficient basis joint opinion’s post- ment with reaffirmation Roe’s viability analysis. Specifically, accept proposition I protecting “[i]f the is life via- State interested in fetal after bility, may go proscribe during far so as to period, except necessary preserve when it life S., 163-164; ante, health the mother.” see at 410 U. at 879. accept implicit analysis,

I also what in the Court’s namely, explanation oí-why a reaffirmation of Roe’s obligation protect State’s the life or health of the mother 1It is sometimes useful to stare decisis from a histori the issue of view perspective. cal years, In the last 19 16 Justices have confronted the basic Wade, in Roe presented (1973). those, issue 410 U. S. 113 Of 11 have majority today: voted Burger, Doug as does Chief Justice Justices Brennan, Blackmun, las, Stewart, Marshall, and Justices Powell, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, myself Only hap four —all of whom pen be on today the Court opposite reached the conclusion. —have unborn. to the duty any over precedence take must the State’s rejected, considered, Roe carefully Court language within is a ‘person’ fetus “that argument S., at U. Amendment.” Fourteenth of the meaning Constitu- in the “person” usage analyzing After 156. “has application that word concluded tion, the contin- Commenting Id., at 157. only postnatally.” rep- generally that are unborn interests property gent “Perfection noted: litem, the Court ad by guardians resented been contin- generally has involved, again, the interests been never unborn short, live birth. upon gent Id., sense.” whole in the persons law as recognized termination “the is not an abortion Accordingly, 162. at Id., at protection.” Amendment Fourteenth entitled life id., 173; dissent, see nowas there holding, this From 159. questioned ever of the Court indeed, no Member con- of federal a matter Thus, proposition. fundamental “per- a yet not that is organism developing a law, stitutional as a “right described is sometimes what have not does son” holding today, the Court’s and, by been has This to life.”2 issue: on the comment has made Dworkin Professor . . . person. a a fetus declare free to are states that suggestion “The rights constitutional persons’ some can curtail a state assumes constitutional population. constitutional persons adding new else what who very affected much of course citizen of one rights compete may of others rights rights, because has constitutional also popula- constitutional increase any power to So his. with or conflict rights to decrease effect, power a be, in would decision by unilateral tion others. grants to Constitution national a constitutional persons with to be trees declare could . a state . If “. spite in or books newspapers publishing prohibit life, it could right not be could speech, free guarantee Amendment’s First of the the suggestion understand we Once license to kill.... as a understood If a fetus reject it. must we implication, considering arewe constitutional the national under population, part constitutional not arrange- that national overrule no power have then states arrangement, competitive with rights have fetuses declaring that by themselves ment premise law our constitutional a fundamental

remains governing reproductive autonomy.

II begins joint opinion My disagreement its with the understanding established in trimester framework Contrary joint opinion, suggestion ante, to the Roe. recognize that the State 876, it is a not “contradiction” may potential legitimate and, life interest in human that interest does not time, at the to conclude that same viability (although regulation justify the of abortion before may). The fact health, such as maternal interests, other legitimate when, does not tell us that the State’s interest pregnant outweighs the woman’sinter- ever, if that interest personal liberty. appropriate, therefore, est It is con- in carefully nature of the interests at stake. sider more legitimate, the First, that, it is clear in order to be State’s consistent with the First Amend secular; interest must promote theological ment the or sectarian State Thornburgh College interest. v. American Obstetri See (1986) Gynecologists, U. 747, cians and 476 S. (Stevens, Reproductive concurring); generally Health J., see Webster v. (1989) Services, 492 U. concur J., S. dissenting 563-572 (Stevens, ring part part). Moreover, as discussed potential above, the state interest human life is not person. parentis, interest in loco for the fetus is not Identifying rarely State’s interests —which States any precision articulate with clear interest —makes protecting potential grounded life is not in the Constitu- by supported is, tion. It an instead, indirect interest both Many pragmatic humanitarian and of our concerns. citizens any unacceptable disrespect believe that reflects an potential performance for human life and that the of more rights pregnant the constitutional Rights: women.” Unenumerated Roe Should be Overruled, Whether and 381, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 400- How (1992). 401

915 many find intolerable; year is each abortions million a than ap- is the fetus when performed abortions third-trimester State The offensive. particularly personhood proaching State The minimizing such offense. in interest legitimate a popula- expanding the in interest broader also services the from society benefit believing would tion,3 potential human the productive citizens—or additional These or Curie. Mozart occasional might include lives interest comprise the State’s of concerns kinds life. potential human in in interest constitutional woman’s counterpoise integ- bodily right liberty to is a aspect this liberty. One v. Cal- g., Rochin e. See, person. one’s rity, right control rel. ex (1952); v. Oklahoma Skinner 165 S.U. 342 ifornia, on (1942). right is neutral This S. 316 U. Williamson, equally be would Constitution The question abortion: undergo women all requirement that by absolute an offended “Our on abortions. prohibition absolute abortions giving thought of at the heritage rebels constitutional whole Stanley v. men’s minds.” power control government true (1969). holds same The 557, 565 Georgia, U. S. bodies. women’s control power to involves liberty also interest constitutional woman’s highest privacy matters to decide freedom her Roe, U. S. Whalen Cf. personal nature. most to the compared may be life potential protecting in interest The state country. immigrate to seek who those protecting interest state risked who have by the Haitians example provided contemporary A protected “persons” become attempt desperate ain sea perils of pol a state support would concerns practical Humanitarian laws. our countervailing interests entry; unrestricted persons allowing those icy potential entry of these limiting the policy support a control population be might sufficient control population interest While state citizens. would laws, that interest immigration enforcement justify strict Thus, a state liberty interest. a woman’s to overcome sufficient limit state-imposed justify could not control population interest abortions. matter, state-mandated or, for that family size (1977). considering “a faces dif- A woman abortion 598-600 personal consequences having serious and ficult choice perhaps major importance the salva- her own to to future — Thornburgh, S., at U. tion of her own immortal soul.” yet empow- authority traumatic and to make such 781. dignity. ering As the is an element of basic human decisions joint opinion eloquently woman’s decision demonstrates, so nothing pregnancy than a her less matter terminate of conscience. potential

Weighing the life and the interest State’s agree joint liberty opinion that interest, I with the woman’s “ ‘ may “expres[s] preference for normal child- the State steps birth,”’” take ensure that that the State thoughtful informed,” and that woman’s choice “is provide are free to a reasonable frame- “States enact laws profound work for a to make a decision that has such woman lasting meaning.” questions Ante, at 872-873. Serious attempts “persuade the arise, however, when a State Ante, woman to choose over childbirth abortion.” 878. autonomy power inject Decisional must limit the State’s personal into a woman’s most deliberations its own views may promote preferences what is best. The State its by funding maintaining creating alterna- childbirth, by espousing family; abortion, tives to the virtues but respect it must the individual’s freedom to make such judgments. throughout concerning

This theme runs our decisions re- productive general, requirement re- freedom. Roe’s viability justified strictions on abortions before prevented State’s interest in maternal health has States regulations designed interjecting from to influence a wom- upheld regulations Thus, an’s decision. we have sway that are not efforts to or direct a woman’s but choice, quality rather are efforts to enhance the deliberative of that regulations aspects decision are neutral on the health example, upheld regulations her We have, decision. re- Parenthood Planned consent, see informed quiring written (1976); rec- limited 52S. 428 U. Danforth, v.Mo. Central reports, pathology ibid.; and reporting, see ordkeeping and Inc. v. City, Mo., Kansas Assn. Parenthood Planned see licensing (1983); various as well as 476 S.U. 462 Ashcroft, 150; atS., g., U. Roe, 410 e. see, provisions, qualification Conversely, (1983). S. 506 Virginia, 462 U. Simopoulos v. prejudice a to efforts rejected consistently state we available limiting information by the either choice, woman’s by (1975), or U. S. Virginia, 421 Bigelow v. her, to see designed influ ‘to delivery information the “requiring] child abortion between choice informed the woman’s ence ” Akron see also 760; S., at Thornburgh, 476 U. birth.’ S.U. Inc., Health, Reproductive Center Akron for (1983). 442-449 long line in this principles established opinion, my the opinion Powell’s in Justice reflected wisdom the eases and just by six (and the Court followed in Akron the Court today. decision govern our Thornburgh) should ago in years 3205(a)(2)(i) (iii) §§ Stat. Cons. principles, Pa. — these Under (1990) unconstitutional. are Pennsylvania statute provide to physician or counselor require a sections Those per- designed clearly to range materials awith woman While undergo abortion. not to to her choose suade Pennsylva- § of pursuant free, is Commonwealth material, Com- such produce disseminate law, nia the woman’s into inject information may such monwealth important weighing such just she deliberations ehoice. (iii) 3205(a)(l)(i) of the §§ analysis, this same Under sections, Those constitutional. Pennsylvania statute nature of the a woman physician inform require risks medical procedure and risks comparable to requirements neutral carrying term, are sections Those procedures. medical imposed in other those influence Commonwealth effort no indicate anything, requirements any way. If such choice in woman’s decisionmaking. enhance, the woman’s skew, rather than HH I—I 3205(a)(l)-(2) §§ waiting period required The 24-hour Pennsylvania raises more serious concerns. statute even requirement arguably furthers the Commonwealth’s Such constitutionally ways, of which is interests permissible. two neither delay justified argued First, it that the 24-hour likely the number of the mere fact that it is to reduce furthering thus the interest abortions, Commonwealth’s any argument justify potential form life. But such an would placed path. of that in the woman’s The coercion obstacle by simply wear- Commonwealth cannot further its interests ing ability pregnant the to exercise her down woman right. constitutional reasonably argued it can that the 24-hour

Second, more delay ensuring furthers interest in that the Commonwealth’s thoughtful. But there the decision is informed and woman’s delay is no that benefits women or evidence the mandated necessary convey physician any that it is to enable the delay mandatory patient. relevant to the information The appears unacceptable assump- thus to rest on outmoded and decisionmaking capacity tions about the of women. While consistently there are rea- well-established and maintained skepticism for the sons Commonwealth view with abil- ity Hodgson Minnesota, decisions, minors make see v. (1990),4 applies 417,

497 U. S. to an none those reasons 4 we opinion, “legitimate protect As noted in that State’s interest ing minor immaturity” distinguished women from their own that ease from Health, Reproductive Inc., Akron v. Akron Center (1983), 462 U. S. 416 for women, provision required capable involved “a that mature consenting abortion, giving to an wait 24 hours after consent before Hodgson, undergoing S., an abortion.” 497 U. at n. 35. left we have Just ability. decisionmaking woman’s adult husband her consult must woman belief

behind 895-898, so ante, at see matters, serious undertaking before less capable is woman that a the notion reject must we 71S.U. Reed, 404 Reed Cf. of gravity. matters deciding (1971). be premised may delay requirement alternative, a pregnancy terminate decision belief

on the Those illegitimate. premise This wrong. presumptively morality the legality about vehemently disagree who to terminate decision The thing: one about agree undertakes No person difficult. is profound pregnancy not presume States lightly a decision such —and her because merely adequately to reflect failed has woman woman A preference. State’s from differs conclusion conscience, thoughts her the privacy has, who be forced cannot decision her made options weighed she believes the State because all, simply reconsider conclusion.5 wrong to the come regulation indirect effects reliance joint opinion's what misplaced; ante, 873-874, is activity, see

constitutionally protected the reason also but regulation of a only effect the is not matters Hodgson: in explained IAs regulation. or to travel right involving the abortion, in cases involving eases “In in constitutionally protected the the identification marry, right to the travel regulation analysis. State of the beginning merely the is terest may not a State though even obviously permissible marriage is and of Thompson, borders, Shapiro v. from its nonresidents exclude categorically v. Turner right many, the deny prisoners (1969), or 618, 631 U. S. 394 constitutionally (1987). regulation the But 78, 94-99 Safley, 482 U. S. or or he whom reside person shall where decisions, such as protected other concerns state legitimate predicated be marry, must shall she Cf. Turner made. individual choice the disagreement than (1967). In 1, 12 Virginia, 388 U. S. Loving v. supra; Safley, v. its or use money, own spend its obligation may no area, State adults. or minors for abortions nontherapeutic facilities, to subsidize own Reproductive v. (1977); Webster Roe, cf. S. 464 432 U. See, g., v. e. Maher is the equal to choose

Part of the constitutional liberty who de- A woman to which each of us is entitled. dignity same re- is entitled to the terminate her cides to pregnancy to term. the fetus carry as a woman who decides to spect women that equal denies mandatory period The waiting respect.

IV of the “undue burden” a correct my application opinion, consti- concerning standard leads to same conclusion A burden state-imposed of these tutionality requirements. both by is measured right on the exercise a constitutional “undue” may A burden its effects and its character: lacks a or because it either because the burden too severe rational justification.6 legitimate, of this 24-hour fails both test. delay parts

The requirement establish the severity The of the District Court findings (1989);id., Services, at 523-524 Health 492 U. S. 508-511 (O’Connor, J., concurring judgment). judg- in A value concurring part in State’s adequate support for favoring may provide ment childbirth over abortion funds, simply sub- involving public but not for decisions such allocation woman has a stituting a state for an decision that a decision individual right Otherwise, liberty protected by in to make for herself the interest nullity. favoring policy the Due Process Clause would be a A state child- justification overriding for birth over abortion is not in itself a sufficient placing otherwise—in woman’s decision or ‘obstacles—absolute S.,U. pregnant path at 435. woman’s an abortion.’” meaning'of any legal only The can be understood review standard reason, applied. in it For that I ing actual eases which discount standard, past descriptions both Justice Scalia’s comments on see (opinion part dissenting post, concurring judgment at 988-990 part), clarity joint opinion. attempt give crystal and the Connecticut, opinions supporting judgment several in Griswold (1965), case, holding S. 479 illuminating U. are less than the central appears passed to have The future also dem the test time. analyzes severity regulatory onstrate that a of a standard that both fully justification provide adequate legitimacy burden and the of its will legislation if framework for the review of even the contours abortion authoritatively any single opinion. the standard are not articulated many pregnant delay imposes on 24-hour the burden the delay is not the in which cases those even in Yet women. “undue” because my opinion, is, especially onerous, delay a useful serves such evidence there is no legiti- no there is above, indicated purpose. As legitimate agonized her over require who a woman reason mate again an- hospital return or clinic to leave decision physician no- requirement that general day. aWhile other proce- proposed medical of a tify patients risks about her patients wait all requirement that rigid appropriate, a is dure longer (what to evaluate practice) much is true or hours knowl- common that is either significance of information therefore, “undue” and, irrational edge is irrelevant burden. similarly Whenever infirm. counseling provisions are speak listen, toor private citizens commands

government partic- is justification command for that review careful Pennsylvania statute eases, the ularly appropriate. In these seeking abortions provide women counselors directs abortion, the concerning alternatives information possibility and the benefits, availability medical assistance 3205(a)(2)(i) (iii). The stat- §§ payments. child-support — given women to all requires information that this ute informa- such including whom those seeking abortions, married, those are those clearly who such as useless, is tion fully past are procedure in the undergone who fully convinced who are options, and those aware Moreover, option. only reasonable their patients their physicians all of inform requires statute age child.” unborn gestational probable “[t]he value §3205(a)(l)(ii). decisional of little information This performed all abortions 90% of cases, because most age relevance has less fetal when during trimester7 first informa- viability. can Nor nears the fetus when than Census, Abstract Statistical Commerce, Bureau Dept. of S.U. 1991). (111th ed. United States 922 any justified relevant by required the statute

tion argument, either 872, at favor- ante, “philosophic” or “social” particular ease. in a disfavoring abortion decision ing information I conclude light facts, these of all of 3205(a)(2)(i)-(iii) §3205(a)(l)(ii) §§ do not and requirements in unnecessary— purpose and thus constitute a useful serve constitutional the woman’s undue—burden therefore pregnancy. liberty her to terminate to decide disagree V-B, and V-D IV, Accordingly, Parts I while join of the Court’s joint opinion,8 the remainder I opinion. in the concurring Blackmun, part, concurring

Justice in part. and dissenting in part, judgment joint opin- join of the V-A, and VI III, V-C, I, II, I Parts ante. Kennedy, Souter, ion of Justices O’Connor, ago, Reproductive Health Serv- years in Webster Three ap- (1989), of this Court four Members ices, U. 490 492 S. hopes “cas[t] and visions poised peared into darkness country” every come believe who had in this woman right reproduc- guaranteed her the the Constitution dissenting). id., See J., Id., at tive choice. (Blackmun, joined (plurality opinion J., C. at 499 Rehnquist, JJ.); concurring J., id., (Scalia, Kennedy, White concurring judgment). remained be- part All plurality promise Roe and the darkness tween the gave flickering single, Webster Decisions since flame. was light. hope much flame cast reason to that this would little Reproductive g., Health, 497 See, e. Ohio v. Akron Center for (1990) dissenting). now, But J., U. S. (Blackmun, just many expected fall, the darkness to flame when so bright. grown (with appro Although requirement I agree parental-consent that a joint opinion constitutional, join V-D of the priate bypass) I do not Part require Pennsylvania’s parental-consent informed approval its because V-B, disagree. I given in with which based on the Part ment is reasons joint today’s significance of not underestimate doI right my belief steadfast opinion. I remain Yet protection full to the entitled reproductive choice fear I And Webster. before this Court afforded single vote anxiously the await Justices as four darkness extinguish light. necessary the to

I—i opinion joint of Justices mistake, the O’Connor, noMake courage personal and act of is an and Souter Kennedy, previous decisions to principle. In contrast constitutional postponed recon- Kennedy and which O’Connor Justices (1973),the authors 113 U. S. Wade, 410 v. of Roe sideration me in today join joint opinion of the Stevens Justice holding should v. Wade of Roe concluding essential that “the Ante, at 846. again reaffirmed.” and once be retained today recognize “the that this Court of five Members brief, preg- right her to terminate protects a woman’s Constitution stages.” Ante, at 844. early nancy its liberty stare the force of of individual view A fervent Ante, at 853. this conclusion. to have led the Court decisis Due Process Clause the Today majority reaffirms a personal “a realm establishes Amendment Fourteenth may ante, at 847— government enter,” liberty by inter- be determined limits cannot outer a whose realm only specific focus pretations of the Constitution Amendment the Fourteenth at the time practices of States within Included adopted. ante, at 848-849. See was or individual, married liberty right “The realm governmental intrusion single, be free from unwarranted to affecting fundamentally as deci- person a so into matters ” quot- 851, beget Ante, child.’ or bear to sion whether ing (1972) (emphasis Baird, S. U. Eisenstadt involving intimate most original). matters, “These lifetime, person choices make in personal choices autonomy, dignity are central to personal central Ante, at liberty protected Amendment.” Fourteenth recognizes added). today Finally, (emphasis the Court liberty is at woman “the abortion, in the case unique and so unique condition the human sense in a stake term is to full a child carries who The mother to the law. only pain that physical constraints, subject anxieties, to Ante, at 852. she must bear.” holding is also central Roe’s reaffirmation

The Court’s prin- “[N]o erosion of decisis. on the force stare based autonomy Roe’s personal has left liberty going ciple portends no devel- holding remnant; Roe a doctrinal central analysis of precedent other opments at odds changes viabil- liberty; have rendered personal fact and no point balance appropriate at which the ity less more or ac- tips.” Indeed, Ante, at 860-861. of interests power not be knowledges could on state limitation Roe’s relied inequity to who have those serious removed “without society stability damage significant the upon to it or years Roe by since In the 19 governed Ante, 855. it.” at reproductive shaped than more decided, that case was age to as- generation free planning has come entire “[a]n— defining capacity liberty the concept sume Roe’s reproductive society, decisions.” make and to women to act in having “call[ed] that, The Court understands Ante, at 860. by contending their national division to end the sides ... Constitution,” accepting in the a rooted common mandate seriously Roe “would to overrule ante, at a decision judicial power capacity the to exercise weaken the Court’s Supreme Nation of a dedicated as the Court function happened What has Ante, at 865. the rule law.” today a warn- future Justices and serve as a model for should yet into another ing to turn this Court to all who have tried political branch. Pennsylvania spousal striking noti- statute’s

In down the requirement, a framework the has established fication Court responds regulations so- evaluating for reproductive facing choice.1 issues of women context of cial challenged regu- imposed determining burden “purpose regulation’s inquires whether the Court lation, path of a plaee in the obstacle a substantial or is effect seeking the fetus attains viabil- before an abortion woman added). (emphasis The Court reaffirms: ity.” Ante, at group inquiry for is the proper of constitutional focus “The group for whom not the restriction, law is whom Looking group, the at this Ante, at 894. law is irrelevant.” empirical testimony, studies, expert inquires, based Court large of the cases “in a fraction sense, whether and common operate restriction] sub- it will [the relevant, in which undergo an abor- choice to to a woman’s obstacle stantial purpose is invalid statute with “A Ante, 895. tion.” the inter- to further the State means chosen because the the woman’s to inform potential be calculated life must est applying And in Ante, at 877. hinder it.” choice, free unique role of remains sensitive test, its decisionmaking process. Whatever in the women was Amendment practice Fourteenth when been the “[w]omen not lose their con- adopted, do observes, the Court marry. they liberty stitutionally The Con- protected when or female, married protects individuals, male all stitution governmental power, even abuse of from the unmarried, supposed employed power benefit where individual’s, family.” at 898.2 Ante, member of disagree appropriate I on the joint opinion and explain, the IAs shall however, that agree, I do regulations. for abortion of review standard spousal to invalidate the joint opinion suffice the advanced the reasons scrutiny standard. strict requirement under a notification emergency pro uphold to the medical Court’s decision join 2 I the also with the es notes, interpretation is consistent the its vision. As Court of Roe that to interfere with woman’s "forbids a State holding sential continuing pregnancy if her procedure an abortion undergo to choice failing opinion joint errs in the that Lastly, I believe while the pleased that regulations, I am the other to invalidate reg- these that possibility out ruled opinion joint has burden. unconstitutional impose an shown be ulations holdings are specific its that clear opinion joint makes g.,e. See, it. before insufficiency record based evidence future in the am confident I at 885-886. ante, cases large fraction “in a to show produced bewill [they] operate will are] relevant, regulations [these which undergo an choice to a woman’s obstacle a substantial as 895. Ante, at abortion.”

II deci- Constitution yesterday, the Today, less than no restric- abortion require a State’s this Court sions scrutiny. judicial Our subjected strictest to the tions require tous principles opinion’s joint precedents and strict regulations subject non-de-minimis all Pennsylvania statute’s standard, scrutiny. this Under counseling, a 24-hour requiring content-based provisions reporting of abortion- consent, and parental delay, informed be invalidated. must information related

A rights recognized long today reaffirms The early 1891, the Court bodily integrity. As privacy and carefully more sacred, or more right “[n]o is held held, every right individ- law, than common guarded person, free from own of his possession and control ual Union ... .” of others or interference Pacific all restraint (1891). Throughout 141 U. S. Botsford, R. v.Co. fundamental held century, also this Court this governmental in- against protects citizens privacy right of Ante, apparent As is at 880. health.” her threat constitute would constitu- not render exception does however, below, analysis my scrutiny. strict not survive do I conclude provisions tional

927 child- matters procreation, family such intimate trusión ante, at See choice. contraceptive and marriage, rearing, that personal the principle embody eases These 847-849. identity, bodily integrity, affeet that profoundly decisions of govern- reach beyond largely should be destiny Wade, Roe v. this Eisenstadt, at 453. In S., U. 405 ment. right a woman’s to these principles correctly applied Court abortion. choose to right a woman’s violate on abortion restrictions

State aof continuation First, compelled ways. in two privacy integrity to bodily right a woman’s upon infringes pregnancy and significant intrusions substantial physical by imposing women experi During pregnancy, harm. risks of physical of health a wide range changes physical dramatic ence health additional delivery pose Labor consequences. short, restrictive demands. risks physical far more sub invasions to endure physical force women laws consti held violate to this Court than those stantial See, contexts. other of bodily integrity tutional principle g., Lee, (1985) (invalidating surgi 753 e. Winston 470 U. S. v. v. Cali Rochin murder suspect); from cal removal bullet (1952) pumping).3 stomach fornia, (invalidating U. 165 S. to ter- right a restricts woman’s when the State Further, of the right woman it deprives her minate pregnancy, and family plan- about reproduction her own decision make has deemed this long life choices ning —critical terminate or decision right privacy. central on a woman’s life less an has no impact continue pregnancy S., 410 U. or marriage. about contraception decisions than ante, recog Court has joint acknowledges, opinion As the persons refusing unwanted medical liberty vital interest of nized the (1990). Director, Health, Dept. U. S. 261 Cruzan Mo. treatment. personal decision of protects deeply Due Process Clause as the Just treatment, deeply protect it also must the individual medical refuse treatment, including a woman’s deci personal decision to obtain medical pregnancy. to terminate sion impact aon a dramatic motherhood Because

at 153. opportunities, employment prospects, educational woman’s deprive her laws abortion self-determination, restrictive and deci reasons, “the these For her life.- control over basic of very at “the lies a child” beget or bear or not to sion whether constitutionally protected choices.” this cluster heart 678, U. S. International, 431 Population Carey Services v. (1977). 685 her right to terminate a woman’s on restrictions A State’s gender guarantees of implicate constitutional

pregnancy also compel women equality. restrictions State By might terminate. they otherwise pregnancies continue con State pregnancies, the right restricting to terminate forcing con women service, its into scripts bodies women’s childbirth, and pains pregnancies, suffer tinue their The State care. years of maternal provide instances, most instead, it services; their compensate women does not This duty course. a matter they owe assumes accept the forced simply be can assumption women —that appears to incidents status “natural” motherhood — triggered -has role conception of women’s upon rest e.g., See, Equal Clause. Protection protection 718, 724- Hogan, U. S. 458 v. Mississippi Women Univ. for (1976).4 198-199 190, (1982); 429 S. Craig Boren, U. assumptions about recognizes these joint opinion The our longer consistent society no place “are women’s See, point. recognizing this are commentators growing number 4A (2d ed. 15-10, 1353-1359 pp. § Law Tribe, Constitutional g., e. L. American Abor Perspective on Historical Body: A 1988); Reasoning from Siegel, 261, L. Protection, 44 Stan. Rev. Equal Questions of Regulation tion (With Special Law Neutrality Constitutional (1992); Sunstein, 350-380 1, L. Rev. 92 Colum. Abortion, Surrogacy), Pornography, Reference 737, L. Rev. Privacy, Harv. Right of Rubenfeld, (1992); cf. 31-44 MacKinnon, privacy); rubric of (1989) (similar analysis under 788-791 1281, 1308-1324 Law, Yale L. J. Under Equality on Sex Reflections (1991). family, understanding individual, or the Constitu- Ante, at 897. tion.”

B right privacy has held that limitations on The Court only they permissible if survive “strict” constitutional entity scrutiny only governmental imposing if is, —that can demonstrate the limitation is both the restriction narrowly compelling gov- necessary tailored to serve Connecticut, interest. Griswold v. 381 U. S. ernmental (1965). applied principle specifically in have this 485 We regulations. 410 Wade, S., Roe v. U. at context 155.5 through implemented principles a framework these

Roe right designed “to ensure that the woman’s to that was so to the interest in not become subordinate State’s choose theory promoting life that her choice exists in but not fetal relevant in- ante, at 872. Roe identified two state fact,” in preserving protecting “an the health terests: interest “protecting pregnant of the woman” and an interest potentiality respect S., of human life.” 410 U. at With 162. health ‘com- mother, to the interest in the of the “the State’s pelling’ point approximately is at the end of the first ... mortality point it at that that the rate trimester,” because is approaches at Id., in abortion that in childbirth. 163. With respect potential ‘compel- life, to the interest “the State’s ling’ point viability,” point because it is at that that the is say subject scrutiny right To that restrictions on a not to strict is say right Regulations upheld that the is absolute. be they can if have significant impact right no justified on woman’s exercise of her and are g., See, e. Planned Parenthood of by important objectives. health state (1976) Danforth, Mo. v. 65-67, Central 52, (upholding 428 U. S. 79-81 re quirements of a recordkeeping). woman’s written consent and But the of Roe that a woman has the today Court principle reaffirms the essential right viability “to choose to have an abortion before and to obtain it with Ante, Roe, any out undue interference from the State.” at 846. Under more than de minimis is interference undue.

CO' o meaningful out- life capability of has “presumably fetus the re- to fulfill order In Ibid. womb.” mother’s side obligated to is State tailoring, “the narrow quirement of regulations itsof the effect limit effort a reasonable make inter- health its during which the trimester period in Repro- Center Akron Akron furthered.” will be est (1983). S. 462 U. Health, Inc., ductive nois analytical framework application of this my view, Mem- seven approved was when than warranted less scrutiny limita- state Strict Roe. Court of this bers pro- secure most offers still choice reproductive tions reproductive own her right make woman’s tection majority No coercion. state from free decisions, approach. upon alternative agreed ever been not framework the trimester premises of factual J., S., at U. Webster, (Blackmun, undermined, see administra- more far framework dissenting), Roe stand- burden” “undue manipulate, than less and far ble, opinion. joint by the adopted ard framework trimester criticisms three Nonetheless, framework the trimester First, uttered. continue text appear in the key do elements its because attacked remains response attack My this the Constitution. in Webster: was as it same to abandon would we concern, a this true “Were [Tjhe ‘critical jurisprudence. our constitutional

most nowhere doctrines constitutional of countless elements’ Constitution The text.... appear Constitution’s Amend- example, First of the mention, for no makes libels, proving certain standard malice’ ‘actual ment’s (1964). S. Sullivan, 376 U. Co.v. Times York see New mention no Similarly, makes Constitution ... formulations specific verbal test, or rational-basis scrutiny this and strict intermediate Clause. Protection Equal under claims evaluates framework, these Roe simple. Like the reason The purport be, and do not not, are tests or standards they protected Rather, rights the Constitution. measuring evaluating judge-made methods for rights scope for balanc- strength constitutional rights against the ing individuals the constitutional government.” Id., competing at 548. interests closely more is that the framework criticism second body regulatory than a of constitutional code resembles my as in Again, the same answer remains doctrine. Webster: genuine concern, we would

“[I]f true and were a areas of our constitutional abandon vast have to [the jurisprudence. entailed Are distinctions . . . ‘regulatory,’ any framework] finer, or more trimester drawn in our First we have often than distinctions example, jurisprudence, we have where, for Amendment public- permitting program time’ held that a ‘release grounds during school school to leave school students religious does not violate instruction hours to receive though a even release-time Clause, the Establishment religious permitting program on school instruction Compare grounds Zorach v. violate the Clause? does (1952), ex rel. Mc- Illinois Clauson, U. S. Dist. No. v. Board Education School Collum (1948)... Similarly, County, Champaign 333 U. S. 203 . that al- case, the Court held

in a Amendment Sixth though overnight attorney-client ban communica- constitutionally guaranteed right to tion violated (1976), States, v. United 425 U. 80 counsel, Geders S. judge separated right not violated when a trial was lawyer during defendant from his 15-minute recess testimony. Perry Leeke, after the defendant’s direct (1989). 488 U. S. numerous result in nar-

“That constitutional doctrines row differentiations between similar circumstances does adjudication in abandoned has this Court that mean not Id., at 549-550. regulation.” of favor trimester the criticism genuine, more final, and The poten- in interest the State’s to find it fails is that framework Mem- No pregnancy. throughout compelling life human tial General, matter, the Solicitor Court—nor ber holding in questioned our Arg. ever 42—has Oral Tr. of see life entitled termination “the is not an abortion Roe that S., at 159. 410 U. protection.” Amendment Fourteenth is not life protecting fetal in interest Accordingly, a State’s Es- with our consistent Nor, Constitution. the grounded in inter- theological or sectarian abe Clause, can it tablishment College Obstetricians Thornburgh American See est. J., (1986) (Stevens, 747, 778 476 U. Gynecologists, S. and grounded in legitimate interest instead, concurring). is, It ante, at 914-915 See pragmatic concerns. humanitarian part). dissenting in part concurring in J., (Stevens, outset from “legitimate interests State while But an and worn health protecting pregnancy in ante, child,” become the fetus life of bur- enough. overcome To legitimate interests compelling. The scrutiny, must interests of strict den inter- the State’s to accommodate best question then is how liberties constitutional life potential human est I views ex- I Again, stand pregnant women. pressed Webster: this Court Members six other convinced,

“I remain framework, Roe convinced, ago years were sensibly, fairly, particular, viability standard safeguard the constitutional effectively functions ac recognizing while pregnant women liberties human life. potential commodating interest the State’s biological truths facts and viability reflects line moment threshold development; it marks of fetal separate from the survive cannot prior a fetus to which

933 reasonably objectively woman and cannot garded be re subject rights as a or interests distinct from, paramount pregnant to, those of the woman. At the viability time, same standard takes account of the postna undeniable fact that as the fetus its evolves into dependence form, tal and as it loses its on the uterine potential environment, the State’s interest in the fetus’ fostering regard human and in life, a human life in general, compelling. practical becomes As a matter, be viability ‘quickening’ point cause follows at which. —the a feels movement in woman her womb—and because via bility gestational age, occurs no earlier than 23 weeks it easily applicable regulating establishes an standard for providing pregnant ample abortion while woman time right responsible to exercise her fundamental with her physician pregnancy.” to terminate her atS.,U. 553-554.6 ignore

Roe’s trimester framework does not in- State’s prenatal terest in life. Like ante, 916, at Stevens, Justice agree steps I that the State take to ensure that wom- thoughtful an’s choice “is and informed,” ante, at 872, and provide “States are free enact laws a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound lasting meaning.” Ante, at 873. But

“[sjerious questions- attempts arise when a ... State persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. autonomy Ante, at 878. Decisional must limit power inject personal State’s into woman’smost de- liberations its own views of what is best. The State may promote preferences by funding its childbirth, creating maintaining alternatives to abortion, and by espousing family; respect the virtues of but must joint opinion agrees with Roe’s viability conclusion that at occurs 23 or 24 ante, weeks at the Compare earliest. Wade, at with Roe v. (1973). 113, 160 410 U. S. judgments.” such make freedom individual’s dis- J., concurring part (Stevens,

Ante, omitted). marks (internal quotation part) senting by the chosen means recognizes, “the opinion joint theAs calcu- be must life potential the interest further to State it.” hinder not choice, free woman’s the inform lated at 877. Ante, imple- scrutiny as strict requirement sum, .Roe’s dis- be should framework through trimester mented no majority, and gained a approach has other No turbed. right. fundamental woman’s the protective of more other wom- the accommodates properly approach Lastly, other no legitimate interests. the State’s right with constitutional an’s

C the results scrutiny standard strict of the Application as this Indeed, challenged provisions. the of all invalidation prior provisions virtually identical invalidated has Court down. them again strike we requires that decisis stare cases, re- written-consent upheld informed- has This Court they demonstrated only State the where quirements concerns. state important health-related further genuinely 428 Danforth, v.Mo. Central Parenthood Planned See guise may not, (1976). under State A 65-67 52, U. S. delivery of informa- “require the consent, securing informed be- choice informed woman’s ‘designed influence tion ” at Thornburgh, S., 476 U. childbirth.’ abortion tween require- Rigid 443-444. at S.,U. Akron, quoting 760, imparted to a be body of information specific that a ments patient, the needs regardless of cases, in all woman pregnant of the upon discretion improperly intrude “‘undesired thereby impose an physician and woman’s ” Thornburgh, S.,U. straitjacket.’ uncomfortable n. 67, 8. atS.,U. quoting Danforth, aspects of some principles, against these Measured unconstitutional. are scheme Pennsylvania informed-consent require unobjectionable for the Commonwealth it is While procedure, of the the nature informed patient be childbirth, and of risks health the probable compare Pa. child, age unborn gestational (1990) atS., §§3205(a)(i)-(iii) U. Akron, 462 Stat. Cons. state a vital there is unconvinced remain 37, I 446, n. by phy- provided be information insisting that the need District 448. Id., at a counselor. than rather sician necessarily requirement physician-only found un- costs that clinics, plaintiff costs to increase would because patients. And passed toon doubtedly would understanding more often counselors women trained spend with time more generally havé physicians, and than re- disclosure physician-only App. 366-387, patients, see the Common- narrowly serve tailored quirement is not health. protecting maternal interest wealth’s requires that 3205(a)(2)(i)~(iii) further Act of the Sections the woman nonphysieian inform qualified physician or the from the Commonwealth are available printed materials that medi- about provide information and fetus the describe support child about childbirth, information for assistance cal adoption offering and agencies list and a father, from Thornburgh in- to abortion. as alternatives services other virtually requirements patient-counseling biased validated those we said here. What one at issue to the identical requirements cases: fully applies in these Pennsylvania printed listing agencies in “[T]he names problems; it contains presents serious form step may with needs be out of agencies well physician in places thus particular and woman upon her or infringes his position and an awkward physician or Forcing responsibilities. professional to the list and the present the materials counselor agent of the State in effect her him or makes woman imprimatur places or her his treating and woman is, All and the list. upon the materials both upon imposed being, medicine state comes close guidance professional seeks, she medical woman, not the obviously officially was intended it it structures —as dialogue and her the woman between to do—the physician. be advised requirements the woman . . .

“The may available, and benefits medical assistance responsible for financial assistance that the father is disguised poorly similarly support of the child discouragement decision. for the abortion elements of many patients, be irrelevant would ..., of this Much life-threatening patient inappropriate. For very rendition pregnancy, in its the ‘information’ physician-patient be cruel as well as destructive any experienced relationship. social worker or As responsibil- theoretical financial knows, other counselor ity equate Under with fulfillment.... often does not requires guise the dis- the Act consent, of informed to such relevant of information that semination legitimate state inter- no and, thus, advances consent, omitted). (citation S., 476 U' at 762-763 est.” type compelled is the antithesis of information “This merely beyond goes far consent,” id., informed describing general subject to the matter relevant not, “That the does woman’s decision. surely Commonwealth every possible compel not, similar disclosure would necessary peril surgery simple vaccination, or of reveals pur- real of the statute and its the anti-abortion character pose.” Ibid.7

7 I that agree joint opinion’s While do not with the conclusion these provisions upheld, joint opinion be faithful to should the has remained counseling principles previously examining Court announced in this provisions. example, joint opinion that the “informa For the concludes requires tion be to the woman” be the State to made available must misleading.” Ante, “truthful and not at 882. Because the State’s infor choice, mation must be “calculated to inform the woman’s free not hinder

937 the provision the following waiting period 24-hour The unconstitutional. clearly is also information foregoing could delay 24-hour mandatory the that found Court District health increasing hours, thus 24of in excess delays lead to the two visits require it would risks, further time, exposure travel increasing thereby provider, Court District Finally, cost. and financial harassment, significant especially would pose requirement found women those areas in rural living on women burdens F. 744 whereabouts. their explaining difficulty Akron this 1990). (ED Pa. 1328,1378-1379 Supp. period waiting inflexible or arbitrary similarly a invalidated interest.8 state legitimate no fiirthered here, as because, manda- concludes, the insightfully As Justice Stevens as- or unacceptable on outmoded either rests delay tory or of women capacity decisionmaking about sumptions pregnancy to terminate decision belief woman’s ensure that designed to ante, must 877, the measures it,” at intimidated, imposed, 883, not ante, informed,” at “mature choice is certain provision requires end, the State when this To impelled. or in order presentation manner alter the may not information, State or unnerve designed to shock ante, at abuse,” “psychological to inflict would This, example, for liberty right. her to exercise seeking a woman litera- graphic to view a woman requiring from a State preclude appear to Just operation. an abortion performance detailing the films ture part in a no plays appendix an to remove operation of an preview a visual preview appendectomy, consent securing informed physician’s body the human into intrusion any major medical appurtenant scenes inter- woman State’s of a constructively inform the decision does not the State’s or demonstrate health the woman’s preservation in the est Ante, at 877. life the unborn.” for respect “profound (1990), Minnesota, U. S. Hodgson v. decision The Court’s per an abortion seeking minors waiting period validating a 48-hour 24-hour conclusion. Here not alter does parental involvement mit 449-450, 35; id., Ohio n. See adult woman. on an delay imposed (1990). Inc., Health, More S. 502 U. Reproductive Akron Center for any delay the minor once require Hodgson did not over, statute or the court. parent of either consent the affirmative obtained 938 requirement wrong. The

presumptively Ante, at 918-919. information and slanted obvious consider this women only provisions will in these contained 24 hours additional an ways. improper The vast in womán’s decision influence the the few majority know this information —of women will changed likely minds will be their is less not, it that do by the realization either than will be this information again to opposes need once or the their choice the State clinic.9 on to the return abuse and harassment endure § requires emergency, Except 3206 a the case of medical in parent of a or consent physician the informed to obtain a guardian performing an unemanci- abortion an before incompetent on evidence Based pated woman. minor or an order that, concluded the District Court record, accepted generally requirement, the informed-consent fulfill in-person require visit principles an medical would Although Supp., facility. parent at 1382. 744 F. broader recognized has somewhat that the State “has Court authority regulate of children than the activities that there must demonstrate nevertheless the State adults,” conditioning an “significant abortion... interest in a state is present Danforth, adult.” not case that is added). requirement (emphasis of an in- The at 74-75 S.,U. delay carry person of several the risk of would with it visit willing parent possibly days where the is weeks, even or pa- encouraging interest has an consent. While State §3206 is decision, abortion the minor’s rental involvement-in narrowly that interest.10 drawn to serve known, I am confident widely this information so Because delay, large “in 24-hour show that the developed record can be made to relevant,... operate will restriction] the eases in which [the fraction of an abortion.” undergo to a woman’s choice as a obstacle substantial Ante, 895. Hodgson is cure violation. judicial-bypass provision does not parental than involvement involve more distinguishable, since these cases parent receive Pennsylvania requires that the law approval rather, — meeting with in a discourage face-to-face designed to information facility every requires Pennsylvania statute Finally, the the Common- to report its activities abortions performing requirement this that Pennsylvania contends wealth. record- held that Court in Danforth, under valid reasonably di- are that requirements reporting keeping and prop- that health maternal preservation the rected Id., permissible. confidentiality are patient’s respect erly a justify its re- attempts to Commonwealth The 79-81. at right to a public has the ground that the reports on quired designed regulation spent. A dollars tax its how know fur- does not expenditures public public about the inform protecting maternal interest the Commonwealth’s ther justify le- cannot regulation Accordingly, such health. right to obtain a woman’s on significant burden gally abortion. concerning identities the reports confidential

The at first in abortions involved physicians judgment of medical interest given the Commonwealth’s may valid, glance seem The District Act. and enforcement health in maternal notwithstanding confiden- the that, however, found, who particularly those many physicians, tiality protections, because abortions performing previously discontinued patients to abortion to refer refuse harassment, would reports. appear these were to names their if clinics show failed Commonwealth The Supp., 1392. F. the referring physician adds either the name is reason- concerning knowledge pool of scientific maternal interest Commonwealth’s ably to the related conclu- Court’s agree District I therefore health. are uneon- requirements reporting confidential sion would parent cannot ensure procedure bypass The physician. even not parent would instances, many information, since obtain young aon any restriction place hearing. A State attend it has simply irrational, because abortion, however to an right woman’s bypass. judicial provided they require referring name stitutional insofar as judgment. physician and the basis for his or her medical judgment in 91-902 and sum, I would affirm the No. judgment 91-744 and remand the eases reverse No. proceedings. for further

Ill long who have last, At those ChieF Justice joined him admit it. Gone are the contentions the issue (or been) on There, need not be the first has considered. expected: page, see, for all to is what was “We believe that wrongly be decided, Roe was and that it can and should over- consistently approach ruled with our traditional to stare de- cisis in constitutional at 944. If there is much Post, cases.” by opinion applaud joint reason to the advances made today, there far more is to fear from The Justice’s ChieF opinion. of criticism Roe follows from his

The ChieF Justice’s recognizing conception liberty. stunted of individual While protects simple phys- that the Due Process Clause more than liberty, goes personal- ical he then on to construe this Court’s liberty establishing only laundry particular cases as list of rights, principled particu- rather than account of how these rights grounded general right privacy. lar a more at Post, 951. This constricted view is reinforced The exclusive reliance on tradition as a source Chief Justice’s argues rights. of fundamental He that the record in favor right stronger of a to abortion is no than the record in Mi- (1989), plural- D., chael H. v. Gerald 491 U. S. 110 where the ity right privileges found no fundamental to visitation adulterous father, Hardwick, in Bowers v. 478 U. S. 186 (1986), right where the Court found no fundamental to en- “ gage sodomy, involving in homosexual or in a ease the ‘fir- ing gun [of] person’s body.’” . Post, . . into another In 951-952. world, a woman consider- The Chief Justice’s ing pregnancy whether to terminate a is entitled to no more protection than adulterers, murderers, and so-called sexual reliance exclusive Given deviates.11 Justice’s ChieF The likely the next seem contraceptives using people tradition, outcasts. his list candidate cramped shocking than more Justice’s Even The Chief any complete omission liberty his individual notion and moth- compelled childbirth effects discussion expression con- only The lives. on women’s erhood purely instrumental —for The health women’s cern con- is a health 'psychological only women’s Justice, CHIEF every he assumes only extent cern, and seri- so without does an abortion to have decides who woman her decision. implications of moral consideration ous view short, at 967-968. Justice’s Post, Chief less health maternal compelling interest State’s compelling women does with than health do with maternal. consider- any give serious does. Nor Justice The Chief For decisis. of stare Jus- the doctrine The Chief ation simple: surprisingly to Roe are gave facts, rise tice, de- somewhere, point ais there pregnant, become “women via- becomes technology, a fetus where pending on medical This at 965. Post, children.” give birth women ble, and allows thus issue Justice The Chief characterization by argument opinion’s reliance joint quickly to discard virtually take planning could “reproductive asserting Post, at overruling Roe. decision aof” account immediate omitted). (internal quotation marks 956 lib- conception individual narrow Justice’s The Chief propose stand- the same him erty decisis leads stare “States plurality in Webster. proposed of review ard rationally ways related procedures may regulate abortion Optical Lee v. Williamson legitimate interest. state ato (1955); Stanley Illi- cf. 483, 491 Inc., 348 U. S. Oklahoma, (1972).” at 966. Post, 645, 651-653 The U.S. nois, homosexual views of Justice’s Chief share The Obviously, I do 202-203, 2. S., n. Bowers, at 478 U. See deviance. ity as sexual by providing then further weakens the test

CHIEF Justice challenges: requirement Peti- an for facial insurmountable that no set of circumstances exists tioners must “‘show ” [provision] 973, at Post, be valid.’ under which the would quoting Reproductive Health, Ohio v. Akron Center for petitioners prove short, view, at in his must S.,U. 514. constitutionally applied anyone. that the statute cannot Finally, applying spousal-notification standard to the his provision, contends that the record Chief Justice any opinion’s support joint lacks “hard con- evidence” “large prefer a tention that fraction” of women who not to notify their involve of battered women husbands situations unreported spousal Post, assault. n. 2. Yet throughout explication standard, of his The Chief Jus- explains large is, tice never hard evidence what how frac- required, supposed tion is or how a battered woman pursue as-applied challenge. standard,

Under can ban if his States that ban is rationally legitimate related to state interest —a standard which the calls “deferential, United States but not tooth- pressed argument less.” Yet when' at oral to describe the protection teeth, the best that the Solicitor General could prohibition, offer to women was that a enforced criminal penalties, exception with no mother, “could life of very questions.” Arg. raise serious Tr. Oral 48. Per- haps, the Solicitor General failure to offered, the include an exemption “arbitrary for the life of the mother would be capricious.” Id., at If, 49. as The Chief con- Justice tends, the undue burden test is made out of cloth, whole “arbitrary capricious” the so-called limit is the Solicitor General’s “new clothes.” require

Even if it is somehow “irrational” for State to protection a woman to risk her for life her what child, is pregnant through rape offered for women who become or anything arbitrary capricious incest? Is there or about a visited being from father sins prohibiting State’s offspring?12 his upon protection always is there reassured, we are But, to be'praised much is there While process. democratic rec- founding its since country our democracy, our about are that liberties fundamental certain are there that ognized right woman’s A election. anof to the whims left be not to liberties. fundamental of those is one choice to reproductive at the ballot refuge not seek need liberty Accordingly, box.

IV from apart worlds is approach sense, the Court’s In one And yet, and Scalia. Justíce of Justice Chief two approaches between distance sense, another vote. single but is distance is short —the forever, this Court on remain I cannot old. 83 years amI my process the confirmation down, step doI when That, today. us before the issue on focus may well successor two between the choice where exactly be regret, I made. will worlds area,” post, of this out "get urges Scalia 12Justice States, post, entirely to the abortion regarding questions leave 1002, and nothing advocates he that what fact Putting aside at 999-1000. responsibilities, constitutional itsof by the Court of an abdication short overruling he thinks if naive uncharacteristically Scalia

Justice an abortion right to a woman's restrictions holding that Roe henceforth the Court will enable review only to rational-basis subject regulate efforts State issues. reviewing abortion-related avoid a host raise undoubtedly would world post-Roe ain abortion prohibit by this meriting review questions constitutional important distinct any limits on impose Amendment Eighth example, does For Court. who upon physicians inflict can a State punishment kind of degree differ would What effect abortions? undergo, who or women perform, a woman’s have on abortion approaches in their among States ences permit Amendment the First Does travel? in interstate engage right pro advertising to ban all criminalize not to choose States abortions? to obtain and how where about viding information 944 White, Justice Rehnquist,

ChieF with whom Justice Scalia, Justice and Justice Thomas in join, concurring in judgment part dissenting part. joint opinion, following newly its minted on variation decisis, Wade, stare retains outer shell Roe v. 410 U. S. (1973), 113 but beats a wholesale retreat from the substance wrongly case. We that Roe was decided, believe consistently that it can and should be overruled with our approach traditional to stare approach decisis constitutional cases. adopt plurality We would of the v. Webster Reproductive (1989), up- Services, Health 492 U. 490 S. challenged provisions Pennsylvania hold the of the statute in entirety. their

I ruling litigation Appeals In on this below, the Court the Third appeal Circuit first observed that “this does not directly implicate regulation Roe; this case involves outright prohibition.” abortions rather than their 947 2dF. (1991). Accordingly, 687 682, the court directed its attention question regula- to the of the standard of review for abortion attempting tions. In standard, to settle on the correct how- ever, the court confronted confused state of this Court’s jurisprudence. considering opin- After the several Reproductive supra, ions Webster v. Services, Health Hodgson (1990), Ap- Minnesota, U. S. the Court of peals concluded that Justice O’Connor’s “undue burden” controlling, test was ground as that was the narrowest upheld regulations. which we had recent abortion 947 2d, F. (“When fragmented at 693-697 court decides a case and no single explaining enjoys rationale the result assent holding five Justices, of the Court be viewed as that position judg- taken those Members who concurred in grounds” (quoting ments on the narrowest Marks v. United (1977) (internal quotation States, 430 U. S. marks omitted))). Applying Appeals this standard, the Court of upheld challenged regulations all except the one intended spouse of an notify her requiring a woman abortion. each invalidate should arguing that our we reaffirm that petitioners insist issue, at provisions unconstitu- held supra, we in which Wade, v. in Roe decision procure an abor- making to a crime statute Texas a tional agree with We mother.1 the of except the life save to tion directly is not in Roe decision Appeals our that the Court pro- does statute, which Pennsylvania by the implicated Court the But, as regulates, abortion. simply hibit, but deal- law decisional post-ftoe our state Appeals found, the confusing uncer- regulation of abortion ing the inis eases line of that indicating a reexamination tain, apply Court’s must who Unfortunately those order. today the leaves undertaken reexamination the decisions, they re- Although beforehand. than divided no less Court underpinning the formed framework ject trimester the adopt Roe, Justices Souter Kennedy, O’Connor, challenged analyze the standard burden undue revised outcome an that such however, conclude, regulations. We leaves compromise, one constitutional unjustified an types abor- closely all scrutinize position to ain Court power to it lacks despite fact regulations tion the Constitution. under sodo an “does have opined State Roe, In protect- preserving and in legitimate interest important and that it woman, . . . pregnant ing health protecting legitimate interest important and still another 1 court, by con constitutional Roe, West German after years Two grounds to abortion access liberalizing a law trast, down struck Judg constitutionally protected. womb is developing within the that life Gorby, (translated & in Jonas 1975, 1 25, BVerfGE February 39 ment of Wade, Mar 9 John to Roe v. A Contrast Decision: Abortion West German Supreme Court 1988, (1976)). Canadian Proc. Prac. 605 J. & shall re law that down of Roe striking to that reasoning similar followed 4th D. L. R. Queen, 1 S. C. R. 44 Morgentaler v. abortion. stricted (1988). 385 946 S., of human potentiality life.” U. (emphasis

omitted). Bolton, case of Doe In the U. S. companion Roe “that (1973), the Court referred its conclusion woman an pregnant does not have absolute constitutional abortion on her right S., demand.” 410 U. at 189. But while the of these language cases holdings appeared leave States free to regulate abortion a variety procedures later ways, decisions based on them have found consider- less latitude ably for such than have been might regulations expected. Roe,

For after many States have example, sought pro tect their citizens that a minor young by requiring seeking an abortion involve her in the decision. parents Some States have simply notification of the required while parents, others have a minor to obtain the required consent her In a parents. number of decisions, however, the Court has substantially limited the in States their to ability impose such requirements. With notice to regard parental require ments, we held a initially that State could a minor require to her notify parents before with an abortion. proceeding H. L. Matheson, (1981). v. 398, 460 U. 407-410 S. Recently, we however, that a indicated State’s to ability a no impose tice requirement actually on whether it depends no requires tice of both one or We concluded parents. that although Constitution allow a might State to demand that notice be to one given to an parent it prior abortion, not require that similar notice be two given unless the parents, State a incorporates judicial bypass procedure two-parent Hodgson Minnesota, supra. requirement. v. have

We treated parental consent even provisions more Roe, Three harshly. years after we invalidated a Missouri regulation that an requiring unmarried woman under the age of 18 obtain the consent of one of her parents before proceeding with an abortion. We held that our abortion jurisprudence prohibited State from such a “blanket imposing provision ... Planned requiring consent of a Parenthood parent.”

947 (1976). Bel In 52, 74 S.U. 428 Danforth, v.Mo. Central a down (1979), struck the Court 622 S.U. Baird, v. lotti majority A statute. parental consent Massachusetts similar constitu could a State however, that indicated, of tionally require alternatively allowed if consent, parental parental con without abortion obtain minor pregnant enough make mature was she showing either sent best her would abortion or that decision, own her id., 656- opinion); (plurality at 643-644 id., See interests. have Bellotti, we light of dissenting). In J., (White, incorporated regulation consent parental upheld one see Planned sufficient, as viewed option we bypass judicial Ashcroft, v. City, Mo., Inc. Kansas Assn. Parenthood our because another (1983), invalidated have but U. S. satisfy dictates not did procedure judicial that the belief Reproductive Center Akron Akron see Bellotti, (1983). never haveWe 439-442 S. Inc., 462 U. Health, context, notice parental we occasion, had one- into jurisprudence consent parental parse our further components. two-parent parent and recognized States certain observed Roe, the Court decision in the participate father right of the in- Doe nor Roe neither Because circumstances. certain ex- right, the Court any paternal assertion volved validity of disturb did case pressly stated supra, Wade, right. v.Roe protected such regulations that Danforth, later, years three But n. 67. at State a that and held jurisprudence its abortion extended her consent obtain woman require that.a not could Par- Planned an abortion. with proceeding spouse before 69-71. S., at U. Danforth, v.Mo. Central enthood of woman’s a ensure to regularly tried also States well- informed is an abortion an to have decision requirement upheld a we Danforth, In one. considered and ob- abortion, prior her to sign form a consent woman a decision] [the imperative that “it desirable served knowledge be made full its nature and conse- quences.” Id., case, however, at 67. Since that we have designed impart twice invalidated state statutes to such knowledge seeking to a Akron, woman an abortion. In we regulation requiring physician a held unconstitutional a to seeking a inform woman of the status of her pregnancy, development possible fetus, of her the date of viability, complications that could result from an abor- availability agencies providing tion, assistance and respect adoption information with to and childbirth. Akron Reproductive supra, v. Health, Akron Center at 442-445. for recently, Thornburgh College More v. American Obste- Gynecologists, (1986), tricians and S. 747 we U. struck Pennsylvania regulation requiring down a more limited a woman be informed of the risks associated with the abor- procedure tion and the assistance available her if she de- proceed pregnancy, cided to with her because we saw the compelled information as “the antithesis of informed con- sought only Id., sent.” at 764. Even when State provide information in our that, view, was consistent with the Roe framework, we concluded that the not State could require physician that a information, furnish the but instead alternatively nonphysician provide had allow counselors to Reproductive it. Akron v. Akron Center Health, 462 at S.,U. 448-449. well, Akron as went we further and require physician held that a State to wait 24 perform receiving hours to an abortion after the consent Although sought a woman. the State to ensure that the' carefully woman’s decision was considered, the Court con- impose any cluded that the Constitution forbade the State delay. sort of Id., 449-451. leeway regulate

We have not allowed States much even procedure. Although the actual abortion a State can re- quire performed outpa- that second-trimester abortions be Simopoulos Virginia, (1983), tient clinics, see 462 U. S. 506 we concluded Akron and that State could not Ashcroft hospitals. only in performed be abortions such require that supra, Health, Reproductive Center v. Akron Akron See for City, Mo., Kansas Assn. Parenthood 437-439; Planned at of Despite that the fact supra, 481-482. at Ashcroft, v. Inc. trimester regulation the first after expressly allowed Roe knowl “‘present medical health, maternal of furtherance hospitalization justify a such could not view, edge,’” our v. Akron framework. the trimester requirement under (quot supra, at Health, Reproductive Akron Center for 163). Court Danforth, inAnd supra, at ing Wade, v. Roe amniocentesis saline not outlaw could Missouri held that Legislature concluding Missouri that abortion, of method significant several appreciate consider and to “failed had S., at U. 77. making its decision. facts” point of regulation after state Although allowed Roe the Court fetus, potential life viability protect the regulate this manner. attempts rejected subsequently (1979), S. Franklin, 439 U. In Colautti determination governed the a statute down struck clear made process, we In viability. at 390-397. Id., only defini- incorporated one framework trimester to decide forbade States viability we tion —ours—as gestation or it weeks objective indicator —“be certain govern the single factor”—should any weight other fetal we case, In that same viability. Id., at 389. definition physician use requiring a regulation invalidated also fetal survival offering chance technique best 397- id., at See postviability abortions. performing when College Obstetri- Thornburgh v. American also 401; see (invalidating S., at 768-769 Gynecologists, 476 U. cians and down Thornburgh, struck the Court regulation). similar pres- physician requirement second that a Pennsylvania’s health help preserve the postviability abortions ent incorporate ground it did not child, on the the unborn exception. Id., at 769-771. emergency medical a sufficient fetuses aborted governing the treatment Regulations 950 provision Akron,

met a similar fate. we invalidated requiring physicians performing abortions to “insure disposed of in a humane the remains of the unborn child are (internal sanitary quotation at 451 S., manner.” 462 U. omitted). marks expressed in the view that the

Dissents these cases Court upon greater expanding imposing in ever restric- was Roe Thornburgh College American tions the States. v. See Gynecologists, S., at 783 Obstetricians and 476 U. of (Burger, (“The dissenting) J., extent to which Court C. expressed readily departed from the limitations in Roe is (“[T]he major- dissenting) apparent”); 814 id., J., (White, ity indiscriminately statutory provisions strikes down Roe”). way right recognized in And, in no contravene the regulations type past when confronted with state of this in years, increasingly divided: The Court has become more three not commanded a most recent abortion cases have opinion. Reproductive Court See Ohio v. Akron Center for (1990);Hodgson Health, Minnesota, 497 U. 497 U. S. 502 v. S. (1990); Reproductive Services, 417 492 Webster v. Health (1989). 490 U. S. present Appeals

The task of the eases was obviously complicated by uncertainty. this confusion and (cid:127) (1977), Following States, Marks v. 188 it United 480 U. S. light Hodgson, strict concluded that in of Webster and scrutiny longer applica- standard was no enunciated Roe adopted by ble, and that the “undue burden” standard Jus- governing principle. This O’Connor was state tice disagreement confusion warrants reexamination right” “fundamental to a decision to abort accorded woman’s requirement any Roe, a fetus in with its concomitant regulation scrutiny.” state of abortion survive “strict See (1991) Payne (observing Tennessee, 808, v. 501 U. 827-828 S. appropriate that reexamination of is constitutional decisions uncertainty generated when failed those decisions have provide guidance, through legis- clear because “correction

951 (internal quotation impossible” practically action lative Metropolitan Tran- omitted)); Antonio San v. Garcia marks (1985). 546-547, 528, Authority, S. 469 U. sit under protected liberty interest held haveWe will be Amendment the Fourteenth Clause Process Due concept of or “implicit if fundamental deemed S. Connecticut, U. liberty.” Palko dered Massachusetts, Snyder v. (1937). years earlier, Three rooted justice so “principle of (1934), to a referred we 97S.U. be ranked people toas of our conscience and traditions in the H. v. Gerald also Michael see 105; Id., at fundamental.” as (citing lan opinion) (1989)(plurality 110, 122 S. D., 491 U. admittedly not expressions are Snyder). These guage from “fonda- notion implementing this decisions our precise, but basis any elaborate more rights not afford do mental” a such classification. base which to Due incorporated in the “liberty” phrase construing the In rec- we have Amendment, the Fourteenth Clause Process phys- from beyond freedom meaning extends that its ognized 510 S. 268 Society Sisters, U. v. Pierce restraint. ical a send right to parent’s a (1925), included held we 390 262 S. Nebraska, U. Meyer v. school; private child foreign a right teach a (1923), it included held we cases, we Building on these parochial school. language ain marry, right a “liberty” includes term held procreate, (1967); right to a Virginia, S. 1 U. 388 Loving v. 535 S. Williamson, U. 316 rel. ex v. Oklahoma Skinner v. Con- contraceptives, Griswold (1942); right to use a S. Baird, U. (1965); 405 Eisenstadt 479 necticut, 381 U. S. opinions clear makes reading (1972). of these a But privacy.” “right all-encompassing any they not endorse do per- “guarantee of recognized a Court Wade, the In Roe v. encompass a wom- enough to broad privacy” “is which sonal pregnancy.” her terminate not to or whether decision an’s term- that, in view now of areWe atS., 152-153. 410 U earlier read in Roe the Court right fundamental, ing this broadly. opinions upon too its decision much which it based contraception, procreation, marriage, Unlike potential purposeful life.” termination “involves the (1980). The abortion McRae, Harris v. 448 U. S. generis, recognized sui differ “be must therefore decision protected ent kind that the from the others family privacy personal auton under rubric of omy.” Thornburgh College v. American Obstetricians Gynecologists, dissenting). supra, J., at 792 (White, ignore is not isolated in cannot the fact that a woman One necessarily pregnancy, in abort her and that the decision to the destruction of a Michael H. v. Gerald volves fetus. See (To assertedly supra, at the act D., 124,n. look “at subject liberty of a in isolation from its effect interest upon people inquiring [is] there is lib other like whether erty firing gun happens at hand interest in where case discharge body”). person’s to involve its into another people Nor do the historical traditions of the American support right pregnancy one’s the view that the to terminate - law which we inherited “fundamental.” The common England “quickening” from made abortion after an offense. adoption Amendment, At time of the of the Fourteenth statutory prohibitions restrictions on com- or abortion were monplace; in at least and 8 28 of then-87 States banning limiting Territories had statutes or abortion. J. (1978). By Mohr, Abortion in America 200 the turn of the century virtually every prohibiting had a law or re- State stricting By present abortion on its the middle of the books. century, a liberalization had set But 21 of the re- trend in. strictive abortion laws in effect in were still in in 1868 effect majority overwhelming 1973when decided, Roe was and an prohibited necessary pre- of the States abortion unless serve the Wade, life or health of the mother. Roe v. 410 atS., 139-140;id., at 176-177, J., n. dissent- U. (Rehnquist, ing). scarcely any deeply record, On this can it be said that relatively rooted tradition of unrestricted abortion in our his- as right to abortion classification tory supported the Four- Clause Due Process under “fundamental” Amendment. teenth history of our and of this in view therefore, both think, We liberty the Due under dealing with substantive cases decided it when Roe in mistaken was the Court Clause, that Process pregnancy as her to terminate decision a woman's classified only a man- abridged in right” could be “fundamental concluding, we scrutiny.” In so “strict withstood ner Hardwick, 478 v. in Bowers made observation repeat the (1986): S.U. expansive view a more to take inclined are we “Nor rights im- fundamental authority new to discover our most Court The Clause. Due Process in the

bedded illegitimacy when it nearest comes and vulnerable n having little law judge-made constitutional deals design language cognizable roots or no 194. Id., at Constitution.” imposed constitutionally abor- the sort believe

We following by our decisions type illustrated code tion cast in of a Constitution notion “with inconsistent isRoe general usually speaking is, terms, ours general Reproductive Health Webster does.” as ours principles, opinion). The (plurality S., at 518 U. Services, right abort analogized when too far reached Roe Loving, Meyer, Pierce, rights involved to the fetus right to abortion thereby deemed Griswold, fundamental.

II opinion Kennedy, joint O’Connor, of Justices as an say was correct bring that Roe itself cannot Souter “the view that are of the authors original matter, but Roe’s resolution the soundness question is not immediate be aceorded that must precedential force but issue, claiming that Roe Instead holding.” Ante, at 871. its 954 interpreta- original constitutional a matter of correct as

was discussion of an elaborate opinion contains therefore tion, principle of stare decisis of the This discussion decisis. stare joint opinion entirely because appears dicta, almost to be dealing de- principle with Roe. Roe apply does right to an abortion. a fundamental a woman had cided rejects that abor- joint opinion view. Roe decided The scrutiny” subjected “strict regulations were to be tion “compelling only light in- justified state in the could be rejects joint Ante, at opinion that view. The terests.” analyzed supra, Roe at 162-164. 872-873; Wade, see Roe v. a rigid framework, regulation a trimester under decisionmaking guided this Court’s framework rejects joint opinion years. that framework. 19 Ante, at 873. Dictionary mean- in Black’s Law is defined

Stare decisis by, Black’s Law ing decided cases.” to, or adhere “to abide (6th 1990). Dictionary “central hold- Whatever 1406 ed. joint opinion ing” finishes dissect- that is left after of Roe pur- principle. surely ing While of that not the result it is joint opinion precedent, instead porting to adhere only way in the exist, but it. Roe continues revises facade to mere western movie set exists: storefront on a following reality. Roe, give such as Decisions the illusion of Reproductive Inc., Health, 462 Akron v. Akron Center for College (1983), Thornburgh v. American U. S. (1986), Gynecologists, U. S. Obstetricians frankly part burden” standard overruled in under the “undue opinion. expounded joint Ante, in the at 881-884. principles do not view, our authentic of stare decisis reasoning kept any portion require in Roe in- com- universal, inexorable tact. decisis is not... “Stare involving interpretation especially in eases mand,” Co., Gas Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Federal Constitution. (1932) (Brandéis, dissenting). Errone- J., 285 U. S. uniquely dura- cases are ous decisions such constitutional through legislative action, because correction save for ble,

955 our impossible. It is therefore amendment, is constitutional interpretations that “de duty constitutional reconsider understanding” the Constitution. proper a part] from Authority, 469 Metropolitan Transit Antonio San v. Garcia 82, 101 S. Scott, 437 U. v. States 557; see United atS.,U. . . . Constitution, (“ involving Federal (1978) ‘[I]n cases experience the force lessons to the [t]he bows process trial recognizing reasoning, that the of better appropriate also sciences, is physical in the so error, fruitful Oil & (quoting v. Coronado Burnet judicial function’” in the dissenting))); (Brandeis, Smith J., supra, 406-408 at Co., Gas (1944). Our constitutional 665 649, Allwright, U. S. 321 v. spoken before merely we have because cease does not watch prior a constitutional clear it becomes issue; when anon obliged to reexamine we are unsound interpretation is Barnette, Virginia Ed. v. g., Bd. West e. question. See, Tompkins, U. S. (1943); R. Co. Erie S.U. (1938). 64, 74-78 factors stare decisis several opinion joint discusses retaining portion Roe. a point toward asserts,

which, it underpin- “factual main factors these Two doctrinal that its same, and ning” remained the Roe Ante, 1973. in was now than weaker nois foundation facts basic might be called what course, Of 857-860. be- same—women remained gave Roe rise depending on point somewhere, pregnant, is there come viable, technology, fetus becomes where a medical say only that the But this give to children. birth women give rise gave continue to will Roe rise to facts which same why those itself, reason, in and It is not cases. similar as was manner same incorrect in the decided must be cases surely question. there And to deal first case depart from stare considering whether requirement, in no wrong be more that decision case, ain constitutional decisis If that were rendered. time it was atwas than it now could decision sur- constitutional outlandish true, the most more no simply fact that it was forever, based vive originally rendered. when it was later than outlandish alleged faithfully re- joint opinion this follow Nor does and its frankly that Roe opinion concludes quirement. The recognize wrong failing that the State’s to progeny were protection of unborn health and in maternal interests pregnancy. Ante, at 871-873. throughout exist life human components are of Roe that these is no indication But there they at juncture its than were any at this incorrect more inception. in- points reliance joint opinion to the also

The interests why precedent explain to in its effort in this context volved Certainly it true precedent’s is sake. be followed for must judicial truly in the case issue, at as is that where reliance private decisions, basis for formed the that have decisions acme.” their “[Considerations of stare decisis in favor opin- joint Payne as the But, at 828. Tennessee, S.,U. any no- agrees, traditional apparently 855-856, ante, at ion today applicable cuts The Court here. tion of reliance is not one claims protection Roe, and no afforded back on any in the disa- interest reliance that this action defeats Similarly, interests reliance framework. vowed trimester go further and diminished were would not be planning “reproductive acknowledge Roe, the full error virtually of” this action. account. immediate could take Ante, at 856. only joint opinion can be described thus turns to what unconvincing reliance,

as an unconventional—and —notion availability of abortion on the surmise that view based and social of economic has led to “two deeades since Roe developments” if error of Roe undercut that would be opinion’s joint recognized. asser- Ante, at 856. The were totally conclusory. undeveloped In tion of this fact is develop- economic and social fact, one cannot sure to what sug- referring. Surely opinion it is dubious to ments the society” “places gest their that women have reached of their determina- a result upon than as rather Roe, reliance compete men in higher education to obtain tion recognition their increasing society’s job market, and thought previously to be were ability positions that fill only Ante, at 856. for men. reserved prove any put having evidence forth failed end, solely argument based joint opinion’s any reliance, true psyche, a be- on the national generalized about assertions grown country accustomed people lief that the years “ordered and have the last over decision Roe 856, As an living Ante, at thinking it. around” their joint opinion can might inquire how one matter, initial deeply in our holding” as so rooted of Roe “central view the casually uproots dis- it so culture, when constitutional Further- framework. trimester poses same decision’s of that have been past, same could points in the at various more, Constitu- decisions this Court’s erroneous said about minorities, equal” “separate treatment but allowed tion “liberty” (1896),or Ferguson, 537 Plessy 163U. S. see protected of con- “freedom Clause Due Process under the Hospital District Co- v. Children’s see Adkins tract,” (1923); U. S. York, 198 New Lochner v. 525 S. lumbia, 261 U. years (1905). equal” 58 lasted “separate doctrine but free- protection of contractual Plessy, and Lochner’s after gener- simple that a years. fact However, the lasted dom major did grown decisions to used these had ation more correcting in those its errors prevent from the Court interpreting correctly prevent us from it cases, should nor Education, v. Board here. See Brown the Constitution (1954) “separate equal” doc- (rejecting but 347 S. U. (1937) trine); Parrish, 300 U. S. 379 Coast Hotel Co. v. West uphold- supra, Hospital, (overruling Adkins v. Children’s law). wage Washington’s ing minimum princi- realizing decisis Apparently stare that conventional joint opinion position, ples support advances its do not necessary protect retaining portion of is Roe belief that Because Ante, at 861-869. “legitimacy” this Court. “grounded decisions to render care take must the Court political com- and social simply as truly principle,” and not properly it opinion declares joint 865, promises, ante, at public duty ignore criticism this Court’s to be New would of decision. a result protest arise as although may be doubted statement, quarrel with this they dur- do holding tenure as their Court, Members likely in- “good all be behavior,” are at ing constitutional protests. public by such timidated joint goes that when opinion to state

But the controversy intensely re- divisive “resolve[s] the sort comparable cases,” its decision rare, in Roe those flected principles established exempt under from reconsideration is This Ante, at 866. eases. in constitutional decisis of stare “intensely joint those opinion contends, because in so, the contending “eall[ed] sides has the Court cases divisive” controversy division their national to end aof national Constitution,” in the accepting rooted mandate a common perceived as special not to care take therefore and must opposi- pressure” political and continued “surrendering] principle, truly one novel is a 867. This Ante, tion. practice contrary historical both the Court’s willingness criticism to tolerate Court’s traditional to the principle, ruled opinions. when the Court Under this its prevented from overrul- apparently it is issue, on a divisive incorrect, that it ing was reason decision for sole away. original has died opposition decision unless assumption difficulty principle lies its with this The first readily “intensely distin- can be that are divisive” that cases question whether guished The are not. from those enough qualify “intensely for particular divisive” issue is entirely subjective dependent on special protection and In assumptions the Members of Court. individual ignore public opinion duty is to because the Court’s addition, are its Members it, before that come and on issues criticism position judge perhaps decision the worst whether justify deeply enough to such uncommon divides the Nation many Although protection. divide Court’s decisions previously large degree, populace to a we have not away applying that account from normal rules of stare shied urged to earlier decisis when reconsider decisions. Over years, past example, the Court has overruled in previous part of its whole or in constitutional decisions. Payne supra, (listing n. Tennessee, 828-830, See v. and eases). picks prior joint opinion out and discusses two variety,

rulings “intensely it are of the believes divisive” they comparable are of to Roe. and concludes that dimension (discussing supra, Ante, York, at 861-864 Lochner v. New very Plessy Ferguson, supra). appears It to us odd opinion joint that the chooses benchmarks two indeed to adhere to cases in which the Court chose not erroneous precedent, but instead enhanced its stature constitutional correcting apparently acknowledging viola error, its joint “legitimacy” principle. opinion’s tion of the See West supra; Parrish, Coast Hotel Brown v. Board Educa Co.v. might supra. joint it tion, also wonder how is that the One puts “intensely opinion others, divisive” these, category, only and how it assumes that these two comparable cases of dimension to Roe. There is lines of no Plessy produced reason to think that either or Lochner public they protest sort of when were decided that Roe did. undoubtedly segments large were the bench There agreed dissenting who with the views in cases, bar those but surely that cannot be what Court means when it uses the “intensely many term divisive,” other cases would have public protest, to be added the list. however, terms unique. just Roe, so far But know, as we was as the Court respond protest retreating should not to that sort of from allay simply protesters, the decision the concerns of the respond by determining should likewise not to adhere to the retreating fire. under to seem it lest all costs at decision application of normal the not alter protests should Public penal activity be protest perfectly lawful lest decisis, stare itself. by Court the ized that doubt terms, we opinion its own joint on Taking the Plessy and and hand, the one Roe, on between distinction its opin- joint analysis. The withstands other, the Lochner, by stature improved its acknowledges the Court ion And deeply issue. divisive on a Plessy Brown overruling in Adkins overruled Hotel, which Coast West our decision rendered Lochner, was supra, and Hospital, Children’s considering Franklin President Congress was when a time enable and Court “reorganize” this proposal to Roosevelt’s any in the event Justices additional six to name him to elect age 70 did over the Court Member in which imagine situation difficult It is retire. ruling prior opposition ato intense more face would Court pro- principle general under and, time, at that it did than seemingly should opinion, joint Court claimed refusing re- stubbornly opposition responded to this legitimacy it lose lest rationale, Lochner examine Ante, at 867. fire.” under appearing to “overrule would stature Court’s agrees that the opinion joint Coast West damaged Brown if in seriously have been apply normal refused heels dug in its had Hotel But the decisions. earlier to the principles decisis stare to overrule was entitled the Court opinion contends despite existence eases, Plessy those Lochner only both the because original decisions, opposition the interim. lessons in new learned had Nation post supported, hoc rationalization feebly at best This decisions. for those jus- could that the Court opinion example, asserts For only De- because Lochner tifiably its decision overrule pro- people” constitutional “most pression had convinced economy contributed freedom of contractual tection

961 Ante, at 861. protect all. welfare of the failed that suggest people that joint opinion not mean to Surely does the wage uphold statutes minimum failure saw this Court’s any Loch- Depression! event, the the the cause of Great policy judgment upon that the base its rule did not ner Court econ- to a stable unregulated was fundamental market “liberty” erroneously, that under the omy; simple believed, it “right protected to make a contract.” the Due Process Clause is it the case at 53. Nor S., 198 U. York, Newv. Lochner dangers only discovered the people Nation of this that the Depression. the because of economies laissez-faire extreme wages regulating and minimum hours maximum laws State Utah statute time. A before that well were in existence decision in in our in was involved 1896 sort enacted that (1898), fol- Hardy, other States U. S. 366 169 Holden v. Oregon, g., shortly see, e. Muller v. afterwards, suit lowed (1917). (1908); Oregon, Bunting 426 243 U. S. U. S. 412 belief on because of a enacted were indeed These statutes not sponsors did part that “freedom of contract” of their the demonstrating that be- that protect workers, welfare the generation than a before Great itself more lief manifested people” in come to share it Depression. had “most Whether joint anything insofar as is, the 1930’s times of the hard failing speculative. entirely The crucial opinion advances, wage, paid were not a fair that workers was not at that time any wage. at no work available that there was but finally recognized Coast its error West the Court When post engage hoc rationalization it did Hotel, today; state joint opinion it did not attributes to fallen on an view that had been based economic Lochner had be overruled. it therefore should disfavor, and that into simply Hughes opinion rec- in his Court Justice Chief previously recognized ognized had what Justice Holmes speak “[t]he Constitution does not dissent, his Lochner Parrish, Hotel Co. v. of freedom of contract.” West Coast (Holmes, supra, at York, New S., 391; Lochner v. U. embody a (“[A] intended is not dissenting) constitution J., paternalism theory, whether particular economic laissez State to the citizen organic relation acknowledge the last did Although Court faire”). during the then- affairs opinion the state its paragraph of opinion theme Depression, current law of constitutional matter as a mistaken had been previously. years contract” of “freedom it embraced when properly acted agrees Court that the opinion joint also The equal” Brown. in “separate but the rejecting doctrine in Roe. comparing it to in Brown opinion lauds fact, the opinion’s strange, the under in that is This at 867. Ante, seemingly have been would principle the Court “legitimacy” Plessy because in decision its erroneous to adhere forced us, adherence To “intensely character. divisive” of its seem “legitimacy” would guise of today under the Roe Plessy the same closely adherence more resemble option that not choose Fortunately, did Court the ground. joint Plessy. The repudiated frankly instead Brown, and in justified only be- repudiation was that such opinion concludes the segregation had that newly evidence discovered cause can itBut to another. treating race inferior one effect upon urged those who not hardly argued was that this be that his dissent in Plessy, observed Harlan as Justice decided degradation “puts of servitude brand the the law issue equals before fellow-citizens, our large upon of our class a It clear is 562. Ferguson, S., at Plessy 163 U. the law.” in Brown Court arguments before made same that the simply Brown in The Plessy Court as well. in made were beforehand, recognized had recognized, Harlan as Justice seg- permit racial not does Amendment Fourteenth opinion popular tied to not is regation. of Brown rule The judgment segregation; it is the evils about segregation, permit racial does not Equal Clause Protection it might to believe come public matter whether no ground on that ground stands, and On is beneficial. concluding properly justified that the was alone the Court Plessy' had erred. joint opinion suggestion that the also a

There is depends part overruling decision propriety “divisive” agree people” that it should would now “iftost on whether progres- opposition demise or its Either overruled. agreement apparently required popular is sion to substantial a divisive decision. How to reconsider to allow the Court public opin- agreement ascertained, short of would be such surely say. joint opinion poll, But even does ion “legitimacy” totally suggestion the idea at war with Branch its derives it is invoked. Judicial whose name opinion, following public decid- legitimacy, but from not from legislative lights ing by enactments of the whether its best comport popular with the Constitu- branches of Government adjunct duty, stare of this doctrine of decisis tion. The vagaries public opin- subject be no more and should judicial task. than is basic ion why joint opinion’s discussion reasons

There are other assuming unconvincing that the legitimacy as well. is of “surrendering] pressure” political perceived as is Court decision, ante, 867, at a controversial when it overrules any joint opinion forgets there are two sides to contro- joint protect versy. opinion in order to its that, asserts The overruling legitimacy, from a must refrain contro- op- favoring those who lest it be viewed as versial decision prior prece- pose a to adhere to decision. But decision subject same for in such case one criticism, dent to the is easily argue responding those who can that the Court is original in of the decision. The have demonstrated favor engendered large demonstrations, in includ- decision Roe ing repeated Congress, marches on this Court both opposition support opinion. in A in decision way perceived favoring either on Roe can therefore be as group perceived But one or the other. dilemma arises only joint opinion assumes, does, if one as that the Court 964 speculative view toward awith its decisions make

should the Court instead, If one assumes perceptions. public Hotel, Coast West surely both in Brown did interpretation by faithful legitimacy enhanced Court’s self- opposition, such public irrespective of Constitution side. may put to one be engendered difficulties generate conflict. only decision not this Court’s isRoe v. Bowers in capital eases, and recent in some decisions Our engendered demon- (1986), also Hardwick, U. S. message to such opinion’s joint opposition. The strations activities they their must cease appears be that protesters only protests will their cause, because their to serve order standards normal which place a decision cement century ago, Nearly a reconsidered. should decisis stare discussing article Court, of this Brewer David J. Justice “many criticisms decisions, observed of its criticism all but better good taste, authors, devoid their be, like Brewer Justice all.” no criticism than of criticism sorts (1898). Albany L. J. Anchor,” Nation’s on “The today. it is then, as good to the Court advice was This should a decision misguided criticism Strong often reconsideration, lest fe- from immune decision render expression. penalize legitimacy freedom tish for praise paeans for opinion’s joint end result standard new brand of a legitimacy the enunciation right to abortion— regulation evaluating of woman’s state above, Roe indicated As standard. burden” the “undue right” under standard adopted a “fundamental Wade require- they only met the if regulations survive could state disagree with that scrutiny.” we While “strict ment recognized constitutional in basis had a least standard, it at be said cannot The same was decided. Roe at time law largely is created which standard, burden” for the “undue joint opinion. is It the authors of cloth whole out of support today not command does even which a standard believe, re- not, we will And it majority of this a Gourt. “simple easily applied, limitation,” in sort of suit joint opinion anticipates. In a Ante, sum, at 855. it is not built to standard which is last. evaluating regulations under standard,

In they judges place whether a will to decide “substantial (cid:127) path seeking Ante, obstacle” in the of a woman an abortion. judge’s at this standard is 877. based even more on a subjective determinations than was the trimester frame- nothing prevent “judges the standard will do work, from roaming large guided only by at field” the constitutional personal their Connecticut, S., views. Griswold v. 381 U. (Harlan, concurring judgment). J., Because the undue plucked question burden from nowhere, standard is undoubtedly what ais “substantial obstacle” to abortion will engender variety conflicting example, a views. For in the very joint opinion us now, matter before the authors of the Pennsylvania’s uphold waiting period, would 24-hour con- cluding “particular that a burden” on some women is not a Ante, substantial obstacle. at 887. But the authors would Pennsylvania’s spousal at the same time strike down notice provision, finding “large after that in a fraction” of cases the provision Ante, will be a substantial And, obstacle. at 895. provi- while authors conclude that the informed consent sions do not constitute an burden,” “undue Justice Stevens they Ante, would hold that do. at 920-922. striking spousal reg-

Furthermore, while down notice joint opinion uphold parental ulation, the would consent certainly places very restriction substantial obstacles path joint opinion of a minor’s abortion choice. The forthright admitting that it draws distinction based on policy judgment parents will have the best interests their necessarily heart, children at while the same is true may husbands as to their Ante, wives. at 895. This judgment, quintessentially not be a correct but it legislative inquiry any one. “undue burden” does not in way supply parental the distinction between consent and

966 Despite the adopts. opinion joint the which

spousal consent pre- standard burden undue joint opinion, the of efforts framework trimester than nothing workable more sents guise Constitu- of today. Under it discards preferences on impart own its will still tion, this complex code. abortion aof the form in States of stare name in the opinion’slabors joint of the The sum aas sort Wade stands Roe “legitimacy” is this: decisis pointed out to may be Village, which judicial Potemkin adhering to importance of to the a monument passers-by entirely method new facade, an behind But precedent. im- is law, constitutional any roots analysis, without regulat- constitutionality laws of state ported to decide “legitimacy” nor decisis stare ing Neither abortion. an effort. truly such served does the Constitution belief our above stated haveWe scrutiny. heightened regulations to subject state analysis set the correct

Accordingly, think we inter- woman’s A opinion in Webster. plurality by the forth liberty protected a form having an abortion est may regulate abortion States Clause, but Process the Due legitimate state rationally to a ways related procedures in Inc., 348 Oklahoma, Optical v. Lee Williamson interest. U. S. Illinois, 405 (1955); Stanley v. cf. 483, U. S. each (1972). we mind, examine rule With 651-653 challenged provisions. Ill 'A requirements re- imposes certain Act Section seeking an abor- a woman consent informed to the lated 3205(a)(1) (1990). §3205 Section Pa. Cons. Stat. tion. in- physician must performing referring or requires that the (i) the nature contemplating an abortion a woman form reason- that a alternatives risks procedure ges- (ii) probable fetus’ material; patient would find able carrying (iii) involved risks age; the medical tational 3205(a)(2) physi- requires a Section pregnancy to term. her that woman inform nonphysician to counselor aor cian de- free materials publishes department (i) health the state listing al- abortion stages and at different scribing fetus available (ii) assistance benefits medical ternatives; (iii) child’s care; and neonatal childbirth, and prenatal, for imposes a support. also The Act child liable for is father the woman time that waiting period between 24-hour phy- that the the time required and information receives Appendix See perform the abortion. to allowed is sician ante, opinion of JJ., to Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor, 902-904. at province certainly within it is that has held

This Court voluntary and informed require a woman’s to the States Thornburgh American Col- v. See abortion. an consent at 760. S., Gynecologists, 476 U. lege Obstetricians legitimate interest its Pennsylvania to further seeks Here, “is ensuring woman each that obtaining consent informed having abortion, but only the reasons aware avail- and the abortion with an risks associated of the also nor- might the alternative make that ability of assistance ap- might otherwise it than attractive more childbirth mal dissenting). J., at Id., 798-799 pear.” (White, rationally is provision statute this conclude We assuring that woman’s interest the State’s related fully informed decision. be a to an abortion consent certain 3205(a)(1) to disclose requires physician Section procedure its risks about information certainly large burden, no requirement is This alternatives. record shows Appeals “the found as Court providing this infor- exception, insist without clinics, performed.” 947 an abortion women before mation to information that this the view are of at 703. We 2d, F. legit- and to State’s “elearly maternal health related Akron requiring consent.” informed purpose in imate Reproductive S., Health, Inc., 462 U. Akron Center for gestational age description of the An accurate 446. carrying a child to term of the risks involved fetus and legiti- helps and the both those interests State’s to further id., at 445-446, life. See interest in unborn human mate age gestational (required of the fetus “cer- disclosure n. tainly Although petitioners objectionable”). contend is not require physi- that a the State to is unreasonable for nonphysician opposed counselor, disclose this cian, agree Appeals that a we with the State information, physicians qualified “may rationally decide that better ques- impart information and answer than counselors aspects about the medical of the available alternatives.” tions 2d, at 947 F. 704. 3205(a)(2) physician compels disclosure,

Section concerning availability of counselor, or a information of paternal support child and state-funded alternatives if the proceed pregnancy. again, decides to with her Here woman Appeals of that “the record indicates Court observed already require that in that most clinics a counselor consult person with the woman about alternatives abortion before performed.” petition- Id., the abortion is at And 704-705. required ers do not claim that the information be disclosed any way inaccurate; indeed, statute is false or Appeals found it “relevant, accurate, to be and non- inflammatory.” required Id., at 705. conclude that this We presentation rationally of “balanced information” is related legitimate ensuring to the State’s interest in that wom- truly Thornburgh an’s informed, consent is v. American Col- lege Gynecologists, Obstetricians and 476 S.,U. at 830 dissenting), J., and in addition furthers the (O’Connor, preserving State’s interest unborn That life. the infor- might uncertainty persuade mation create some some forgo women to abortions does not lead to the conclusionthat provision the Constitution forbids the of such information. only might Indeed, it demonstrates that this information

969 relevant therefore it is that difference, very amake well J., 801 id., at Cf. choice. informed (White, a woman’s objective v. Wade Roe (“[T]he dissenting) ostensible maximizing abortions, but maximizing the number Thornburgh this Court acknowledge choice”). We similar requirements consent informed down struck clear, how- It at 760-764. id., See here. at issue ones led to Roe framework detailed while ever, requirements, informational those invalidation Court’s any traditional under sustained been they “would surgical any other or for judicial review, ... standard Reproductive Webster except abortion.” procedure (citing opinion) (plurality 517 S., Services, Health U. Gyne- College Obstetricians Thornburgh v. American dissenting); id., at J., cologists, S., at (White, U. rejection of Roe’s light of our dissenting)). (Burger, J.,C. re- subject, we do not approach to this right” “fundamental controlling. Thornburgh as gard follow bound do not feel we reason, same For mandatory 24-hour holding a State’s previous

Court’s v. Akron Akron See period waiting is unconstitutional. supra, at 449-451. Health, Inc., Reproductive Center for result provision will such correct Petitioners exist, might not otherwise women delays some for provi- liberty. But their placing a burden on therefore consent informed abortions, and way prohibits in no sion apply the ease in not do requirements waiting period and (b) 3205(a), §§ Cons. Stat. emergency. 18 Pa. See a medical re- providing time for (1990). that, in view We are helps waiting period ensure reconsideration, and flection and one, well-considered is a to abort decision a woman’s legitimate mater- interest reasonably the State’s furthers surely It “is the fetus. life of the unborn and in health nal is decision the woman’s impose to ensure cost to small a irreparable conse- light and certain of its considered well 970 on effects her own.” life, fetal possible

quenees (O’Connor, J., dissenting). 474 S., 462 at U.

B before providing consent, own her informed In addition may age unemaneipated obtain an of 18 under the woman an one of her the consent of either furnish she must abortion judicial procedure opt that allows parents, must or judicial requirement. bypass Under her to consent option, bypass if a state court obtain a minor can capable giving her informed consent finds that she is that an given abor- consent, such determines has indeed pro- court of these best interests. Records tion is her ceedings kept Act directs the state confidential. The days of the within three trial to render a decision court including procedure, application, and the entire woman’s longer Pennsylvania Superior appeal is to last no Court, days. require- parental eight consent than business emergency. apply a case medical ment does 18 opinion Appendix Pa. See (1990). Cons. Stat. §3206 JJ., ante, at 904-906. Souter, O’Connor, Kennedy, pre provision entirely consistent with this Court’s This requirements. involving parental consent vious decisions City, Mo., Inc. v. Planned Parenthood Assn. Kansas See (upholding parental consent 462 U. Ashcroft, (1983) S. judicial bypass option); requirement Akron v. with a similar supra, Reproductive Health, Inc., Akron Center for 439- (approving parental consent statutes that include judicial bypass option allowing pregnant minor “demon sufficiently mature to make the abortion strate she immaturity, despite an abortion herself or her that, decision interests”); Baird, S. be in her best Bellotti U. would (1979). strong beyond dispute think that a “has We State legitimate young citizens, in the welfare of its whose interest immaturity, judgment inexperience, and lack of some- wisely.” rights their ability exercise to impair their times (opinionof S., at 444 U. Stevens, Minnesota, 497 Hodgson v. like abortion, to parental consent J.). requirement of A con- in other upon minors placed restrictions myriad other important and designed further reasonably is texts, entirely “rational view, is our In interest. state legitimate instances, that, most conclude State for the fair minor lonely terrified even give a or family will strive Ohio mature.” compassionate both is that advice at 520 S.,U. Health, 497 Reproductive Center Akron Parenthood J.); Planned also see (opinion of Kennedy, (Stewart, J., concur- S., at 428 U. Danforth, Mo. v. Central furthers the State that (“There doubt little be can ring) unmar- encouraging an by end constitutionally permissible par- her help advice to seek pregnant minor ried not or whether important decision very making the ents pa- Pennsylvania’s child”). conclude thusWe to bear upheld. be requirement should consent rental C spousal notification contains Act Section may perform physician that, before requires provision. It sign a must woman woman, married aon her husband her notified indicating has she statement notify her required to is woman A planned abortion. (2) husband, her father, (1) is not husband her if husband (3) pregnancy is located, diligent effort, cannot after reported been has spousal sexual assault a result believe (4) reason woman authorities, or to the the infliction likely result notifying her husband individual. another upon him bodily injury her re- the notification exempted from a woman addition, emergency. 18 Pa. Cons. a medical case quirement opinion of (1990). Appendix to §3209 O’Connor, See Stat. 908-909. ante, at JJ., Souter, Kennedy, 972 emphasize Pennsylvania imposed

We first has a requirement type spousal consent the Court struck in down Planned Parenthood Central Mo. v. Danforth, provision spousal at 67-72. S., 428 U. Missouri’s consent was invalidated that case because of the view that it Court’s unconstitutionally granted power the husband “a ex to veto any ercisable for reason for no at whatsoever or reason all.” provision Id., at But the here 71. involves a much less in requirement spousal trusive not consent. notification, only requiring a Such law notice to the husband “does not give any party legal right [woman’s] third to make the prevent obtaining decision her, for or to her from an abortion performed.” Hodgson should she choose to have one v. supra, concurring judg Minnesota, at J., (Kennedy, part dissenting part); ment in see H. L. v. Matheson, atS., U. n. 17. thus does not control our Danforth analysis. they Petitioners should, contend that it however; argue requirement that the real a effect such notice is to give power to husbands veto woman’s abortion choice. The District Court indeed found the notifica provision tion created a that some woman risk who would prevented having otherwise have an abortion will be from example, petitioners argue, one. 947 F. 2d, For 712. many prevent through phys notified husbands will abortions psychological ical types force, coercion, other of threats. Pennsylvania incorporated exceptions But in the notice provision attempt problems. in an to deal with these For notify instance, a woman preg need not her husband if the nancy reported is the result of a sexual assault, or if she has bodily reason to injury believe that she would suffer as a 3209(b)(1990). § result the notification. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. challenge Furthermore, because this is facial the Act, petitioners it is insufficient for to show that the notification provision “might operate unconstitutionally under some con ceivable set of circumstances.” United States v. Salerno, (1987). 481 U. enough petition- 739, 745 S. Thus, it is not for circumstances, ease” “worst some that, show ers hus- power of veto aas grant operate will provision notice Health, Reproductive Center Akron Ohio bands. challenge facial making they Because at 514. S.,U. circumstances set no “show must they the provision, Ibid. valid.” would [provision] under exists failed omitted). they This marks (internal quotation to do.2 ap and Kennedy, Souter 2 O’Connoe, of Justices opinion joint The provision notice spousal the concluding that in point ignore to

pears Ante, at 887-898. In decision. abortion the burden undue an imposes difficulty. without operates requirement notification the instances most seeking abortions of wives majority found, the vast District As the aas no burden suffer husbands, thus and their consult and notify 1990). other (ED Pa. 1323, 1360 Supp. F. 744 provision. of the result Act husband, the notify her to want not does a woman where instances if the hus required is not example, notification For exceptions. provides spousal reported result the is pregnancy father, if the not the is band notifying as a result injury bodily fears assault, if the woman or sexual provision well, notification as instances in these Thus, husband. her decision. abortion to obstacle no imposes regulation where situations these side one to puts opinion joint The of married group on the focuses all, instead and at obstacle imposes no do not who and husbands notify their otherwise not would who women joint focus, the narrowed Having exceptions. of the one qualify notification cases, the of those “large fraction” ain concludes opinion ante, provi- and at obstacle, a substantial as operates provision a woman where certainly instances are There invalid. is therefore sion an qualify for not yet husband, and does notify her not prefer would who women of battered are the situations there example, For exception. of notifica- result as a children their injury abuse psychological fear they injury, bodily not fear do women situations these tion; in because a woman where are situations there And exception. for an qualify do not assault; sexual spousal unreported anof a result as pregnant has become But, available. exception is no unreported, an assault such when prefers woman where instances also found, are there District Court Supp., F. See 744 reasons. variety of other for a notify her husband not to with- to obtain might desire a woman example, For at 1360. constraints economic perceived knowledge because husband’s out her- joint The abortion. opposition expressed previously husband's or her question spousal The before us is therefore whether the rationally requirement any legitimate notification furthers state interests. We conclude that it First, does. a hus procreation marriage band’s in interests within and in the potential certainly life of his unborn child are substantial ones. See Planned Parenthood Mo. Central v. Danforth, (“We deep proper S., at U. unaware of the and protective concern and that a interest devoted and husband pregnancy growth develop has in his wife’s and in the carrying”); ment of the id., fetus she is at J., (White, concurring part dissenting part); Skinner v. Okla homa ex Williamson, rel. S., 316 U. 541. State itself legitimate protecting interests both these interests of protecting potential the father life fetus, spousal requirement reasonably notification re advancing By lated providing those state interests. usually spouse’s husband will know of his intent have an provision likely abortion, makes it more that the husband participate deciding will in the fate of his unborn child, a possibility might that otherwise have been denied him. participation might This in some cases result in a decision to proceed Judge with the As Alito pregnancy. observed in “[t]he Pennsylvania legislature his dissent below, eould have rationally initially believed that some married women are inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowl edge perceived problems because of as economic con —such plans, straints, previously future expressed or the husbands’ opinion concentrates on involving the situations battered women and unre- ported spousal assault, assumes, and any support without in record, the these instances “large constitute a fraction” of those cases prefer (and notify women not to their qualify husbands do not excep- for an tion). Ante, at assumption 895. This not any is based on evidence, hard however. And were it helpful to an attempt result, to reach a desired one just easily could as assume that the battered women situations form 100 percent of the eases where women desire to notify, they not or that consti- only percent tute 20 of those cases. But reliance on such speculation is the necessary result of adopting the undue burden standard. prior to by discussion obviated

opposition—that and part concurring in (opinion 2d, F. abortion.” dissenting part). “the promoting legitimate interest ahas also State Stat. Cons. relationship.” Pa. marital integrity of recognized “the previously (1990). 3209(a) This § society.” relationship in our marital of importance supra, at Danforth, v.Mo. Central Parenthood Planned rational is a requirement spousal notice view, our In 69. be communication improve truthful attempt the State decisionmaking, encourage collaborative and spouses tween v. Vin Labine integrity. See thereby marital fosters rules (“[T]he make (1971) power to 532, 538 S.U. cent, 401 family is com life” strengthen protect, and establish, argue Petitioners legislatures). state to the mitted interest; any such further does requirement notification notify already their majority wives they assert remainder decisions, and their husbands a secret. decisions keeping their reasons excellent unnecessary, is law they argue, the ease, first discord marital only to foster serve will ease second totally aas law petitioners see Thus, harm. threats legitimate interest furthering whatever means irrational unrealistic view, it in our But, might have. the State (1) so relationship either every husband-wife assume communica important type truthful perfect that (2) imperfect so course, or place a matter take will tion violently, selfishly, will react husband upon notice, that, Planned See his wife. interests contrary the best supra, at 103-104 Danforth, v. Mo. Central Parenthood of part) dissenting in part and concurring in J., (Stevens, consent parental of a point context in the (making a similar admittedly provision will statute). spousal notice The possibly harmful and circumstances, unnecessary some a fea particular cases existence “the but others, counterpro- (or even function no performs a statute ture duetive) ordinarily statute unconstitu- does not render the Thornburgh constitutionally suspect.” tional or even College Gynecologists, Obstetricians American dissenting). Pennsylvania Leg- The S., at 800 (White, J., U. weigh likely position benefits of the was in a islature likely presumably provision against effects, its adverse provision balance, on that the would be beneficial. concluded, say not, Whether this was wise decision or we cannot spousal it was irrational. We therefore conclude that the provision comports notice with the Har- Constitution. See (“It McRae, mission S., ris v. 448 U. at 325-326 is not the any other to decide whether the balance of competing policy”). interests wise social ...

D imposes reporting requirements. The Act also various 3214(a) requires report Section that abortion facilities file a performed. reports each do not include identity performed, of the women on whom abortions are but they variety do contain information about abortions. example, report For each include must the identities of the performing gestational referring physicians, age any at the abortion, fetus time of and the basis for medi- judgment emergency cal that medical existed. See 18 Pa. (10) (1990). §§3214(a)(1),(5), Appendix Cons. Stat. See opinion JJ., ante, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, reports The District 909-911. Court found that these kept completely 2d, confidential. 947 F. at 716. We further requirements reporting rationally conclude that these far- legitimate advancing ther the State’s interests in the state knowledge concerning prena- of medical maternal health and gathering respect tal life, statistical information patients, ensuring compliance provisions and in with other of the Act. requires facility 3207 of

Section the Act each abortion report file a with its address, name and as well names organi- affiliated or subsidiary, any parent, of addresses 3214(f) (1990). Section 3207(b) § Stat. Cons. Pa. zations. stating reports to file quarterly facility each requires further by down broken performed, abortions number total to the public available are reports these Both trimester. the preceding within funds state received facility if the only to opinion Ken- O’Connor, See Appendix 12 months. do Petitioners 906,911. ante, at JJ., Souter, nedy, infor- this provide facilities the requirement challenge dis- public forced however, contend, They mation. public receiving facilities given information closure Rec- disagree. We interest. state legitimate no serves funds generally funds are of public expenditure relating ords Pa. See law. Pennsylvania under the public available 1991- Supp. (Purdon 1959 66.2 §§66.1, Tit. Ann., Stat. a state observed, “[w]hen of Appeals 1992). the Court As there enterprise, commercial private to a money provides who taxpayers informing interest public a legitimate are support- the funds services and what benefiting funds ra- requirements reporting These at 718. 2d, 947 F. ing.” interest. state legitimate tionally further E ex- emergency medical challenge petitioners Finally, a medical existence The Act. for provided ception con- informed the Act’s compliance exempts emergency requirements. notice consent, and spousal sent, parental (1990). 3209(c) 3206(a), 3205(a), §§ Cons. Stat. 18 Pa. See as emergency” a "medical defines Act physician’s basis which, on condition “[t]hat medical so complicates clinical judgment, faith good the im- to necessitate woman a pregnant condition her death to avert pregnancy her mediate abortion substantial risk serious create delay will major impairment bodily and irreversible function.” §3203. argued

Petitioners the District before Court that stat- utory inadequate was did definition because it not cover pregnant three serious can conditions that women suffer— preeelampsia, prematurely ruptured abortion, inevitable agreed petitioners membrane. The District Court with that emergency exception inadequate, the medical was but the Appeals holding. construing Court of reversed this emergency provision, Appeals medical the Court of first ob- present served that all three conditions do indeed the risk of injury performed, serious .or when an death abortion is not profession’s uniformly prescribed and noted that the medical treatment for each of the three conditions is an immediate Finding “[t]he 2d, abortion. See 947 F. at 700-701. Pennsylvania legislature wording not did choose the of its emergency exception medical in a vacuum,” the court read exception compliance as intended “to assure that with its regulations way any pose significant would not in a threat to the life Id., or health of a woman.” at 701. It exception encompassed thus concluded that the each of the dangerous pointed by petitioners. three conditions Pennsylvania’s present We observe that definition of medi- emergency cal copy is almost an exact of that State’s defini- ruling Thornburgh, tion at the time of this Court’s one apparent which the approval. Court made reference to with (“It Pennsylvania Legisla- S., U. at 771 is clear that the provide ture medieal-emergency exception knows how to so”).3 when it interpretation chooses to do We find that the 3The definition in provided use that time as follows: “ ‘Medical emergency.’ which, That condition physi- on the basis of the cian’s best clinical judgment, so complicates pregnancy toas necessitate the immediate abortion of same to avert the death of the mother or for which a delay 24-hour grave will peril create of immediate and irreversible loss major bodily Ann., (Purdon 18; §3203 function.” Pa. Stat. Tit. 1983). eminently reason- is eases these Appeals upheld. When should thus provision able, “significant poses a any condition with faced woman Act’s exempted from the she is health,” [her] life threat proceed immedi- requirements notice consent ately abortion. her IV that each would hold therefore stated, we reasons For Pennsylvania statute provisions challenged emphasis bears It Constitution. with the consistent any nec- carry with regard does conclusion our always, is, as task regulations. Our these of essary approval lawaof provisions challenged the only whether to decide be-we If, as Constitution. States the United comport with policy is public matter aas wisdom do, their these lieve, Pennsylvania to decide. people of for Justice, Justice ChieF The whom Scalia, with Justice judg- in concurring join, Thomas Justice White, and part. in dissenting in part ment set I unchanged those from are matter My on views Reproductive v. in Webster opinions separate my in forth concurring (1989) (opinion 490, S. Services, U. Health Cen Akron Ohio judgment), and concurring in part and in (Akron (1990) 502, 520 S.U. Health, 497 Reproductive ter for per they wish, may, if The States opinion). II) (concurring re not does Constitution but demand, mit abortion abortion, and permissibility The do so. them quire important most like resolved upon it, limitations persuade trying democracy: citizens our in questions acknowledges, voting. the Court As then another one can government disagree the people reasonable “where 851. Ante, at position or adopt other.”. one a “assumes that this qualification adding the correct upon a intrude not choice does which of affairs state quali- part crucial liberty,” ibid.—but protected penultimate fication is the word. A State’s choice between people disagree positions reasonable can is con- two on which (as ease) upon when is often the it intrudes stitutional even bigamy, “liberty” against in the sense. Laws absolute example people societies of reasonable entire —with liberty disagree upon marry men and women’s —intrude bigamy happens live with one But to be a another. liberty specially “protected” by the Constitution. quite simply, is,

That the issue these eases: not whether “liberty” power of woman to abort her unborn child is a liberty great it is a sense; the absolute or even whether many importance to Of course it is both. The women. liberty protected by issue is whether it is the Constitution of the United I am not. I reach con- States. sure anything my clusion not because of so exalted as con- views cerning “concept meaning, the uni- existence, mystery verse, Rather, and of the human life.” Ibid. I big- reach it for I the same reason reach conclusion that amy constitutionally protected simple is not of two —because (1) absolutely says nothing it, facts: the Constitution about (2) longstanding society traditions of American permitted legally proscribed.1 supra, it to be II, Akron concurring). 520 (Scalia, J., ante, 847-848, suggestion,

1The at Court’s that adherence to tradition require uphold against entirely would us to marriage laws interracial is Any by wrong. in a text —an Equal tradition that case was contradicted explicitly equality Protection Clause that establishes racial as a constitu (1967) (“In Virginia, 1, tional value. See Loving v. 388 U. S. at case bar,... containing classifications, we deal with statutes racial fact of and the equal application very heavy does not immunize the statute from the burden justification of which the traditionally Fourteenth Amendment has re id., (Stew quired race”); of state according statutes drawn to see also at 13 art, J., concurring in judgment). Wade, Roe enterprise The in launched (1973), by 410 U. contrast, S. 113 sought to establish —in the teeth of a clear, contrary tradition —a value found nowhere the constitutional text. is, course, There comparable recognition no barring tradition of a “liberty carrying interest” in one’s child to term free from to state efforts reason, kill it. For that it does not follow that the Constitution not does evidently to meant proposition, destroys the Court The “only those “liberty” includes my position, that represent pro were specific level, most at practices, defined of law rules other government interference against tected at 847 ante, ratified,” was Amendment Fourteenth when (1989) 6n. 110, 127, S. D., 491 U. v. Gerald (citing H. Michael Michael J.)). what however, not, That is (opinion of Scalia, “liberty,” we defining that, merely says; observes it H. protecting, tradition specific, “relevant disregard a may not right,” But ibid. the asserted protection to, denying any such limitations fettered to be wish not does “tempt it is statement Court’s preferences. The on its of tradition acknowledge authoritativeness ing” to at ante, judges,” federal “cur[b] the discretion to order reality; government no than rather rhetoric of course 847, is freedom upon his own place restraints “tempted” to is official say tends “Power not why did Acton Lord is which action, opposite quite temptation is in the purify.” The Court’s systematically elimi direction —towards natural and more it power; succumbs. upon own its nating checks my position, summary the essence Beyond brief repetition of Reports with States United not swell I will test, basis applying the rational before; said I have what entirety. I its Pennsylvania statute uphold I would outrageous ar- more respond a few however, must, beyond nature human opinion, today’s guments in them under each discuss shall I unanswered. to leave they pertain. opinion which quotation the Court’s from adjudication sub- inescapable is that fact “The upon the Court process call claims due stantive protect abortion. it does- simply because protect childbirth childbirth ante, way protect only contention, Court’s analysis of constitutional bankruptcy utter shows the protect abortion say that one to It drives validating factor. aas deprived tradition the constitutional acknowledge eat is to right way protect only oneself to death. right starve

982 interpreting the Constitution exercise always capacity tradition courts have

same judgment.” Ante, at 849. exercised: reasoned Assuming question at that the before us is to be resolved philosophical abstraction, such a level of in such isolation society, by simply apply from the American as traditions of ing judgment,” possi I “reasoned do not see how that could bly produced the answer the Court arrived at Roe v. (1973). Today’s opinion 410 Wade, U. S. 113 describes the methodology against quite accurately, weighing Roe, as “ 'important legitimate the woman’s interest the State’s protecting potentiality interest of human life.’” 162). (quoting supra, at Ante, Roe, 871 at But “reasoned judgment” begin by begging question, does not Roe subsequent unquestionably by assuming eases did protecting “potentiality what the State is the mere g., supra, human See, Roe, 162; life.” e. at Planned Parent (1976); hood Central Mo. v. 428 61 52, U. S. Col Danforth, (1979); Franklin, autti v. 439 379, U. S. Akron v. Akron Reproductive Center Health, Inc., 416, 462 U. S. (1983)(Akron I); City, Planned Parenthood Assn. Kansas (1983). Mo., Inc. v. Ashcroft, 476, U. S. The whole argument opponents of abortion is that what the Court calls the fetus and what others call the unborn child is human up Thus, whatever answer Roe came with after con life.

ducting “balancing” wrong, its is bound be unless it is merely correct that the human fetus is in some critical sense potentially way human. is of There course no to determine legal judgment. that as a matter; it is in fact a value Some yet societies have considered newborn children not human, incompetent elderly longer or the no so. joint opinion, squarely authors of the course, do not Roe, application

contend that was a Wade correct of “rea- judgment”; merely soned that it must followed, because of stare decisis. Ante, 861, 871. inBut their ex- go haustive discussion of all the factors that into the determi-

983 and when be observed should decisis stare of when nation deci- wrong was “how they mention never disregarded, in power ... lies Surely, “[t]he if Court’s face?” its on sion ante, perception,” and product substance a legitimacy, its that equation demands part “substance” at was Roe acknowledged eliminated. and be plain error “rea- methodology of the Court’s wrong plainly —even course) proper (of if the so more and even judgment,” soned applied. are tradition and of text criteria produced judgment” “reasoned of the emptiness The more that, after fact view plain displayed in isRoe (and most brightest of the by some years effort 19 than country, than more after determined) legal minds doz- after and Court, rights abortion upholding eases and in these submitted briefs amicus upon dozens ens explain it is how todo can best the eases, the other right de- thought to include “liberty” be must word adjectives a collection off to rattle is stroy fetuses human political conceal judgment and a value simply decorate “liberty” told, inheres are abort, we right to choice. ante, decisions,” person’s most basic among “a is it because choie[ej,” personal and intimate “most it 849; involves at autonomy,” dignity and personal “central it is 851; ante, at be- and conscience zone “originate^] within ibid.; it for state personal” and intimate is “too it 852; ante, at lief,” “deep, aof views” “intimate ibid.; reflects it interference, rela- “intimate involves 858; it ante, at character,” personal bodily in- autonomy and “personal tionships” notions and “ ‘impor- particularly concerns it 857; tegrity,” ante, at omitted).2 (citation it is But at 859 ante, decisio[n],’” tant similarly empty: Abortion is adjectives parade Blackmun’s Justice ante, 923; is a choices,”’ personal intimate most among “.‘the is ibid.; it involves autonomy,” dignity personal “central matter identity, and bodily integrity, affect profoundly decisions “personal eonclusory: The less not much Stevens ante, Justice at 927. destiny,” and the privacy highest of “the a matter choose decision anyone judgment” applying that the “reasoned obvious to adjectives many applied of conduct that can forms same today’s majority, (including this Court one Justices (1986)) held Hardwick, Bowers v. 478 U. S. see protection like abor- to constitutional not entitled because, — long they been criminal- are that have tion, forms conduct adjectives might ap- society. be ized American Those sodomy, polygamy, plied, example, adult homosexual to equally are “intimate” incest, suicide, all of which autonomy “personal “deep[ly] personal” involving decisions bodily integrity,” constitutionally can and all of which proscribed unquestionable because it is our constitutional they proseribable. It is not reasoned tradition that only judgment personal supports decision; that the Court’s warning timely today predilection. is as as Justice Curtis’s years ago: it was 135 interpretation

“[W]hen Constitution, ac a strict cording govern interpreta to the fixed rules which opinions laws, tion of and the theoretical abandoned, meaning, of individuals are to control its we allowed longer govern no under the Constitution; have we are being ment of time men, individual who for the have power according is, to declare what Constitution ought their own Dred views of what it mean.” Scott (1857) opinion). (dissenting Sandford, 393, 621 19 How. refuge “Liberty jurisprudence finds no Ante, doubt.” at 844. might august

One have feared to encounter this and sono- phrase opinion defending Wade, rous in an the real Roe v. today by than rather version the au- revised fabricated ante, 915; personal nature,” most having at it involves a “‘difficult choice personal major serious and consequences importance [a woman’s] ante, future,”’ 916; authority yet to make this “traumatic and em- ibid.; powering dignity,” “an decisio[n]” is of basic human and it element ibid. conscience,” “nothing than less a matter of did Roe shortcomings The opinion. joint thors regulation all Virtually clarity: lack of include across to come But was invalid. trimester third before federal upon calls the joint opinion phrase —which as standard “undue burden” an apply district judges in origin unprincipled it is in application —is doubtful to bear. should one than more really amorphous concedes frankly joint opinion applied inconsistently been burden” of “undue concept since years brief few of this the Members by propounded Justice first explicitly was “test” (1983). S. 416 I, U. in Akron dissent in her O’Connor wish now Justices the three Because at 876.3 ante, See the joint opin- application,” of general standard forth “set is meant what to clarify important “it is announces ion that, certainly agree I Ibid. burden.” undue the an- succeeds in joint'opinion not agree but I do clarifica- at efforts contrary, its To the endeavor. nounced ante, 874, 3 "the that at asserting, wrong in clearly opinion is joint The standard. burden” “undue to” adhered cases early abortion Court’s for opinion in Justice Blackmun’s phrase of passing use The (Bellotti I), not was (1976) 132, 147 Baird, S. 428 U. v. in Bellotti unconstitutionality, as Justice the standard of forth setting by way of the conclusion way expressing of did, opinions but later O’Connor’s employ a appeared to a time for unconstitutionally. Powell Justice of see, opinions, nonmajority analysis in several burden” “undue variant Popu (Bellotti II); Carey v. (1979) 622, 647 Baird, S.U. v. 443 g., Bellotti e. (1977) concur (opinion International, 678, U. 705 S. 431 Services lation rejected ultimately too but he judgment), concurring in part and ring in Center v. Akron in Akron the Court opinion for in his standard (Akron I). The (1983) 420, 416, 1n. Inc., Health, S. 462 U. Reproductive (1977), and 464, 473 Roe, U. S. Maher v. 432 opinion’s reliance joint misplaced, since entirely (1980), McRae, 297, is 314 S. 448 U. v. Harris fund abortion, refusal but mere regulation involve cases did those appar formulations earlier event, O’Connor’s any Justice it. the name Justices, who —in unsatisfactory the three proved ently now entirely new an to devise necessary today find of stare decisis no less— ante, 877-879. at analysis. See burden” “undue version 986 inherently manipu- elear that the standard is only

tion make in unworkable practice. will hopelessly lable and prove a imposes state explains regulation The joint opinion effect if it “has the of placing “undue burden” an purpose an seeking in the a woman path a substantial obstacle ante, Ante, 877; a at see also of nonviable fetus.” told, if it is “substantial,” An we 877-879. obstacle at choice, to inform the woman’s free [but [not] “calculated^] Ante, cannot at This latter statement hinder it.” 877.4 to] 4 joint opinion imposing a an undue burden further asserts that law serving “legitimate” “permissible” not a means of on abortion decisions is Ante, the undue burden description state at 877. This interests. commonly rational-basis standard in terms more associated with the test closely our wan surprise who have followed will come as even to those I, See, g., supra, at 463 derings in this forsaken wilderness. e. Akron (“The represents J., . . . the re dissenting) ‘undue burden’ (O’Connor, quired inquiry must conducted before this Court can threshold exacting ‘compel require justify legislative its actions under the State Minnesota, standard”); Hodgson 497 U. S. ling state interest’ see also v. J., part concurring concurring in (1990) 417, (O’Connor, 458-460 College Thornburgh judgment part); v. American Obstetricians J., Gynecologists, dissenting). This 476 U. S. (1986) (O’Connor, designed explain confusing equation apparently of the two standards joined plurality opinion how one the Justices who Webster Services, Reproductive adopted U. S. Health (1989), test, join opinion expressly adopting rational-basis could the undue bur id., (rejecting See den test. the view that abortion is a “fundamen right,” regulating inquiring tal instead whether law the woman’s “lib erty “reasonably designed” “legitimate” interest” abortion is to further ends). apparently joint opin state The same motive also underlies plurality opinion ion’s erroneous citation in Ohio v. Akron Center (Akron II) Health, Reproductive (opinion 497 U. S. (1990) 502, 506 J.), ante, applying as the (using undue burden test. See at Kennedy, e., support proposition this citation to the that “two of us”—i. two the test). fact, joint opinion previously authors of applied the —have II not Akron does mention the undue burden standard until the conclusion opinion, of the impose when it that not states the statute at issue “does (em undue, unconstitutional, S., an or otherwise at burden.” U. added). phasis I anyone saying fail to see how can think that statute not impose any standard, including does an unconstitutional burden under that regulation abortion Any says. possibly mean what the opinion is joint concedes the what to advance is intended will protecting life unborn interest “substantial” State’s It abortion. have to an a decision [to]hinder” be “calculated opinion joint would say that to accurate more seems thus unduly they hin- only do not regulations if uphold abortion right brings us course, That, of decision. the woman’s der as an “undue Defining burden” an “undue square one: back obstacle”) hardly (or “clarifies” “substantial hindrance” shell opinion’s joint verbal Consciously not, test. concerning what policy judicial choices game raw will conceal legislation. abortion “appropriate” is burden” “undue of the ultimately nature standardless The concept underlying fact that inquiry a reflection legal As The basis. principled or coherent has no ChieF strict-scrutiny “at least standard points Roe’s out, Justice Roe the time law at recognized constitutional basis in had a said “[t]he cannot be same while ante, at decided,” was largely out is created standard, which ‘undue burden’ for the joint opinion,” ibid. the authors cloth of whole jurispru- asserting “our flatly wrong that opinion joint perhaps has rec- relating save to all liberties dence impose do not permissibility of laws ognized” argues the abortion It Ante, 873. at burden.” “undue designed rights a law “not in that other right is similar which] effect [but has the incidental right itself, at strike [exercise expensive making or more difficult it more agree, have I indeed I Ante, at 874. right,]” is not invalid. as the burden test adopting the undue test, amounts burden undue Hodgson reflecting Jus- citation The Court’s standard. exclusive ante, Kennedy’s premises,” “shared O’Connor’s Justice tice used even "undue” was never word similarly inexplicable, since 878, is Kennedy’s opin- joined Justice case. I in that opinion former’s in the suppose, II; I grateful, Hodgson I and Akron should both ions in bur- I, too, adopted the undue joint opinion claim does den test. general applicability which urged,

forcefully lawa that right does only a places burden on fundamental an incidental 377, right, Paul, 505 U. S. infringe v. see A. V. St. R. not Dept. (1992); Re Human Employment Div., 389-390 (1990),but 878-882 Smith, 872, 494 U. S. Ore. sources of (and quite quite different principle not establish does that dangerous) proposition directly regulates a law that a right to violate Consti will not be found fundamental that, of imposes It is burden.” an “undue unless it tution consciously Pennsylvania has is at here: course, which issue is directly regulated have held cases conduct that our analogy, appropriate there constitutionally protected. The religious requiring purchasers of law fore, that of a state is pay waiting period, a nomi or to a 24-hour to endure books possibly joint opinion cannot tax nal additional 10. legis uphold suggesting such that we would be correct impose ground a “substantial it does not lation on rights. The First Amendment to the exercise of obstacle” applicable generally at all the standard “undue burden” it joint opinion pretends rather, principle be; it to preserve specially concept unique cases, these created territory. ill-gotten judicial In claim in this foothold some willingness ing their show otherwise, the three Justices preserve place rights at effort to risk all constitutional holding they Ante, at 873. in Roe.” deem the “central what burden”, standard, “undue nature of the The rootless phrase plucked abortion deci our earlier out of context from supra, the fact sions, is further reflected see n. repudiate necessary joint expressly opinion finds ear more narrow used formulations O’Connor’s Justice opinions stated opinions. Ante, 876-877. Those lier at imposes imposes “absolute if it an “undue burden” statute decision,” on the or severe limitations obstacles (emphasis (dissenting opinion) I, S., 462 U. Akron College added); Thornburgh Obste v. American see also (1986)(dissent- Gynecologists, 747, 828 476 U. S. tricians conspicuously strong adjectives are opinion). ing Those opinion, have for some joint missing whose authors from “undue” is that a burden determined unexplained reason now deci to abortion merely imposes obstacle a “substantial” if it g., 901. Justice 895, at ante, e. See, sions. O’Connor explanation) she ex the view (again without also abandoned City, Mo., Kansas Assn. pressed in Parenthood Planned (1983)(dissenting opinion), that 462 S. 476 Ashcroft, U. Inc. v. imposes burden” could regulation an “undue a medical pres “reasonably relate[s] to the upheld it if be nevertheless (cita health,” id., at 505 protection of maternal ervation omitted). today’s In ver quotation marks internal tion and they upheld only do not measures will health sion, even “if added). (emphasis ante, at burden,” 878 undue constitute that “the statement State too is Gone Justice O’Connor’s potential protection of compelling in the possesses interests supra, throughout pregnancy,” at I, Akron . . . human life added); (emphasis Ashcroft, see also (dissenting opinion) 461 judgment part concurring in supra, J., at (O’Connor, Thornburgh, supra, dissenting part); at 828 (O’Con- dissenting); unborn interest instead, the State’s J., nor, merely stealthily downgraded to a “substantial” human life is (That had to be “profound” 876, at interest, ante, 878. “compel designating the interest course, since done, of say, throughout pregnancy we ling” been, shall would joint opinion’s ef determined obstacle” to a “substantial holding” of Roe. it views as the “central fort to reaffirm what 1.) “viability” no And is I, S., at n. Akron 462 U. See “arbitrary” dividing previously longer decried line I, id., at Court now 461; in Akron O’Connor Justice viability may continue to that “the attainment announces It ante, is difficult to fact,” serve as the critical 860.5 correct her former view. Of course Justice O’Connor was inability viability of the line confirmed the Court’s arbitrariness conclusory only justification beyond assertion that it any offer fairness” point child’s life “can in reason and all at that the unborn interpreting a Constitution we the illusion maintain provisions so its inventing we amend when one, than rather breezily. adopting de- opinion joint portion of the Because guid- provides more useful no

scribing test burden the undue turn must one above, empty phrases discussed than the ance present facts to the applying standard pages to the Pennsylvania’s evaluating guidance. for further extensively find- the factual opinion joint relies law, the qualifies conclu- its repeatedly Court, and ings District de- upon contingent record they the by noting that sions uphold opinion joint would Thus, the veloped cases. in these Pennsylvania the in waiting period contained 24-hour the Stat. provision, Pa. Cons. consent informed statute’s in the that shows (1990), evidence § “the record because any delay create does not majority 24-hour eases, a vast Justices The three ante, 885. at risk,” appreciable health we are us,. .. record before that “on the conclude therefore an waiting period constitutes the 24-hour that convinced not that doc- requirement Ante, at 887. undue burden.” consent pertinent to informed provide the information tor on this no evidence is upheld “there because also be would practical in requirement] would amount [this that record seeking- an abor- a to woman obstacle a to substantial terms up- joint opinion Similarly, would the at Ante, 884. tion.” §§3207, 3214, Act, requirements of the reporting the hold us” before showing on record . . . is no “there because obstacle” a “substantial requirements constitute that these Ante, Pre- at 870. the mother. the interests thought override to be currently when machines that, magical second why at cisely is it woman) to are able particular necessarily available (though not use suddenly mother, the creature its apart from alive keep unborn child that law, before Constitution) whereas protected (under our able accord- than no sense more That makes it was not? magical second they feed can when point only protection after legal ing infants themselves. time at the same 901. But Ante, at decisions.

to abortion require- reporting these pointedly observes opinion that “at some abortions and costs of increase the ments Ibid. obstacle.” fact] substantial [that could become point opinion’s joint conclusion significantly, the Most § imposes an Act, see requirement spousal notice large on the District measure is based burden” “undue joint opinion findings fact,” “detailed Court’s length, great ante, at 888-891. out sets objection that, any notion course, not, doI rely only upon the principles, legal one should applying properly or that are in the record are contained facts about is remarkable judicial But what subject notice.6 not analysis that it does opinion’s joint fact-intensive “undue burden” any clarification measurable result in joint opinion is, approach of the Rather, the standard. highlight in the record simply facts certain part, the most sig particularly three Justices strike the apparently (or refuting) undue establishing of an existence nificant simply opinion then describing facts, the these after burden; impose or does provision either does that the announces g., See, e. burden.” an “undue obstacle” a “substantial know We do not ante, 880, 884-885, 887, 893-894, 895, 901. at on a been reached could have the same conclusions whether respects record would or in what record, different opposite been would have an conclusion before had differ principle, entirely faithful to this however. opinion is not joint The spousal findings respect to the with factual Court’s the District approving materials, reli and in extensively on nonreeord it relies provision, notice Ante, at own. of its of factual conclusions a upon them adds number ance to matters pertains factfinding this additional 891-893. Because 201(b), the dispute,” Rule Evid. “subject surely reasonable are Fed. are “legislative” that these operating premise on the joint opinion must 201(a). find if a can facts, But court see Rule “adjudicative” than rather science selectively string-citing right social simply by an undue burden requiring fac “detailed articles, point emphasizing do not see the I in the District Court. findings” tual in- inherently nature standardless

appropriate. The personal give his judge effect quiry the district invites upon relying finding By preferences abortion. about any seem, almost invalidate, it would can right he facts, subject, of him as strikes restriction abortion “undue”— ap- a court being reversed possibility of course, to review- unconstrained is as Supreme Court peals or making it. was in ing as he his decision meaningful in the content any I can discern the extent To opinion, joint it applied as may standard burden” “undue regulate in such not a appears' that State to be joint significantly its incidence. way to reduce as a important factor in emphasizes that an repeatedly opinion “pre- regulation analysis is whether burden” “undue the vent[s] obtaining an from significant women number of a “significant number ante, 893; whether abortion,” procuring an likely from deterred to be are . . . women regulation often whether 894; and ante, at abortion,” 897. We seeking abortions, ante, at from women “deters” imper- are of “deterrence” forms however, what told, not too much degree in deterrence of success or what missible required a example, woman a State If, for to be tolerated. facts of describing, illustrations, pamphlet to read abortion, the an development obtain before she could fetal “significant might legislation be to “deter” such effect of thereby seem- abortions, procuring from of women” number undue judge allowing to invalidate ingly a district flowery State’s despite about the rhetoric Thus, burden. “potential human “profound” interest “substantial” undervaluing interest, Roe for and criticism life,” only pursue that interest permits joint opinion the State long As successful. as it is too so Blackmun Justice (with the “undue bur- hope), ante, at recognizes evident ultimately require the invalidation standard den” today shown, on a better upheld it can be provision if each pref- “expressing] effectively is too that the record, State abortion,” ante, erenee for childbirth over 883. Reason refuge jurisprudence in this of confusion. finds no appreciate weight arguments “While we . . be overruled, . that Roe should the reservations any reaffirming holding of us have in the central outweighed by explication Roe of individ- liberty given have ual we combined with the force of Ante, stare decisis.” at 853. upon

The Court’s reliance stare ean best de- decisis be upon necessity as scribed contrived. It insists of adher- ing only Roe, all of but to what it calls the “central holding.” ought ap- It seems me that stare decisis to be plied decisis, even to the doctrine of I stare and confess never keep-what-you-want-and-throw- have this new, heard of away-the-rest applied whether, version. I wonder as Marbury (1803), example, Madison, 1 Cranch 137 new version of stare if decisis would satisfied we allowed only constitutionality courts to review the those statutes (like Marbury) pertain jurisdiction the one in to the the courts. certainly good position dispute

I am not in a that the holding” Roe, Court has saved “central since to do effectively I would have to know what the Court (as require saved, which in turn would me to understand I do not) what “undue burden” test I means. must confess, always thought, however, that I have and I think a lot people always thought, arbitrary other trimes- today quite ter which framework, the Court was discards, arbitrary viability central to Roe as test, today particularly ungrateful It retains. seems to carve the trimester very framework out of the Roe, core of since its (in rigidity sharp indeterminability contrast to the utter test) probably only the “undue burden” reason the say, urging Court is able to stare decisis, that Roe “has in ” proven no suppose sense ante, at I 855. ‘unworkable/ holding” it wants whatever call a “central is entitled Court per- it, think of holding” is, come to a “central to call —which stare version modified haps difficulties of the one following the however, that might thought note, I I decisis. saved: not been Roe portions seeking (cid:127) abortion a woman requiring that Roe, Under giv- before abortion about information provided truthful be infor- if the unconstitutional, is consent ing written informed Thornburgh, 476 her choice. designed influence mation Under 442-445. atS., I, 462 U. Akron 759-765; atS.,U. (as today, applied regime “undue burden” joint opinion’s the Ante, at least) requirement is constitutional. a such at 881-885. provided (cid:127) information requiring Roe, Under counselors, is unconstitu- by nonphysieian than

doctor, rather bur- the “undue Under supra, 446-449. at I, Akron tional. least) Ante, at (as today, is not. it at applied regime den” 884-885. period

(cid:127) waiting between requiring 24-hour Roe, Under time the consent gives informed her time woman supra, 449- at I, Akron is unconstitutional. of the (as today, applied regime burden” “undue Under 451. least) at 885-887. Ante, not. it is at

(cid:127) demo- reports that include requiring detailed Roe, Under an abortion seeks who each woman graphic about data is unconstitutional. each abortion about information various burden” “undue supra, Under Thornburgh, at 765-768. least) Ante, generally (as is not. today, applied regime at 900-901. judicial performance duties, its

“Where, way resolve in such a case decides controversy intensely reflected divisive sort resolu- a dimension its ..., decision Roe carry. It di- does the normal case tion of interpretation present Court’s whenever mension contending aof sides calls Constitution controversy national division end their national accepting the Con- rooted in mandate a common Ante, at 866-867. stitution.” place description in the social of Roe of the Court’s The only unrecognizable. did Not history is United States of the deeply suggests, divisive resolve the the Court as not, Roe anything else to nourish than it did more abortion; issue infinitely elevating level where it by to the national it it, politics plagued were not to resolve. National difficult more lobbying, protests, or abortion abortion national abortion Pro- Congress Roe v. was decided. before Wade marches among disagreement citizens over the our existed found pen- such as the death issues, it over other does issue—as being disagreement out at alty worked was —but many issues, the division senti- with other As state level. closely as it was as balanced was not each State ment within among meaning population whole, as a the Nation only people satisfied with results be would that more would state-by-state also that those results resolution, but compromise political moreover, e-Roe, Pr stable. be more possible. was destroyed the com- for abortion on demand mandate

Roe’s compromise impossible past, for promises rendered required the entire issue to be resolved'uni- future, formly, the same Roe created time, level. At at the national propo- abortion consumers and new class vast by eliminating opprobrium that had attached the moral nents (“If guarantees how abortion, the Constitution to the act. thought, natu- an accurate line of but a it bad?”—not can be one.) developments, Many and it all those is not favor ral they wrong. portray say But as Roe me jurispru- issue, a divisive “settlement” of the statesmanlike Westphalia preserving, that is worth is noth- dential Peace of ing fanned into life an issue that less than Roe Orwellian. polities general, national and has ob- has inflamed our Justices to this with its smoke the selection of scured the abortion- by keeping us in And since. ever particular, disruption, perpetuation of that umpiring business, major- new the Court’s any Boeana, that Pax than rather ity decrees. subvert would . . . fire under

“[T]o overrule legitimacy.... Court’s by follow- tested ... who will those To all “... stead- to remain implicitly undertakes ing, the Court given, constancy, once promise of .... fast power long stand as for as its binds maker [is the commitment and ... survives the decision not] obsolete.... people’s] in themselves belief

“[The American according rule aspire people live [who ... under- readily separable their from law] is not authority to standing Court invested speak before cases constitutional decide their If ideals. constitutional for their all others so then, undermined, legitimacy be should Court’s ability itself very country to see in its be would Ante, at 867-868. through ideals.” constitutional its compare to Judiciary It is instructive Imperial lives. The judges— uneleeted, life-tenured of us vision Nietzschean this leading following,” by whose “tested bewill a Yolk who up in their mystically bound is very in themselves” “belief “speak[s] others before all “understanding” of Court more the somewhat ideals”—with constitutional their lawyers the Founders. for these role envisioned modest of the either no judiciary direction . has ... . . “The society, no can take of the strength the wealth ofor truly to be said It whatever. active resolution merely judgment....” butWill, Force nor have neither 1982). (G. pp. ed. Wills 393-394 78, No. Federalist Supreme ecstasy compare again, Or, no matters, especially controversial is, there (“There change ais limit to hint of alteration shadow of imputed prior plausibly that can be of error the amount 866), more views of a at with the democratic Courts,” ante, humble man: more

“[Tjhe policy that if citizen must confess candid upon questions affecting vital the whole the Government irrevocably people to be fixed decisions of the Su- preme people will ceased to be their Court,... having practically resigned that extent rulers, own into the hands of that eminent tribu- their Government (Mar.4,1861), Inaugural Lincoln, First Address nal.” A. reprinted Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of (1989). p. 139 States, 101-10, S. Doc. No. United pres- particularly difficult, circumstances It lengthy upon to sit still for the Court’s lecture decision, ent “constancy,” “remaining] at ante, the virtues of adhering “principle,” passim. ante, ibid., and steadfast,” Among purportedly at Roe, five Justices who adhere to upon agree principle three that constitutes adher- most standard) (the joint opinion’s burden” ence “undue —and principle Roe. at 154- S., is inconsistent with See U. matters two in order worse, three, 156.7 To make previously steadfast, to remain had to abandon thus stated . positions. supra; supra, 4,n. see It is be- See 988-990. yond expects me how the Court these accommodations grounded truly accepted principle, compromises “as not as political pressures having, bearing such, social no principled obliged choices the that the Court is to make.” only principle Ante, at 865-866. The the Court “adheres” Roe as preserve 7Justice effort possible Blackmun’s as much joint opinion him leads to read the as more and “constan[t]” “steadfast” than be joint opinion’s can believed. He contends the that “undue burden” to “all non-de-minimis” requires application scrutiny standard the of strict ante, regulations, only at but that could be true if a “substan obstacle,” ante, (joint opinion), thing tial at 877 were the same as a non- de-mmimis obstacle —which it plainly is not. be must the Court that principle is the me, seems to, it lawof principle a not is standing by That Roe. seen about), but talking was thought Court the (which I is what that. wrong one Realpolitik principle of —and by, Court’s appalled the I am indeed agree with, cannot I by an errone- to stand whether decision the that suggestion strongly influenced— must decision constitutional ous continu- and by substantial the overruling, no against less— generated. decision opposition the ing public the “subvert would any course other judgment that Court’s reading consequence of be another must legitimacy” Court’s deeply di- the described history book error-filled the history my by together Roe. brought country vided deprived of dishonor with covered was the Court book, (1857),an 19 How. Sandford, v. Scott legitimacy Dred aban- it did opinion that (and widely opposed) erroneous U. S. Parrish, 300 v.Co. Hotel Coast than West don, rather from time” “switch famous produced the (1937),which op- (and widely opposed) constitutional erroneous Court’s (Both Deal. New of the measures social to the position resisting Deal New cases line of one Scott Dred process” that due concept “substantive upon rested Scott Indeed, Dred today. employs praises due application of substantive “very possibly the first was precedent original Supreme Court, process in Currie, The D. Roe Wade.” York and Newv. Lochner (footnotes (1985) Supreme Court Constitution omitted).) legitimacy” the Court’s “subvert it would But whether differently from ease decide would that we the notion not, we show order have in way would we otherwise frightening. It disapproval is public against firm stand can me, like of someone the head enough idea, even a bad tradi- our Constitution, and text believes who fiddling them. say they there no say what tions, Con- believes a Court in the mind it is when But the 848; that ante, at meaning, evolving see has an stitution a dis- rights not “othe[r]” to reference Amendment’s Ninth function ibid.; and action, for a charter but claimer, people’s] [the for others all “speak before tois this Court tra- meaningful text by unrestrained ideals” constitutional to deci- adhere must Court notion dition—then opposition” and “great faces long decision as as for sion ezar- almost a character acquires fire” “under Court de- who by marchers these offended arrogance. areWe ist pro- anniversary to Roe, every on the year upon us, scend our requires what the Constitution saying that our test requires. These thought the Constitution society has never following” be must by “tested be refuse people who we can least at but Cossacks, no haveWe taught lesson. opinion that we erroneous abandon stubbornly refuse they intimidate little how change show might otherwise —to us. been we points out, as course, Of Justice Chief pressure’” “‘political calls subjected what today’s Maybe deci- 963. Ante, at issue. of this sides both pressure buckling to as seen be Roe will to overrule not sion hopeless engaging in Instead direction. from lawyers job for perception public predicting task —a do should managers Justices campaign political but —the (1) RoeWas questions: asking two right legally what is producing a (2) Roe succeeded Has correctly decided? no, questions is both the answer If body law? settled undoubtedly overruled. should Roe ex- is—and the Court as distressed as I truth, am S.,U. Webster, ago, see years several my distress pressed the Court: pressure” directed “political 535—about at inducing tous protests aimed mail, marches, many of that so upsetting is, opinions. How change our sides of both ones, on people, not (good lawless our citizens issues other sides various issue, and this well) ac- into properly take should Justices we think engaged though not ascer- we were views, their as count determining objective taining some kind of but in an law giv- profit, think, would I from consensus. The Court social distressing phenomenon, ing of this attention to the less fact permeates cause cause of it. That more attention to the adjudication today’s opinion: of constitutional a new mode practice upon to deter- text and traditional that relies not judg- upon “reasoned what the calls law, mine the but Court nothing philo- ante, turns to be but ment,” at out predilection sophical All manner of and moral intuition. inhere in the Constitution and us, tells “liberties,” Court notjust by in the those mentioned enforceable Court — society. Ante, of our or established the traditions text says only Why Amendment—which 847-849. even Ninth rights, “[t]he Constitution, of certain enumeration in the deny disparage retained others shall not be construed contrary understanding despite people” for our is,— years, literally additional, source of boundless almost “rights,” definable and enforceable unnamed, unhinted-at through judgment.” Ante, at “reasoned 848-849. us, application relevant to the bothersome What makes all this “political against pressure” twin the Court are the facts democracy people and the American that the American love (and thought people long are not As as this fools. doing essentially thought) people were that we Justices lawyers’ reading discerning up text and our work here — society’s public understanding traditional text —the pretty much left us Texts and traditions are facts alone. study, if in not convictions about. But real- to demonstrate ity adjudication primar- process our constitutional consists ily making judgments; ignore long if value we can clarifying ambiguous text, did, clear tradition as we for example, days declaring ago five unconstitutional invoca- public high graduation tions and benedictions at school cere- (1992); say, monies, Weisman, Lee v. I our if, 505 U. S. as pronouncement primarily on of constitutional law rests value to- people’s intelligent attitude a free judgments, then be) quite different. (ought to expected be can us wards quite as judgments are value their people know If, maybe better. any law taught in good those as school— are, by the Constitution protected “liberties” indeed, the people unbounded, then says, undefined the Court implement we do protest demonstrate, to should only confirmation that, but Not ours. instead their values hearings question- into deteriorate should new Justices through go a list Senators in which sessions and-answer alleged disfavored and most favored most constituents’ their commitment nominee’s seek the rights, and constitutional all, should judgments, after Value oppose them. support or some- our and if Constitution dictated; not on, voted be Supreme Court, to the them accidently committed how nomi- a new plebiscite each time a sort canwe least body put forward. Blackmun nee to Justice it. he equanimity, solicits prospect with regards only Ante, at 943.

[*] ^{[*] [*]} length, today’s opinion. Its aspect to poignant is a There au- suggest its epic tone, its might be called what and era a troublesome bringing an end they believe thors is the “It Court. of our history Nation of our contending “eal[l] say, they authority, dimension” division controversy national their to end of national sides by Constitution.” in the rooted mandate accepting common at 867. Ante, by Leutze portrait Emanuel vividly to mind comes There Taney, Roger Brooke Law School: hangs the Harvard Chief of his the 24th life, his year 82d 1859,

painted in He opinion Scott. in Dred after his Justiceship, the second hand left armchair, sitting red in a shadowed black, all in hanging right lap, hand paper his upon pad resting the chair. arm lifelessly, inner beside limply, almost straight There out. staring facing viewer He sits deep-set eyes, expres- and in his face, be on his seems to Perhaps profound he sadness and disillusionment. sion dwelling upon happi- always way, even when looked thoughts. the lustre those of us who know how est of But by Justiceship eclipsed great to be Dred his Chief came already help believing that had that ease—its cannot he Scott apparent consequences and its soon-to-be- for the Court burning consequences played-out on his for the Nation— years thought expect he, too, I earlier had mind. that two “eall[ing] contending sides of national contro- himself versy accepting a common end their national division mandate rooted the Constitution.” litigation, in this than it was It is no more realistic for us they that, for him in to think that an issue the sort both involving death, issue life freedom and involved—an subjugation finally “speedily settled” Su- —can inaugural preme Buchanan in his Court, President James slavery said the issue of in the territories would be. address Inaugural See of the Presidents of the Addresses United (1989). p. States, 101-10, to the con- S. Doc. No. Quite trary, by deep foreclosing pas- all outlet for the democratic by banishing po- arouses, sions this issue the issue from gives participants, forum that all losers, litical even the fight, by hearing satisfaction of a fair an honest continu- ing imposition rigid allowing of a rule national instead regional merely prolongs differences, and in- anguish. tensifies the get right

We should area, out where we have no country any be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the good by remaining.

Case Details

Case Name: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jun 29, 1992

Citation: 505 U.S. 833

Docket Number: 91-744

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS