Friday will mark the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. This case involved the constitutionality of several provisions included in Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act and marked the most recent time that the Supreme Court reconsidered its holdings in Roe v. Wade.
When the Supreme Court refused to reverse Roe, it was a substantial setback for the anti-abortion movement. Still, the 20 years since Casey are a story of legislative, political, social and legal progress for the movement — progress that has occurred not only because of perseverance but also because the movement shrewdly used legal openings granted to them through the Casey decision.
The movement has devoted few resources to chronicling its own history, so many people forget how much it had invested in the Casey decision. During the early 1980s, the political strategy shifted from enacting a constitutional amendment to changing the composition of the Supreme Court. At this time, a more conservative Supreme Court seemed almost inevitable, considering the fact that the Republicans controlled both the presidency and the Senate. Indeed, from 1980 to 1992, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointed five new Supreme Court justices. As such, a reversal of Roe v. Wade appeared not just plausible, but likely. That is what made the Supreme Court’s Casey decision so disappointing.
Beyond Casey, there existed plenty of reasons for pessimism. 1992 saw the election of the first president publicly committed to keeping abortion legal. There was serious discussion about removing the abortion plank from the Republican Party’s platform, and governors who supported abortion rights such as Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, William Weld of Massachusetts and Pete Wilson of California were heralded as the future of the Republican Party.
Even worse, the anti-abortion side was losing ground in the court of public opinion. Gallup surveys found that the percentage of people who felt abortion should be “legal under any circumstances” had been steadily increasing since the 1970s. As a result, there were good reasons to question the long-term political viability of the movement.
However, the Casey decision contained a silver lining. Even though the Supreme Court did not overturn Roe v. Wade, it abandoned the trimester framework invented in Roe and adopted a doctrine of “undue burden.” This allowed for state regulation of abortion as long as the regulation did not impose an “undue burden” on the woman seeking an abortion.
Under this new standard, the Casey decision upheld most of the provisions included in Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act, including the parental consent provision, the reporting requirements, the waiting period and the informed consent language. Only the spousal notification requirement was struck down.
The constitutional protection Casey granted these laws, coupled with gains in numerous state legislatures since 1992, has led to a substantial increase in the number of state-level laws restricting abortion.
Americans United for Life reports that since 1992, the number of states with parental involvement laws has increased from 20 to 38. The number of states with informed consent laws has increased from 18 to 33. The number of states with abortion clinic regulations has increased from 21 to 30. More importantly, after Casey, many states strengthened existing restrictions. In particular, several states improved their informed consent laws by including more information about health risks, fetal development and sources of support for single mothers.
Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations for the IRS, arrives for a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the investigation of the IRS' targeting of political groups. Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right to not testify and caused a protest from some committee members when she offered an opening statement and engaged in dialogue with members before invoking the right.
Roll Call has launched a new feature, Hill Navigator, to advise congressional staffers and would-be staffers on how to manage workplace issues on Capitol Hill. Please send us your questions anything from office etiquette, to handling awkward moments, to what happens when the work life gets too personal. Submissions will be treated anonymously.