Is a state's abortion law constitutional if it imposes requirements such as informed consent, waiting periods, parental and spousal notifications, and reporting mandates?

Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, imposed several requirements on women seeking abortions. These included a 24-hour waiting period after receiving informed consent, parental consent for minors, spousal notification, and reporting requirements for abortion facilities. Five abortion clinics and a physician, representing a class of doctors providing abortion services, filed a lawsuit challenging these provisions.

The plaintiffs sought to have the Act's requirements declared unconstitutional. Their legal action specifically targeted the informed consent requirement with its mandatory waiting period, the parental consent provision for minors, the spousal notification mandate, and the reporting obligations imposed on abortion facilities.

The plaintiffs challenged certain provisions of a law as unconstitutional and filed suit in the District Court. The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding all the challenged provisions unconstitutional. The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of these provisions.

The defendants appealed the District Court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals partially affirmed and partially reversed the lower court's ruling. It upheld most of the District Court's decision but reversed on one provision, finding the spousal notification requirement to be constitutional.

Following the Court of Appeals' decision, one of the parties petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case and review the Court of Appeals' decision.

(O'Connor, J.)

Yes. A state's abortion law is constitutional if it imposes certain requirements, provided they do not create an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. The right to abortion before fetal viability remains protected under the Constitution's Due Process Clause. However, states have a legitimate interest in potential life throughout pregnancy. The undue burden test balances these competing interests, allowing regulations that do not have the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. Informed consent requirements, waiting periods, and reporting mandates are permissible as they further the state's interest in ensuring thoughtful decision-making and protecting maternal health. Parental consent requirements for minors, with a judicial bypass option, are also constitutional as they promote the state's interest in protecting immature minors and preserving family integrity. These regulations do not unduly interfere with the right to choose abortion. However, spousal notification requirements impose an undue burden, as they could prevent a significant number of women from obtaining abortions. Such provisions are rooted in outdated views of women's role in marriage and fail to account for potential domestic abuse situations. The undue burden standard provides a framework for evaluating abortion regulations that respects both the right to choose and the state's interest in potential life. This approach allows for reasonable regulation while preserving the essential holding of Roe v. Wade and adhering to the principle of stare decisis. The balance struck ensures that the right to abortion remains protected while acknowledging evolving societal interests and medical knowledge.

Concurrence/Dissent (Stevens, J.) The 24-hour waiting period is unconstitutional. The Court should have applied strict scrutiny rather than the undue burden test. This approach would better protect women's fundamental rights and ensure that state regulations are narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests. The undue burden standard risks allowing excessive state interference in personal decisions.

Concurrence/Dissent (Blackmun, J.) Roe v. Wade should be reaffirmed in its entirety. Strict scrutiny must be maintained for all abortion regulations to adequately protect women's constitutional rights. The undue burden test adopted by the plurality opinion weakens the protections established in Roe and may allow states to impose significant obstacles to abortion access under the guise of regulation.

Concurrence/Dissent (Rehnquist, J.) Roe v. Wade should be overruled. Abortion regulations should be subject only to rational basis review, as the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion. The Court's creation of a fundamental right to abortion in Roe was an overreach of judicial authority and inconsistent with the proper interpretation of the Due Process Clause.

Concurrence/Dissent (Scalia, J.) The Constitution does not protect a right to abortion. Roe v. Wade must be overruled as it has no basis in constitutional text or history. This issue should be left to the democratic process, allowing states to regulate or prohibit abortion as their citizens see fit. The Court's continued adherence to Roe represents an unjustified intrusion into the legislative sphere.