Law can be a messy, confusing business. If you ask most people about the history of abortion rights in the United States, they immediately point to Roe v. Wade. It's the big one. The household name. But for thirty years, the case that actually dictated how life worked for millions of people wasn't Roe—it was Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
Decided in 1992, Casey was a weird, sprawling, and deeply influential middle ground. It didn't just uphold the right to an abortion; it fundamentally changed how that right functioned. It introduced a legal standard called "undue burden" that basically set the stage for every state-level battle we’ve seen over the last three decades.
The 1992 Surprise
Everyone thought Roe was dead. Honestly. By the time the 1990s rolled around, the Supreme Court had shifted significantly to the right. Presidents Reagan and Bush had appointed several conservative justices, including David Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy. The legal world was holding its breath, expecting the Court to use the Pennsylvania case to officially toss Roe into the trash bin of history.
Pennsylvania had passed the Abortion Control Act of 1982. It was a restrictive piece of legislation. It required a 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, and—most controversially—notifying a spouse before getting the procedure. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania sued, arguing these rules were unconstitutional.
Then something strange happened.
Instead of a clean break, we got a fractured "plurality" opinion. Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter formed a trio. They weren't willing to kill Roe, but they weren't willing to let it stand as it was, either. They wanted a compromise. It was a "save it by changing it" move that basically redefined the rules of the game while everyone was already on the field.
Throwing Out the Trimester Framework
Before 1992, the law was built on the "trimester framework." In the first three months, the state basically had no power to stop an abortion. In the second, they could regulate for health. In the third, they could ban it.
Casey looked at that and said, "No."
🔗 Read more: How Much Did Trump Add to the National Debt Explained (Simply)
The Court decided the trimester system was too rigid. It didn't account for medical advances. Instead, they replaced it with viability. That’s the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb. Usually, that’s around 23 or 24 weeks, though technology keeps pushing that boundary.
This was a massive shift. It meant that before viability, a state could regulate abortion as long as it didn't create an "undue burden."
What is an undue burden? That’s where things got really complicated. The Court defined it as a state regulation that has the purpose or effect of placing a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."
The Spousal Notification Fight
The specific rules in Pennsylvania provided a roadmap for what was allowed and what wasn't. The Court looked at the 24-hour waiting period and said, "That’s fine." They looked at the parental consent for minors (with a judicial bypass) and said, "That’s also fine."
But the spousal notification? That was a bridge too far.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote passionately about the reality of domestic abuse. She argued that requiring a woman to tell her husband could lead to physical or psychological retaliation. For those women, the law wasn't just a hurdle; it was a wall. The Court struck that part down, making it clear that a woman's right to choose didn't belong to her husband.
It's a rare moment of the law looking at the messy, scary reality of life and saying that "privacy" means more than just being left alone—it means being safe.
💡 You might also like: The Galveston Hurricane 1900 Orphanage Story Is More Tragic Than You Realized
Stare Decisis: Why They Didn't Just Overrule Roe
You might wonder why a conservative-leaning court didn't just end it all in '92. The answer lies in a Latin phrase: stare decisis. It basically means "to stand by things decided."
The plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey argued that the Court’s legitimacy depended on its consistency. If the Court flips its biggest decisions every time a new president appoints a justice, it stops looking like a court of law and starts looking like a second legislature.
They felt that people had built their lives around the availability of abortion. Careers, relationships, and family planning were all predicated on this right existing. Tearing it down, they argued, would cause "profound" social damage. It was a conservative argument for a liberal outcome.
The Legacy of the "Undue Burden" Standard
The "undue burden" standard became a bit of a nightmare for lower courts. It was vague. What one judge thought was a "substantial obstacle," another judge thought was just a minor inconvenience.
For thirty years, states tested these limits. They passed laws requiring clinics to have the same hallway widths as hospitals (TRAP laws). They required doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Some of these were struck down by the Supreme Court—like in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt—and some were allowed to stand.
Because Casey gave states more power to regulate before viability, it created a "zip code" reality for abortion access. If you lived in a state that wanted to protect the right, Casey didn't change much. If you lived in a state that wanted to restrict it, Casey gave them the tools to make it incredibly difficult, even if it was technically "legal."
The End of the Casey Era
Everything changed in 2022. The Supreme Court took up Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Unlike the 1992 court, the 2022 court was ready to make the clean break.
📖 Related: Why the Air France Crash Toronto Miracle Still Changes How We Fly
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, didn't just overturn Roe; he specifically dismantled the logic of Casey. He argued that the "undue burden" standard was unworkable and had "constantly baffled" lower courts. He dismissed the idea that stare decisis required the court to keep a "wrongly decided" case on the books.
With that, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey was gone.
Why We Still Talk About It
You can't understand the current legal landscape without knowing Casey. It was the bridge. It was the era of "legal but restricted." It taught us that rights aren't just about what the law says on paper; they are about how many hoops you have to jump through to exercise them.
Today, the battle has shifted from "what is an undue burden?" to "does the state have any limits at all?" In many parts of the country, the answer is no.
The story of Casey is a reminder that the law isn't a straight line. It’s a series of compromises, reactions, and shifts in philosophy. It showed that even when the Supreme Court tries to find a "middle way," the tension on both sides usually ends up pulling the middle apart.
Practical Realities to Keep in Mind
If you're trying to navigate the post-Casey world, here are a few things to consider:
- State Constitutions Matter Now: Since the federal "undue burden" standard is dead, the fight has moved to state courts. Some state constitutions (like Michigan or Kansas) have been interpreted to provide stronger protections than the federal government ever did.
- Legislative Changes are Constant: Because there is no longer a federal floor for abortion rights, laws are changing month to month. Staying updated requires looking at state-specific trackers like the Guttmacher Institute or the Center for Reproductive Rights.
- Medical Definitions Vary: The "viability" standard from Casey is no longer the legal benchmark in many states. Some use "fetal heartbeat" or "conception" as the new line, which has massive implications for medical providers and emergency care.
- Vote Local: Decisions about reproductive health are now almost entirely in the hands of state legislators and governors. Local elections for state supreme court justices and attorneys general now carry the weight that used to be reserved for federal appointments.
The era of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey was defined by a specific kind of legal tension. It was a thirty-year experiment in seeing if the country could live with a right that was constantly being squeezed. With that experiment over, we are now seeing the full consequences of its absence.