Wade decision was morally wrong and strongly believed that it should, and could, be overturned. Other Americans, however, continued to just as strongly support the Roe v. Wade original decision. They had a deep moral belief that a woman should not be coerced by the country's law to bear a child if, for what she believes the reason, to do so. Having a child is a private or family decision as the U.S. Supreme Court's noted in its decision in1973
Thus, in 1992, both sides of the issue were concerned when the ruling once again went to the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood V Casey, this time with a new justice makeup. Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter were retired. The Court circulated an opinion upholding what was called the core of Roe but making it easier for states to regulate abortions. According to "Oyez," the Pennsylvania legislature had amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989 with the new provisions that the law required informed consent and a 24-hour waiting period before to the procedure. In addition, a minor wanting an abortion needed the consent of one parent and a married woman had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. Several abortion clinics and physicians challenged these new provisions. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. The question thus was posed: "Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right...
Wade?"
The ruling of Planned Parenthood V Casey, reaffirming Roe v Wade was very noteworthy, since it showed that the Court could maintain its earlier decisions. However, even more noteworthy were the actions of Stevens. The vote came down to a very derisive 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirming Roe, but upholding most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to decide validity of laws to restrict abortions: Whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the
fetus attains viability" (Oyez). Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. The Court opinion was unique: Three justices crafted and authored it. When receiving the draft of the three middle-ground justices, Stevens suggested a reorganization of their opinion so that he and Blackman could join most of it and there would be a single opinion that was supported by a court majority. Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter quickly agreed, and the opinion became the law of the
land (Totenberg, 2010). Reflecting back on these days, Stevens says with the more conservative court, it is much more difficult now to find a consensus. However, with his
retirement and a new justice, the
makeup will change again.
