Con Law: Planned Parenthood v. Casey

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Inter Alia
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:34 pm

Con Law: Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Postby Inter Alia » Mon May 03, 2010 10:41 pm

The opinion doesn't mention fundamental rights or strict scrutiny, instead they use the undue burden standard. So, when analyzing an abortion regulation is the only issue whether it places an undue burden on the woman's right to choose? In other words: is strict scrutiny irrelevant when analyzing abortion regulations under substantive due process??

Bankhead
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:50 am

Re: Con Law: Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Postby Bankhead » Mon May 03, 2010 10:43 pm

Inter Alia wrote:The opinion doesn't mention fundamental rights or strict scrutiny, instead they use the undue burden standard. So, when analyzing an abortion regulation is the only issue whether it places an undue burden on the woman's right to choose? In other words: is strict scrutiny irrelevant when analyzing abortion regulations under substantive due process??


Undue burden standard is a test under strict scrutiny. Abortion is a fundamental right, so strict scrutiny applies (already established under prior case law).

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Con Law: Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Postby 270910 » Mon May 03, 2010 10:46 pm

Bankhead wrote:
Inter Alia wrote:The opinion doesn't mention fundamental rights or strict scrutiny, instead they use the undue burden standard. So, when analyzing an abortion regulation is the only issue whether it places an undue burden on the woman's right to choose? In other words: is strict scrutiny irrelevant when analyzing abortion regulations under substantive due process??


Undue burden standard is a test under strict scrutiny. Abortion is a fundamental right, so strict scrutiny applies.


It's a semantics thing, but you don't really get anywhere by calling it a fundamental right. The court replaced all of the analysis you would usually do with a different test.

User avatar
Inter Alia
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: Con Law: Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Postby Inter Alia » Mon May 03, 2010 10:52 pm

disco_barred wrote:
Bankhead wrote:
Inter Alia wrote:The opinion doesn't mention fundamental rights or strict scrutiny, instead they use the undue burden standard. So, when analyzing an abortion regulation is the only issue whether it places an undue burden on the woman's right to choose? In other words: is strict scrutiny irrelevant when analyzing abortion regulations under substantive due process??


Undue burden standard is a test under strict scrutiny. Abortion is a fundamental right, so strict scrutiny applies.


It's a semantics thing, but you don't really get anywhere by calling it a fundamental right. The court replaced all of the analysis you would usually do with a different test.



Okay, awesome. Thank you both so much. I swear con law is driving me insane with all this nonsense - I think I've been looking at it too long. Anyways, thanks!

eth3n
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:36 pm

Re: Con Law: Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Postby eth3n » Mon May 03, 2010 10:58 pm

disco_barred wrote:It's a semantics thing, but you don't really get anywhere by calling it a fundamental right. The court replaced all of the analysis you would usually do with a different test.


+1, I would not suggest saying it is the strict scrutiny/fundamental right test on your final unless your prof is the one that told you that




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests