For the most part, petitioners' argument is a reprise of their argument with respect to the informed consent requirement in general, and we reject it for the reasons given above. Hence, on therecord before us, and in the context of this facial challenge, we are not convinced that the 24-hour waiting period constitutes an undue burden. While purporting to adhere to precedent, the joint opinion instead revises it. Population Services International, , 684-686 1977 ; in Griswold v. The case was argued by attorney for , with Linda J. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society. At the other extreme, a different necessity would make itself felt if a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.
We conclude, however, that the urgent claims of the woman to retain the ultimate control over her destiny and her body, claims implicit in the meaning of liberty, require us to perform that function. If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal. The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the benefit of their spouses. The best that can be said is that through the course of this Court's decisions it has represented the balance which our Nation, built upon postulates of respect for the liberty of the individual, has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society. Many of our citizens believe that any abortion reflects an unacceptable disrespect for potential human life and that the performance of more than a million abortions each year is intolerable; many find third-trimester abortions performed when the fetus is approaching personhood particularly offensive. For each abortion performed, a report must be filed identifying: the physician and the second physician where required ; the facility; the referring physician or agency; the woman's age; the number of prior pregnancies and prior abortions she has had; gestational age; the type of abortion procedure; the date of the abortion; whether there were any pre-existing medical conditions which would complicate pregnancy; medical complications with the abortion; where applicable, the basis for the determination that the abortion was medically necessary; the weight of the aborted fetus; and whether the woman was married, and if so, whether notice was provided or the basis for the failure to give notice.
The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The of women in the United States were being challenged by the. It is the dimension present whenever the Court's interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. In fact, the opinion lauds Brown in comparing it to Roe. We next consider the parental consent provision. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.
Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. The Pennsylvania statute should be upheld in its entirety under the rational basis test. There is, first, a point beyond which frequent overruling would overtax the country's belief in the Court's good faith. Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. This is not to say, of course, that this Court cannot give a perfectly satisfactory explanation in most cases.
Virginia, , 520 1983 O'Connor, J. Population Services International, afford constitutional protection. California, , 532, 4 S. But now, just when so many expected the darkness to fall, the flame has grown bright. In general, Roe's requirement that restrictions on abortions before viability be justified by the State's interest in maternal health has prevented States from interjecting regulations designed to influence a woman's decision. This, too, we find consistent with Roe's central premises, and indeed the inevitable consequence of our holding that the State has an interest in protecting the life of the unborn.
There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts. The woman's liberty is not so unlimited, however, that from the outset the State cannot show its concern for the life of the unborn, and at a later point in fetal development the State's interest in life has sufficient force so that the right of the woman to terminate the pregnancy can be restricted. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U. The Commonwealth has failed to show that the name of the referring physician either adds to the pool of scientific knowledge concerning abortion or is reasonably related to the Commonwealth's interest in maternal health. Any judicial act of line drawing may seem somewhat arbitrary, but Roe was a reasoned statement, elaborated with great care.
The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. There is no reason to think that either Plessy or Lochner produced the sort of public protest when they were decided that Roe did. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Most of our cases since Roe have involved the application of rules derived from the trimester framework. The Roe Court reached too far when it analogized the right to abort a fetus to the rights involved in Pierce v. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address Mar. To the extent that the opinions of the Court or of individual Justices use the undue burden standard in a manner that is inconsistent with this analysis, we set out what in our view should be the controlling standard.
And it falls to us to give some real substance to the woman's liberty to determine whether to carry her pregnancy to full term. Another provision of the Act requires that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband of her intended abortion. The women most affected by this law--those who most reasonably fear the consequences of notifying their husbands that they are pregnant--are in the gravest danger. See Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. But just as the Court should not respond to that sort of protest by retreating from the decision simply to allay the concerns of the protesters, it should likewise not respond by determining to adhere to the decision at all costs lest it seem to be retreating under fire. Where the husband is the father, the primary reason women do not notify their husbands is that the husband and wife are experiencing marital difficulties, often accompanied by incidents of violence.
It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight Amendments to the Constitution. The woman has the option of providing an alternative signed statement certifying that her husband is not the man who impregnated her; that her husband could not be located; that the pregnancy is the result of spousal sexual assault which she has reported; or that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her. In fact, one can not be sure to what economic and social developments the opinion is referring. To the extent that the opinions of the Court or of individual Justices use the undue burden standard in a manner that is inconsistent with this analysis, we set out what in our view should be the controlling standard. Similar examples may be found in Turner v.
We are left with the argument that the various aspects of the informed consent required are unconstitutional because they place barriers in the way of abortion on demand. Numerous forms of state regulation might have the incidental effect of increasing the cost or decreasing the availability of medical care, whether for abortion or any other medical procedure. The Court's power lies, rather, in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people's acceptance of the Judiciary as fit to determine what the Nation's law means and to declare what it demands. By the turn of the century virtually every State had a law prohibiting or restricting abortion on its books. Indeed, some of the provisions regarding informed consent have particular force with respect to minors: the waiting period, for example, may provide the parent or parents of a pregnant young woman the opportunity to consult with her in private, and to discuss the consequences of her decision in the context of the values and moral or religious principles of their family. We adhere to this principle for two reasons. Reproductive Health Services, , 563-572, 109 S.