•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Given the Supreme Court's shift from a strict scrutiny standard to an "undue burden" standard in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, this article advocates for application of the standard in a way that is deferential to state legislatures. The author finds a number of problems with the holding in Casey for which it seeks judicial and legislative action: the undue burden standard is vague; it is unclear whether the burden should be upon everyone or "some people"; and the holding allows court to strike laws that have not gone into effect, therefore evidence of their impact is "speculative."

Share

COinS