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."
Michael F. Moses,
Casey and Its Impact on Abortion Regulation,
31 Fordham Urb. L.J. 805
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol31/iss3/7