•  
  •  
 

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
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.