Upholding a 40-Year-Old Promise: Why the Texas Sonogram Act is Unlawful According to Planned Parenthood v. Casey
This Article begins with a brief review in Part II of the three crucial Supreme Court cases on abortion rights: Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, and Gonzalez v. Carhart. Based on these cases, Part III formulates a constitutional test that courts should be using to determine whether an abortion regulation is constitutional that includes all of the factors identified by the Supreme Court as part of the “undue burden” analysis, factors that have been overlooked by many courts. Finally, Part IV applies this constitutional test to the Texas Sonogram Act, concluding that the act is unconstitutional because it: (1) requires the delivery of misleading, untruthful and irrelevant information; (2) unconstitutionally hinders women’s decision-making liberty; and (3) poses a substantial obstacle for a large fraction of the relevant group of women affected by the regulation.
Recommended CitationVicki Toscano and Elizabeth Reiter, Upholding a 40-Year-Old Promise: Why the Texas Sonogram Act is Unlawful According to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 34 Pace L. Rev. 128 (2014)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol34/iss1/4
Health Law and Policy Commons, Law and Gender Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons