Talk:Planned Parenthood v. Casey

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

Pennsylvania Top‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Deletion[edit]

User 71.96.138.95 has inserted and then re-inserted her opinion that O'Connor declared her support of Roe v. Wade in her opinion in Webster v. Planned Parenthood. I encourage everyone to read O'Connor's opinion in Webster; nowhere does she declare her support for Roe v. Wade. 71.96.138.95 has also inserted her opinion that Justice Stevens had "long since developed a liberal reputation" and that Justice White was a "moderate conservative." White was very, very liberal in his interpretation of the commerce clause and on busing issues; 71.96.138.95, who provoked a similar silly discussion by repeatedly describing Anthony Kennedy as a "liberal" on the Anthony Kennedy page, seems to think the only thing that matters in con. interpretation is how broadly one interprets the 14th amendment. Justice Stevens similarly is not really a judicial liberal; he believes the death penalty to be constitutional, for example, a view most judicial liberals disagree with. And once again 71.96.138.95 refuses to respond on the talk page. So I am reverting Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Now the same anon user defends her claim that O'Connor was an "obvious" supporter with another reference to Webster and a reference to Rust v. Sullivan. If anon user had read Rust with an eye towards anything other than the result O'Connor supported, she would have found that O'Connor dissented entirely on statutory, not constitutional grounds. Let me repeat that: O'Connor disagreed as to how the majority had interpreted the statute at issue in Rust, and specifically avoided giving her opinion on constitutional matters. Similarly, anon user cites Webster in a very deceptive manner. O'Connor did not say in Webster it would always violate judicial restraint to reconsider Roe (which is how anon spins her partial quotation from O'Connor), but only argued that it was unnecessary to reconsider Roe in the context of the Webster litigation. Here is the full quote: "Unlike the plurality, I do not understand these viability testing requirements to conflict with any of the Court's past decisions concerning state regulation of abortion. Therefore, there is no necessity to accept the State's invitation to reexamine the constitutional validity of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." (Italics added). So I am reverting. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Court Case Task Force[edit]

I added the template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events/Court Case Task Force. That's because Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is a current court case, and is highly significant for overruling both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Breastone (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark?[edit]

Was this actually a landmark case? Roe was, but all Casey did was affirm Roe and impose the undue burden standard of review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avica1998 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the first time Roe could have reasonably been expected to be struck down, and the court did not. It also established the “undue burden” standard regarding abortion restrictions. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this was absolutely a landmark case per the standard described in WP: LANDMARK. It involved significant legal developments in a particularly significant area of law. There is a strong consensus, too, among reliable sources that this decision was majorly impactful. It's labeled properly. -- Ex Parte ^talk 18:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Casey is a highly cited case.Asr1014 (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is the "significant new legal principle or concept"?

2. What is the overturned prior precedent?

I concede the points on departure from prior practice consistent with stare decisis and the establishment of a measurable standard.
Avica1998 (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to meet all 4 of those categories. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ExParte, I agree its been the popular convention to name it thus but there's no support for it from the legal community:

[American Bar Association]

[USCourts.gov] Avica1998 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]