Abortion in the United States

===''Planned Parenthood v. Casey''===
In the 1992 case of ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', the Court abandoned ''Roe's'' strict trimester framework but maintained its central holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion before viability.<ref name=Casey /> ''Roe'' had held that statutes regulating abortion must be subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]"—the traditional Supreme Court test for impositions upon fundamental [[Constitution of the United States|Constitutional]] rights. ''Casey'' instead adopted the lower, [[undue burden]] standard for evaluating state abortion restrictions,<ref name=Casey>{{ussc|name=Planned Parenthood v. Casey|505|833|1992|source=j|pin=878}} ("(a) To protect the central right recognized by ''Roe v. Wade'' while at the same time accommodating the State's profound interest in potential life, we will employ the undue burden analysis as explained in this opinion. An undue burden exists, and therefore, a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.")</ref> but re-emphasized the right to abortion as grounded in the general sense of liberty and privacy protected under the constitution: "Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. It declares that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is 'liberty'."<ref>''Planned Parenthood v. Casey'', {{ussc|505|833|1992|source=j|pin=846}}</ref>

The Supreme Court continues to make decisions on this subject. On April 18, 2007, it issued a ruling in the case of ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'', involving a federal law entitled the [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act|Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]] which President [[George W. Bush]] had signed into law. The law banned [[intact dilation and extraction]], which opponents of abortion rights referred to as "partial-birth abortion", and stipulated that anyone breaking the law would get a prison sentence up to 2.5 years. The United States Supreme Court upheld the 2003 ban by a narrow majority of 5–4, marking the first time the Court has allowed a ban on any type of abortion since 1973. The opinion, which came from justice Anthony Kennedy, was joined by Justices [[Antonin Scalia]], [[Clarence Thomas]], and the two recent appointees, [[Samuel Alito]] and Chief Justice [[John G. Roberts|John Roberts]].

In the case of ''[[Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt]]'', the Supreme Court in a 5–3 decision on June 27, 2016, swept away forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function. The Texas legislature enacted in 2013 restrictions on the delivery of abortions services that, it was argued by its opponents, created an undue burden for women seeking an abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain "admitting privileges" at a local hospital and by requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. The Court supported this argument and struck down these two provisions "facially" from [[Texas House Bill 2|the law at issue]]—that is, the very words of the provisions were invalid, no matter how they might be applied in any practical situation. According to the Supreme Court, the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to abortion belongs with the courts, and not the legislatures.<ref name="20160627SCOTUSDenniston">{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-abortion-rights-reemerge-strongly/|title=Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt – Opinion analysis: Abortion rights reemerge strongly|last=Denniston|first=Lyle|date=June 27, 2016|website=SCOTUSblog|access-date=June 29, 2016}}</ref>

The Supreme Court ruled similarly in ''[[June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo]]'' on June 29, 2020, in a 5–4 decision that a Louisiana state law, modeled after the Texas law at the center of ''Whole Woman's Health'', was unconstitutional.<ref name="nytimes june medical decision"/> Like Texas' law,  the Louisiana law required certain measures for abortion clinics that, if having gone into effect, would have closed five of the six clinics in the state. The case in Louisiana was put on hold pending the result of ''Whole Woman's Health'', and was retried based on the Supreme Court's decision. While the District Court ruled the law unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit found that unlike the Texas law, the burden of the Louisiana law passed the tests outlined in ''Whole Woman's Health'', and thus the law was constitutional. The Supreme Court issued an order to suspend enforcement of the law pending further review, and agreed to hear the case in full in October 2019. It was the first abortion-related case to be heard by President [[Donald Trump]]'s appointees to the Court, [[Neil Gorsuch]] and [[Brett Kavanaugh]].<ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-review-ruling-on-louisiana-abortion-law/2019/10/04/85eaf2b0-e6ab-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html | title = Supreme Court to review ruling on Louisiana abortion law | first= Robert | last= Barnes | date =  October 4, 2019 | access-date = October 4, 2019 | newspaper = [[The Washington Post]] }}</ref> The Supreme Court found the Louisiana law unconstitutional for the same reasons as the Texas one, reversing the Fifth Circuit. The judgment was supported by Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] who had dissented on ''Whole Woman's Health'' but joined in judgment as to upholding the court's respect for the past judgment in that case.<ref name="nytimes june medical decision">{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana.html | title = Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions | first= Adam | last =Liptak | date = June 29, 2020 |access-date = June 29, 2020 | work  = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref>