{"title":"计划生育联合会诉凯西案:最高法院对理性的逃避。","authors":"Paul Benjamin Linton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3201636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a bare majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. Although Roe was not directly implicated by any of the statutes challenged in Casey, all of which could have been upheld without overruling Roe, the Justices agreed to reexamine Roe because of the uncertainty regarding its continued viability and the need to provide guidance to state and federal courts and state legislatures. The result of this reexamination, however, was a badly divided Court that could not muster a majority in support of any standard of re-","PeriodicalId":82633,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University public law review","volume":"13 1 1","pages":"15-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the flight from reason in the Supreme Court.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Benjamin Linton\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3201636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a bare majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. Although Roe was not directly implicated by any of the statutes challenged in Casey, all of which could have been upheld without overruling Roe, the Justices agreed to reexamine Roe because of the uncertainty regarding its continued viability and the need to provide guidance to state and federal courts and state legislatures. The result of this reexamination, however, was a badly divided Court that could not muster a majority in support of any standard of re-\",\"PeriodicalId\":82633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Saint Louis University public law review\",\"volume\":\"13 1 1\",\"pages\":\"15-137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Saint Louis University public law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3201636\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saint Louis University public law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3201636","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the flight from reason in the Supreme Court.
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a bare majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. Although Roe was not directly implicated by any of the statutes challenged in Casey, all of which could have been upheld without overruling Roe, the Justices agreed to reexamine Roe because of the uncertainty regarding its continued viability and the need to provide guidance to state and federal courts and state legislatures. The result of this reexamination, however, was a badly divided Court that could not muster a majority in support of any standard of re-