Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

filed: October 30, 1992.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND COUNSELING CENTER, WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES, INC., WOMEN'S SUBURBAN CLINIC, ALLENTOWN WOMEN'S CENTER, ALLEN, THOMAS, M.D., ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v.
CASEY, ROBERT P., RICHARDS, N. MARK, PREATE, ERNEST, PERSONALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, AND MARINO, MICHAEL D., PERSONALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. ROBERT P. CASEY, N. MARK RICHARDS AND ERNEST D. PREATE, JR., APPELLANTS



Before: Stapleton, Alito and Seitz, Circuit Judges.

Author: Seitz

Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (D.C. Civil Action No. 88-3228)

Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States

Nos. 91-902 and 91-744

Opinion OF THE COURT

SEITZ, Circuit Judge.

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld, with two exceptions, the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3203-3220 (1990) (the "Act"). Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992). It, in substance, affirmed our earlier judgment in this matter. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991).

In its implementing mandate the Court first stated that

the judgment in No. 91-902 "is affirmed." The petition for certiorari in that case had been filed by defendants-appellants, Casey, et al. (No. 91-902) (the "Commonwealth") attacking the judgment of this court to the extent that it had affirmed the district court's judgment that § 3209 of the Act (spousal notice) was unconstitutional. Since the judgment of our court was affirmed unconditionally on that claim, it is not of further relevance at this point.

In the second part of its mandate the Court stated:

The judgment in No. 91-744 is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of the question of severability.

Thus, the judgment in No. 91-744 affirmed this court's rejection of the constitutional attacks mounted by the plaintiffs ("Clinics") on several portions of the Act. However, the Court reversed our judgment in part. We interpret that portion of the mandate to be based on the fact that we did not go on to declare the related subsection 14(a)(12) of § 3214 (report to Department of Health showing spousal notice) unconstitutional. Pursuant to the Court's mandate, we will therefore amend our judgment to include a provision also invalidating subsection 14(a)(12) of § 3214 of the Act.

We turn now to the portion of the mandate directing us to consider the question of the severability of the balance of the Act from the two provisions declared unconstitutional.

The first provision declared unconstitutional by the Court is ยง 3209, entitled "Spousal Notice." It reads ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.