The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.

A law is unconstitutional as an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion before fetal
viability, if the law places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeks to exercise her right
-    for two decades people have organized lives relying on the availability of abortion -    Such a divisive decision as Roe should only be overturned if it proves unworkable or if
new information arises which renders the decision unjustified in the present -    Roe is neither unworkable nor based on outdated assumptions. Medical technology has altered the age of viability, but that does not affect the validity of viability as a dividing line. Viability is the point at which a fetus can be said to be an independent life, so that the state’s interest in protecting it then outweighs the mother’s decision-making interest
-    The liberty rights of women and the personal, intimate nature of child bearing sharply limit state power to insist a woman to carry a childe to term or accept the state’s vision of her role in society.
-    Thus the integrity of the Court, stare decisis, and substantive due process require the central principle of Roe to be reaffirmed: a state may not prevent a woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability
-    A father’s fundamental right to decision making over his children does not attach until birth because the natural state of pregnancy inherently has a far greater impact on a mother’s liberty then on the father’s
Summary: -    to protect the central right recognized by Roe while at the same time
accommodating the States profound interest in potential life, we will employ an undue burden analysis as explained in this opinion (“substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement.) 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
-    we reject the rigid trimester framework of Roe. To promote the State’s profound interest in potential life, throughout pregnancy the State may take measures to ensure that the woman’s choice is informed and measures designed to advance this interest will not be invalidated as long as their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right
-    As with any medical procedure, the State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion. Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion to impose an undue burden on the right
-    Our adoption of the undue burden analysis does not disturb the central holding of Roe and we reaffirm that holding. Regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability
-    We reaffirm Roe’s holding that “subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its
interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother