Which case reaffirmed Roe but allowed abortion restrictions that do not place an undue burden?

Which case reaffirmed Roe but allowed abortion restrictions that do not place an undue burden?

• A. Roe v. Wade
• B. Gonzales v. Carhart
• C. Planned Parenthood v. Casey
• D. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Answer: (C)

The key idea is the standard used to judge abortion restrictions and how the Court treats a woman’s right before viability. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe’s recognition that women have a constitutional right to choose an abortion before the fetus is viable. At the same time, Casey replaced Roe’s trimester framework with the undue burden standard. Under this standard, states may regulate abortions before viability, but only if the regulation does not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. That means many restrictions are permissible if they do not create an undue burden, while restrictions that do place a substantial obstacle are unconstitutional. This combination—upholding Roe’s core right while permitting reasonable restrictions—explains why this case fits the description best.

The key idea is the standard used to judge abortion restrictions and how the Court treats a woman’s right before viability. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe’s recognition that women have a constitutional right to choose an abortion before the fetus is viable. At the same time, Casey replaced Roe’s trimester framework with the undue burden standard. Under this standard, states may regulate abortions before viability, but only if the regulation does not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. That means many restrictions are permissible if they do not create an undue burden, while restrictions that do place a substantial obstacle are unconstitutional. This combination—upholding Roe’s core right while permitting reasonable restrictions—explains why this case fits the description best.