Azərbaycanca
Deutsch
English
Français
Русский
ภาษาไทย
Українська
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case on abortion. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a Missouri statute regulating abortion. The Court upheld the right to have an abortion, declaring unconstitutional the statute's requirement of prior written consent from a parent (in the case of a minor) or a spouse (in the case of a married woman).
| Planned Parenthood v. Danforth | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued March 23, 1976 Decided July 1, 1976 | |
| Full case name | Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri, et al. v. John C. Danforth, et al. |
| Citations | 428 U.S. 52 (more) 96 S. Ct. 2831; 49 L. Ed. 2d 788; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 13 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 392 F. Supp. 1362 (E.D. Mo. 1975); probable jurisdiction noted, 423 U.S. 819 (1975). |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell; Stevens (in all but Parts IV-D and IV-E); and Burger, White, and Rehnquist (in all but Parts IV-C, IV-D, IV-E, and IV-G) |
| Concurrence | Stewart, joined by Powell |
| Concur/dissent | White, joined by Burger, Rehnquist |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| Missouri House Act 1211 | |
Superseded by | |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) | |
Background of the case
The District Court's ruling
The plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, seeking injunctive relief. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, the court convened a three-judge panel to try the case. The panel consisted of Eighth Circuit Judge William Hedgcock Webster, District Judge Harris Kenneth Wangelin, and Senior District Judge Roy Winfield Harper. The court held that Section 6(1) of the challenged act, which "prescribe[d] the standard of care which a person performing an abortion must exercise for the protection of the fetus" was unconstitutionally overbroad. It upheld the rest of the challenged act. Judge Webster concurred with the panel majority in finding 6(1) overboard and upholding "the constitutional validity of Section 2(2)[1] (defining "viability"), Section 3(2) (requiring the woman's written consent to an abortion), Section 10 (maintenance of records) and Section 11 (retention of records)." He dissented from the majority opinion with respect to four other provisions: 3(3) (spousal consent requirement), 3(4) (parental consent requirement), 7 (termination of parental rights if child is born alive), and 9 (prohibition of saline amniocentesis method of abortion). Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 392 F.Supp. 1362, 1365 (E.D. Missouri 1975).
The Court's opinions
The majority opinion
The court struck down the provisions of the statute that required spousal and parental consent to obtain an abortion. The court upheld the statute's recordkeeping requirement for abortion facilities and physicians that perform abortions.
In addressing the issue of spousal consent, the Court upheld the lower court's decision that just as the state could not regulate or proscribe abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy nor could the state "delegate to a spouse veto power."
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 428
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), established the constitutional right to privacy
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)
- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
References
- Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976).
- Young, Julia L. (1977). "Constitutional Law: Elimination of Spousal and Parental Consent Requirements for Abortion". Washburn Law Journal. 16 (2): 463–464. PMID 11664766. Retrieved April 16, 2014.
- Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 392 F. Supp. 1362 (E.D. Mo. 1975).
Further reading
- Moss, G. W. (1976). "Abortion Statutes after Danforth: An Examination". Journal of Family Law. 15 (3): 537–67. PMID 11663802.
External links
![image]()
Works related to Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth at Wikisource- Text of Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Author: www.NiNa.Az
Publication date:
wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library, article, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games, mobile, phone, android, ios, apple, mobile phone, samsung, iphone, xiomi, xiaomi, redmi, honor, oppo, nokia, sonya, mi, pc, web, computer
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth 428 U S 52 1976 is a United States Supreme Court case on abortion The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a Missouri statute regulating abortion The Court upheld the right to have an abortion declaring unconstitutional the statute s requirement of prior written consent from a parent in the case of a minor or a spouse in the case of a married woman Planned Parenthood v DanforthSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 23 1976 Decided July 1 1976Full case namePlanned Parenthood of Central Missouri et al v John C Danforth et al Citations428 U S 52 more 96 S Ct 2831 49 L Ed 2d 788 1976 U S LEXIS 13Case historyPrior392 F Supp 1362 E D Mo 1975 probable jurisdiction noted 423 U S 819 1975 Court membershipChief Justice Warren E Burger Associate Justices William J Brennan Jr Potter Stewart Byron White Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun Lewis F Powell Jr William Rehnquist John P StevensCase opinionsMajorityBlackmun joined by Brennan Stewart Marshall and Powell Stevens in all but Parts IV D and IV E and Burger White and Rehnquist in all but Parts IV C IV D IV E and IV G ConcurrenceStewart joined by PowellConcur dissentWhite joined by Burger RehnquistConcur dissentStevensLaws appliedMissouri House Act 1211Superseded byDobbs v Jackson Women s Health Organization 2022 Background of the caseThe District Court s ruling The plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking injunctive relief Pursuant to 28 U S C 2281 the court convened a three judge panel to try the case The panel consisted of Eighth Circuit Judge William Hedgcock Webster District Judge Harris Kenneth Wangelin and Senior District Judge Roy Winfield Harper The court held that Section 6 1 of the challenged act which prescribe d the standard of care which a person performing an abortion must exercise for the protection of the fetus was unconstitutionally overbroad It upheld the rest of the challenged act Judge Webster concurred with the panel majority in finding 6 1 overboard and upholding the constitutional validity of Section 2 2 1 defining viability Section 3 2 requiring the woman s written consent to an abortion Section 10 maintenance of records and Section 11 retention of records He dissented from the majority opinion with respect to four other provisions 3 3 spousal consent requirement 3 4 parental consent requirement 7 termination of parental rights if child is born alive and 9 prohibition of saline amniocentesis method of abortion Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth 392 F Supp 1362 1365 E D Missouri 1975 The Court s opinionsThe majority opinion The court struck down the provisions of the statute that required spousal and parental consent to obtain an abortion The court upheld the statute s recordkeeping requirement for abortion facilities and physicians that perform abortions In addressing the issue of spousal consent the Court upheld the lower court s decision that just as the state could not regulate or proscribe abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy nor could the state delegate to a spouse veto power See alsoList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 428 Griswold v Connecticut 381 U S 479 1965 established the constitutional right to privacy Roe v Wade 410 U S 113 1973 Doe v Bolton 410 U S 179 1973 Webster v Reproductive Health Services 492 U S 490 1989 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey 505 U S 833 1992 ReferencesPlanned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth 428 U S 52 1976 Young Julia L 1977 Constitutional Law Elimination of Spousal and Parental Consent Requirements for Abortion Washburn Law Journal 16 2 463 464 PMID 11664766 Retrieved April 16 2014 Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth 392 F Supp 1362 E D Mo 1975 Further readingMoss G W 1976 Abortion Statutes after Danforth An Examination Journal of Family Law 15 3 537 67 PMID 11663802 External linksWorks related to Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth at Wikisource Text of Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth 428 U S 52 1976 is available from Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio