First, the "undue burden" test established by Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which partially overruled Roe and Doe) is ambiguous and hard to apply. It gives states a lot of leeway to say that they're just trying to protect various interests associated with abortion (the health of the woman, respect for life, "informed consent"
rather than trying to actually prevent people from getting abortions. And while it may be obvious to you and me that that's their real objective, it's hard for a court to come up with a manageable test to distinguish one from the other.
Second, lots of judges don't like reproductive choice and don't like Roe and are happy to read the relevant precedents as narrowly as possible and give states as free a reign as possible. And the flexibility of the undue burden standard lets them get away with it, though we'll have to see what the Supreme Court does when it takes up another case (it probably will soon).
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read