Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWharton, Linda
dc.contributor.authorFrietsche, Susan
dc.contributor.authorKolbert, Kathryn
dc.date2021-11-25T13:35:08.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:54:19Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:54:19Z
dc.date.issued2016-01-13T11:54:56-08:00
dc.identifieryjlf/vol18/iss2/2
dc.identifier.contextkey8010012
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/6952
dc.description.abstractIn Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court backed away from affording women the highest level of constitutional protection for the abortion choice, but nonetheless promised to preserve Roe v. Wade's core objectives by instituting the undue burden standard for measuring the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion. In the years following the Casey decision, states and the federal government have added more and more restrictions on women's access to abortion. This Article asks whether Casey's undue burden standard has meaningfully protected a woman's right to an abortion.
dc.titlePreserving the Core of Roe: Reflections on Planned Parenthood v. Casey
dc.source.journaltitleYale Journal of Law & Feminism
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:54:19Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol18/iss2/2
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=yjlf&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
18_18YaleJL_Feminism317_2006_.pdf
Size:
4.694Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record