| 词条 | Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Planned Parenthood v. Danforth |ArgueDate=March 23 |ArgueYear=1976 |DecideDate=July 1 |DecideYear=1976 |FullName=Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri, et al. v. John C. Danforth, et al. |USVol=428 |USPage=52 |ParallelCitations=96 S. Ct. 2831; 49 L. Ed. 2d 788; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 13 |Prior=392 F. Supp. [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/392/1362/1579882/ 1362] (E.D. Mo. 1975) |Subsequent= |Holding= |SCOTUS=1975-1981 |Majority=Blackmun |JoinMajority=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 |JoinConcurrence=Powell |Concurrence/Dissent=White |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Burger, Rehnquist |Concurrence/Dissent2=Stevens |LawsApplied= }}Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976),[1] 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).[2] Background of the caseThe District Court's rulingThe plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, seeking injunctive relief.[3] 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). {{cite court |litigants=Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth |vol=392 |reporter=F.Supp. |opinion=1362 |pinpoint=1365 |court=E.D. Missouri |date=1975 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/moed/96Dm/planned-parenthood-of-central-mo-v-danforth/ |accessdate=April 16, 2014 |quote=}} The Court's opinionsThe majority opinionThe 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
References1. ^{{ussc|name=Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth|volume=428|page=52|year=1976}}. {{usgovpd}} 2. ^{{cite journal|last=Young|first=Julia L.|title=Constitutional Law: Elimination of Spousal and Parental Consent Requirements for Abortion|journal=Washburn Law Journal|date=1977|volume=16|pages=463–464|url=http://heinonline.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/wasbur16&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=5&men_tab=srchresults&type=matchall&id=482|accessdate=16 April 2014}} 3. ^{{cite court |litigants=Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth |vol=392 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=1362 |pinpoint= |court=E.D. Mo. |date=1975 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/392/1362/1579882/ |accessdate=2018-02-18 |quote=}} Further reading
External links
|case=Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, {{ussc|428|52|1976|el=no}} | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/428/52 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/109529/planned-parenthood-of-central-mo-v-danforth/ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/428/52.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3638004152923873163 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/52/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep428/usrep428052/usrep428052.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-1151{{Abortion}} 10 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court|United States substantive due process case law|Void for vagueness case law|United States Free Speech Clause case law|United States abortion case law|1976 in United States case law|Planned Parenthood litigation|Legal history of Missouri|Women in Missouri |
| 随便看 |
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。