Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Planned Parenthood Of Central Missouri Et Al. v. Danforth, Attorney General Of Missouri, Et Al.

• 1975 • 428 U.S. 52 • Burger Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1975) was a significant ruling on the issue of abortion rights, specifically regarding state regulation and parental/spousal consent requirements. The court struck down several provisions in a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on abortions, including requiring written consent from the husband for married women seeking an abortion and parental consent for minors under 18 years old. The court ruled these...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1975
Docket: 74-1151
428 U.S. 52
96 S. Ct. 2831
49 L. Ed. 2d 788
1976 U.S. LEXIS 13
Argued: Mar 23, 1976

Planned Parenthood Of Central Missouri Et Al. v. Danforth, Attorney General Of Missouri, Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1975) was a significant ruling on the issue of abortion rights, specifically regarding state regulation and parental/spousal consent requirements. The court struck down several provisions in a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on abortions, including requiring written consent from the husband for married women seeking an abortion and parental consent for minors under 18 years old. The court ruled these provisions as unconstitutional because they violated a woman's right to privacy established by Roe v Wade (1973). Additionally, it invalidated the requirement that all second-trimester abortions be performed in hospitals due to its undue burden on access to abortions without sufficient health justification. However, it upheld other parts of the law such as record-keeping and reporting requirements which did not directly interfere with a woman’s choice or impose unnecessary health risks.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, Justice White dissented from the majority opinion that struck down a Missouri law requiring spousal consent for abortions. He argued that it was not an undue burden on women's rights to require them to consult with their husbands before making such a significant decision. He also disagreed with the court's invalidation of parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions, arguing that parents have a legitimate interest in their minor children's welfare and should be involved in such decisions. Furthermore, he challenged the Court’s ruling against maintaining records as part of abortion procedures which were deemed by majority as invasion into patient’s privacy; according to him this could serve important state interests including protecting health and ensuring qualified medical care.

Opinion written by Justice HABlackmun
Decided: Jul 01, 1976
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms