Citation network
Akron Vs. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 1983
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Akron v. AkronSearch
-
Ctr. for Reprod. Health - 462 U.S. 416 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Akron v. AkronSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983) Akron v. AkronSearch
-
review abortion regulations enacted by the State of Missouri, see Planned Parenthood Assn. of Kansas City, Mo., Inc. v. AshcroftSearch
-
post, p. 462 U. S. 476 , and by the State of Virginia, see Simopoulos v. VirginiaSearch
-
post, p. 462 U. S. 506 . These cases come to us a decade after we held in Roe v. WadeSearch
-
We respect it today, and reaffirm Roe v. WadeSearch
-
granted both Akron's and the plaintiffs' petitions. 456 U.S. 988 (1982). We denied the intervenors' petition, Seguin v. AkronSearch
-
provisions on parental consent, informed consent, waiting period, and disposal of fetal remains. II In Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Roe , 410 U.S. at 410 U. S. 169 (Stewart, J., concurring). See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. BairdSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
U. S. 179 , 410 U. S. 192 (1973). See Whalen v. RoeSearch
-
the woman in the decisionmaking process and implementing her decision should she choose abortion. See Colautti v. FranklinSearch
-
Roe, supra, at 410 U. S. 163 . See Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
retreat from the bright line' in Roe v. WadeSearch
-
is unconstitutional. In Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Ibid. In the companion case of Doe v. BoltonSearch
-
abortion, but rather defends it as a reasonable health regulation. This position had strong support at the time of Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Danforth, supra, at 428 U. S. 74 . In Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
B) on its face. The city relies on Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
Id. at 428 U. S. 146 -147 (quoting Harrison v. NAACPSearch
-
U. S. 167 , 360 U. S. 177 (1959)). See also H. L. v. MathesonSearch
-
B) is unconstitutional. v. TheSearch
-
a requirement inconsistent with the Court's holding in Roe v. WadeSearch
-
the safety of the abortion procedure, the States may mandate that only physicians perform abortions. See Connecticut v. MenilloSearch
-
Planned Parenthood Assn. v. FitzpatrickSearch
-
three-judge court) (quoting State's characterization of legislative purpose), summarily aff'd sub nom. Franklin v. FitzpatrickSearch
-
F.2d at 1211. This level of uncertainty is fatal where criminal liability is imposed. See Colautti v. FranklinSearch
-
Together with No. 81-1172, Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., et al. v. CitySearch
-
There are especially compelling reasons for adhering to stare decisis in applying the principles of Roe v. WadeSearch
-
has a fundamental right to make the highly personal choice whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. See Connecticut v. MenilloSearch
-
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Akron v. AkronSearch
-
Planned Parenthood Assn. of Kansas City, Mo., Inc. v. AshcroftSearch
-
Simopoulos v. VirginiaSearch
-
Seguin v. AkronSearch
-
II In Roe v. WadeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial