Opinion of the Court
"the burdens it imposes on abortion access." Id., at __ (opinion of Breyer, J.) (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omitted). But the Chief Justice—who cast the deciding vote—argued that "[n]othing about Casey suggested that a weighing of costs and benefits of an abortion regulation was a job for the courts." Id., at __ (Roberts, C. J., concurring) (slip op., at 6). And the four Justices in dissent rejected the lead opinion's interpretation of Casey. See id., at __ (Alito, J., dissenting, joined in relevant part by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ.) (slip op., at 4); id., at __ (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 15–18; (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2) ("five Members of the Court reject the Whole Woman's Health cost-benefit standard”).
This Court's experience applying Casey has confirmed Chief Justice Rehnquist's prescient diagnosis that the undue-burden standard was "not built to last." Casey, 505 U. S., at 965 (Rehnquist, C. J, dissenting in part).
3
The experience of the Courts of Appeals provides further evidence that Casey's "line between" permissible and unconstitutional restrictions "has proved to be impossible to draw with precision." Janus, 585 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 38).
Casey has generated a long list of circuit conflicts. Most recently, the Courts of Appeals have disagreed about whether the balancing test from Whole Woman's Health correctly states the undue-burden framework.[1] They have disagreed on the legality of parental notification rules.[2]
- ↑ Compare Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton, 10 F. 4th 430, 440 (CA5 2021), EMW Women's Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 978 F. 3d 418, 437 (CA6 2020), and Hopkins v. Jegley, 968 F. 3d 912, 915 (CA8 2020), with Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc., v. Box, 991 F. 3d 740, 751–752 (CA7 2021).
- ↑ Compare Planned Parenthood v. Camblos, 155 F. 3d 352, 367 (CA4 1998), with Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc., v. Adams, 937 F. 3d
