7 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. and Jill Meadows v. Iowa Board of Medicinegreen2 sentences2022By overruling PPH II today, the standard governing our constitutional analysis of abortion regulations under the Iowa Constitution at least temporarily reverts back to the federal undue burden test that we applied in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Board of Medicine (PPH I), 865 N.W.2d 252, 269 (Iowa 2015). 2022In discussing the federal undue burden test, we stated that generally a challenger was required to show the regulation had “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”42 We also noted that there were different versions of the undue burden test in the federal appellate courts for regulations where the state’s interest was to protect the health of the woman.43 A version of the undue burden test adopted in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits weighed the strength of the state’s justifica | 3 | 5 |
Gonzales v. Carhartgreen2 sentences2022In discussing the federal undue burden test, we stated that generally a challenger was required to show the regulation had “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”42 We also noted that there were different versions of the undue burden test in the federal appellate courts for regulations where the state’s interest was to protect the health of the woman.43 A version of the undue burden test adopted in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits weighed the strength of the state’s justifica 2022In discussing the federal undue burden test, we stated that generally a challenger was required to show the regulation had “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”42 We also noted that there were different versions of the undue burden test in the federal appellate courts for regulations where the state’s interest was to protect the health of the woman.43 A version of the undue burden test adopted in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits weighed the strength of the state’s justifica | 3 | 3 |
State v. Koomegreen2 sentences2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process 2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process | 3 | 3 |
Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Nixongreen2 sentences2015Health Servs., 185 S.W.3d at 692 (“There is no reason, within the context of this case, to construe this language from the Missouri constitution more broadly than the language used in the United States constitution.”); Pro-Choice Miss., 716 So. 2d at 655 . 3In its brief, the Board asserts, “[T]his Court should adopt [under the Iowa Constitution] the undue burden standard set forth in Casey.” 19 find the challenged rule fails to meet the federal undue burden test for constitutionality. 2015Health Servs., 185 S.W.3d at 692 (“There is no reason, within the context of this case, to construe this language from the Missouri constitution more broadly than the language used in the United States constitution.”); Pro-Choice Miss., 716 So. 2d at 655 . 3In its brief, the Board asserts, “[T]his Court should adopt [under the Iowa Constitution] the undue burden standard set forth in Casey.” 19 find the challenged rule fails to meet the federal undue burden test for constitutionality. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey
red
2 sentences2022In discussing the federal undue burden test, we stated that generally a challenger was required to show the regulation had “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”42 We also noted that there were different versions of the undue burden test in the federal appellate courts for regulations where the state’s interest was to protect the health of the woman.43 A version of the undue burden test adopted in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits weighed the strength of the state’s justifica 2022In discussing the federal undue burden test, we stated that generally a challenger was required to show the regulation had “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”42 We also noted that there were different versions of the undue burden test in the federal appellate courts for regulations where the state’s interest was to protect the health of the woman.43 A version of the undue burden test adopted in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits weighed the strength of the state’s justifica | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi
green
2 sentences2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process 2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists
green
2 sentences2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process 2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice
green
2 sentences2015Health Servs., 185 S.W.3d at 692 (“There is no reason, within the context of this case, to construe this language from the Missouri constitution more broadly than the language used in the United States constitution.”); Pro-Choice Miss., 716 So. 2d at 655 . 3In its brief, the Board asserts, “[T]his Court should adopt [under the Iowa Constitution] the undue burden standard set forth in Casey.” 19 find the challenged rule fails to meet the federal undue burden test for constitutionality. 2015Health Servs., 185 S.W.3d at 692 (“There is no reason, within the context of this case, to construe this language from the Missouri constitution more broadly than the language used in the United States constitution.”); Pro-Choice Miss., 716 So. 2d at 655 . 3In its brief, the Board asserts, “[T]his Court should adopt [under the Iowa Constitution] the undue burden standard set forth in Casey.” 19 find the challenged rule fails to meet the federal undue burden test for constitutionality. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.