"Roe [creates] a rule (whether or not mistaken) of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, with doctrinal affinity to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its rejection"

Key Ruling: "An undue burden is created when a statute, law or regulation purporting to further the interest of a valid state interest places a substantial obstacle in front of the fundamental right of choice."

Abortion case law is a tough topic to cover, mostly as it invokes strong sentiment from all sides of the political aisle. But if one is able to look past the instant issue, the talking points, and the "pro-choice" or "pro-life" camps, there are deeper truths about medical liberty buried within cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey and its infamous predecessor, Roe v. Wade. This is the heart of "my body, my choice" and in order to fight the current mandates, we must use the legal weapons given to us in these most controversial of cases.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey involved a series of requirements put in place by the Pennslyvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, including Informed Consent, Parental Consent, and Spousal Notice. All were immediately challanged as violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision, which, as a reminder, was the first case to uphold abortion rights.

The Court in Casey, however, changed the standard set by Roe to examine whether an enacted statute, law or regulation created an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability. The majority decided to uphold what it determined was the "key holding" in Roe, which contined the following three elements: 1) Women have the right to choose prior to viability and to do so without undue interference from the State; (2) the State can restrict the abortion procedure post-viability, so long as the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health; and (3) the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. In doing so, the Court heavily noted the judicial doctrine of stare decisis, which means respect for precedent, and not wanting to overturn previous precedent.

An ironic note is that 3 justices appointed by Republican Presidents, Justices Kennedy, Souter and O'Connor, adopted liberal positions in crafting the majority decision. However, the majority did not overturn all of the state requirements. It found that the parental consent, informed consent and 24 hour waiting period were legitimate constitutionally valid restrictions, while only the spousal consent requirement placed an undue burden on the woman.

So how does this relate to today outside of the abortion context? The core right that the Supreme Court leaned on, in both Roe and Casey, was our rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Recognizing that their are limits under the Constitution to the requirements that the government can medically require is a clear nexus to the vaccination fight. As the case states, "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment" - these liberty interests are at stake with the rollout of compulsory vaccination edicts, with no exceptions or exemptions.