Case Citator › Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
428 U.S. 52
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
1992–2022
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth has been abrogated as to its abortion rights holdings grounded in Roe v. Wade; the confirmed treatments are listed below. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court rejected the constitutional abortion right and identified Danforth's viability rule as an application of Roe.
More on how this was screened

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey had also criticized Danforth's broad description of that right. These rulings do not address Danforth's separate holdings on matters such as provider standing. All 37 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

37 later cases cite Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Court rejected the constitutional abortion right underlying Danforth's abortion specific holdings, including its viability rule.

    Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives. ... For example, in Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, the Court reiterated Roe’s rule that a “State may regulate an abortion to protect the life of the fetus and even may proscribe abortion” at “the stage subsequent to viability.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Court called Danforth's description of the abortion right as a decision made without state interference an overstatement.

    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    These considerations of the nature of the abortion right illustrate that it is an overstatement to describe it as a right to decide whether to have an abortion “without interference from the State.” Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 61 (1976). All abortion regulations interfere to some degree with a woman’s ability to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace