Opinion ID: 1186189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Standard for Facial Attacks on Abortion Regulations

Text: ¶ 35 Since the Casey decision, there has been confusion on the proper standard to be applied in facial attacks of abortion regulations. [78] In the United States v. Salerno, [79] the United States Supreme Court stated: A facial challenge to a Legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid. [80] In contrast, the Casey Court applied the undue burden test to a facial attack on abortion regulations. [81] Thus, under the Casey standard, an abortion regulation will not be upheld against a facial attack if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus. [82] Then concurring to a denial of injunctive relief on an attack of the North Dakota Abortion Control Act, Justice O'Connor wrote, with Justice Souter joining: [W]e made clear that a law restricting abortions constitutes an undue burden, and hence is invalid, if, `in a large fraction of the cases in which [the law] is relevant, it will operate as a substantial obstacle to a woman's choice to undergo an abortion.' [83] ¶ 36 Because the challengers, the defendants in this case, do not argue that there are no set of circumstances under which sections 1-731 and 1-737 would be valid, the statutes withstand the Salerno test for a facial attack on the record before us. Thus, we analyze the validity of the statutes under the undue-burden test.