{"schema":"abhortion.org/case.v1/v1","id":"akron-v-akron-center-1983","type":"case","case_name_short":"City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health","case_name_full":"City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc.","citation":"462 U.S. 416 (1983)","docket_number":"81-746","status":"Effectively overruled by Casey","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_argued":"1982-11-30","date_decided":"1983-06-15","vote":"6-3","question_presented":"Whether Akron ordinance provisions requiring (1) second-trimester abortions in hospitals, (2) parental consent for minors, (3) specific informed consent information, (4) a 24-hour waiting period, and (5) 'humane and sanitary' disposal of fetal remains, are constitutional.","holding":"All five provisions are unconstitutional. Hospital requirement for second-trimester abortions imposes unreasonable costs. Parental consent lacks adequate judicial bypass. Informed consent script is designed to discourage abortion. 24-hour waiting period is 'arbitrary and inflexible.' Fetal remains disposal provision is unconstitutionally vague.","reasoning_summary":"Justice Powell applied Roe's trimester framework strictly, striking down regulations that had the effect of discouraging abortion or increasing its costs.","practical_effect":"Second-trimester hospital requirements invalidated. Informed consent 'scripts' and waiting periods invalidated. Legal architecture would later change under Casey (1992).","opinions":[{"role":"majority","author":"Powell, J.","joined_by":"Burger, C.J.; Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, JJ.","summary":"All five provisions are unconstitutional. Hospital requirement for second-trimester abortions imposes unreasonable costs. Parental consent lacks adequate judicial bypass. Informed consent script is designed to discourage abortion. 24-hour waiting period is 'arbitrary and inflexible.' Fetal remains disposal provision is unconstitutionally vague."},{"role":"dissent","author":"O'Connor, J.","joined_by":"White, Rehnquist, JJ.","summary":"First articulation of the 'unduly burdensome' standard that would eventually become Casey's undue burden test. Called Roe's trimester framework 'on a collision course with itself.'"}],"key_quotes":[{"quote":"The State's interest is in ensuring that the woman's consent is informed and unpressured; the critical factor is whether she obtains the necessary information and counseling from a qualified person, not the identity of the person from whom she obtains it.","speaker":"Powell, J. (majority)","location":"462 U.S. at 448"},{"quote":"The Roe framework is clearly on a collision course with itself.","speaker":"O'Connor, J. (dissenting)","location":"462 U.S. at 458"}],"perspectives":{"abolitionist":"Not a significant abolitionist reference. Represents the height of Roe-era judicial invalidation of pro-life laws.","mainstream_prolife":"Motivated development of the 'undue burden' framework that would later succeed in Casey.","prochoice":"Strong Roe-era ruling protecting abortion access."},"significance":{"overall":3,"legal_precedential_weight":4,"practical_impact_on_access":4,"movement_relevance_abolitionist":2,"enduring_relevance_2026":2,"rationale":"Superseded by Casey. O'Connor's dissent is historically important as the first articulation of the standard that later prevailed."},"sources":{"primary":[{"name":"supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/416","href":"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/416/"},{"name":"law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/462/416","href":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/462/416"}],"secondary":[{"name":"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Akron_…","href":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Akron_v._Akron_Center_for_Reproductive_Health"}]},"related_cases":{"cites_earlier":["Roe v. Wade (1973)"],"cited_by_later":["Thornburgh v. ACOG (1986)","Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)","Box v. Planned Parenthood (2019)"]},"notes":"Justice O'Connor's dissent contains the first Supreme Court articulation of the 'undue burden' framework.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/akron-v-akron-center-1983.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/akron-v-akron-center-1983.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/akron-v-akron-center-1983.json"}}