---
title: "City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health"
description: "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…"
type: "case"
court: "U.S. Supreme Court"
decided: "1983-06-15"
citation: "462 U.S. 416 (1983)"
docket: "81-746"
status: "Effectively overruled by Casey"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/akron-v-akron-center-1983.html"
---

# City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health

_Full caption: City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc._

**Citation:** 462 U.S. 416 (1983) · **Docket No.** 81-746

**Status:** Effectively overruled by Casey

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Argued | November 30, 1982 |
| Decided | June 15, 1983 |
| Vote | 6-3 |
| Majority author | Powell, J. |
| Joined by | Burger, C.J.; Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, JJ. |

## 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

Justice Powell applied Roe's trimester framework strictly, striking down regulations that had the effect of discouraging abortion or increasing its costs.

## Opinions

### Majority — Powell, J.

_Joined by Burger, C.J.; Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, JJ._

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.

### Dissent — O'Connor, J.

_Joined by White, Rehnquist, JJ._

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

> "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."
> — Powell, J. (majority) · 462 U.S. at 448

> "The Roe framework is clearly on a collision course with itself."
> — O'Connor, J. (dissenting) · 462 U.S. at 458

## Practical effect

Second-trimester hospital requirements invalidated. Informed consent 'scripts' and waiting periods invalidated. Legal architecture would later change under Casey (1992).

## Perspectives

The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case.

### Abolitionist framing

Not a significant abolitionist reference. Represents the height of Roe-era judicial invalidation of pro-life laws.

### Mainstream pro-life framing

Motivated development of the 'undue burden' framework that would later succeed in Casey.

### Pro-choice framing

Strong Roe-era ruling protecting abortion access.

## Significance

Superseded by Casey. O'Connor's dissent is historically important as the first articulation of the standard that later prevailed.

| Measure | Score |
| --- | --- |
| Overall significance | 3 / 10 |
| Legal precedential weight | 4 |
| Practical impact on access | 4 |
| Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 2 |
| Enduring relevance, 2026 | 2 |

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/416](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/416/)
- [law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/462/416](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/462/416)

### Secondary sources

- [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Akron_…](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Akron_v._Akron_Center_for_Reproductive_Health)

## Related cases

**Cites earlier cases:**

- [Roe v. Wade (1973)](roe-v-wade-1973.md)

**Cited by later cases:**

- Thornburgh v. ACOG (1986)
- [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md)
- Box v. Planned Parenthood (2019)

## Notes

Justice O'Connor's dissent contains the first Supreme Court articulation of the 'undue burden' framework.