Final answer:
The statement that Planned Parenthood v. Casey allows states to limit abortions without posing an undue burden is true. This 1992 ruling introduced the undue burden test, which permits certain state-level abortion restrictions before fetal viability if they do not significantly obstruct a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.
Step-by-step explanation:
True, Planned Parenthood v. Casey held that a state could limit abortions as long as the regulation did not pose an undue burden on pregnant women. This landmark decision reaffirmed aspects of Roe v. Wade, especially the right to have an abortion before fetal viability, while discarding the trimester framework established by Roe. Instead, it introduced the undue burden test for determining the constitutionality of state-level abortion restrictions.
The undue burden test allows states to implement abortion restrictions before viability as long as they do not create substantial obstacles for women seeking the procedure. For instance, the Casey ruling upheld certain regulations such as a parental consent requirement for minors (with a judicial bypass), a 24-hour waiting period, and informed consent. However, it struck down provisions like spousal notification, deeming them as undue burdens.
Subsequent rulings have revisited the question of what constitutes an undue burden. In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), for example, the Supreme Court invalidated certain Texas regulations on abortion facilities and providers, citing a lack of evidence for their medical benefits and the significant obstacles they posed to women's access to abortion.