Final answer:
The Supreme Court has allowed state restraints on abortion based on balancing a woman's right to privacy and the state's interests. The constitutionality of these restraints depends on whether they pass the undue burden test established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court has permitted state restraints on the legal right to abortion on the basis of balancing a woman's right to privacy with the state's interests in protecting maternal health and the potentiality of human life. The landmark case Roe v. Wade established that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment, especially during the first trimester of pregnancy. However, states can impose restrictions in the second and third trimesters provided they do not place an undue burden on the woman seeking an abortion, according to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, which introduced the undue burden test. This test allows states to regulate abortions prior to fetal viability, provided the regulations do not present substantial obstacles to the abortion process. In both Roe and Casey, the Court provided a framework for states to craft abortion laws, leading to varied restrictions across different states.
In response to the question of constitutionality, assessing the constitutional validity of state restraints on abortion depends on the specific restrictions and their alignment with Supreme Court precedents. While Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases have set forth guidelines for permissible regulations, the assessment of constitutionality involves applying the undue burden test, which may change as the composition of the Supreme Court and societal norms evolve.