There is bound to be lots of confusion regarding what Alito’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey really means, but only because of the deceptive or naive statements of those who would villify Mr. Alito.

Here is the key portion of the law, from the Supreme Court decision.

3209. Spousal Notice.

(a) Spousal notice required. — In order to further the Commonwealth’s interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse’s interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse’s child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable by law.

(b) Exceptions. — The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located. [p909]

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law.

(c) Medical emergency. — The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply in case of a medical emergency.

(d) Forms. — The department shall cause to be published, forms which may be utilized for purposes of providing the signed statements required by subsections (a) and (b). The department shall distribute an adequate supply of such forms to all abortion facilities in this Commonwealth.

(e) Penalty; civil action. — Any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of “unprofessional conduct,” and his or her license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, or their successor acts. In addition, any physician who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be civilly liable to the spouse who is the father of the aborted child for any damages caused thereby and for punitive damages in the amount of $5,000, and the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney fee as part of costs.

Law.com summarizes Alito’s dissent, where he states that the spousal notification law is not unconstitutional.

Alito argued that the Pennsylvania law’s restrictions should have been upheld, saying “the Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion.”

The case went on to the Supreme Court, resulting in a 6-3 decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. But late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissent, quoted Alito’s underlying dissent and said he agreed with his reasoning.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has a great observation about the scare tactics that are already beginning to develop.

Already this morning, I’ve heard a lefty on FNC scary viewers with abortion: Alito ruled that a woman needs her husband’s consent for an abortion. It was part of the Casey vs. Planned Parenthood case in 1991 and it was notification (vs. consent). And all Alito did was say the Pennsylvania law was constitutional, as I, layman, understand it.

The QandO blog has more.

Libertarians (generally) would not support a law requiring women to inform their husband before getting an abortion. But—and this is important—that was not the question before Judge Alito. That question was asked and answered when the legislation was proposed and passed.

The question to which Judge Alito responded was whether such a law violated the Constitution. Alito dissented because the law did not violate the Constitutional standards established by precedent. Specifically, the law did not create what Justice O’Connor called an “undue burden”. In fact, Alito specifically listed the components of “undue burden” and explained why the law did not violate them.

The law may still be bad policy, but that’s a wholly different matter. States are constitutionally permitted to enact bad abortion policy, so long as it does not—as has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court—present an “unduly burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy”.

The Left Coaster spews invective, showing a clear misunderstanding of the issue at hand.

Yet this week, Bush has forgotten all those words in touting the long conservative judicial track record of Alito, who seemingly takes the position that women have their place, as second-class citizens, barefoot and pregnant.

Donklephant, too, misses the mark, apparently failing to read (b).(4) of the law.

Why is this troubling? Well, imagine that you’re a woman in an emotionally or physically abusive realtionship [sic] and you’ve just found out you’re pregnant. You don’t want to carry the pregnancy to term because you don’t want to bring a child into this situation. Alito’s dissent seemingly ignores these types of situations. And what troubles me most, is that it appears he fails to understand that these laws are specifically made for the exceptions. These laws protect the weak and the wounded.

Don’t be confused by the inaccuracy, intentional or not, of those who misrepresent the Alito decision on Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

UPDATE: Bainbridge takes to task the “spousal notification is extreme” mantra. And Volokh has a look at the public opinion polls on the issue.