In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court determined that:

• A. The state can restrict abortions after viability with life/health exceptions.
• B. The state cannot restrict abortions at all.
• C. Fetal viability is not a consideration.
• D. Only parental consent is required.

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is how Planned Parenthood v. Casey changed the framework for abortion regulation by using viability as the turning point and applying an undue burden standard. Casey holds that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability, but once a fetus is viable, the state’s interest in potential life becomes compelling and allows the state to regulate or even restrict abortions, provided any restrictions do not place an undue burden on the woman. Importantly, post-viability restrictions must still allow for exceptions to protect the woman’s life or health.

So, why this option is the best: it matches Casey’s balancing approach. After viability, the state may restrict abortions, but only with safeguards for the woman's life or health. The other statements misstate the ruling: the decision does not say the state cannot restrict abortions at all; it allows restrictions after viability. It does not ignore viability altogether; viability is the essential dividing line. And it does not establish parental-consent as the sole or primary requirement in general abortion regulation; Casey focuses on viability and the undue burden standard rather than a universal parental-consent rule.