planned parenthood v american coalition of life activists decision
American Coalition of Life Activists Planned Parenthood successfully sued the ACLA. Although the posters and website did not contain any specific threat, the jury awarded $107 million. The ACLA appealed the verdict on First Amendment grounds. A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals initially overturned the verdict, holding that the activities of the ACLA were protected under the First Amendment because they did not directly threaten harm to the plaintiffs, and because the ACLA's statements were not communicated privately to the plaintiffs. The en banc 9th Circuit reversed the panel<http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/ppacla51602opn.pdf>, and held that the ACLA could be held liable in damages because the website made a deliberate threat with the expectation that someone would act on it, unprotected by the First Amendment.
Roe v. Wade In the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the most significant abortion rights case before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,[120][121][122] the Supreme Court in a 5–3 decision on June 27, 2016, swept away forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function. The Texas legislature enacted in 2013 restrictions on the delivery of abortions services that created an undue burden for women seeking an abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain "admitting privileges" at a local hospital and by requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. The Court struck down these two provisions "facially" from the law at issue—that is, the very words of the provisions were invalid, no matter how they might be applied in any practical situation. According to the Supreme Court the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to abortion belongs with the courts and not the legislatures.[123]