I do not know of such a site. I offer my humble summary: Roe: right to an abortion is a fundamental constitutional right Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: Rhenquist wrote the plurality opinion, stronly criticizing Roe's rigid trimester framework. Planned Parenthood v. Casey: arguably overrules Roe, though the majority claims that that they kept the "essentail holding." The trimester framework was scrapped. Moreover, the opinion (supposedly written largely by Professor Dorf of Columbia, then a law clerk), seemed to move away from a "fundamental right to an aborition" line of reasoning. [As a very interesting side note that could make an entire book is that the Supreme Court seems to have generally shifted away from declaring "fundamental rights" and applying strict scrutiny levels of review. Lawrence v. Texas is yet another example of the Court's reluctance to declare specific fundamental rights, instead resting on a far more general right to make personal decisions, and using a standard of review that is far from easy to identify or apply.] In Casey, then, the Court replaced strict scrutiny with an "undue burden" test. The uninformed talk about Roe as if it were still the consumate case. It is not. Casey is now the essential source of aborition law. What constitutes an undue burden? A 24 hour waiting period is not, though the extra burden on the poor stretches the limits of the doctrine. This is from Casey, overruling City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. Parental consent for minors is . See Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, Bellotti v. Baird. Parental notification is not. See H.L. v. Matheson, Bellotti, Ohio v. Akron Center fro Reproductive Health, Hodgson v. Minnesota. (Note a new law just passed by Congress making it illegal to take minors across state borders to get around a state's parental notification doctrine.) Not giving government money for abortion is not an undue burden. Many cases on this. Beal v. Doe, Maher v. Roe, Poelker v. Doe, Harris v. McRae, Williams v. Zabrez, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Maher v. Roe: Under the spending power, Congress can condition money to hospitals on it not going to fund abortion. Rust: the government could condition receipt of federal funds on not counseling patients on abortion. Dissent said this was an unconstitutional condition, contracting away right to free speech. Because of spousal abuse, spousal notification is an undue burden. The woman thus gets the choice because it is her bodily integrity at stake. (Casey, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth) Stenberg: A statute cannot ban partial term aboritions w/o "preservation of the health of the mother." Hope this helps.