Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion. It remains one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history.

Background of the case

The case originated in Texas in March 1970 at the behest of Sarah Weddington, a young Austin attorney who would play the leading role in pursuing the case. Weddington brought a lawsuit on behalf of Norma McCorvey, an unmarried pregnant woman of Texas, to overturn the state of Texas' anti-abortion law. The name "Jane Roe", a standard alias for anonymous plaintiffs, was used to protect Norma McCorvey's identity. After filing the initial lawsuit, the case was expanded to include several other parties, including: James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician who had been arrested for violations of the Texas abortion statutes; "John and Mary Doe," aliases for a married couple whose doctor had advised against pregnancy; "all couples similarly situated" to the Does; and "all other women" similarly situated to Roe.

Related Topics:
Texas - 1970 - Sarah Weddington - Austin - Norma McCorvey - Jane Roe

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

At the time of the case, McCorvey claimed that she had become pregnant by rape. She has since recanted that claim and rescinded her support for the Supreme Court decision she prompted (see below).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The law in question made having or attempting to perform an abortion a crime, except by "medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." The suit claimed that the laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged the rights guaranteed to pregnant women by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Dallas County district attorney Henry Wade was the defendant in the case.

Related Topics:
First - Fourth - Fifth - Ninth - Fourteenth Amendment - Dallas County - Henry Wade

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A three-judge district court ruled for "Jane Roe", but refused to grant injunctive relief against the enforcement of the laws.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Since 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court has recognized a "right of privacy" which inheres in the various provisions of the Bill of Rights, primarily the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process clause had long been held to have a "substantive" component, providing protection for certain fundamental rights. The ruling in Griswold recognized constitutional protection for the possession of birth control as part of an intimate sphere of marital privacy, and the reasoning of that case had been extended to protect the possession of birth control by non-married couples in 1972's Eisenstadt v. Baird. Many advocates of liberalizing abortion laws saw promise in this line of cases, as abortion was widely proscribed by state laws at that time.

Related Topics:
Griswold v. Connecticut - Bill of Rights

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Both "Jane Roe" and defendant Wade appealed to the Supreme Court and the case was argued there by Weddington and Texas assistant attorney general Jay Floyd on December 13, 1971. Chief Justice Warren Burger assigned the opinion of the Court to Harry Blackmun, who wrote an opinion that would strike the Texas law down as unconstitutionally vague. Burger proposed that the case be put over for reargument, and the justices, unimpressed with the first oral argument in the case, underwhelmed by Blackmun's opinion, and wishing that new Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. participate, voted to reargue the case on October 11, 1972, at the behest of Chief Justice Burger. At the reargument, Weddington again represented Roe, while district attorney Wade was represented by Texas assistant attorney general Robert C. Flowers.

Related Topics:
December 13 - 1971 - Warren Burger - Harry Blackmun - William Rehnquist - Lewis F. Powell, Jr. - October 11 - 1972

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As recounted in Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's The Brethren, Justice William O. Douglas was outraged by Chief Justice Burger's proposal to put the case over for reargument, believing Burger wished that the case be decided after the November 1972 elections (Burger was a close friend of President Richard Nixon). Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order, but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues; his dissent was merely mentioned in the order without further statement or opinion.

Related Topics:
William O. Douglas - November 1972 elections - Richard Nixon

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~