Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision of the issued on January 22, 1973, holding by a 7–2 vote that the of the protects a 's right to obtain an without undue state interference prior to . The case, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), originated in where "Jane Roe" (), a pregnant woman seeking an abortion, challenged state statutes criminalizing the procedure except to save the mother's life, naming as defendant. Justice Harry A. Blackmun authored the , which derived the abortion right from an implied to and devised a framework: minimal state regulation in the first trimester, health-based limits in the second, and post-viability prohibitions except to preserve maternal life or health in the third. The ruling effectively nullified most state abortion bans, standardizing access nationwide and framing abortion as a privacy matter rather than a criminal act, though it drew immediate dissent from Justices White and Rehnquist, who argued it lacked textual or historical constitutional grounding. Roe ignited enduring cultural and legal conflicts, with pro-life advocates contesting fetal personhood under the and pro-choice groups defending bodily autonomy, leading to regulatory tests like (1992) that modified but upheld core principles until Dobbs v. (2022) explicitly overruled Roe, determining that abortion rights are not deeply rooted in the nation's history or traditions and thus devolving regulation to state legislatures.

Historical Context

Pre-Roe Abortion Laws and Practices

In the early years of the , was generally permitted under traditions inherited from , allowing procedures before "," the point at which a pregnant could feel , typically around 16 to 20 weeks of . This reflected limited state regulation of medical practices overall, with abortions often performed by midwives or physicians using herbal remedies or surgical methods. Beginning in the mid-19th century, states enacted increasingly restrictive laws, driven by campaigns from the (AMA), which sought to professionalize medicine and protect fetal life by criminalizing s except when necessary to save the mother's life. By 1860, became the first state to ban after , followed by a wave of ; between 1860 and 1880, at least 40 states passed anti- statutes, culminating in near-total bans by 1900 in most jurisdictions. These laws imposed criminal penalties on providers, with exceptions limited primarily to cases endangering the woman's life, reflecting concerns over maternal mortality from unsafe procedures and ethical views on the sanctity of fetal life from or onward. Throughout the , these statutes remained largely intact, with 30 states permitting abortion only to preserve the life of the mother by , while one state banned it outright and others allowed narrow exceptions for or severe risks in limited cases. Despite enforcement, illegal abortions persisted, estimated at 200,000 to 1.2 million annually by the , often involving dangerous methods like self-administration of chemicals or unqualified practitioners, contributing to thousands of maternal deaths and complications each year. In response to rising awareness of these risks and therapeutic needs, reform efforts gained traction in the ; by 1970, four states—, , , and —had repealed restrictive laws to permit abortions on request up to certain gestational limits, and 13 others adopted the American Law Institute's model allowing abortions for physical or , , , or fetal abnormalities. This patchwork led to interstate travel for procedures, with over 100,000 women seeking legal abortions in alone in 1972.

Facts of the Case and Lower Court Proceedings

In 1969, , using the Jane Roe to protect her identity, became pregnant for the third time and sought in , where state law prohibited the procedure except when necessary to save the life of the mother. McCorvey had previously given two children up for and desired to terminate the , but physicians declined to the criminal penalties under Articles 1191–1194 and 1196, which classified procuring as punishable by two to five years . Unable to travel out of state for the procedure, she contacted attorneys Linda N. Coffee and , recent law graduates advocating for . On March 3, 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of Roe and "all women similarly situated," naming Henry B. Wade, the District Attorney of Dallas County, as defendant. The complaint challenged the Texas statutes as violative of constitutional rights to privacy and liberty under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement. Dallas physician James Hallford intervened as a plaintiff, arguing the laws hindered his medical practice, as he faced prosecution for performing abortions. A three-judge federal panel was convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 to hear the case. The district court held hearings in May and June 1970, after which Roe gave birth on June 2. On June 17, 1970, the panel ruled 2–1 that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, infringing upon a derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's , and granted declaratory relief invalidating the statutes. However, the court denied injunctive relief, citing principles of and , allowing continued enforcement pending appeal. Wade immediately appealed to the U.S. , which noted probable jurisdiction on November 17, 1971, and set the case for .

Supreme Court Proceedings

Oral Arguments and Internal Deliberations

Oral arguments in Roe v. Wade were first heard on December 13, 1971, with Sarah R. Weddington representing the appellants (Jane Roe and others) and Jay Floyd arguing for the appellee (). Weddington, aged 26, contended that the abortion statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face and violated a fundamental implicit in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, emphasizing a woman's decisional over her body during early . Justices, including , pressed Weddington on Roe's standing, noting her pregnancy had ended before arguments, and on the precise constitutional source of the privacy right, which she tied to penumbral protections rather than explicit text. Floyd defended the statute as a valid exercise of power to protect and the "potentiality of " from , though his presentation was disrupted by an ill-received attempt at humor comparing his representation of fetuses to defending the , prompting laughter from the bench. The case was reargued on October 11, 1972, after the appointment of Justices Lewis Powell and , who recused from the initial hearing, and to resolve jurisdictional questions alongside the companion Doe v. Bolton case. Weddington reiterated the privacy argument, focusing on undue state interference in physician-patient decisions absent compelling interest, while Robert C. Flowers replaced Floyd for , strengthening the state's position by stressing protection of fetal life as a and biological imperative from onward, consistent with common-law traditions. The reargument allowed fuller exploration of balancing maternal rights against state interests, with justices questioning viability thresholds and historical precedents, though no emerged on specifics during the session. In post-argument conferences, the justices initially voted 7-2 to affirm the district court's invalidation of the law, with Justices and Rehnquist dissenting on grounds that the afforded no textual basis for overriding regulation of . Warren Burger assigned the to Harry , a former counsel for the , who undertook extensive independent research into 's medical, legal, and historical dimensions, consulting sources on fetal development and reviewing lower-court viability analyses. Blackmun's first circulated draft in May 1972, spanning 17 pages, primarily addressed statutory vagueness rather than inventing a broad right, but evolved through subsequent revisions influenced by colleagues' memos—particularly from Justices Powell and Stewart advocating viability (around 24-28 weeks) as a pragmatic biological cutoff over rigid lines. Further draft circulations in November and December 1972 refined the framework, incorporating Blackmun's trimester balancing test while acknowledging interests in post-first trimester and potential life post-viability, though internal notes reveal hesitations: Blackmun initially viewed the privacy extension as tenuous, and some justices like Douglas urged stricter but joined after compromises to secure a stable majority. The process highlighted divisions, with dissenters and Rehnquist arguing in that judicial deference to legislatures on non-fundamental social issues was warranted, absent clear constitutional mandate, and no switches occurred despite the protracted deliberations spanning eight months. The final opinion, released January 22, 1973, reflected these negotiations, establishing as protected under until viability, a formulation Blackmun later described as non-revolutionary in light of emerging medical consensus on fetal survivability.

Majority Opinion by Justice Blackmun

The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun and joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices , William J. Brennan Jr., , , and Lewis F. Powell Jr., resulting in a 7-2 decision. The opinion addressed the constitutionality of statutes criminalizing abortion except to save the life of the mother, holding them unconstitutional under the of the . Jurisdiction was established via direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 from a three-judge court's denial of injunctive relief, with the Court noting the identical nature of arguments for declaratory and injunctive remedies. Blackmun grounded the decision in an implied to , derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of personal liberty against unwarranted state intrusion, building on precedents such as , 381 U.S. 479 (1965). He asserted that this right encompasses a woman's decision to terminate her , stating: "This right of ... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her ." However, the opinion qualified this right as not absolute, requiring accommodation of state interests in and potential life. The opinion included an extensive historical review of abortion regulation, tracing English traditions that imposed no penalty for s before —typically detectable around 16 to 18 weeks of gestation—and noting that American statutes until the mid-19th century similarly permitted s prior to . Blackmun observed that comprehensive criminalization emerged in the late 1800s, often driven by medical associations seeking to standardize practices and exclude unqualified practitioners, though he characterized these laws as relatively modern compared to broader legal traditions. Central to the ruling was the trimester framework, dividing into stages to balance individual against compelling state interests. In the first , the abortion decision and its execution were left entirely to the woman and her , with states barred from interference beyond ensuring medical competence. During the second , states could regulate procedures to protect , such as requiring licensed facilities or qualified staff. For the third , post-fetal viability—the point at which a has a reasonable chance of meaningful life outside the womb, generally 24 to 28 weeks though potentially earlier—the state could regulate or prohibit entirely, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Blackmun defined viability explicitly as "the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb," acknowledging medical advancements might shift this threshold. The concluded that the statute's blanket prohibition, save for life endangerment, unduly infringed the privacy right by sweeping too broadly and failing to account for trimesters or viability, thus rendering it unconstitutional; states were directed to adopt narrower regulations aligned with the . Blackmun emphasized the physician's role as a safeguard, with the not standing alone in the decision. This holding effectively invalidated similar statutes in other states, reshaping nationwide.

Concurring Opinions

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote a concurrence emphasizing the central role of the physician in abortion decisions, arguing that the Texas and Georgia statutes unduly restricted medical judgment by criminalizing abortions except to save the mother's life. He concurred in the judgment that these laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment but stressed that states retain compelling interests in maternal health after the first trimester and in protecting potential life thereafter, aligning with the majority's framework while underscoring deference to professional medical standards over legislative overreach. Burger noted the historical evolution of abortion laws toward liberalization based on medical advancements, rejecting blanket criminalization as incompatible with modern practice. Justice , in his concurrence, affirmed the majority's reliance on the derived from the Bill of Rights' penumbras, extending protections against state interference in intimate decisions like procreation. He argued that the statute intruded upon this liberty by punishing physicians for aiding women in terminating pregnancies deemed medically advisable, framing as part of a broader from governmental regulation of personal bodily choices absent compelling justification. Douglas distinguished from or mercy killing, cautioning against equating fetal interests with those of born persons until viability, and invoked precedents like to support limits on state power over family matters. Justice filed a separate , contending that the Fourteenth Amendment's encompasses a woman's to terminate an unwanted free from state coercion, without needing to invoke unenumerated privacy rights. He criticized the for arbitrarily denying women control over their reproductive destiny while permitting other personal decisions, asserting that no state interest justified forcing birth in non-emergency cases during early . Stewart concurred fully in the result but highlighted the clause's textual breadth as sufficient grounds, avoiding the majority's historical and analysis in favor of a direct -based rationale.

Dissenting Opinions


Justice Byron R. White, joined by Justice William H. Rehnquist, dissented in Roe v. Wade, arguing that the Constitution provides no textual or historical basis for invalidating state abortion restrictions. White described the majority's decision as an "improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review," asserting it bypassed democratic processes by overriding laws enacted by state legislatures to protect fetal life. He contended that the ruling permits abortions for non-compelling reasons such as maternal convenience, thereby subordinating the state's interest in potential human life without constitutional warrant. White emphasized that abortion policy lies within the purview of elected representatives, not unelected judges, and that states retain authority to regulate procedures except where necessary to save the mother's life or health. He criticized the majority for fashioning a right that effectively grants physicians and pregnant women unchecked discretion to terminate pregnancies, reversing prior precedents like United States v. Vuitch (1971) which upheld similar statutes under . In a separate dissent, Justice Rehnquist faulted the Court for issuing a sweeping ruling on first-trimester abortions absent a in that phase of pregnancy, exceeding the adversarial bounds of the case as established in precedents like Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration (1885). He highlighted historical evidence that, by 1868—the year of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification—at least 36 states and territories had laws curbing after , with 21 still operative, demonstrating no original intent to constitutionalize a right against such regulations. Texas's statute, tracing to 1857, exemplified this tradition of state authority. Rehnquist dismissed the majority's trimester framework as judicial legislation unsupported by constitutional text or history, arguing it reflected contemporary policy preferences rather than enduring principles. He advocated rational basis scrutiny for laws, akin to economic regulations in Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (), rejecting the elevated "compelling state interest" standard as misapplied and detached from rooted in specific amendments like the Fourth. This approach, he reasoned, preserves state experimentation in balancing maternal autonomy against fetal protection without imposing a uniform national code.

Core Legal Reasoning

Invention of Constitutional Right to Abortion

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court's majority opinion, delivered by Justice Harry Blackmun on January 22, 1973, derived a constitutional right to from an unenumerated implied within the of the . This right, first articulated in (1965) as arising from "penumbras" or emanations of the Bill of Rights—including the First, Third, , , and Amendments—was extended to encompass a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy. Blackmun wrote that "the right of personal includes the decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." The opinion acknowledged the Constitution's silence on explicitly, relying instead on to protect "fundamental" personal liberties not directly addressed in the text. This extension represented an invention of a federal previously unrecognized, as regulation had historically been a matter of state law since the founding, with all 50 states enacting restrictions by the mid-19th century, typically prohibiting it after or viability except to save the mother's life. Prior to Roe, no federal had identified as a protected under the , and the Roe opinion cited no historical evidence of such a right being understood as implicit in the document's original public meaning. Blackmun's reasoning balanced the privacy interest against emerging state interests in (post-first trimester) and potential life (post-viability), but critics immediately noted the absence of textual or traditional anchorage, viewing it as judicial policymaking that preempted democratic processes. Dissenting justices underscored the invention's flaws: Justice , joined by , argued that "Roe openly invites any judge concerned with the welfare of an unborn child to exercise his own judgment and discretion" by substituting amorphous for legislative authority, as the provides no basis for such a right. separately dissented, contending that medical procedure regulations like laws warrant only , not the applied, since historical practice treated abortion as a criminal offense subject to powers rather than a right. In Dobbs v. (2022), the Court repudiated this framework, holding that Roe's abortion right "is not deeply rooted in the Nation's and traditions" and lacks any constitutional provision to justify it, rendering the invention "egregiously wrong" and unsupported by text, , or .

Trimester Framework and Viability Criterion

In Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113, 1973), the Supreme Court articulated a trimester framework to delineate permissible state regulation of abortion, balancing the woman's constitutional right to privacy against the state's interests in maternal health and the potential life of the fetus. The Court divided pregnancy into three roughly equal periods of approximately 12 weeks each, with escalating state authority as gestation advanced. This structure was derived from medical evidence presented in the case, reflecting the developmental stages of pregnancy and fetal capability, though the Court acknowledged that precise trimester boundaries were not rigid. For the first (approximately weeks 1–12), the held that the decision belonged solely to the woman and her , with states barred from any interference beyond minimal requirements like record-keeping to ensure . Justice Blackmun's opinion reasoned that at this stage, mortality risks from were lower than for full-term , rendering state regulation unjustified under the of the . No absolute prohibition or undue burden was permissible, as the privacy right derived from precedents like (381 U.S. 479, 1965) predominated. In the second trimester (approximately weeks 13–24 or 28), states gained authority to impose regulations "reasonably related to ," such as mandating abortions in hospitals or by licensed physicians to mitigate risks that increased with . The cited data showing abortion-related mortality rising after 12 weeks, justifying targeted safeguards without infringing on the core right. This phase transitioned toward recognizing the state's emerging interest in fetal life, but only indirectly through health protections. The framework's viability criterion marked the threshold for the state's "compelling" interest in potential , defined as the point "at which the has the capability of meaningful outside the mother's womb" through natural or artificial means. Blackmun specified viability typically occurred at about 28 weeks (seven months), though it could arise as early as 24 weeks depending on medical advancements and individual cases, based on 1971 testimony from experts like Dr. Hallford indicating no viability before 20–24 weeks. Post-viability, in the third trimester, states could fully proscribe abortions except to preserve the mother's or , as the 's potential outweighed claims. This line was chosen because pre-viability, the lacked independent viability, rendering the state's interest non-compelling, whereas post-viability, protection of "potentially meaningful" justified prohibition. The viability standard was not fixed but subject to ongoing medical judgment, with the noting that technological progress could shift it earlier, potentially altering regulatory boundaries. Critics within the opinion's , including dissenting Justice White, argued this framework arbitrarily deferred to judicial-medical assessments over legislative processes, but the majority viewed it as a pragmatic accommodation rooted in evidentiary realities of fetal development. Empirical data from the era, such as CDC abortion surveillance beginning in , informed the health-based distinctions, though the emphasized that viability's fluidity underscored the need for case-by-case evaluation rather than statutory gestational limits.

Critiques of Judicial Methodology and Stare Decisis

Critics of the Court's methodology in Roe v. Wade (1973) have argued that the decision exemplified judicial overreach by fabricating a to unsupported by the text, structure, or history of the . Justice Harry Blackmun's extended the , previously recognized in cases like (1965), to encompass without identifying specific textual provisions or historical precedents establishing such a right; instead, it invoked a vague "penumbral" theory of derived from under the . Legal scholar characterized this approach as unconstitutional activism, asserting that the Court improperly usurped legislative authority by resolving a policy dispute—balancing maternal interests against fetal life—without democratic input or constitutional warrant, thereby converting judges into policymakers. The Roe framework's trimester system and viability standard further drew methodological condemnation for imposing arbitrary, medically unsubstantiated lines on state regulation rather than deferring to legislative experimentation. Blackmun himself acknowledged the opinion's analytical struggles, noting the absence of direct historical evidence for abortion as a fundamental right while relying on selective interpretations of common-law traditions that predated modern understandings of fetal development. Subsequent analysis in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) described Roe's reasoning as "exceptionally weak," lacking rational limiting principles and deviating from originalist or traditionalist methods of constitutional interpretation, which prioritize enumerated powers and historical practices over judicial intuition. Regarding stare decisis, defenders of Roe invoked precedent to urge its preservation, but critics contended that the doctrine's application was flawed because Roe rested on demonstrably erroneous foundations, rendering it unworthy of deference in constitutional adjudication. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) reaffirmed Roe's core holding by weighing factors like reliance interests and perceived workability, yet overlooked Roe's intrinsic defects, such as its departure from textualism and the unworkability of its rigid trimester divisions, which conflicted with evolving medical evidence and state regulatory needs. In constitutional cases, stare decisis commands less force than in statutory interpretation, particularly when precedents lack grounding in law and produce inconsistent outcomes; Dobbs thus rejected blind adherence, holding that Roe and Casey were "egregiously wrong from the start" and had fueled decades of divisive litigation without resolving underlying tensions. Scholars like Michael Stokes Paulsen argued that perpetuating such precedents under stare decisis undermines judicial integrity, as it elevates judicial error over corrective constitutional fidelity.

Ethical and Biological Foundations

Scientific Evidence on Fetal Human Life

Biological embryology establishes that a new comes into existence at fertilization, when the penetrates the , resulting in a with a unique, complete distinct from that of the mother or father. This represents the initial stage of a continuous developmental process, self-directing toward maturation into an adult , with no subsequent addition of new genetic material required for species membership. A survey of over 5,500 biologists from more than 1,000 institutions worldwide found 96% agreement that begins at fertilization, reflecting empirical consensus in the field despite philosophical debates over . Key physiological milestones underscore the organism's ongoing from this point. Cardiac activity begins with detectable contractions around 22 days post-fertilization (approximately 5.5 to 6 weeks ), observable via transvaginal as early as 34 days . Electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns indicative of wave activity emerge by 6 to 7 weeks post-fertilization, with individualized neural networks forming in the seventh week. Evidence on fetal pain perception highlights sensory maturation, with anatomical structures (thalamocortical connections) necessary for present by 12 to 15 weeks, and behavioral responses to noxious stimuli documented from 15 weeks in contexts. Neuroscientific reviews support the possibility of conscious experience before 24 weeks, challenging claims by organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that require 24-25 weeks for such capacity, as these may understate subcortical pathways observed in preterm infants. Multiple studies affirm that untreated fetal at mid-gestation correlates with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, akin to effects in neonates. Fetal viability, defined as potential survival ex utero with medical intervention, typically emerges around 23-24 weeks , with survival rates below 50% prior: approximately 5-6% at 22 weeks, rising to 24.9% with active support, and 80-90% by 28 weeks. This threshold reflects technological limits rather than ontological status, as pre-viable fetuses exhibit coordinated human functions like movement and response to stimuli from 8 weeks onward. Advances in neonatal care continue to lower the viability boundary, but they do not alter the biological continuity of human development from fertilization.

Historical and Philosophical Views on Abortion

In ancient civilizations, induced abortion was practiced and documented, though moral and legal attitudes varied. The from , dating to approximately 1550 BCE, records herbal remedies intended to induce , indicating early medical knowledge of abortifacients. Similar methods appear in Mesopotamian texts and Assyrian laws, where penalties for causing abortion were imposed, often treating it as to the husband rather than harm to a person. In Greco-Roman society, abortion was generally accepted for social or economic reasons, with limited legal restrictions before fetal quickening or viability. Plato's Republic (c. 375 BCE) endorsed abortion to control population in the ideal state, viewing it as a tool for eugenics and communal welfare rather than a moral absolute. Aristotle, in Politics (c. 350 BCE), classified the early embryo as vegetative or animal-like, arguing ensoulment occurred later—at 40 days for males and 90 for females—thus permitting exposure or abortion of deformed infants post-birth, though he critiqued indiscriminate practices as contrary to nature's teleology. Roman law under emperors like Septimius Severus (c. 200 CE) punished abortion primarily as injury to paternal rights, not as homicide unless the mother died. Medieval Christian philosophy integrated Aristotelian biology with theological anthropology, emphasizing the sanctity of life from conception while allowing graded moral culpability. , in Summa Theologica (1265–1274), held that abortion before "quickening" (formation of the body) was not homicide since the fetus lacked a rational soul, but constituted grave sin against by thwarting procreation; post-ensoulment, it equated to . Early Church fathers like (c. 200 ) condemned all abortion as infanticide, equating it to from conception based on 21:22–23, a view echoed in the (c. 100 ). Jewish tradition, drawing from the (c. 500 ), prioritized the mother's life over the fetus, which was not deemed a full nefesh (person) until birth, permitting abortion for health risks but prohibiting it for convenience. Islamic jurisprudence, per Quranic verses like 17:31 and hadiths, generally forbade abortion after 40–120 days (ensoulment per some schools), viewing the fetus as a sacred trust (amanah), though fatwas allowed it pre-ensoulment for maternal necessity. Under English , influential in early , abortion before (, around 16–18 weeks) was not criminalized as a until the , reflecting a distinction between pre-formed and animated life; post-, it was or murder if the was viable. By the 1800s, influenced by medical advancements and evangelical reforms, enacted the Offences Against the Person Act , criminalizing all , a trend mirrored in U.S. states where, by 1900, nearly all banned it except to save the mother's life, signaling a philosophical shift toward protecting fetal life from amid debates on . thinkers like implicitly supported fetal rights via , arguing unborn children held property interests, while utilitarian perspectives from prioritized consequences, allowing if it maximized happiness. These views underscore a historical between bodily and the intrinsic value of nascent human life, with no universal consensus but a prevailing restraint against unrestricted in Western tradition.

Reception and Immediate Aftermath

Endorsements from Pro-Abortion Rights Groups

Pro-abortion rights organizations, including the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), hailed the Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, 1973, as a major triumph in their efforts to legalize abortion nationwide by striking down state criminal statutes. NARAL, founded in 1969 to lobby for repeal of restrictive laws, viewed the ruling as the culmination of its pre-decision campaigns, prompting the group to rename itself the National Abortion Rights Action League later that year to focus on protecting and expanding abortion access. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America endorsed Roe for invalidating unconstitutional abortion bans, arguing that the decision vastly improved the safety and accessibility of abortion services by removing legal barriers that had previously driven procedures underground. The National Organization for Women (NOW) celebrated the outcome as a critical advancement for women's reproductive autonomy, consistent with its advocacy for repealing anti-abortion legislation since the organization's founding in 1966. NOW leaders, including Betty Friedan, who had pushed for abortion law reforms, integrated Roe into their platform as a foundational win for gender equality, leading to subsequent mobilizations such as marches reaffirming abortion rights. The (ACLU), which had supported abortion rights through amicus participation in companion cases like , praised Roe for grounding abortion access in the constitutional right to under the , thereby challenging laws that infringed on personal medical decisions. These groups collectively framed the decision as a victory against coercive state intervention in private spheres, though some later critiqued its framework for imposing limits on unrestricted access.

Condemnation by Pro-Life Advocates and Religious Institutions

Pro-life advocates condemned the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973, as a grave moral and legal error that invented a constitutional right to abortion while disregarding the humanity of the unborn child. Organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee, which predated Roe but intensified efforts afterward, argued that the ruling facilitated the destruction of millions of preborn lives under the guise of privacy, estimating over 60 million abortions in the U.S. by the time of its partial overruling in 2022. In direct response, activist Nellie Gray founded the March for Life, holding the inaugural event on January 22, 1974, in Washington, D.C., which drew about 20,000 participants protesting the decision's legalization of elective abortion nationwide. This annual demonstration grew to hundreds of thousands by later decades, serving as a sustained symbol of opposition and advocacy for restoring legal protections for fetal life. Religious institutions, led by the , issued swift and categorical denunciations, viewing Roe as antithetical to the inherent dignity of human life from conception. The U.S. Catholic bishops, through the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, characterized the decision as a "tragic error" that undermined the foundational to all other , aligning with longstanding Church doctrine in papal encyclicals like Humanae Vitae (1968). , Archbishop of , publicly lamented the ruling as permitting the "wanton destruction" of innocent life, urging Catholics to mobilize against its implementation. Similarly, , Archbishop of , collaborated with political figures like future President to frame as a civil violation comparable to , emphasizing of and heartbeat as indicators of . These statements galvanized into pro-life , including vigils, for state restrictions within Roe's framework, and support for constitutional amendments to ban . While some evangelical Protestant groups, such as the , initially issued measured responses allowing abortion in cases like or —resolutions in 1971 and 1974 reflected this—others like the (WELS) rejected Roe outright, affirming scriptural prohibitions against taking innocent life. Over time, broader evangelical condemnation solidified, with leaders citing biblical texts like and to argue that Roe defied divine order by prioritizing maternal autonomy over fetal protection, though initial mobilization was slower compared to Catholic efforts. Pro-life coalitions across denominations formed alliances, such as the Ad Hoc Committee for the , to challenge Roe through litigation and public education on embryological science demonstrating human development from fertilization.

Reactions from Legal Scholars and Participants

Justice , in his dissent joined by Justice , rejected the majority's holding, stating, "I find nothing in the language or history of the to support the Court's judgment," and argued that the ruling elevated the convenience of the pregnant woman over the potential life of the , amounting to an exercise of raw judicial power without constitutional foundation. Justice , in his separate dissent, criticized the framework as arbitrary, asserting that had a compelling interest in protecting fetal life from the moment of conception and that historical traditions did not support the majority's privacy-based right to in the first . Sarah Weddington, the attorney who argued for the plaintiffs, hailed the decision as a landmark victory for women's reproductive autonomy, reflecting in later years that it affirmed privacy rights and enabled access to safe abortions, a stance she maintained until her death in 2021. In contrast, Norma McCorvey, the pseudonymous "Jane Roe," initially symbolized the pro-abortion rights cause but publicly renounced her support in 1995 after converting to evangelical Christianity, testifying before Congress that she regretted her role and sought to overturn Roe, claiming she had been manipulated by abortion advocates. Henry Wade, the Dallas District Attorney defending Texas's law, did not publicly express strong personal opposition post-decision, though his office had vigorously upheld the statute as protecting maternal health and fetal life until the ruling invalidated it. Legal scholars offered divided responses, with notable critiques emerging even from those favoring abortion legalization. Yale Law professor , a supporter of abortion policy, described Roe as "not and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be," labeling it a policy-driven decision that bypassed democratic processes rather than interpreting the Constitution's text or structure. Edward Lazarus, a former clerk to Justice Blackmun who identified as pro-choice, called Roe "one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of recent times," arguing it bordered on indefensible as constitutional interpretation due to its strained reasoning and failure to engage historical or doctrinal precedents adequately. Later, Justice critiqued Roe for its sweeping nature, which she said halted legislative momentum toward reform by removing the issue from state legislatures, preferring incremental statutory changes over judicial imposition of a trimester-based standard. These views underscored a broader scholarly that, while the outcome aligned with evolving social norms for some, Roe's methodology lacked rigorous constitutional grounding, inviting ongoing debate over judicial overreach.

Evolution Through Subsequent Cases

Early Modifications and Challenges

In the years immediately following Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court addressed challenges to state regulations on abortion funding and consent requirements. In Maher v. Roe (1977), the Court upheld Connecticut's policy denying public Medicaid funds for non-therapeutic abortions while reimbursing childbirth, ruling 6-3 that such restrictions did not infringe on the right established in Roe since indigent women were not entitled to state funding for elective procedures. Similarly, Beal v. Doe (1977) affirmed that states could exclude elective abortions from Medicaid coverage without violating Title XIX of the Social Security Act or constitutional mandates, as Roe did not compel funding equivalence between abortion and childbirth. These decisions effectively modified Roe's implications by permitting financial barriers that disproportionately affected low-income women, though the core right to abortion remained intact. Subsequent cases focused on consent and minor involvement. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976) invalidated Missouri's spousal consent requirement for married women and parental consent for unmarried minors without judicial bypass, deeming them undue burdens on the abortion right, but upheld a parental consent provision for minors with an alternative judicial option and a viability definition tied to fetal survival. In Bellotti v. Baird (1979), the Court sustained Massachusetts' parental consent law for minors, provided a judicial bypass allowed mature minors or those facing hardship to proceed without parental involvement, balancing state interests in protecting minors against Roe's privacy protections. H.L. v. Matheson (1981) upheld Utah's parental notification requirement for unemancipated minors, as it did not grant veto power to parents and applied only to those without asserted maturity or medical necessity claims. Efforts to impose procedural regulations faced mixed outcomes. City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983) struck down Akron, Ohio's requirements for lectures on fetal development, a 24-hour waiting period, and hospitalization for second-trimester abortions, ruling 6-3 that these imposed unnecessary burdens beyond Roe's trimester framework and lacked sufficient state interest justification. Likewise, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986) invalidated Pennsylvania's provisions mandating disclosures of fetal pain and alternatives, viewing them as ideologically biased attempts to dissuade abortions rather than promote informed choice. A pivotal shift occurred in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), where the upheld Missouri's bans on public employees performing or assisting non-therapeutic abortions, public facilities' use for such procedures, and public funding, as well as a requirement for viability testing after 20 weeks' gestation. Decided 5-4, the ruling declined to revisit Roe's core holding but rejected for post-viability regulations and signaled tolerance for state measures advancing fetal protection interests, eroding the absolutism of Roe's viability standard without overturning it. These early cases collectively refined Roe by affirming states' leeway in funding, minor safeguards, and post-viability limits while invalidating direct pre-viability obstacles, reflecting evolving judicial composition and incremental challenges to the decision's scope.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Undue Burden Standard

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Supreme Court addressed challenges to provisions of Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982, including requirements for informed consent, a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors with judicial bypass, and spousal notification. The Court, in a plurality opinion authored by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, reaffirmed the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade that women have a constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability, typically around 23 to 24 weeks of pregnancy, and that states may not impose an absolute ban pre-viability or post-viability without exceptions for maternal health or life. However, the decision rejected Roe's trimester framework, which had structured state regulatory authority by dividing pregnancy into stages, deeming it unworkable and overly rigid. The plurality introduced the "undue burden" standard to evaluate regulations, replacing Roe's application of , which required the state to demonstrate a compelling interest and narrow tailoring for any infringement on the right. Under the new test, a state law imposes an undue burden if "in a large fraction of cases in which [it] is relevant, it will operate as a substantial obstacle to a woman's to undergo an ," considering both the law's purpose and effect before viability. Post-viability regulations remain subject to strict prohibition except for preserving maternal life or health. This standard permitted states greater latitude to enact measures expressing a "profound respect for fetal life" and encouraging , such as mandates requiring physicians to discuss alternatives like and fetal development, provided they do not unduly burden access. Applying the standard, the Court upheld Pennsylvania's and 24-hour waiting provisions, finding they furthered legitimate state interests in informed decision-making without creating a substantial obstacle, as evidenced by data showing minimal impact on rates in states with similar requirements. with judicial bypass was also sustained, as it balanced minors' rights with parental involvement while providing an alternative for those fearing abuse. Spousal notification, however, was invalidated, as it posed an undue burden for women in abusive relationships, where evidence indicated it would deter a significant number from seeking s due to fear of retaliation. Justices and concurred in part but advocated retaining , while and Justices , , and dissented, arguing for overruling Roe entirely in favor of . The undue burden framework marked a shift toward to state regulatory interests, allowing restrictions that might deter some without prohibiting them outright, in contrast to Roe's more protective stance against pre-viability interference. This evolution reflected the plurality's reliance on stare decisis to preserve institutional legitimacy, despite acknowledging Roe's philosophical and historical vulnerabilities, while enabling states to impose targeted burdens to promote fetal protection. The decision, issued on June 30, 1992, by a margin on the core reaffirmation but with fragmented votes on specifics, preserved Roe's viability line amid growing state experimentation with limits.

Path to Overruling: Gonzales and Beyond

In 2003, the U.S. enacted the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibited the performance of a specific procedure termed "partial-birth abortion," defined as knowingly delivering a living intact until only the head remains inside the , followed by partial delivery and intentional of the head for the purpose of performing a transcranial procedure to kill the . signed the legislation into law on November 5, 2003, marking the first federal restriction on procedures since Roe v. Wade. The Act included findings by asserting the procedure's brutality, lack of medical necessity, and risks to , while lacking an exception for cases where the procedure might be necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. The ban faced immediate legal challenges, culminating in , decided by the on April 18, 2007, in a 5-4 ruling that upheld the federal law's constitutionality. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice and Justices , , and , rejected claims of vagueness and undue burden under , emphasizing deference to legislative judgments on medical evidence and ethical concerns regarding the dehumanizing nature of the procedure, which involved killing a partially delivered . The Court distinguished the case from its 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which invalidated a Nebraska state ban partly due to the absence of a health exception, holding that could rationally conclude the banned method was never medically necessary and that Casey did not mandate such exceptions for specific procedures posing risks without benefits. Justices , , , and dissented, arguing the ruling undermined women's autonomy by allowing bans without health safeguards and inviting further restrictions on pre-viability abortions. This decision represented a departure from prior precedents, affirming the government's interest in preserving fetal life even in targeted late-term contexts and emboldening states to enact similar laws, with over 30 states passing comparable bans post-Gonzales, many of which withstood lower court scrutiny. Following Gonzales, the Court navigated a series of challenges to state regulations, revealing tensions in applying the Casey amid shifting compositions. In (2016), a 5-3 decision invalidated two provisions—requiring providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards—as imposing substantial obstacles with little corresponding health benefits, closing about half of clinics and increasing travel distances for women by hundreds of miles. Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, , and Sonia (with concurring), required courts to weigh burdens against purported benefits, finding the laws served no legitimate purpose beyond delaying or deterring abortions. Justice Thomas dissented, advocating abandonment of protections for , while Alito and Roberts criticized the balancing test as subjective. This reaffirmed Casey's framework but highlighted its limits, as states continued enacting targeted restrictions like 20-week bans based on fetal evidence, upheld in lower courts and not directly reviewed by the until later challenges. By 2020, in June Medical Services v. Russo, the Court again struck down a Louisiana admitting-privileges requirement by a 5-4 vote, mirroring Whole Woman's Health's outcome, with evidence showing the law would shutter clinics serving 10,000 women annually without improving safety. A plurality opinion by Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, applied facial invalidation under Casey, while Chief Justice Roberts concurred solely on stare decisis grounds to avoid overruling recent precedent, signaling his view that consistency with prior rulings constrained the Court but leaving room for revisiting foundational precedents like Roe and Casey themselves. Justices Thomas, Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented in parts, with Thomas arguing the privileges rule aligned with rational basis review and urging rejection of abortion as a constitutional right. Roberts' narrow rationale underscored the fragility of stare decisis for abortion jurisprudence, particularly as the Court's composition had conservative-tilted with President Donald Trump's appointments: Gorsuch replacing Scalia in 2017, Kavanaugh succeeding Kennedy in 2018 after the latter's retirement, and Amy Coney Barrett filling Ginsburg's seat in 2020 following her death. These changes, with justices expressing originalist skepticism toward unenumerated privacy rights in opinions and confirmations, positioned the Court to entertain direct assaults on Roe's viability line, as states like Mississippi enacted a 2018 law banning abortions after 15 weeks—explicitly defying Casey—to test constitutional limits.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

In 2018, the Mississippi Legislature passed the Gestational Age Act, which prohibited abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities, thereby exceeding the viability threshold established in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Jackson Women's Health Organization, the sole licensed abortion facility in Mississippi, challenged the law in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which struck it down as unconstitutional under Roe and Casey. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, holding that the viability line remained binding precedent. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, successor to petitioner Thomas E. Dobbs, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on May 17, 2021, to consider whether pre-viability bans conflict with precedent and whether Roe and Casey should be overruled. Oral arguments were heard on , 2021, with Mississippi urging the Court to uphold the 15-week limit and reconsider the viability standard, while respondents defended the existing framework protecting rights up to , around 24 weeks. On June 24, 2022, the issued its decision in a 6–3 ruling, with Justice writing the joined in full by Justices , , , and , and concurring in the judgment only. The Court held that the does not confer a right to , overruling Roe and Casey in their entirety and upholding Mississippi's Gestational Age Act. The majority reasoned that abortion lacks deep roots in the Nation's history and traditions, as required under the Glucksberg test for under the Fourteenth Amendment's , with common-law traditions treating as a by the mid-1800s and nearly all states banning it by 1868. It criticized Roe's framework as "egregiously wrong from the start" for lacking constitutional basis and relying on flawed historical analysis, and Casey's as unworkable and insufficiently grounded, failing to resolve the abortion debate or respect democratic processes. The opinion emphasized that rational-basis review applies to abortion regulations, returning authority to regulate the practice to the states and the people, as the is silent on the issue and leaves moral and policy questions to elected representatives rather than unelected judges. Justice Thomas concurred fully, advocating to overrule additional precedents rooted in , such as Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception), Lawrence v. Texas (same-sex relations), and Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage), arguing they lack textual or historical foundation. Justice Kavanaugh concurred, affirming the decision's narrow scope to without threatening other privacy rights and noting states' ability to protect interstate travel for abortions or fertility treatments. Roberts's concurrence upheld the 15-week ban under existing but opposed overruling Roe outright, favoring a middle ground preserving some pre-viability access while allowing modest restrictions. Justices , , and issued a joint , contending that overruling Roe and Casey undermined stare decisis without changed facts or law, diminished women's equal citizenship by relegating them to second-class status, and ignored reliance interests from nearly 50 years of affecting millions. The accused the majority of seizing a policy preference under the guise of neutral principles, warning of broader threats to individual liberties and judicial legitimacy. The decision marked the first explicit overruling of a recognized in multiple cases, shifting abortion policy from federal judicial mandate to state-level democratic deliberation.

Post-Dobbs Developments

State-Level Restrictions and Protections

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. on June 24, 2022, which overturned and eliminated the federal constitutional protection for abortion, authority over abortion regulation returned to the states, resulting in a patchwork of policies. By September 2025, 12 states enforced total or near-total bans on abortion, typically prohibiting the procedure from conception or early gestation with limited exceptions for the life of the mother, and in some cases for or . These included states such as , , , , , , , , , , , and Texas, where pre-existing "trigger laws" enacted before Dobbs automatically activated upon the ruling's issuance, often within 30 days. Thirteen states originally had such trigger provisions, but enforcement varied due to ongoing litigation; for instance, North Dakota's ban faced temporary injunctions before partial implementation. Additional restrictions emerged through new legislation or court rulings in other states. Florida's six-week gestational limit, upheld by the state Supreme Court on April 1, 2024, took effect on May 1, 2024, banning most abortions after detection of cardiac activity, with exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies, rape, incest, or maternal life endangerment; this led to a substantial decline in in-state abortions by mid-2025. Iowa implemented a similar six-week ban in 2024, contributing to reduced clinician-provided abortions. Georgia's heartbeat law, enacted in 2019 but enforced post-Dobbs, imposed a six-week limit, while Arizona repealed a 1864 near-total ban in 2024 but maintained a 15-week restriction until voters approved a broader protection measure later that year. Overall, 19 states restricted abortion earlier than the viability standard previously set by Roe, with six imposing limits between six and 12 weeks' gestation. These laws often included requirements for ultrasounds, waiting periods, or parental notification, though exceptions were narrowly defined and subject to judicial scrutiny for medical emergencies. In contrast, states favoring expanded access enacted protections mirroring or exceeding Roe's framework. California codified abortion rights into state law via Proposition 1 in September 2022, affirming access up to viability with post-viability exceptions for maternal health. Michigan voters approved Proposal 3 in November 2022, enshrining reproductive rights including abortion in the state constitution without gestational limits tied to viability. By November 2024, ballot initiatives in seven states—Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York—passed measures protecting abortion rights, typically allowing the procedure until fetal viability or later for health reasons, with Missouri's measure notably overriding prior restrictions despite ongoing litigation. Vermont had previously amended its constitution in 2012 and expanded statutory protections post-Dobbs, while Ohio approved Issue 1 in 2023 to protect reproductive decisions. As of September 2025, abortion remained broadly legal without early gestational bans in 31 states and Washington, D.C., often with expansions such as shielding providers from out-of-state lawsuits or facilitating medication abortion. State courts continued to litigate these divides, with rulings testing the scope of voter-approved amendments against legislative restrictions.

Interstate Travel, Medication Abortion, and Federal Challenges

Following the Dobbs decision on June 24, 2022, interstate travel for abortion services surged as residents of states enacting near-total bans sought care elsewhere, with approximately 171,300 individuals from ban states traveling out-of-state in 2023, representing nearly one in five patients overall. This figure declined slightly to 155,000 in 2024 amid ongoing logistical challenges, yet remained nearly double pre-Dobbs levels. Travel burdens intensified, with average times rising from 2.8 hours to 11.3 hours post-ban and overnight stays increasing from 5% to 58% of cases in affected areas. Several states introduced measures to curtail such travel, including Idaho's 2023 law prohibiting "abortion trafficking" by adults aiding minors across state lines without , which faced federal challenges under the right to travel and doctrines. In January 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling, upholding enforcement of core trafficking provisions while enjoining restrictions on attorneys and clinics providing information or logistical support, citing First Amendment and interstate commerce protections. Broader attempts to regulate out-of-state travel have encountered judicial skepticism, as courts have invoked the right to interstate movement, though legal scholars debate the viability of claims post-National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023). Medication abortion, primarily involving and , expanded significantly post-Dobbs, comprising 63% of all U.S. clinician-provided abortions in 2023, up from 53% in 2020, driven by provision in states without total bans. By late 2024, one in four abortions occurred via , with over 12,000 monthly medication abortions delivered to patients in ban states through shield laws permitting out-of-state providers to mail drugs and evade local enforcement. Self-managed medication abortions also rose, with estimates of at least 26,000 additional cases in the six months immediately following Dobbs. A major federal challenge targeted the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval and regulatory changes for , initiated by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in 2022, which sought to revoke access nationwide by arguing inadequate safety reviews. On June 13, 2024, the unanimously ruled in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine that the plaintiffs—anti-abortion groups and physicians—lacked Article III standing, as they failed to demonstrate concrete injury from the FDA's actions, thereby preserving the drug's availability via mail and without addressing its substantive merits. Federal challenges have also invoked the 1873 Comstock Act, which prohibits mailing "obscene" materials or items intended for abortion, with post-Dobbs advocates urging its enforcement to block shipment of or clinic supplies into ban states, potentially effecting a national restriction. The Biden Department of Justice countered in that the Act applies only to materials explicitly for unlawful abortions, not those mailed for legal use in permissive states, a position reinforced by analysis. Legislative responses include the proposed Stop Comstock Act of 2024 to repeal relevant provisions, though it stalled; enforcement remains dormant absent judicial reinterpretation. Broader federal litigation post-Dobbs has tested state bans' intersections with federal law, including Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) claims requiring stabilization in emergencies, but the in v. (June 2024) limited such overrides, allowing states to prosecute physicians for abortions outside narrow exceptions even in federal facilities. Over 100 federal cases tracked through 2025 primarily affirm state authority under Dobbs, with injunctions rare except for travel facilitation or shields.

Empirical Trends in Abortions and Births (2022–2025)

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on June 24, 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade, national abortion volumes initially dipped in the second half of 2022 due to immediate enforcement of bans in 14 states but rebounded thereafter, driven by increased interstate travel, expanded telehealth for medication abortion, and higher provision in states without total restrictions. According to data from the Society of Family Planning's WeCount project, which aggregates provider reports, the monthly average number of abortions rose from approximately 80,000 in 2022 (post-Dobbs period) to 88,000 in 2023 and 95,000 in 2024. The Guttmacher Institute, drawing from clinician surveys, estimated 1,038,100 clinician-provided abortions in 2024 across states without total bans, reflecting a national trend where overall abortions exceeded pre-Dobbs levels by 2024, with medication abortions via telehealth comprising nearly 26,000 monthly appointments by December 2024, up from 8,500 in late 2021. The Charlotte Lozier Institute, analyzing state-reported data, documented 1,121,450 formal abortions from July 2023 to June 2024, excluding self-managed cases, indicating persistence but with methodological differences from pro-abortion groups that include broader estimates. In states enacting total or near-total bans, abortions fell sharply—by over 95% in some cases like and —shifting procedures to permissive states such as , , and , where volumes increased by 20-50% in 2023-2024. This redistribution contributed to a national abortion rate of 15.4 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2024, a 1% decline from 15.5 in 2023 but stable relative to pre-Dobbs figures around 14-15. Early 2025 data through mid-year shows continued monthly averages near 95,000, with no abrupt national downturn despite ongoing litigation over restrictions. National birth counts rose modestly post-Dobbs, from 3,591,328 in 2022 to 3,596,000 in 2023 and 3,628,934 in 2024, a 1% increase year-over-year, amid a general rate (births per 1,000 women aged 15-44) that dipped slightly to 1,599 in 2024 from 1,621 in 2023. However, econometric analyses of state-level data reveal that bans correlated with a 2.3% average increase in births in restricted states during 2022-2023 compared to counterfactual trends without restrictions, yielding an estimated 32,000 additional births nationally in the first 18 months post-Dobbs. rates in ban states exceeded expectations by 1.7% in the same period, with provisional 2025 data indicating sustained low national totals rates around 1.60, below replacement level, though ban-state upticks persisted into early 2025. These patterns suggest causal effects from restricted access, tempered nationally by migration for abortions, while sources like the emphasize overall abortion resilience over birth surges.
YearEstimated National Abortions (Monthly Avg.)Births (Total)General Fertility Rate (per 1,000 women 15-44)
2022~80,000 (post-June)3,591,3281,624.0
202388,0003,596,0001,621.0
202495,0003,628,9341,599.0
Note: Abortion estimates from provider surveys; birth data from CDC vital statistics. Regional variations show steeper birth rises (2-3%) in ban states.

Political and Legislative Ramifications

Influence on U.S. Elections and Party Platforms

The Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade elevated abortion from a predominantly state-level matter to a national constitutional controversy, fostering deep partisan divisions in American politics. Prior to Roe, both major parties exhibited mixed stances on abortion regulation, with significant bipartisan support for restrictions in many states. Following the ruling, Republicans increasingly positioned themselves against it to appeal to Catholic and evangelical voters traditionally aligned with Democrats, marking a strategic shift evident in the 1976 Republican National Convention. That year's GOP platform was the first to explicitly oppose abortion except when necessary to save the mother's life, advocating for a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. In contrast, the 1976 Democratic platform affirmed the Roe decision while opposing public funding for non-therapeutic abortions. By the 1980 presidential election, opposition to had become a cornerstone of the Republican strategy to mobilize the emerging . Ronald Reagan, despite his earlier support for therapeutic abortions as governor, embraced a pro-life platform that resonated with evangelicals, who had begun prioritizing the issue after initial focus on and tax-exempt status for academies. This alignment contributed to Reagan's victory, with evangelicals providing crucial turnout in key states; exit polls indicated moral issues, including abortion, influenced voter preferences significantly. The 1980 GOP platform called for a human life amendment, solidifying the party's commitment, while Democrats began emphasizing protection of as . In subsequent decades, entrenched as a , with party platforms diverging sharply: Republicans consistently sought to restrict or overturn it through amendments, judicial appointments, and bans on procedures like partial-birth abortion, as in the 2004 platform under . Democrats, by 1992, pledged to defend unequivocally, framing it as a fundamental right. This polarization boosted turnout among ideological bases; for instance, in 2004, 22% of voters cited moral values—including —as their top issue, aiding Bush's narrow re-election amid and partial-birth debates. Empirical analyses show pro-life attitudes correlating with higher Republican support in presidential races from the onward, though economic concerns often overshadowed in swing voter decisions. The issue's salience waned in some cycles, like 1992 when Bill Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" formulation moderated Democratic rhetoric, but judicial nominations tied to remained a perennial electoral flashpoint.

Federal Legislative Efforts Pre- and Post-Roe

Prior to the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade on , 1973, federal legislation on was limited, with primary authority residing in the states. The most significant federal measure with direct bearing on was the Comstock Act, enacted on March 3, 1873, which criminalized the mailing of "obscene" materials through the U.S. postal system, explicitly including drugs or instruments intended to induce or prevent conception. This law, named after postal inspector , effectively restricted interstate distribution of abortifacients but did not regulate procedures themselves. In the immediate aftermath of , moved to curb federal financial support for abortions. The Helms Amendment, adopted in September 1973 as part of the , prohibited the use of U.S. foreign aid funds to pay for abortions "as a method of " in overseas programs, a restriction that persists and applies even in cases of , , or maternal risks unless explicitly tied to humanitarian exceptions. Domestically, the , introduced by Representative and attached as a rider to the fiscal year 1977 Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill on September 30, 1976, barred federal reimbursements for abortions except when the endangered the woman's life (later expanded to include and ). This provision has been renewed annually in subsequent appropriations acts, affecting coverage for low-income women and influencing an estimated 25% reduction in abortion rates among Medicaid-eligible populations in states without state funding supplements. Subsequent federal efforts focused on targeted restrictions amid ongoing debates over 's viability framework. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, passed by Congress and signed by President on November 5, 2003, made it a federal crime—punishable by up to two years imprisonment and loss of medical license—for physicians to perform the procedure after 20 weeks of gestation, with narrow exceptions for risks. Upheld by the Supreme Court in (2007), the law represented the first direct federal prohibition on a specific method post-Roe. Other measures, such as the of 2004, extended federal criminal protections to fetuses harmed in violent crimes against pregnant women, recognizing the unborn child as a separate victim without altering rights. After the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling on June 24, 2022, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion and returned regulation to states, legislative attempts shifted toward national codification or prohibition. Proponents of expanded access reintroduced the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA), with H.R. 12 in the 119th Congress (introduced January 2025) seeking to preempt state laws imposing undue burdens on pre-viability abortions and clinic regulations, though it failed amid partisan opposition. Restriction advocates pursued measures like the Ensuring Justice for Victims of Partial-Birth Abortion Act (introduced January 2025), aimed at enhancing penalties and enforcement of the 2003 ban, and repeated introductions of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which passed the House in 2023 and 2025 but stalled in the Senate, mandating care for infants born alive during attempted abortions. Broader proposals for a national ban, such as heartbeat bills or personhood declarations, advanced in committee but lacked the votes for enactment, reflecting divided congressional control.

State Constitutional Amendments and Ballot Initiatives

Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on June 24, 2022, which returned authority over regulation to the states, voters in multiple states approved or rejected ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments addressing rights or restrictions. These measures largely sought to embed protections for access in state constitutions to shield against legislative bans, though some aimed to clarify or impose limits. By late 2024, voters had considered such proposals in at least 16 states since Dobbs, with successes predominantly in states without pre-existing total bans. In 2022, Kansas voters rejected the "Value Them Both" amendment on August 2, which would have removed state constitutional protections for derived from prior court rulings, by a margin of 59% to 41%.) approved Proposal 3 on November 8, establishing a to "reproductive freedom" encompassing , by 56.7% to 43.3%, overriding prior legislative restrictions.) passed Article 22 on the same date, affirming a right to "personal reproductive autonomy" including , with 76.9% support.) Ohio voters approved on November 7, 2023, amending the state constitution to protect "reproductive medical treatment including " without viability limits or parental notification mandates, passing 56.6% to 43.4% despite the state's Republican legislative majority.) In , voters on November 5, 2024, rejected Initiative 439, which sought to establish a state to before viability, by 56% to 44%, while approving Legislative Bill 626 (a legislative referral) declaring no such right exists and codifying limits after 12 weeks except for medical emergencies or fetal anomalies.)) The 2024 election featured the most extensive slate, with 10 states voting on -related amendments. Seven measures to protect or expand rights passed: Proposition 139 (61.3% yes, enshrining rights up to viability with post-viability exceptions); Amendment 79 (similar reinforcement, 64% yes); Question 1 (adding explicit privacy protections including , 72% yes); Amendment 3 (right to reproductive freedom, 51.7% yes); Constitutional Initiative 128 (right to before viability, 57% yes); Question 1 (initial approval for right to within 24 weeks, 59% yes, requiring second vote in 2026); and Proposition 1 (expanding equal rights to include reproductive healthcare, 61% yes).) Three failed: Amendment 4 (to protect before viability, 55.7% yes but short of 60% threshold); Amendment G (to legalize before 14 weeks with exceptions, 56% no).)) These outcomes reflect voter preferences in diverse contexts, with pro-protection measures succeeding in purple and blue-leaning states amid high turnout.
YearStateMeasureOutcomeVote Margin
2022Value Them Both AmendmentRejected59% no)
2022Proposal 3 (Reproductive Freedom)Approved56.7% yes)
2022Article 22 (Reproductive Autonomy)Approved76.9% yes)
2023Issue 1 (Reproductive Decisions)Approved56.6% yes)
2024Proposition 139Approved61.3% yes)
2024Amendment 4Rejected55.7% yes (failed threshold))
2024Initiative 439 & LB 626Mixed (protection rejected; limits approved)56% no on 439; yes on 626))
2024Amendment GRejected56% no)
As of October 2025, additional proposals remain under consideration, such as in , where a to amend the for advanced in committee on October 22, 2025, but awaits voter approval. These processes have bypassed Republican-controlled legislatures in some states, directly embedding resistant to reversal, though enforcement and litigation continue in courts.

Empirical Societal Impacts

Effects on Birth Rates and Demographics

The legalization of abortion following Roe v. Wade in contributed to a measurable decline in U.S. birth rates, with empirical analyses attributing approximately a 5 reduction in the aggregate rate to the decision. States that legalized earlier, in , experienced a 5% drop in births relative to national trends, a pattern that accelerated nationwide post-Roe. While broader factors like contraceptive use and economic conditions influenced , legalized accounted for a distinct causal effect, reducing overall births by enabling termination of an estimated 10-15% of pregnancies that would otherwise have resulted in live births. This impact was particularly pronounced on illegitimate births, as legal provided a mechanism to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies, depressing nonmarital rates more sharply than marital ones. Aggregate data show U.S. total rates falling from 2.01 in to 1.74 by , with abortion liberalization explaining a portion of this trend beyond prior reforms. Early-legalizing states saw birth rates decline by about 4% more than non-legalizing ones, underscoring the policy's role in altering reproductive outcomes. Demographically, the effects were uneven across racial and ethnic groups, with higher rates among non-white women leading to relatively greater reductions in minority births. , comprising about 13% of the female population, accounted for roughly 36% of s in the post-Roe era, resulting in rates more than double those of women. This disparity contributed to steeper proportional declines in black rates—from 3.99 children per in 1973 to 2.90 by 1980—compared to whites (1.85 to 1.76 over the same period), amplifying existing gaps in . women similarly faced elevated rates, approximately twice the white rate, further skewing birth demographics toward groups with lower utilization. Over decades, these patterns reduced the prospective minority population share, as prevented births were disproportionately non-white, though socioeconomic confounders like and access to alternatives complicate isolating abortion's net effect. Socioeconomic demographics also shifted, with low-income women—half of patients living below the federal line—experiencing higher termination rates, which correlated with fewer births among this and potential long-term effects on family structure and workforce participation. Regional variations persisted, with Southern and areas showing larger birth reductions due to concentrated post-. Overall, while not the sole driver of fertility trends, Roe facilitated a sustained lowering of birth , influencing age structures and dependency ratios into subsequent generations.

Maternal and Infant Health Outcomes

Prior to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, deaths from illegal abortions were estimated at under 300 annually during the , with only 39 recorded in , comprising a minor portion of the roughly 1,000 total annual maternal deaths. Overall maternal mortality rates had declined sharply from the onward—driven by antibiotics like penicillin, improved , and increased hospital deliveries—falling from approximately 37.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1945 to 21.5 in 1970, predating widespread legalization. Claims of thousands of annual illegal deaths, often cited by advocacy groups, have been characterized as exaggerated, with underreporting acknowledged but not supporting such high figures. Following Roe, the mortality rate for legal abortions dropped from 3.3 deaths per 100,000 procedures in 1973 to 0.4 by 1985, reflecting procedural standardization and medical oversight. Some econometric analyses attribute 30-50% reductions in non-white maternal mortality to early state-level legalizations around 1970, estimating 113-134 averted deaths in the first year post-legalization. However, overall U.S. maternal mortality continued its pre-Roe downward trajectory into the 1980s (to 7.2 per 100,000 by 1990), coinciding with broader healthcare advancements, and event-study designs linking legalization directly to mortality drops have faced criticism for omitting confounders like rising prenatal care access. Legal abortions contributed minimally to maternal deaths post-Roe, with complications like hemorrhage and infection rare at scale, though aggregate procedure volumes exceeded 50 million by 2020. After the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision overturning Roe, maternal mortality in states enacting near-total bans declined 21% from 2022 levels by 2023, mirroring a national 17% drop, amid revised CDC methodologies excluding incidental COVID-19 classifications that had inflated prior rates. Preliminary claims of post-Dobbs spikes in ban states—such as projected 24% national increases under total bans or associations with 59 excess pregnancy-related deaths—stem largely from pro-access organizations like Guttmacher Institute and academic studies potentially subject to left-leaning institutional biases, with short-term data (2022-2023) confounded by ongoing pandemic effects and baseline disparities in ban states (e.g., higher poverty and obesity rates). No verified causal surge in maternal deaths from delayed care has materialized in official tallies as of 2025. Regarding , legalization under showed no clear causal impact on U.S. rates, which fell over 90% from 1915 to 1997 (to 7.2 per 1,000 live births) due to neonatal care improvements, unrelated to access per correlational analyses. Selective termination of high-risk or anomalous fetuses may have marginally lowered rates by altering birth cohorts, but empirical reviews find trends driven by socioeconomic and medical factors rather than legalization. Post-Dobbs bans correlate with 5.6% higher-than-expected in affected states (equating to 478 excess deaths across 14 states by 2023), particularly among non-Hispanic Black infants (11.81 vs. expected 10.66 per 1,000), attributed to carrying unintended high-risk pregnancies to term. These findings, from sources like , rely on counterfactual modeling vulnerable to omitted variables (e.g., regional healthcare access), and pre-Dobbs restrictions in states like (2021 ban) showed contested 12.9% neonatal increases amid stable overall trends. Longer-term data through 2025 remains preliminary, with no consensus on causation amid confounders like expansions and congenital screening advances.

Economic and Social Consequences

Legalized abortion following Roe v. Wade in 1973 correlated with increased female labor force participation, rising from 43.3% in 1970 to 57.5% by 1990, though causation is debated amid concurrent factors like the contraceptive pill and anti-discrimination laws. Studies attribute part of this to reduced unintended births, with one analysis estimating that abortion access lowered teen motherhood by 34% and boosted women's completed and earnings by enabling career . However, empirical links remain correlative, as broader economic expansions and cultural shifts contributed substantially, and some research finds minimal isolated impact from Roe on long-term or income trajectories after controlling for state variations. Abortions and related care imposed direct economic costs, with annual U.S. expenditures on procedures and complications ranging from $189,000 to $134 million in the decades post-legalization, excluding indirect societal burdens like lost productivity from health issues. Proponents of cite benefits such as averted financial distress for women denied abortions, based on longitudinal data showing higher and among those carrying to term. Critics, drawing from lifecycle models, argue legalization facilitated single parenthood by reducing incentives for or , correlating with a rise in rates from 15.1% in to peaks near 23% in the –1990s among affected cohorts. Socially, contributed to shifts in family structure, including delayed (average first marriage age rising to 27 by the ) and increased nonmarital childbearing, which climbed from 5% of births in 1960 to 40% by 2010, partly as served as an alternative to "shotgun" weddings that had already declined pre-1973 due to contraception. This trend linked to higher rates of and , with econometric analyses indicating that easier access weakened norms tying sex to marital commitment. The Donohue-Levitt hypothesis posits that legalized reduced crime rates by preventing births of high-risk children, with evidence showing U.S. peaking in the early 1990s before falling 40–50% through the —approximately 18–20 years after Roe's implementation, aligning with cohort effects in states with higher abortion rates. Updated analyses confirm this, estimating abortions accounted for up to half the crime drop, robust to critiques on data specification. Demographically, Roe lowered overall fertility by about 5% initially, disproportionately affecting minority groups with higher unintended pregnancy rates, though long-term birth trends stabilized due to offsetting factors like immigration and delayed childbearing. Maternal mortality declined post-1973, with safer legal procedures replacing ones, reducing rates by 30–40% among people of color by the 1980s.

Enduring Legacy

Assessments of Roe's Legal and Moral Flaws

The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) has faced substantial criticism for its lack of constitutional grounding, with detractors arguing it invented an unenumerated right unsupported by the text, structure, or history of the Constitution. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Court explicitly overruled Roe, deeming it "egregiously wrong from the start" because the asserted right to abortion lacks deep roots in the Nation's history and traditions and is not essential to ordered liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Roe majority derived the right from a broad interpretation of privacy precedents, but without textual basis in the Constitution, which mentions neither abortion nor fetal rights explicitly. Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion relied on selective historical analysis, ignoring longstanding common-law traditions regulating abortion after quickening and nineteenth-century statutes criminalizing it at all stages. Critics, including dissenting justices in Roe, highlighted the decision's judicial overreach, portraying it as legislative policymaking rather than constitutional interpretation. Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist, dissented on grounds that the Court imposed its policy preferences on the states, bypassing democratic processes to resolve a profound moral and ethical question involving potential human life. White emphasized that the ruling nullified state laws reflecting elected legislatures' judgments, effectively enacting a national abortion code without electoral accountability. Rehnquist separately dissented, faulting the trimester viability framework as an arbitrary judicial construct that dictated regulatory details—such as no state restrictions in the first trimester—usurping legislative authority and disrupting federalism by federalizing an issue traditionally left to states. This framework, later discarded in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) as unworkable, underscored Roe's flaws in substituting judicial line-drawing for legislative discretion. Even Roe's defenders, such as some legal scholars, have conceded weaknesses in its reasoning while supporting the outcome, acknowledging the opinion's reliance on flawed historical claims and overly rigid balancing tests. The decision's national scope exacerbated charges of overreach by preempting state experimentation and public debate, leading to polarized politics and judicial entrenchment of a divisive policy. Morally, has been assailed for subordinating the interests of the unborn to maternal , establishing viability as an ethically arbitrary for that ignores biological realities of human development. Dissenters like argued the majority undervalued the state's compelling interest in safeguarding "potential ," treating the as devoid of until birth despite evidence of its independent humanity from . Critics contend this framework morally equated elective with a right, akin to historical injustices like (1857), where courts denied to a of humans based on , enabling their subjugation. Ethicists and scholars, including those emphasizing fetal moral from fertilization, argue institutionalized the denial of intrinsic human dignity to preborn individuals, evidenced by embryological that a unique human organism exists at , warranting protection against intentional destruction. By framing as a of individual choice without robust counterbalancing of , is seen as morally deficient in causal terms, contributing to over 63 million abortions in the U.S. from 1973 to 2020 by licensing procedures that end developing human lives without due regard for their potentiality and biological continuity. rectified this by returning moral authority to democratic bodies, recognizing that ethical weightings of competing interests—maternal versus fetal —belong to legislatures accountable to voters.

Shifts in Public Opinion and Cultural Norms

Public opinion on abortion in the United States has remained relatively stable since Roe v. Wade in 1973, with Gallup polls from 1975 onward showing consistent majorities favoring legality under certain circumstances—typically 47-55% identifying with this moderate position—while smaller shares support legality in all cases (around 20-30%) or illegality in all cases (10-20%). Pre-Roe data is limited, but available surveys suggest similar pluralities opposed broad legalization, though without the framework of a national right established by the decision. This stability persisted through the 1980s and 1990s, even as Roe galvanized opposition; for instance, a 1998 Gallup poll found 53% supporting retention of Roe versus 29% favoring overturn. Post-Dobbs v. in 2022, which overturned , public views showed modest shifts toward greater support for legal , with indicating 63% favoring legality in all or most cases by June 2025, up slightly from 61% in 2022. Gallup reported heightened dissatisfaction with abortion laws, reaching 62% in 2023—the highest in over two decades—particularly among women and Democrats, though overall preferences for restrictions in later trimesters remained strong across groups. These trends reflect nuance rather than : support for unrestricted declines sharply after the first , aligning with viability-based limits that itself imposed but which public sentiment has long favored independently of judicial mandates. Culturally, Roe accelerated the normalization of abortion as a personal medical decision, reducing and integrating it into broader discussions of reproductive , as evidenced by the liberalization of state laws in 17 jurisdictions by 1973 and subsequent declines in reported among those seeking procedures. However, the decision provoked a sustained pro-life counter-movement, initially rooted in Catholic but expanding to evangelicals by the late 1970s, framing as a moral crisis akin to civil violations against the unborn. This led to enduring norms like the annual March for Life, begun in 1974 and drawing hundreds of thousands yearly, which embedded fetal into public and influenced media portrayals emphasizing ethical debates over procedural access. The politicization intensified post-Roe, with abortion emerging as a partisan litmus test by the 1980s—Republicans increasingly opposing it, Democrats supporting access—yet transcending parties in mixed views, as 36% of Republicans still favored legality in most cases per 2023 PRRI data. Dobbs reopened cultural fault lines, spurring state ballot measures affirming access in places like Kansas (2022) and Ohio (2023), but also reinforcing pro-life norms in restrictive states through crisis pregnancy centers and ultrasound mandates, reflecting a decentralized ethic prioritizing gestational limits over uniform national policy. This evolution underscores a persistent divide, where Roe's legacy shifted norms from pre-1973 patchwork criminalization to a polarized equilibrium, unaltered fundamentally by its overturn.

References

  1. [1]
    Roe v. Wade | Oyez
    A case in which the Court struck down several Texas laws that criminalized abortion, holding that laws that impose an undue burden on a woman's right to ...
  2. [2]
    Roe v. Wade | 410 U.S. 113 (1973) - Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
    Roe v. Wade: A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] 19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (06/24/2022)
    Jun 24, 2022 · Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and. Fourteenth Amendments.
  4. [4]
    A Brief History of Abortion in the U.S.
    Oct 26, 2022 · At least 40 anti-abortion laws went on the books between 1860 and 1880. And yet some doctors continued to perform abortions in the late 19th and early 20th ...
  5. [5]
    Historical Abortion Law Timeline: 1850 to Today
    Roe v. Wade protected the right to abortion in all 50 states, making abortion services safer and more accessible throughout the country. The decision also set a ...
  6. [6]
    The History of Abortion Law in the United States
    Oct 2, 2025 · Across America, abortion became illegal except in cases where it was necessary to save a woman's life. The shift gave rise to illegal abortions.Missing: pre- | Show results with:pre-
  7. [7]
    Roe v. Wade and the history of abortion regulation - PubMed
    The Supreme Court said that the 19th century laws were passed to guard the mother's health "against the dangers of unsafe operation." In the 15 months before " ...
  8. [8]
    History of Abortion Laws - Texas State Law Library
    In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court balanced a woman's right to privacy against the state's interest in protecting potential life. The Court held that states ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past Be Prologue?
    The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City.
  10. [10]
    The History of Abortion Law in the United States
    Nov 7, 2024 · Between 1967 and 1973, 14 states modified their restrictive abortion laws and four states completely repealed their laws. The revised laws ...
  11. [11]
    Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE. - Law.Cornell.Edu
    Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those ...
  12. [12]
    McCorvey, Norma Leah Nelson [Jane Roe]
    May 19, 2021 · Coffee assigned Norma the pseudonym of “Jane Roe” and filed the class-action lawsuit in federal district court on March 3, 1970. Coffee ...<|separator|>
  13. [13]
    Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970) - Justia Law
    Plaintiffs allege that the Texas Abortion Laws deprive married couples and single women of the right to choose whether to have children.
  14. [14]
    Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court Abortion Cases
    Sep 28, 2022 · In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment protected abortion as a fundamental right.
  15. [15]
    [PDF] 70-18_12-13-1971.pdf - Supreme Court
    Jun 7, 2018 · In the Valtch decision, this Court was working with a statute which provided that an abortion could be performed for reasons of health or life.Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Supreme Court of tfje ©nitet States
    Sep 13, 2018 · For example, that brief points out that the over-all material death rate from legal abortion in New York dropped to. 3.7 per 100,000 abortions ...Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
  17. [17]
    [PDF] How Roe v. Wade Was Written - David J Garrow
    Let me begin with one sentence that Justice Harry A. Blackmun uttered in 1987: “Roe against Wade1 was not such a revolutionary opinion at the time” that it ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    How the Roe v. Wade ruling evolved: A behind-the-scenes visual tour
    Jun 26, 2022 · A review of internal Supreme Court documents reveals that the justices' thinking on Roe evolved dramatically over the course of eight months of deliberations.
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Roe v. Wade MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring * I agree ...
    I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the abortion statutes of. Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit the performance of abortions ...Missing: text Douglas
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). - Loc
    A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which.
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Roe v. Wade MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring * While I join the ...
    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring *. While I join the opinion of the Court, 1 I add a few words. I. The questions presented in the present cases go far beyond ...Missing: text Burger
  22. [22]
    [PDF] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - usccb
    JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring [*]. While I join the opinion of the Court,[n1] I add a few words. I. The questions presented in the present cases go far beyond the ...Missing: text | Show results with:text
  23. [23]
    Roe v. Wade (1973) - The National Constitution Center
    Justice Harry A. Blackmun Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. Justice Vote: 7-2. Majority: Blackmun (author), Stewart (concurrence), Douglas ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] Roe v. Wade MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom ... - static.c-span.org
    With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Roe v. Wade MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting. The Court's ...
    MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting. The Court's opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact.Missing: White text
  26. [26]
    Thoughts On From The Author Of The Landmark Decision - FindLaw
    Jan 23, 2003 · Compounding this, Justice Blackmun's opinion provides virtually no guidance about the constitutional basis for a decision that struck down the ...
  27. [27]
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113
  28. [28]
    [PDF] The Probable Significance of the Bork Appointment for Issues of ...
    The basic criticism of Roe, in which Judge Bork has joined, is that the Supreme Court, without any constitutional basis for doing so, took the decision about.
  29. [29]
    https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3681&context=mlr
  30. [30]
    A Survey of Judicial and Scholarly Criticism of Roe v. Wade Since ...
    Jan 20, 2022 · In contrast, the basic defense of Roe has been to ignore Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe, and instead defend the Court's Casey decision as a ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] STARE DECISIS, WORKABILITY, AND ROE V. WADE
    This Article attempts to provide an introduction both to the workability factor of stare decisis and workability as applied to Roe. In Part I, this Article ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Does Stare Decisis Preclude Reconsideration of Roe v. Wade? A ...
    Professor Paulsen's article provides a thought provoking critique of Casey's analysis of stare decisis in general terms, not as applied to the specific issue of ...
  33. [33]
    When Human Life Begins - American College of Pediatricians
    The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind ...
  34. [34]
    The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed
    Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed ...
  35. [35]
    THE FACTS AND DOUBTS ABOUT BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN ...
    View that human life begins when sperm and eggs fuse to give rise to a single cell human zygote whose genetic individuality and uniqueness remain unchanged ...
  36. [36]
    When Can You Hear Baby's Heartbeat? - Healthline
    Sep 26, 2018 · A fetal heartbeat may first be detected by a vaginal ultrasound as early as 5 1/2 to 6 weeks after conception.First ultrasound · By ear · Apps
  37. [37]
    Fetal heart beat | Radiology Reference Article - Radiopaedia.org
    Aug 5, 2024 · Fetal heart beat can be detected as early as 34 days (just under 6 weeks) gestation on good quality, high frequency transvaginal ultrasound.
  38. [38]
    A Scientific View of When Life Begins - Lozier Institute
    Jun 11, 2014 · In the seventh week after conception, networks of neurons produce brain waves that have been recorded as early as 6 ½ weeks after conception.
  39. [39]
    6 to 7 Weeks | Prenatal Overview
    The embryo has brainwaves by 6 weeks, 2 days! From 6 to 6½ weeks, the cerebral vesicles will double in size.1 Individualized brainwaves recorded via ...
  40. [40]
    Fetal Pain - American College of Pediatricians
    Laboratory evidence and clinical practice during fetal surgery suggest that as early as 15 weeks gestation noxious stimulation negatively affects immature human ...Missing: capability | Show results with:capability
  41. [41]
    Reconsidering fetal pain - Journal of Medical Ethics
    Thus, current neuroscientific evidence supports the possibility of fetal pain before the “consensus” cut-off of 24 weeks.
  42. [42]
    New insights into fetal pain - ScienceDirect
    It appears that pain is a neuroadaptive phenomenon that emerges in the middle of pregnancy, at about 20–22 weeks of gestation, and becomes more and more evident ...<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    Fetal Pain: The Science Behind Why It Is the Medical Standard of Care
    Studies have demonstrated that avoiding, minimizing, and treating pain in babies, particularly when premature, improves their outcomes.
  44. [44]
    Facts Are Important: Understanding and Navigating Viability - ACOG
    In early pregnancy, a normally developing pregnancy would be deemed viable, whereas early pregnancy loss or miscarriage would not. In the second, “viability” ...
  45. [45]
    Survival of Infants Born at 22 to 25 Weeks' Gestation Receiving Care ...
    Sep 26, 2024 · For all infants, survival ranged from 24.9% at 22 weeks to 82.0% at 25 weeks. Among infants receiving postnatal life support, survival ranged ...
  46. [46]
    When can my baby survive outside the womb? - BabyCenter
    When will my baby reach the point of fetal viability? · Before 23 weeks, a baby's rate of survival remains low, even with interventions: only 5 to 6 percent. · At ...
  47. [47]
    Fact Sheet: A Timeline of the Development of Fetal Pain Sensation
    Feb 24, 2025 · This timeline describes key milestones in the development of pain perception, highlighting in particular recent evidence that fetuses have the capacity to ...Missing: capability | Show results with:capability
  48. [48]
    Survival of infants born at periviable gestation: The US national ...
    A few reports showed a wide variation in survival rates at periviable gestational ages, ranging from 0% to 37% at 22 weeks, 1–64% at 23 weeks, 31–78% at 24 ...
  49. [49]
    A brief history of abortion – from ancient Egyptian herbs to fighting ...
    Sep 21, 2023 · The Ancient Egyptian Papyrus Ebers is often seen as some of the first written evidence of abortion practice.
  50. [50]
    Abortion in the Ancient Near East and Greco-Roman World
    May 11, 2023 · Ancient methods for ridding oneself of a pregnancy included remedies meant to be rubbed, ingested, or inserted into the body.
  51. [51]
    Historical attitudes to abortion - BBC
    Abortion was accepted in both ancient Rome and Greece. The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn.
  52. [52]
    Aristotle on Abortion and Infanticide
    ABSTRACT: Some recent commentators have thought that, if updated with the findings of modern embryology, Aristotle's views on abortion would yield a pro-life ...<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia
    Nov 11, 2007 · Thomas Aquinas's opinion on the moral status of the embryo or fetus and the act of abortion. His discussion of sin, morality, and murder ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] THE UNBORN CHILD: HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION
    In this context visions of the Greek philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, and of the Latin writer Tertullian, as well as ...
  55. [55]
    Abortion and Judaism - My Jewish Learning
    Judaism's position on abortion is nuanced, and both principal camps in the American debate over abortion rights can claim support from Jewish texts.
  56. [56]
    The Bioethical Concept of Life for Life in Judaism, Catholicism ... - NIH
    This paper focuses on the process of bioethical deliberation in Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam. Abortion is normatively prohibited in each faith.
  57. [57]
    Abortion in the USA and the UK - PMC - NIH
    From the 13th century to the early 19th century induced abortion was legal under English common law, before the onset of quickening at 15 to 18 weeks gestation.
  58. [58]
    [PDF] Abortion Law Development: A Brief Overview - Congress.gov
    Jan 15, 2009 · The law with respect to abortion in mid-19th century America followed existing common law of. England in all but a few states.4 Thus, no ...
  59. [59]
    Essay: Natural Law and Abortion - Philosophical Investigations
    Aug 28, 2014 · An act of abortion is directly aimed at stopping the process of reproduction and therefore goes directly against the Natural Law ethic. Aquinas ...
  60. [60]
    U.S. groups campaign to legalize abortion, 1969-1973
    The NARAL campaign created the environment necessary for Roe v. Wade to be ruled in favor of repeal of anti-abortion laws. The campaign aimed to raise ...
  61. [61]
    History - Reproductive Freedom for All
    1973. NARAL changes its name to the National Abortion Rights Action League. The Supreme Court hands down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, recognizing the ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] ROE V. WADE: ITS HISTORY AND IMPACT - Planned Parenthood
    Supreme Court Finds Right to Choose Abortion. On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade, a challenge to a.
  63. [63]
    Betty Friedan (1921–2006) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia
    Jun 15, 2017 · Friedan continued to advocate for the benefits of the repeal of anti-abortion legislation, which helped set a national stage for the US Supreme ...
  64. [64]
    NOW Sponsors a March for Abortion Rights | Research Starters
    Wade decision that recognized a woman's right to choose abortion. Approximately 300,000 supporters gathered to express their commitment to preserving abortion ...
  65. [65]
    ACLU History: The Roe v. Wade Era | American Civil Liberties Union
    Sep 1, 2010 · The Roe case challenged a Texas law prohibiting all but lifesaving abortions. The Supreme Court famously invalidated the law in 1973 on the ...
  66. [66]
    Pro-choice movement | Definition, Roe v. Wade, Dobbs ... - Britannica
    ... Roe v. Wade (1973), which first recognized a constitutional right to obtain an abortion, as both a core victory and an effective setback of the pro-choice ...
  67. [67]
    About the March for Life - March for Life
    January 1998. On the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, three former pro-abortion activists – Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL, Norma McCorvey ...
  68. [68]
    The history of the March for Life - Our Sunday Visitor
    Jan 16, 2023 · On Jan. 22, 1974, one year to the day after the fateful ruling in Roe, about 20,000 pro-life Americans marched through the streets of D.C. to ...
  69. [69]
    Roe v. Wade | USCCB
    Roe v. Wade removed legal protection for pre-birth human beings, leading to millions of lives destroyed and trauma for women.
  70. [70]
    A Matter of the Heart: On the 30th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade - usccb
    For, as Pope John Paul II reminds us, "it is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the ...<|separator|>
  71. [71]
    WELS statement on Roe v. Wade ruling
    Jun 24, 2022 · We pray that states will now take the opportunity to prohibit the taking of human life when it most needs protection. The Psalm writer declares ...
  72. [72]
    The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth - POLITICO
    May 10, 2022 · White evangelicals in the 1970s did not mobilize against Roe v. Wade, which they considered a Catholic issue. They organized instead to ...
  73. [73]
    Sarah Weddington, lawyer who successfully argued Roe v. Wade ...
    Dec 27, 2021 · Sarah Weddington, a Texas lawyer who as a 26-year-old successfully argued the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade before the US Supreme Court, died ...
  74. [74]
    The story of Jane Roe, Norma McCorvey and abortion rights - NPR
    Oct 13, 2022 · Norma McCorvey is the real name of the woman many Americans now know as the Roe in Roe v. Wade. Her story shows the ways class, religion and ...
  75. [75]
    Remembering Jane Roe and Mary Doe: The Courage of Norma ...
    Feb 23, 2017 · Seventeen years ago, I received a phone call from Norma McCorvey. “I will do anything to overturn my decision in Roe v. Wade,” she told me—and ...
  76. [76]
    The remarkable story of Henry Wade, abortion case's namesake
    Jun 25, 2022 · Wade's name was all over the headlines Friday as the Supreme Court overturned its 1973 ruling, and with it the constitutional right to abortion.
  77. [77]
    [PDF] The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade
    Since, however, the Court does not see fit to defend this aspect of its decision at all, there is not a great deal that can be said by way of criticism. Page 3 ...
  78. [78]
    The Lingering Problems With roe V. Wade, And Why The Recent ...
    Oct 3, 2002 · By EDWARD LAZARUS · Policy Preferences Alone Are Not A Valid Reason to Reject a Nominee · Why Roe, As Constitutional Interpretation, is Virtually ...
  79. [79]
    Supreme Court Did Not Resolve Abortion Controversy: It Created It
    Lazarus, who describes himself as someone who loved Blackmun "like a grandfather" called Roe "one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions ...
  80. [80]
    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During ...
    May 15, 2013 · “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would've preferred that abortion ...
  81. [81]
    Progressive Legal Scholars Have Long Known Roe's Reasoning Is ...
    Nov 15, 2021 · Pro-choice Professor John Hart Ely likewise criticized Roe as “bad constitutional law . . . because it is not constitutional law and gives ...
  82. [82]
    A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court
    Jan 16, 2013 · Prior to Roe, and throughout much of American history, states banned or severely restricted abortion. State abortion laws, many of which were ...
  83. [83]
    Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth - Oyez
    A case in which the Court held that the challenged provisions of the Missouri law regulating abortion were unconstitutional.
  84. [84]
    Akron v. Akron Center For Reproductive Health - Oyez
    Nov 30, 1982 · The Court affirmed its commitment to protecting a woman's reproductive rights by invalidating the provisions of Akron's ordinance.
  85. [85]
    Webster v. Reproductive Health Services - Oyez
    Apr 26, 1989 · A case in which the Court held that measures put in place by the Missouri legislature to prevent abortion were not unconstitutional.
  86. [86]
    Webster v. Reproductive Health Services | 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
    Appellees, state-employed health professionals and private nonprofit corporations providing abortion services, brought suit in the District Court.
  87. [87]
    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey | 505 U.S. 833 ...
    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey: A person retains the right to have an abortion, established by Roe v. Wade, but the state's compelling ...
  88. [88]
    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey - Oyez
    A case in which the Court introduced a new standard of determining the validity of abortion laws by asking if the restrictions place any "undue burden" on ...
  89. [89]
    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 ...
    The joint opinion concludes that in a large fraction of those cases, the notification provision operates as a substantial obstacle.
  90. [90]
    [PDF] Casey and Its Impact on Abortion Regulation
    Casey changed court review of abortion laws, using an "undue burden" standard, allowing states more freedom to regulate abortion, and left states in a better ...
  91. [91]
    [PDF] Public Law 108–105 108th Congress An Act
    This Act may be cited as the ''Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds and declares the following: (1) A moral ...
  92. [92]
    President Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
    Nov 5, 2003 · President George W. Bush signs S.3, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003., at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2003.<|separator|>
  93. [93]
    Gonzales v. Carhart | Oyez
    Nov 8, 2006 · The Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that Congress's ban on partial-birth abortion was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden ...
  94. [94]
    Gonzales v. Carhart | 550 U.S. 124 (2007)
    Gonzales v. Carhart: The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent states from passing a law against partial-birth abortion if the state bases the reasoning for ...
  95. [95]
    Bans on Specific Abortion Methods Used After the First Trimester
    However, the US Supreme Court upheld a federal version in 2007 in Gonzales v. Carhart. ... Dobbs ruling has allowed even stricter laws to be enacted that ...
  96. [96]
    Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt - Oyez
    A case in which the Court determined that the regulations at issue unconstitutionally imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions because they ...
  97. [97]
    Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt | 579 U.S. ___ (2016)
    Health & Safety Code Ann. §171.0031(a). The District Court held that the legislative change imposed an “undue burden” on a woman's right to have an abortion. We ...
  98. [98]
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274/
  99. [99]
    June Medical Services LLC v. Russo | Oyez
    Mar 4, 2020 · The Fifth Circuit's judgment, upholding a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at local hospitals, is reversed.
  100. [100]
    [PDF] 18-1323 June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Russo (06/29/2020)
    Jun 29, 2020 · These doctors' inability to secure privileges was. “caused by Act 620 working in concert with existing laws and practices,” including hospital ...
  101. [101]
    Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - Oyez
    Dec 1, 2021 · A case in which the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion.
  102. [102]
    Abortion in the United States Dashboard - KFF
    Status of Abortion Bans in the United States as of September 2, 2025 · Abortion Banned (12 states) · Gestational limit between 6 and 12 weeks LMP (6 states).
  103. [103]
    After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State - Center for Reproductive Rights
    Pre-Roe bans​​ Most states repealed abortion bans in effect as of 1973 once Roe v. Wade made them unenforceable. However, some states and territories never ...Missing: history | Show results with:history<|separator|>
  104. [104]
    [PDF] State Abortion Laws Enacted Post-Dobbs Decision
    Sep 29, 2022 · Thirteen states have abortion ban “trigger” laws that took effect in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's. Dobbs decision.
  105. [105]
    States Without Total Abortion Bans See Declines in Clinician ...
    Sep 30, 2025 · Six-week abortion bans in Florida and Iowa resulted in substantial declines in abortion provision between the first halves of 2024 and 2025.
  106. [106]
    Tracking Abortion Laws Across the Country - The New York Times
    Sep 8, 2025 · Nineteen states ban abortion or restrict the procedure earlier in pregnancy than the standard set by Roe v.
  107. [107]
    Summary State Abortion Laws: Protections and Restrictions
    State legislatures will continue to review and make policies related to abortion in the coming years.
  108. [108]
    The Power of State Reproductive Freedom Amendments
    Sep 23, 2025 · These range from abortion bans to mandatory counseling and delay requirements to targeted regulation of abortion providers, such as admitting ...
  109. [109]
    Voters in Seven States Pass Measures to Protect Abortion
    Nov 6, 2024 · Measures to protect abortion rights passed in Arizona, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Colorado, and New York. Voters in Nevada also approved an ...Missing: June | Show results with:June
  110. [110]
    Three Years After Dobbs, State Courts Are Defining the Future of ...
    Jun 5, 2025 · Litigation across the states is testing how far constitutional amendments can go in protecting or restricting abortion access.
  111. [111]
    The High Toll of US Abortion Bans: Nearly One in Five Patients Now ...
    Dec 7, 2023 · In 2023, however, the increase in interstate travel for abortion is largely due to the bans and restrictions that took effect in the wake of ...
  112. [112]
    Abortion Trends Before and After Dobbs - KFF
    Jul 15, 2025 · In contrast to the abortion bans, several states have passed laws to protect abortion access for their residents and expand access to people ...How Is Abortion Tracked At... · How Has The Abortion Rate... · Why Did The Number Of...
  113. [113]
    Changes in Abortion Access, Travel, and Costs Since the ...
    Sep 10, 2025 · Mean travel time was longer, from 2.8 hours to 11.3 hours, and the proportion staying overnight was greater (5% vs 58%) after a ban (Table 2).
  114. [114]
    Ninth Circuit Panel Issues Mixed Opinion On Idaho Abortion Travel ...
    Jan 9, 2025 · The mixed ruling allows major provisions in the abortion “trafficking” law to be enforced by the government, but affirms that lawyers and ...
  115. [115]
    Abortion Travel Restrictions Under the Dormant Commerce Clause ...
    May 1, 2025 · This Note examines abortion travel restrictions under the “Dormant” Commerce Clause doctrine, which limits state laws that burden interstate commerce.Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
  116. [116]
    Medication Abortion Accounted for 63% of All US Abortions in 2023 ...
    Mar 19, 2024 · Medication Abortion Accounted for 63% of All US Abortions in 2023—An Increase from 53% in 2020 · Medication Abortion Has Become More Widely ...
  117. [117]
    WeCount report, April 2022 to December 2024
    Jun 23, 2025 · By the end of 2024, 1 in 4 abortions was provided via telehealth. Shield laws continue to facilitate the receipt of medication abortion, with an ...National Findings · Total Abortions In The Us... · Telehealth Findings
  118. [118]
    Telehealth has changed the abortion landscape, study says | STAT
    Aug 11, 2025 · By the end of 2024, a monthly average of more than 12,000 medication abortions were provided to patients in states with bans or telehealth ...
  119. [119]
    Key Facts on Abortion in the United States | KFF
    Jul 15, 2025 · One study estimated that at least 26,000 additional self-managed medication abortions took place in the six months following the Dobbs ruling.Table Of Contents · What Is Abortion? · Who Gets Abortions?
  120. [120]
    Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
    Mar 26, 2024 · The case concerns the FDA's approval of mifepristone, used in medication abortion. The court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to ...
  121. [121]
    [PDF] 23-235 FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (06/13/2024)
    Jun 13, 2024 · The case concerns FDA's regulation of mifepristone, with the Supreme Court deciding that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge FDA's actions.
  122. [122]
    Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill - SCOTUSblog
    Jun 13, 2024 · The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a lawsuit seeking to roll back access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortions.
  123. [123]
    The Comstock Act: Implications for Abortion Care Nationwide - KFF
    Apr 15, 2024 · In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, anti-abortion activists have argued in federal court that the Comstock Act prohibits ...
  124. [124]
    How the Comstock Act Threatens Abortion Rights | Johns Hopkins
    May 31, 2024 · The OLC concluded that, even following Dobbs, the Comstock Act does not prohibit the mailing or delivery of abortion medications (i.e., ...
  125. [125]
    Rep. Becca Balint Announces the Stop Comstock Act to Repeal ...
    Jun 20, 2024 · Rep. Becca Balint announces the Stop Comstock Act to repeal antiquated law that could be misused to implement national abortion ban.
  126. [126]
    SCOTUS Mifepristone and EMTALA Decisions Explained
    Jul 3, 2024 · The court upholds the status quo for now, but reproductive law experts expect mifepristone and EMTALA to be litigated again in the future.
  127. [127]
    State and Federal Reproductive Rights and Abortion Litigation Tracker
    Oct 7, 2025 · The Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling, overturning Roe v. Wade, returned the decision to restrict or protect abortion to states.
  128. [128]
    Guttmacher Institute Releases Full-Year US Abortion Data for 2024
    Apr 15, 2025 · The Guttmacher Institute today released new data showing that in 2024 there were 1,038,100 clinician-provided abortions in US states without ...
  129. [129]
    https://www.statista.com/chart/33132/us-abortions-via-in-person-or-virtual-only-appointments/
  130. [130]
    How Many Abortions Are Occurring in America Post-Dobbs?
    May 22, 2025 · This data shows that 1,121,450 abortions were performed within the formal U.S. health care system from July 2023 to June 2024. In addition to ...How Many Abortions Are... · Executive Summary · IntroductionMissing: trends | Show results with:trends
  131. [131]
    Abortion in the United States | Guttmacher Institute
    Apr 15, 2025 · Medication abortion accounted for 63% of all clinician-provided abortions in states without total bans in 2023; by contrast, this method ...Abortion In The United... · Numbers And Rates · Medication Abortion
  132. [132]
    Products - Data Briefs - Number 535 - Month July 2025 - CDC
    Jul 1, 2025 · The number of births in the United States increased 1% from 2023 to 2024, to 3,628,934 births. · The general fertility rate declined 1% from 2023 ...
  133. [133]
    U.S. birth rate hits all-time low, CDC data shows - CBS News
    Jul 24, 2025 · The rate in 2023 was 1.621 but inched down in 2024 to 1.599, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
  134. [134]
    Georgia Tech Research First to Analyze Birth-Rate Impact of 2022 ...
    They found that states with total abortion bans had a 2.3% increase in birth rates on average compared to states without bans, resulting in an additional 32,000 ...
  135. [135]
    The effects of post-Dobbs abortion bans on fertility - ScienceDirect.com
    The results indicate that states with abortion bans experienced an average increase in births of 2.3 percent relative to if no bans had been enforced.
  136. [136]
    Two New Studies Provide Broadest Evidence to Date of Unequal ...
    Feb 13, 2025 · The researchers estimate that the fertility rate in states with abortion bans was 1.7% higher than expected, with 60.55 live births per 1,000 ...
  137. [137]
    Clear and Growing Evidence That Dobbs Is Harming Reproductive ...
    May 31, 2024 · Despite bans, the number of US abortions has increased​​ Roe was never enough to ensure full abortion access; additional restrictions imposed ...
  138. [138]
    Abortion wasn't always the politically charged issue it is today - NPR
    May 4, 2022 · In 1976, Republicans adopted an anti-abortion stance in their party platform. The GOP became a political vehicle for the movement, as a more vocal Christian ...
  139. [139]
    How Abortion Took Over the Republican Party | TIME
    Apr 12, 2024 · And when Jesse Helms and his southern conservative allies forced opposition to abortion into the GOP platform in 1976, it proved to be a crucial ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  140. [140]
    Republican Party Platform of 1976 | The American Presidency Project
    Aug 18, 1976 · This Republican Platform says exactly the opposite—less government, less spending, less inflation. In other words, we want you to retain more of ...
  141. [141]
    1976 Democratic Party Platform | The American Presidency Project
    Jul 12, 1976 · We meet to adopt a Democratic platform, and to nominate Democratic candidates for President and Vice President of the United States.
  142. [142]
    Evangelicals and Politics
    Sep 19, 2016 · By the 1980 presidential election, abortion was a centerpiece of Christian Right politics. Ronald Reagan's campaign and the Republican Party ...
  143. [143]
    Reagan | God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right
    Conservative evangelicals' newfound devotion to the GOP stemmed partly from their increased attention to abortion. In 1980, evangelicals had opposed abortion, ...
  144. [144]
    The Republican and Democratic Party Platforms on Abortion (1976 ...
    Sep 5, 2012 · Kevin DeYoung reprints the respective parties' platforms—Republicans and Democrats—for the past 36 years (after Roe v. Wade).
  145. [145]
    Democratic Party Platforms on Abortion - The Gospel Coalition
    Sep 5, 2012 · Like the Republicans, the Democrats were hesitant to be too dogmatic about abortion in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade (1973). The ...
  146. [146]
    The electoral consequences of abortion politicization in the US in
    The figure shows that across all elections, having pro-abortion attitudes is negatively associated with voting for the Republican Party in presidential ...
  147. [147]
    Abortion Funding Restrictions in Foreign Assistance Legislation
    Apr 12, 2024 · Foremost among these is the "Helms amendment," first enacted in 1973, which requires that certain foreign assistance funds may not be used to ...
  148. [148]
    The Hyde Amendment of 1976 | Embryo Project Encyclopedia
    Jun 28, 2017 · In 1976, the US Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which banned the use of federal funding to pay for abortions through Medicaid.Missing: details | Show results with:details
  149. [149]
    The Hyde Amendment: A Discriminatory Ban on Insurance ...
    May 11, 2021 · The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for abortion, preventing people enrolled in Medicaid and other public programs in most states from using their ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  150. [150]
    S.3 - 108th Congress (2003-2004): Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of ...
    Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion.
  151. [151]
    119th Congress (2025-2026): Women's Health Protection Act of 2025
    Jun 24, 2025 · The Women's Health Protection Act aims to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy and to protect ...
  152. [152]
    Congressman Keith Self Introduces Bill to Strengthen Enforcement ...
    Jan 31, 2025 · Congressman Keith Self and Congressman Andy Biggs introduced the Ensuring Justice for Victims of Partial-Birth Abortion Act, in order to strengthen enforcement.
  153. [153]
    Restricting Abortion Access through US Federal Legislation after ...
    Sep 27, 2025 · Employing feminist legal theory as a lens, this study examines the rhetorical construction of abortion-related legislation introduced at the ...
  154. [154]
    Ballot Tracker: Abortion-Related State Constitutional Amendment ...
    This tracker shows which states abortion-related constitutional amendment measures are confirmed or under consideration for the 2024 election.
  155. [155]
    Abortion Rights Ballot Measures Pass in Seven States - Ogletree
    Nov 8, 2024 · On November 5, 2024, seven states approved ballot measures to reaffirm the right to abortion, and three states rejected ballot measures to legalize abortion.
  156. [156]
    https://www.pahouse.com/InTheNews/NewsRelease/?id=140748
  157. [157]
    The Role of State Ballot Initiatives in Abortion Policymaking Has ...
    Dec 17, 2024 · Since the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, abortion law in the United States has been a complex ...
  158. [158]
    [PDF] NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES ROE V. WADE AND AMERICAN ...
    Our findings indicate that legalization of abortion prior to Roe v. Wade in a handful of states in 1970 resulted in a 5% decline in birth rates in those states ...
  159. [159]
    Using economics to understand the wide-reaching impacts of ...
    Jul 18, 2022 · Wade decision) led to an approximately 5 percentage point reduction in the aggregate birth rate. The reversal of Roe is unlikely to reverse the ...
  160. [160]
    Abortion, Illegitimacy, and the American Birth Rate | Science
    In sum, it appears that legal abortion depressed overall fertility, but particularly illegitimate fertility, by giving women an opportunity to terminate ...
  161. [161]
    Roe v Wade and American fertility.
    Surprisingly, little research has looked directly at theimpact of Roev Wade on births. The work that has been done has focused on the experience in those ...
  162. [162]
    Abortion Before & After Roe - PMC - NIH
    Both studies found that birth rates declined by approximately 4 percent more in the early legalizing or reform states relative to the states in which abortion ...
  163. [163]
    Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture
    Aug 6, 2008 · The abortion rate among Hispanic women, for example, although not as high as the rate among black women, is double the rate among whites.
  164. [164]
    The Impact of Roe v. Wade on American Fertility | Econofact
    Jul 11, 2018 · The legalization of abortion reduced births in the US, with larger reductions in some regions and demographic groups.
  165. [165]
    Inequity in US Abortion Rights and Access: The End of Roe Is ...
    Jan 17, 2023 · Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, resulting in more abortion restrictions and outright bans, more people have experienced delayed and denied abortion ...
  166. [166]
    Planned Parenthood's false stat: 'Thousands' of women died every ...
    May 29, 2019 · “In the 1960s, the officially recorded number of deaths from illegal induced abortion was under 300 per year. While there were undoubtedly ...
  167. [167]
    What the data says about abortion in the U.S. | Pew Research Center
    Mar 25, 2024 · The U.S. abortion rate has generally declined since the 1980s, but there have been slight upticks in the late 2010s and early 2020s.<|separator|>
  168. [168]
    Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Healthier Mothers and ...
    Oct 1, 1999 · From 1915 through 1997, the infant mortality rate declined greater than 90% to 7.2 per 1000 live births, and from 1900 through 1997, the ...
  169. [169]
    The Big Lie: Thousand of Illegal Abortion Deaths | EWTN
    According to the National Abortion Rights Action League, about 200,000 illegal abortions took place annually before Roe v. Wade. The maternal death rate was ...
  170. [170]
    Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade ...
    Deaths from legal abortion declined fivefold between 1973 and 1985 (from 3.3 deaths to 0.4 death per 100,000 procedures), reflecting increased physician ...
  171. [171]
    [PDF] The Impact of Legal Abortion on Maternal Mortality
    Our event-study results indicate that legal abortion substantially lowered non-white maternal mortality by 30-40%, with 113 non-white maternal deaths averted ...
  172. [172]
    The Impact of Legal Abortion on Maternal Mortality
    Our event study results indicate that legal abortion substantially lowered non-White maternal mortality by 30–50 percent, with 134 non-White maternal deaths ...<|separator|>
  173. [173]
    Maternal Mortality in the United States After Abortion Bans
    Women who lived in states that ban abortion were significantly more likely to die during pregnancy, while giving birth, or soon after the birth of their child.<|control11|><|separator|>
  174. [174]
    Maternal Mortality Drops Post Dobbs - Life Issues Institute
    Oct 16, 2025 · That represents a seventeen percent DROP in maternal deaths compared to 2022 and a forty three percent decline from 2021. While intervening ...<|separator|>
  175. [175]
    Abortion Bans Linked to Sharp Rise in Sepsis, Infant Death, and ...
    Aug 7, 2025 · In the wake of Roe's overturn, states with abortion bans have seen 478 excess infant deaths and 59 excess deaths during or after pregnancy.
  176. [176]
    Legal abortions and trends in fetal and infant mortality rates in the ...
    It is concluded that changes in infant mortality rates in the United States were not related to the legalization of abortion. The correlations between legal ...
  177. [177]
    US Abortion Bans and Infant Mortality | Women's Health | JAMA
    Feb 13, 2025 · Conclusions US states that adopted abortion bans had higher than expected infant mortality after the bans took effect. The estimated relative ...
  178. [178]
    Infant mortality rises in US states with abortion bans, study finds - BBC
    Feb 14, 2025 · Among non-Hispanic black infants, there were 11.81 deaths per 1,000 live births after the bans, compared to an expected rate of 10.66 per 1,000, ...
  179. [179]
    Insights: The Impacts of Abortion Bans on Maternal Health
    Jan 28, 2025 · For example, Stevenson et. al. projected 210 additional annual maternal deaths under a hypothetical total abortion ban and 64 more annually in ...<|separator|>
  180. [180]
    Supreme Court abortion decision could hurt women in the workplace
    Jun 29, 2022 · Women's labor force participation rate could plummet. Abortion legalization has had a direct impact on women's labor force participation rate ...
  181. [181]
    What can economic research tell us about the effect of abortion ...
    Nov 30, 2021 · Economists provide clear evidence that overturning Roe would prevent large numbers of women experiencing unintended pregnancies—many of whom are ...
  182. [182]
    Economic Impacts of Roe v. Wade - D-Scholarship@Pitt
    Aug 28, 2020 · This essay includes a literature review exploring the impacts of Roe v. Wade on several economic indicators including fertility, poverty, and ...Missing: consequences studies
  183. [183]
    The Economic Burden of Abortion and Its Complication Treatment ...
    The annual costs ranged from 189,000 $US to 134 million $US. Conclusion: Abortion and post-abortion care impose a substantial economic burden on society.
  184. [184]
    Abortion Costs and Single Parenthood: A Life-Cycle Model of ...
    Declines in marriage rates, increases in nonmarital childbearing, and increases in divorce rates have led to roughly one-third of children not living with two ...
  185. [185]
    How Roe v. Wade Changed Motherhood and Marriage
    Jul 11, 2018 · Today, roughly two generations after Roe v. Wade, women are postponing marriage, marrying for the first time at about age 27 on average.
  186. [186]
    New mothers, not married: Technology shock, the demise of shotgun ...
    Huge increases in single-parent families more and more headed by unmarried mothers have led to the feminization of poverty in America.
  187. [187]
    Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: The Rise in Unwed ...
    Dec 11, 2017 · Abortions were relatively difficult to obtain prior to Roe v. Wade, but that is when the largest decline in marital birth rates occurred.
  188. [188]
    [PDF] THE IMPACT OF LEGALIZED ABORTION ON CRIME - Price Theory
    We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after ...
  189. [189]
    [PDF] The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime over the Last Two Decades
    Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s.
  190. [190]
    Further Evidence that Legalized Abortion Lowered Crime - SSRN
    Donohue and Levitt (2001) present a number of analyses that suggest a causal link between legalized abortion and reductions in crime almost two decades later.
  191. [191]
    The impact of hostile abortion legislation on the United States ...
    Dec 5, 2023 · The Roe v. Wade decision reduced maternal mortality rates by 30–40% for people of color by securing access to safe and legal abortions (2). The ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  192. [192]
    10 Legal Reasons to Reject Roe | USCCB
    ... constitutional interpretation of a prior ruling is later understood to be flawed. ... Lazarus, "The Lingering Problems of Roe v. Wade," Oct. 03, 2002, available ...
  193. [193]
    [PDF] ROE V. WADE: THE CASE THAT CHANGED DEMOCRACY
    Roe disrupted the delicate balance between the state and federal government because the Court appeared to be impermissibly overreaching by deciding matters ...
  194. [194]
    [PDF] roe v wade and the dred scott decision: justice scalia's peculiar ...
    Justice Souter's position in Casey, on the other hand, was more of a surprise, as he joined the majority that upheld the right to abortion as fundamental. David ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  195. [195]
    Abortion - The Hastings Center for Bioethics
    Nov 4, 2024 · Opinions range from the belief that the fetus is a human being with full moral status and rights from conception to the belief that a fetus has ...
  196. [196]
    Life Wins: In Overturning Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Issues ...
    Jun 27, 2022 · From Roe v. Wade, decades of bad law, bad policy, and bad blood have sprung. The decision issued Friday is a tremendous victory for America and ...Missing: choice | Show results with:choice
  197. [197]
    Abortion | Gallup Historical Trends
    Line graph on the legality of abortion, trend from 1975 to 2025. Currently, 55% of Americans say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances, 30% ...
  198. [198]
    [PDF] The Surprising Resilience of State Opposition to Abortion
    Did the Supreme Court's decision change the views of Americans about abortion? Gallup and Pew were not consistently asking questions about abortion pre-Roe.
  199. [199]
    Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision
    Jan 22, 2013 · Significantly more Americans want the landmark abortion decision kept in place rather than overturned, 53% to 29%. Another 18% have no opinion.
  200. [200]
    Public Opinion on Abortion | Pew Research Center
    Jun 12, 2025 · Currently, 63% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 36% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.
  201. [201]
    Broad Public Support for Legal Abortion Persists 2 Years After Dobbs
    May 13, 2024 · Views are split by political party, but support for legal abortion has risen modestly in both groups since before the 2022 Dobbs decision.
  202. [202]
    How a Year Without Roe Shifted American Views on Abortion
    Jun 24, 2023 · Gallup found Americans more dissatisfied with abortion laws than at any point in 22 years of measuring the trend, with new highs among women, ...
  203. [203]
    Where Do Americans Stand on Abortion? - Gallup News
    Oct 7, 2025 · Wade in May 2024. At that time, 60% of Americans said overturning Roe v. Wade was a “bad thing,” while 36% called it a “good thing.” These ...
  204. [204]
    Trends in Abortion Attitudes: From Roe to Dobbs - Oxford Academic
    May 10, 2023 · In general, nearly 60 percent of the American public prefer retaining the Roe decision while 30 to 40 percent would like to see the decision ...
  205. [205]
    Abolishing Abortion: The History of the Pro-Life Movement in America
    The 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, legalizing abortion in all fifty states, changed everything and nothing. In the 1970s the anti-abortion movement remained ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  206. [206]
    The history of the anti-abortion movement in the U.S. - NPR
    May 4, 2022 · The Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade in 1973, saying that access to abortion was protected in the United States. The decision fueled the ...
  207. [207]
    Abortion Views in All 50 States: Findings from PRRI's 2023 ...
    May 2, 2024 · More than six in ten Americans (64%) say abortion should be legal in most or all cases; by contrast, 35% of Americans say abortion should be ...