4.1.1 Roe v. Wade

来源：九壹网

WestlawDeliverySummaryReportfor14,IPDate/TimeofRequest:ClientIdentifier:Database:CitationText:Lines:

Documents:Images:

Wednesday,August20,201421:16CentralBEIJINGFOREIGNSTUUNISCTFIND93S.Ct.705234810

Thematerialaccompanyingthissummaryissubjecttocopyright.UsageisgovernedbycontractwithThomsonReuters,Westandtheiraffiliates.

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page1

ion.

SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesJaneROE,etal.,Appellants,

HenryWADE.No.70-18.

ArguedDec.13,1971.RearguedOct.11,1972.DecidedJan.22,1973.

RehearingDeniedFeb.26,1973.See410U.S.959,93S.Ct.1409.

Actionwasbroughtforadeclaratoryandin-junctivereliefrespectingTexascriminalabortionlawswhichwereclaimedtobeunconstitutional.Athree-judgeUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofTexas,314F.Supp.1217,enteredjudgmentdeclaringlawsunconstitutionalandanappealwastaken.TheSupremeCourt,Mr.JusticeBlackmun,heldthattheTexascriminalabortionstatutesprohibitingabortionsatanystageofpregnancyexcepttosavethelifeofthemotherareunconstitutional;thatpriortoapprox-imatelytheendofthefirsttrimestertheabortiondecisionanditseffectuationmustbelefttothemedicaljudgmentofthepregnantwoman'sat-tendingphysician,subsequenttoapproximatelytheendofthefirsttrimesterthestatemayregu-lateabortionprocedureinwaysreasonablyre-latedtomaternalhealth,andatthestagesub-sequenttoviabilitythestatemayregulateandevenproscribeabortionexceptwherenecessaryinappropriatemedicaljudgmentforpreservationoflifeorhealthofmother.

Affirmedinpartandreversedinpart.Mr.ChiefJusticeBurger,Mr.JusticeDouglasandMr.JusticeStewartfiledconcurringopinions.See93S.Ct.755&756.

Mr.JusticeWhitefiledadissentingopinioninwhichMr.JusticeRehnquistjoined.See93S.Ct.762.

Mr.JusticeRehnquistfiledadissentingopin-WestHeadnotes

[1]FederalCourts170B

3154

170BFederalCourts

170BXVISupremeCourt

170BXVI(B)DecisionsReviewable

170Bk3149ReviewofFederalDistrict

Courts

170Bk3154k.Constitutionalques-tions.MostCitedCases

(Formerly170Bk477,106k385(7))

SupremeCourtwasnotforeclosedfromre-viewofboththeinjunctiveanddeclaratoryas-pectsofcaseattackingconstitutionalityofTexascriminalabortionstatuteswherecasewasprop-erlybeforeSupremeCourtondirectappealfromdecisionofthree-judgedistrictcourtspecificallydenyinginjunctivereliefandtheargumentsastobothaspectswerenecessarilyidentical.28U.S.C.A.§1253.

[2]ConstitutionalLaw92

696

92ConstitutionalLaw

92VIEnforcementofConstitutionalProvi-sions

92VI(A)PersonsEntitledtoRaiseConsti-tutionalQuestions;Standing

92VI(A)3ParticularQuestionsor

GroundsofAttackinGeneral

92k696k.Abortionandbirthcon-trol.MostCitedCases(Formerly92k42.1(3))ConstitutionalLaw92

977

92ConstitutionalLaw

92VIEnforcementofConstitutionalProvi-sions

92VI(C)DeterminationofConstitutional

Questions

92VI(C)2NecessityofDetermination

92k977k.Mootness.MostCited

Cases

(Formerly92k46(1))

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page2

ConstitutionalLaw92979

92ConstitutionalLaw

92VIEnforcementofConstitutionalProvi-sions

92VI(C)DeterminationofConstitutional

Questions

92VI(C)2NecessityofDetermination

92k979k.Justiciability.MostCited

Cases

(Formerly92k46(1))

Withrespecttosingle,pregnantfemalewhoallegedthatshewasunabletoobtainalegalabor-tioninTexas,whenviewedasofthetimeoffil-ingofcaseandforseveralmonthsthereafter,shehadstandingtochallengeconstitutionalityofTexascriminalabortionlaws,eventhoughrecorddidnotdisclosethatshewaspregnantattimeofdistrictcourthearingorwhentheopinionandjudgmentwerefiled,andshepresentedajusti-ciablecontroversy;theterminationofherpreg-nancydidnotrendercasemoot.Vernon'sAnn.Tex.P.C.arts.1191–1194,1196.[3]FederalCourts170B

3132

92ConstitutionalLaw

92VIEnforcementofConstitutionalProvi-sions

92VI(C)DeterminationofConstitutional

Questions

92VI(C)2NecessityofDetermination

92k977k.Mootness.MostCited

Cases

(Formerly13k6)

Wherepregnancyofplaintiffwasasignific-antfactinlitigationandthenormalhumangesta-tionperiodwassoshortthatpregnancywouldcometotermbeforeusualappellateprocesswascompleteandpregnancyoftencamemorethanoncetothesamewoman,factofthatpregnancyprovidedaclassicjustificationforconclusionofnonmootnessbecauseoftermination.[5]DeclaratoryJudgment118A

306

118ADeclaratoryJudgment118AIIIProceedings118AIII(C)Parties

118Ak306k.Newparties.MostCited

Cases

FederalCivilProcedure170A

331

170BFederalCourts

170BXVISupremeCourt170BXVI(A)InGeneral

170Bk3132k.Caseorcontroversyre-quirement;justiciability;mootnessandripeness.MostCitedCases

(Formerly170Bk452,106k383(1))FederalCourts170B

3205

170BFederalCourts

170BXVISupremeCourt170BXVI(E)Proceedings

170Bk3203ScopeandExtentofRe-view

170Bk3205k.Reviewoffederaldis-trictcourts.MostCitedCases

(Formerly170Bk478,106k385(1))

Usualruleinfederalcasesisthatanactualcontroversymustexistatstagesofappellateorcertiorarireviewandnotsimplyatdateactionisinitiated.

[4]ConstitutionalLaw92

977

170AFederalCivilProcedure170AIIParties

170AII(H)Intervention

170AII(H)2ParticularIntervenors

170Ak331k.Ingeneral.MostCited

Cases

Texasphysician,againstwhomtherewerependingindictmentscharginghimwithviolationsofTexasabortionlawswhomadenoallegationofanysubstantialandimmediatethreattoanyfeder-allyprotectedrightthatcouldnotbeassertedinhisdefenseagainststateprosecutionsandwhohadnotallegedanyharassmentorbadfaithpro-secution,didnothavestandingtointerveneinsuitseekingdeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefwithrespecttoTexasabortionstatuteswhichwereclaimedtobeunconstitutional.Vernon'sAnn.Tex.P.C.arts.1191–1194,1196.[6]Courts106106Courts

508(7)

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page3

106VIIConcurrentandConflictingJurisdic-tion

106VII(B)StateCourtsandUnitedStates

Courts

106k508InjunctionbyUnitedStates

CourtAgainstProceedingsinStateCourt

106k508(2)RestrainingParticular

Proceedings

106k508(7)k.Criminalproceed-ings.MostCitedCases

Absentharassmentandbadfaith,defendantinpendingstatecriminalcasecannotaffirmat-ivelychallengeinfederalcourtthestatutesunderwhichstateisprosecutinghim.[7]FederalCivilProcedure170A

321

statutes.Vernon'sAnn.Tex.P.C.arts.1191–1194,1196.

[9]ConstitutionalLaw92

1210

170AFederalCivilProcedure170AIIParties

170AII(H)Intervention170AII(H)1InGeneral

170Ak321k.Proceedingsforinter-vention.MostCitedCases

Applicationforleavetointervenemakingcertainassertionsrelatingtoaclassofpeoplewasinsufficienttoestablishparty'sdesiretointerveneonbehalfofclass,wherethecomplaintfailedtosetforththeessentialsofclasssuit.[8]ConstitutionalLaw92

696

92ConstitutionalLaw92XIRighttoPrivacy92XI(A)InGeneral

92k1210k.Ingeneral.MostCited

Cases

(Formerly92k82(7),92k82)

RightofpersonalprivacyoraguaranteeofcertainareasorzonesofprivacydoesexistunderConstitution,andonlypersonalrightsthatcanbedeemedfundamentalorimplicitintheconceptoforderedlibertyareincludedinthisguaranteeofpersonalprivacy;therighthassomeextensiontoactivitiesrelatingtomarriage.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends.1,4,5,9,14,14,§1.[10]ConstitutionalLaw92

1240

92ConstitutionalLaw

92VIEnforcementofConstitutionalProvi-sions

92VI(A)PersonsEntitledtoRaiseConsti-tutionalQuestions;Standing

92VI(A)3ParticularQuestionsor

GroundsofAttackinGeneral

92k696k.Abortionandbirthcon-trol.MostCitedCases(Formerly92k42.1(3))

Childlessmarriedcoupleallegingthattheyhadnodesiretohavechildrenattheparticulartimebecauseofmedicaladvicethatthewifeshouldavoidpregnancyandforotherhighlyper-sonalreasonsandassertinganinabilitytoobtainalegalabortioninTexaswerenot,becauseofthehighlyspeculativecharacteroftheirposition,ap-propriateplaintiffsinfederaldistrictcourtsuitchallengingvalidityofTexascriminalabortion

92ConstitutionalLaw92XIRighttoPrivacy

92XI(B)ParticularIssuesandApplications92k1237SexandProcreation

92k1240k.Abortion.MostCited

Cases

(Formerly92k82(10),92k82)

Constitutionalrightofprivacyisbroadenoughtoencompasswoman'sdecisionwhetherornottoterminateherpregnancy,butthewo-man'srighttoterminatepregnancyisnotabsolutesincestatemayproperlyassertimportantinterestsinsafeguardinghealth,inmaintainingmedicalstandardsandinprotectingpotentiallife,andatsomepointinpregnancytheserespectiveinterestsbecomesufficientlycompellingtosustainregula-tionoffactorsthatgoverntheabortiondecision.U.S.C.A.Const.Amends.9,14.[11]ConstitutionalLaw92

1053

92ConstitutionalLaw

92VIIConstitutionalRightsinGeneral92VII(A)InGeneral

92k1053k.Strictorheightenedscru-tiny;compellinginterest.MostCitedCases(Formerly92k82(1),92k82)

Wherecertainfundamentalrightsarein-

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page4

volved,regulationlimitingtheserightsmaybejustifiedonlybyacompellingstateinterestandthelegislativeenactmentsmustbenarrowlydrawntoexpressonlylegitimatestateinterestsatstake.

[12]ConstitutionalLaw92

3015

AbortionandBirthControl4108

92ConstitutionalLaw

92XXVIEqualProtection92XXVI(A)InGeneral

92XXVI(A)3PersonsorEntitiesProtec-ted

92k3015k.Childrenandtheunborn.

MostCitedCases

(Formerly92k210(1),92k210)ConstitutionalLaw92

3923

4AbortionandBirthControl

4k108k.Healthandsafetyofpatient.MostCitedCases

(Formerly4k0.5,4k0.50,4k1)

Fromandafterapproximatelytheendofthefirsttrimesterofpregnancy,astatemayregulateabortionproceduretoextentthattheregulationreasonablyrelatestopreservationandprotectionofmaternalhealth.

[15]AbortionandBirthControl4

106

4AbortionandBirthControl

4k106k.Fetalageandviability;trimester.MostCitedCases

(Formerly4k0.5,4k0.50,4k1)AbortionandBirthControl4

108

92ConstitutionalLaw92XXVIIDueProcess

92XXVII(C)PersonsandEntitiesProtected

92k3923k.Unbornchildren;fetuses.

MostCitedCases(Formerly92k252)

Word“person”asusedintheFourteenthAmendmentdoesnotincludetheunborn.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.14.[13]AbortionandBirthControl4

106

4AbortionandBirthControl

4k108k.Healthandsafetyofpatient.MostCitedCases

(Formerly4k0.5,4k0.50,4k1)

Ifstateisinterestedinprotectingfetallifeafterviability,itmaygosofarastoproscribeabortionduringthatperiodexceptwhenneces-sarytopreservethelifeorthehealthofthemoth-er.

[16]AbortionandBirthControl4

145

4AbortionandBirthControl

4k106k.Fetalageandviability;trimester.MostCitedCases

(Formerly4k0.5,4k0.50,4k1)

Priortoapproximatelytheendofthefirsttri-mesterofpregnancy,theattendingphysicianinconsultationwithhispatientisfreetodetermine,withoutregulationbystate,thatinhismedicaljudgmentthepatient'spregnancyshouldbeter-minated,andifthatdecisionisreachedsuchjudgmentmaybeeffectuatedbyanabortionwithoutinterferencebythestate.[14]AbortionandBirthControl4

106

4AbortionandBirthControl

4k141AbortionOffenses;NatureandEle-ments

4k145k.Production,procurementorin-ducementingeneral.MostCitedCases(Formerly4k1.30,4k1)AbortionandBirthControl4

151

4AbortionandBirthControl

4k151k.Attempts.MostCitedCases(Formerly4k1.30,4k1)AbortionandBirthControl4

157

4AbortionandBirthControl

4k106k.Fetalageandviability;trimester.MostCitedCases

(Formerly4k0.5,4k0.50,4k1)

4AbortionandBirthControl4k152Defenses

4k157k.Healthofpatient;necessity.Most

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page5

CitedCases

(Formerly4k1.30,4k1)ConstitutionalLaw92

4509(2)

92ConstitutionalLaw92XXVIIDueProcess

92XXVII(H)CriminalLaw

92XXVII(H)2NatureandElementsof

Crime

92k4502CreationandDefinitionof

Offense

92k4509ParticularOffenses

92k4509(2)k.Abortionand

birthcontrol.MostCitedCases

(Formerly92k258(3.1),92k258(3))

StatecriminalabortionlawslikeTexasstat-utesmakingitacrimetoprocureorattemptanabortionexceptanabortiononmedicaladviceforpurposeofsavinglifeofthemotherregardlessofstageofpregnancyviolatedueprocessclauseofFourteenthAmendmentprotectingrighttopri-vacyagainststateaction.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.14;Vernon'sAnn.Tex.P.C.arts.1191–1194,1196.

[17]AbortionandBirthControl4

110

statutesasaunitmustfall,andtheexceptioncouldnotbestruckdownseparatelyforthenthestatewouldbeleftwithstatuteproscribingallabortionproceduresnomatterhowmedicallyur-gentthecase.Vernon'sAnn.Tex.P.C.arts.1191–1194,1196.

**707*113Syllabus

FN*

FN*ThesyllabusconstitutesnopartoftheopinionoftheCourtbuthasbeenpreparedbytheReporterofDecisionsfortheconvenienceofthereader.SeeUnitedStatesv.DetroitTimber&Lum-berCo.,200U.S.321,337,26S.Ct.282,287,50L.Ed.499.

Apregnantsinglewoman(Roe)broughtaclassactionchallengingtheconstitutionalityoftheTexascriminalabortionlaws,whichproscribeprocuringorattemptinganabortionexceptonmedicaladviceforthepurposeofsavingthemother'slife.Alicensedphysician(Hallford),whohadtwostateabortionprosecutionspendingagainsthim,waspermittedtointervene.Achild-lessmarriedcouple(theDoes),thewifenotbeingpregnant,separatelyattackedthelaws,basingal-legedinjuryonthefuturepossibilitiesofcontra-ceptivefailure,pregnancy,unpreparednessforparenthood,andimpairmentofthewife'shealth.Athree-judgeDistrictCourt,whichconsolidatedtheactions,heldthatRoeandHallford,andmem-bersoftheirclasses,hadstandingtosueandpresentedjusticiablecontroversies.Rulingthatdeclaratory,thoughnotinjunctive,reliefwaswar-ranted,thecourtdeclaredtheabortionstatutesvoidasvagueandoverbroadlyinfringingthoseplaintiffs'NinthandFourteenthAmendmentrights.ThecourtruledtheDoes'complaintnotjusticiable.AppellantsdirectlyappealedtothisCourtontheinjunctiverulings,andappelleecross-appealedfromtheDistrictCourt'sgrantofdeclaratoryrelieftoRoeandHallford.Held:1.While28U.S.C.s1253authorizesnodir-ectappealtothisCourtfromthegrantordenialofdeclaratoryreliefalone,reviewisnotfore-closedwhenthecaseisproperlybeforetheCourtonappealfromspecificdenialofinjunctivereliefandtheargumentsastobothinjunctiveandde-

4AbortionandBirthControl

4k110k.Clinics,facilities,andpractitioners.MostCitedCases

(Formerly4k0.5,4k0.50,4k1)

Stateinregulatingabortionproceduresmaydefine“physician”asaphysiciancurrentlyli-censedbyStateandmayproscribeanyabortionbyapersonwhoisnotaphysicianassodefined.[18]Statutes361

1535(6)

361Statutes

361VIIIValidity

361k1532EffectofPartialInvalidity;Sev-erability

361k1535ParticularStatutes

361k1535(6)k.Criminaljustice.

MostCitedCases

(Formerly361k(6))

ConclusionthatTexascriminalabortionstat-uteproscribingallabortionsexcepttosavelifeofmotherisunconstitutionalmeantthattheabortion

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page6

claratoryreliefarenecessarilyidentical.Pp.711-712.

2.Roehasstandingtosue;theDoesandHallforddonot.Pp.712-715.

(a)Contrarytoappellee'scontention,thenat-uralterminationofRoe'spregnancydidnotmoothersuit.Litigationinvolvingpregnancy,whichis‘capableofrepetition,yetevadingreview,’isanexceptiontotheusualfederalrulethatanactualcontroversy*114mustexistatreviewstagesandnotsimplywhentheactionisinitiated.Pp.712-713.

(b)TheDistrictCourtcorrectlyrefusedin-junctive,buterredingrantingdeclaratory,relieftoHallford,whoallegednofederallyprotectedrightnotassertableasadefenseagainstthegood-faithstateprosecutionspendingagainsthim.Samuelsv.Mackell,401U.S.66,91S.Ct.7,27L.Ed.2d688.Pp.713-714.

**708(c)TheDoes'complaint,basedasitisoncontingencies,anyoneormoreofwhichmaynotoccur,istoospeculativetopresentanactualcaseorcontroversy.Pp.714-715.

3.Statecriminalabortionlaws,likethosein-volvedhere,thatexceptfromcriminalityonlyalife-savingprocedureonthemother'sbehalfwithoutregardtothestageofherpregnancyandotherinterestsinvolvedviolatetheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,whichpro-tectsagainststateactiontherighttoprivacy,in-cludingawoman'squalifiedrighttoterminateherpregnancy.ThoughtheStatecannotoverridethatright,ithaslegitimateinterestsinprotectingboththepregnantwoman'shealthandthepotentialityofhumanlife,eachofwhichinterestsgrowsandreachesa‘compelling’pointatvariousstagesofthewoman'sapproachtoterm.Pp.726-732.(a)Forthestagepriortoapproximatelytheendofthefirsttrimester,theabortiondecisionanditseffectuationmustbelefttothemedicaljudgmentofthepregnantwoman'sattendingphysician.Pp.731-732.

(b)Forthestagesubsequenttoapproximately

theendofthefirsttrimester,theState,inpromot-ingitsinterestinthehealthofthemother,may,ifitchooses,regulatetheabortionprocedureinwaysthatarereasonablyrelatedtomaternalhealth.Pp.731-732.

(c)ForthestagesubsequenttoviabilitytheState,inpromotingitsinterestinthepotentialityofhumanlife,may,ifitchooses,regulate,andevenproscribe,abortionexceptwherenecessary,inappropriatemedicaljudgment,forthepreser-vationofthelifeorhealthofthemother.Pp.732-733.

4.TheStatemaydefinetheterm‘physician’tomeanonlyaphysiciancurrentlylicensedbytheState,andmayproscribeanyabortionbyapersonwhoisnotaphysicianassodefined.Pp.732-733.

5.ItisunnecessarytodecidetheinjunctivereliefissuesincetheTexasauthoritieswilldoubt-lessfullyrecognizetheCourt'sruling*115thattheTexascriminalabortionstatutesareunconsti-tutional.P.733.

314F.Supp.1217,affirmedinpartandre-versedinpart.

SarahR.Weddington,Austin,Tex.,forappel-lants.

RobertC.Flowers,Asst.Atty.Gen.ofTexas,Austin,Tex.,forappelleeonreargument.JayFloyd,Asst.Atty.Gen.,Austin,Tex.,forap-pelleeonoriginalargument.

*116Mr.JusticeBLACKMUNdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.

ThisTexasfederalappealanditsGeorgiacompanion,Doev.Bolton,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.739,35L.Ed.2d201,presentconstitutionalchallengestostatecriminalabortionlegislation.TheTexasstatutesunderattackherearetypicalofthosethathavebeenineffectinmanyStatesforapproximatelyacentury.TheGeorgiastat-utes,incontrast,haveamoderncastandareale-gislativeproductthat,toanextentatleast,obvi-ouslyreflectstheinfluencesofrecentattitudinalchange,ofadvancingmedicalknowledgeand

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page7

techniques,andofnewthinkingaboutanoldis-sue.

Weforthwithacknowledgeourawarenessofthesensitiveandemotionalnatureoftheabortioncontroversy,ofthevigorousopposingviews,evenamongphysicians,andofthedeepandseeminglyabsoluteconvictionsthatthesubjectinspires.One'sphilosophy,one'sexperiences,one'sexposuretotherawedgesofhumanexist-ence,one'sreligioustraining,one'sattitudesto-wardlifeandfamilyandtheirvalues,andthemoralstandardsoneestablishesandseekstoob-serve,arealllikelytoinfluenceandtocolorone'sthinkingandconclusionsaboutabortion.Inaddition,populationgrowth,pollution,poverty,andracialovertonestend**709tocom-plicateandnottosimplifytheproblem.

Ourtask,ofcourse,istoresolvetheissuebyconstitutionalmeasurement,freeofemotionandofpredilection.Weseekearnestlytodothis,and,becausewedo,we*117haveinquiredinto,andinthisopinionplacesomeemphasisupon,medic-alandmedical-legalhistoryandwhatthathistoryrevealsaboutman'sattitudestowardtheabortionprocedureoverthecenturies.Webearinmind,too,Mr.JusticeHolmes'admonitioninhisnow-vindicateddissentinLochnerv.NewYork,198U.S.45,76,25S.Ct.539,547,49L.Ed.937(1905):

‘(TheConstitution)ismadeforpeopleoffundamentallydifferingviews,andtheaccidentofourfindingcertainopinionsnaturalandfamili-ar,ornovel,andevenshocking,oughtnottocon-cludeourjudgmentuponthequestionwhetherstatutesembodyingthemconflictwiththeConsti-tutionoftheUnitedStates.’

TheTexasstatutesthatconcernushereareArts.1191-1194and1196oftheState'sPenal

FN1Code,Vernon'sAnn.P.C.Thesemakeitacrimeto‘procureanabortion,’astherein*118defined,ortoattemptone,exceptwithrespectto‘anabortionprocuredorattemptedbymedicaladviceforthepurposeofsavingthelifeofthemother.’Similarstatutesareinexistenceinama-

jorityoftheStates.

FN2

FN1.‘Article1191.Abortion

‘Ifanypersonshalldesignedlyadminis-tertoapregnantwomanorknowinglyprocuretobeadministeredwithhercon-sentanydrugormedicine,orshallusetowardsheranyviolenceormeanswhateverexternallyorinternallyapplied,andtherebyprocureanabortion,heshallbeconfinedinthepenitentiarynotlessthantwonormorethanfiveyears;ifitbedonewithoutherconsent,thepunish-mentshallbedoubled.By‘abortion’ismeantthatthelifeofthefetusorembryoshallbedestroyedinthewoman'swomborthataprematurebirththereofbecaused.

‘Art.1192.Furnishingthemeans‘Whoeverfurnishesthemeansforpro-curinganabortionknowingthepurposeintendedisguiltyasanaccomplice.‘Art.1193.Attemptatabortion

‘Ifthemeansusedshallfailtoproduceanabortion,theoffenderisneverthelessguiltyofanattempttoproduceabortion,provideditbeshownthatsuchmeanswerecalculatedtoproducethatresult,andshallbefinednotlessthanonehun-drednormorethanonethousanddollars.‘Art.1194.Murderinproducingabortion‘Ifthedeathofthemotherisoccasionedbyanabortionsoproducedorbyanat-tempttoeffectthesameitismurder.’‘Art.1196.Bymedicaladvice

‘Nothinginthischapterappliestoanabortionprocuredorattemptedbymed-icaladviceforthepurposeofsavingthelifeofthemother.’

TheforegoingArticles,togetherwithArt.1195,composeChapter9ofTitle15

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page8

ofthePenalCode.Article1195,notat-tackedhere,reads:

‘Art.1195.Destroyingunbornchild‘Whoevershallduringparturitionofthemotherdestroythevitalityorlifeinachildinastateofbeingbornandbeforeactualbirth,whichchildwouldother-wisehavebeenbornalive,shallbecon-finedinthepenitentiaryforlifeorfornotlessthanfiveyears.’

FN2.Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann.s13-211(1956);Conn.Pub.ActNo.1(May1972specialsession)(in4Conn.Leg.Serv.677(1972)),andConn.Gen.Stat.Rev.ss53-29,53-30(1968)(orunbornchild);IdahoCodes18-601(1948);Ill.Rev.Stat.,c.38,s21-1(1971);Ind.Codes35-1-58-1(1971);IowaCodes701.1(1971);Ky.Rev.Stat.s436.020(1962);LaRev.Stat.s37:1285(6)(19)(lossofmedicallicense)(butsees14-87(Supp.1972)containingnoexceptionforthelifeofthemotherunderthecriminalstatute);Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.,Tit.17,s51(19);Mass.Gen.LawsAnn.,c.272,s19(1970)(usingtheterm‘unlawfully,’construedtoexcludeanabortiontosavethemother'slife,Kudishv.Bd.ofRegis-tration,356Mass.98,248N.E.2d2(1969));Mich.Comp.Lawss750.14(1948);Minn.Stat.s617.18(1971);Mo.Rev.Stat.s559.100(1969);Mont.Rev.CodesAnn.s94-401(1969);Neb.Rev.Stat.s28-405(19);Nev.Rev.Stat.s200.220(1967);N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.s585:13(1955);N.J.Stat.Ann.s2A:87-1(1969)(‘withoutlawfuljustification’);N.D.Cent.Codess12-25-01,12-25-02(1960);OhioRev.CodeAnn.s2901.16(1953);Okla.Stat.Ann.,Tit.21,s861(1972-1973Supp.);Pa.Stat.Ann.,Tit.18,ss4718,4719(1963)(‘unlawful’);R.I.Gen.LawsAnn.s11-3-1(1969);S.D.Comp.LawsAnn.s22-17-1(1967);Tenn.CodeAnn.ss39-301,39-302

(1956);UtahCodeAnn.ss76-2-1,76-2-2(1953);Vt.Stat.Ann.,Tit.13,s101(1958);W.Va.CodeAnn.s61-2-8(1966);Wis.Stat.s940.04(1969);Wyo.Stat.Ann.ss6-77,6-78(1957).

**710*119Texasfirstenactedacriminalabortionstatutein1854.TexasLaws1854,c.49,s1,setforthin3H.Gammel,LawsofTexas1502(18).Thiswassoonmodifiedintolan-guagethathasremainedsubstantiallyunchangedtothepresenttime.SeeTexasPenalCodeof1857,c.7,Arts.531-536;G.Paschal,LawsofTexas,Arts.2192-2197(1866);TexasRev.Stat.,c.8,Arts.536-541(1879);TexasRev.Crim.Stat.,Arts.1071-1076(1911).Thefinalarticleineachofthesecompilationsprovidedthesameexcep-tion,asdoesthepresentArticle1196,foranabortionby‘medicaladviceforthepurposeof

FN3

savingthelifeofthemother.'

FN3.Longago,asuggestionwasmadethattheTexasstatuteswereunconstitu-tionallyvaguebecauseofdefinitionalde-ficiencies.TheTexasCourtofCriminalAppealsdisposedofthatsuggestionper-emptorily,sayingonly,

‘Itisalsoinsistedinthemotioninarrestofjudgmentthatthestatuteisunconsti-tutionalandvoid,inthatitdoesnotsuf-ficientlydefineordescribetheoffenseofabortion.Wedonotconcurwithcounselinrespecttothisquestion.’Jacksonv.State,55Tex.Cr.R.79,,115S.W.262,268(1908).

ThesamecourtrecentlyhasheldagainthattheState'sabortionstatutesarenotunconstitutionallyvagueoroverbroad.Thompsonv.State,493S.W.2d913(1971),appealdocketed,No.71-1200.Thecourtheldthat‘theStateofTexashasacompellinginteresttoprotectfetallife’;thatArt.1191‘isdesignedtopro-tectfetallife’;thattheTexashomicidestatutes,particularlyAct.1205ofthePenalCode,areintendedtoprotectaperson‘inexistencebyactualbirth’andtherebyimplicitlyrecognizeotherhuman

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page9

lifethatisnot‘inexistencebyactualbirth’;thatthedefinitionofhumanlifeisforthelegislatureandnotthecourts;thatArt.11196‘ismoredefinitethattheDis-trictofColumbiastatuteupheldin(UnitedStatesv.)Vuitch’(402U.S.62,91S.Ct.1294,28L.Ed.2d601);andthattheTexasstatute‘isnotvagueandindef-initeoroverbroad.’Aphysician'sabor-tionconvictionwasaffirmed.

In493S.W.2d,at920n.2,thecourtob-servedthatanyissueastotheburdenofproofundertheexemptionofArt.1196‘isnotbeforeus.’ButseeVeeversv.State,172Tex.Cr.R.162,168-169,354S.W.2d161,166-167(1962).Cf.UnitedStatesv.Vuitch,402U.S.62,69-71,91S.Ct.1294,1298-1299,28L.Ed.2d601(1971).

*120II

JaneRoe,asinglewomanwhowasresidinginDallasCounty,Texas,institutedthisfederalactioninMarch1970againsttheDistrictAttorneyofthecounty.ShesoughtadeclaratoryjudgmentthattheTexascriminalabortionstatuteswereunconstitutionalontheirface,andanin-junctionrestrainingthedefendantfromenforcingthestatutes.

FN4

FN4.Thenameisapseudonym.

Roeallegedthatshewasunmarriedandpreg-nant;thatshewishedtoterminateherpregnancybyanabortion‘performedbyacompetent,li-censedphysician,undersafe,clinicalconditions';thatshewasunabletogeta‘legal’abortioninTexasbecauseherlifedidnotappeartobethreatenedbythecontinuationofherpregnancy;andthatshecouldnotaffordtotraveltoanotherjurisdictioninordertosecurealegalabortionun-dersafeconditions.SheclaimedthattheTexasstatuteswereunconstitutionallyvagueandthattheyabridgedherrightofpersonalprivacy,pro-tectedbytheFirst,Fourth,Fifth,Ninth,andFour-teenthAmendments.ByanamendmenttohercomplaintRoepurportedtosue‘onbehalfofher-selfandallotherwomen’similarlysituated.

JamesHubertHallford,alicensedphysician,soughtandwasgrantedleavetointerveneinRoe'saction.InhiscomplaintheallegedthathehadbeenarrestedpreviouslyforviolationsoftheTexasabortionstatutesand*121thattwosuchprosecutionswerependingagainsthim.Hede-scribedconditionsofpatientswhocametohimseekingabortions,andheclaimedthatformanycaseshe,asaphysician,wasunabletodetermine**711whethertheyfellwithinoroutsidetheex-ceptionrecognizedbyArticle1196.Heallegedthat,asaconsequence,thestatuteswerevagueanduncertain,inviolationoftheFourteenthAmendment,andthattheyviolatedhisownandhispatients'rightstoprivacyinthedoctor-patientrelationshipandhisownrighttopracticemedi-cine,rightsheclaimedwereguaranteedbytheFirst,Fourth,Fifth,Ninth,andFourteenthAmendments.

FN5

JohnandMaryDoe,amarriedcouple,filedacompanioncomplainttothatofRoe.TheyalsonamedtheDistrictAttorneyasdefendant,claimedlikeconstitutionaldeprivations,andsoughtdeclaratoryandinjunctiverelief.TheDoesallegedthattheywereachildlesscouple;thatMrs.Doewassufferingfroma‘neural-chemical’disorder;thatherphysicianhad‘advisedhertoavoidpregnancyuntilsuchtimeasherconditionhasmateriallyimproved’(althoughapregnancyatthepresenttimewouldnotpresent‘aseriousrisk’toherlife);that,pur-suanttomedicaladvice,shehaddiscontinueduseofbirthcontrolpills;andthatifsheshouldbe-comepregnant,shewouldwanttoterminatethepregnancybyanabortionperformedbyacompet-ent,licensedphysicianundersafe,clinicalcondi-tions.Byanamendmenttotheircomplaint,theDoespurportedtosue‘onbehalfofthemselvesandallcouplessimilarlysituated.’

FN5.Thesenamesarepseudonyms.

Thetwoactionswereconsolidatedandheardtogetherbyadulyconvenedthree-judgedistrictcourt.Thesuitsthuspresentedthesituationsofthepregnantsinglewoman,thechildlesscouple,withthewifenotpregnant,*122andthelicensedpracticingphysician,alljoiningintheattackon

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page10

theTexascriminalabortionstatutes.Uponthefil-ingofaffidavits,motionsweremadefordis-missalandforsummaryjudgment.ThecourtheldthatRoeandmembersofherclass,andDr.Hall-ford,hadstandingtosueandpresentedjusticiablecontroversies,butthattheDoeshadfailedtoal-legefactssufficienttostateapresentcontroversyanddidnothavestanding.Itconcludedthat,withrespecttotherequestsforadeclaratoryjudgment,abstentionwasnotwarranted.Onthemerits,theDistrictCourtheldthatthe‘fundamentalrightofsinglewomenandmarriedpersonstochoosewheretohavechildrenisprotectedbytheNinthAmendment,throughtheFourteenthAmend-ment,’andthattheTexascriminalabortionstat-uteswerevoidontheirfacebecausetheywerebothunconstitutionallyvagueandconstitutedanoverbroadinfringementoftheplaintiffs'NinthAmendmentrights.Thecourtthenheldthatab-stentionwaswarrantedwithrespecttothere-questsforaninjunction.ItthereforedismissedtheDoes'complaint,declaredtheabortionstat-utesvoid,anddismissedtheapplicationforin-junctiverelief.314F.Supp.1217,1225(N.D.Tex.1970).

TheplaintiffsRoeandDoeandtheinterven-orHallford,pursuantto28U.S.C.s1253,haveappealedtothisCourtfromthatpartoftheDis-trictCourt'sjudgmentdenyingtheinjunction.ThedefendantDistrictAttorneyhaspurportedtocross-appeal,pursuanttothesamestatute,fromthecourt'sgrantofdeclaratoryrelieftoRoeandHallford.BothsidesalsohavetakenprotectiveappealstotheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFifthCircuit.Thatcourtorderedtheappealsheldinabeyancependingdecisionhere.Wepost-poneddecisiononjurisdictiontothehearingonthemerits.402U.S.941,91S.Ct.1610,29L.Ed.108(1971).

*123III

[1]Itmighthavebeenpreferableifthede-fendant,pursuanttoourRule20,hadpresentedtousapetitionforcertioraribeforejudgmentintheCourtofAppealswithrespecttothegrantingoftheplaintiffs'prayerfordeclaratoryrelief.OurdecisionsinMitchellv.Donovan,398U.S.427,90S.Ct.1763,26L.Ed.2d378(1970),and**712

Gunnv.UniversityCommittee,399U.S.383,90S.Ct.2013,26L.Ed.2d684(1970),aretotheef-fectthats1253doesnotauthorizeanappealtothisCourtfromthegrantordenialofdeclaratoryreliefalone.Weconclude,nevertheless,thatthosedecisionsdonotforecloseourreviewofboththeinjunctiveandthedeclaratoryaspectsofacaseofthiskindwhenitisproperlyhere,asthisoneis,onappealunders1253fromspecificdeni-alofinjunctiverelief,andtheargumentsastobothaspectsarenecessarilyidentical.SeeCarterv.JuryComm'n,396U.S.320,90S.Ct.518,24L.Ed.2d549(1970);FloridaLimeandAvocadoGrowers,Inc.v.Jacobsen,362U.S.73;80-81,80S.Ct.568,573-574,4L.Ed.2d568(1960).Itwouldbedestructiveoftimeandenergyforallconcernedwerewetoruleotherwise.Cf.Doev.Bolton,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.739,35L.Ed.2d201.

Wearenextconfrontedwithissuesofjusti-ciability,standing,andabstention.HaveRoeandtheDoesestablishedthat‘personalstakeintheoutcomeofthecontroversy,’Bakerv.Carr,369U.S.186,204,82S.Ct.691,703,7L.Ed.2d663(1962),thatinsuresthat‘thedisputesoughttobeadjudicatedwillbepresentedinanadversarycontextandinaformhistoricallyviewedascap-ableofjudicialresolution,’Flastv.Cohen,392U.S.83,101,88S.Ct.1942,1953,20L.Ed.2d947(1968),andSierraClubv.Morton,405U.S.727,732,92S.Ct.1361,13,31L.Ed.2d636(1972)?AndwhateffectdidthependencyofcriminalabortionchargesagainstDr.Hallfordinstatecourthaveupontheproprietyofthefederalcourt'sgrantingrelieftohimasaplaintiff-in-tervenor?

*124[2]A.JaneRoe.Despitetheuseofthepseudonym,nosuggestionismadethatRoeisafictitiousperson.Forpurposesofhercase,weac-ceptastrue,andasestablished,herexistence;herpregnantstate,asoftheinceptionofhersuitinMarch1970andaslateasMay21ofthatyearwhenshefiledanaliasaffidavitwiththeDistrictCourt;andherinabilitytoobtainalegalabortioninTexas.

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page11

ViewingRoe'scaseasofthetimeofitsfilingandthereafteruntilaslateasMay,therecanbelittledisputethatitthenpresentedacaseorcon-troversyandthat,whollyapartfromtheclassas-pects,she,asapregnantsinglewomanthwartedbytheTexascriminalabortionlaws,hadstandingtochallengethosestatutes.Abelev.Markle,452F.2d1121,1125(CA21971);Crossenv.Breck-enridge,446F.2d833,8380-839(CA61971);Poev.Menghini,339F.Supp.986,990-991(D.C.Kan.1972).SeeTruaxv.Raich,239U.S.33,36S.Ct.7,60L.Ed.131(1951).Indeed,wedonotreadtheappellee'sbriefasreallyassertinganythingtothecontrary.The‘logicalnexusbetweenthestatusassertedandtheclaimsoughttobeadjudicated,’Flastv.Cohen,392U.S.,at102,88S.Ct.,at1953,andthenecessarydegreeofcontentiousness,Goldenv.Zwickler,394U.S.103,S.Ct.956,22L.Ed.2d113(1969),arebothpresent.

Theappelleenotes,however,thattherecorddoesnotdisclosethatRoewaspregnantatthetimeoftheDistrictCourthearingonMay22,

FN61970,oronthefollowingJune17whenthecourt'sopinionandjudgmentwerefiled.AndhesuggeststhatRoe'scasemustnowbemootbe-causesheandallothermembersofherclassarenolongersubjecttoany1970pregnancy.

FN6.TheappelleetwicestatesinhisbriefthatthehearingbeforetheDistrictCourtwasheldonJuly22,1970.BriefforAppellee13.Thedocketentries,App.2,andthetranscript,App.76,re-vealthistobeanerror.TheJulydateap-pearstobethetimeofthereporter'stran-scription.SeeApp.77.

*125[3]Theusualruleinfederalcasesisthatanactualcontroversymustexistatstagesofappellateorcertiorarireview,andnotsimplyatthedatetheactionisinitiated.**713UnitedStatesv.Munsingwear,Inc.,340U.S.36,71S.Ct.104,95L.Ed.36(1950);Goldenv.Zwick-ler,supra;SECv.MedicalCommitteeforHumanRights,404U.S.403,92S.Ct.577,30L.Ed.2d560(1972).

[4]Butwhen,ashere,pregnancyisasigni-

ficantfactinthelitigation,thenormal266-dayhumangestationperiodissoshortthatthepreg-nancywillcometotermbeforetheusualappel-lateprocessiscomplete.Ifthatterminationmakesacasemoot,pregnancylitigationseldomwillsurvivemuchbeyondthetrialstage,andap-pellatereviewwillbeeffectivelydenied.Ourlawshouldnotbethatrigid.Pregnancyoftencomesmorethanoncetothesamewoman,andinthegeneralpopulation,ifmanistosurvive,itwillal-waysbewithus.Pregnancyprovidesaclassicjustificationforaconclusionofnonmootness.Ittrulycouldbe‘capableofrepetition,yetevadingreview.’SouthernPacificTerminalCo.v.ICC,219U.S.498,515,31S.Ct.279,283,55L.Ed.310(1911).SeeMoorev.Ogilvie,394U.S.814,816,S.Ct.1493,1494,23L.Ed.2d1(1969);Carrollv.PresidentandCommissionersofPrin-cessAnne,393U.S.175,178-179,S.Ct.347,350,351,21L.Ed.2d325(1968);UnitedStatesv.W.T.GrantCo.,345U.S.629,632-633,73S.Ct.4,7-8,97L.Ed.1303(1953).

We,therefore,agreewiththeDistrictCourtthatJaneRoehadstandingtoundertakethislitig-ation,thatshepresentedajusticiablecontroversy,andthattheterminationofher1970pregnancyhasnotrenderedhercasemoot.

[5]B.Dr.Hallford.Thedoctor'spositionisdifferent.HeenteredRoe'slitigationasaplaintiff-intervenor,alleginginhiscomplaintthathe:

‘(I)nthepasthasbeenarrestedforviolatingtheTexasAbortionLawsandatthepresenttimestandschargedbyindictmentwithviolatingsaidlawsintheCriminalDistrictCourtofDallasCounty,Texasto-wit:(1)TheStateofTexasvs.*126JamesH.Hallford,No.C-69-5307-IH,and(2)TheStateofTexasvs.JamesH.Hallford,No.C-69-2524-H.Inbothcasesthedefendantischargedwithabortion...’

Inhisapplicationforleavetointervene,thedoctormadelikerepresentationsastotheabor-tionchargespendinginthestatecourt.Theserep-resentationswerealsorepeatedintheaffidavitheexecutedandfiledinsupportofhismotionforsummaryjudgment.

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page12

[6]Dr.Hallfordis,therefore,inthepositionofseeking,inafederalcourt,declaratoryandin-junctivereliefwithrespecttothesamestatutesunderwhichhestandschargedincriminalpro-secutionssimultaneouslypendinginstatecourt.AlthoughhestatedthathehasbeenarrestedinthepastforviolatingtheState'sabortionlaws,hemakesnoallegationofanysubstantialandimme-diatethreattoanyfederallyprotectedrightthatcannotbeassertedinhisdefenseagainstthestateprosecutions.Neitheristhereanyallegationofharassmentorbad-faithprosecution.Inordertoescapetherulearticulatedinthecasescitedinthenextparagraphofthisopinionthat,absentharass-mentandbadfaith,adefendantinapendingstatecriminalcasecannotaffirmativelychallengeinfederalcourtthestatutesunderwhichtheStateisprosecutinghim,Dr.Hallfordseekstodistinguishhisstatusasapresentstatedefendantfromhisstatusasa‘potentialfuturedefendant’andtoas-sertonlythelatterforstandingpurposeshere.Weseenomeritinthatdistinction.Ourde-cisioninSamuelsv.Mackell,401U.S.66,91S.Ct.7,27L.Ed.2d688(1971),compelstheconclusionthattheDistrictCourterredwhenitgranteddeclaratoryrelieftoDr.Hallfordinsteadofrefrainingfromsodoing.Thecourt,ofcourse,wascorrectinrefusingtograntinjunctiverelieftothedoctor.Thereasonssupportiveofthatac-tion,however,arethoseexpressedinSamuelsv.Mackell,supra,andin*127Youngerv.Harris,401U.S.37,91S.Ct.746,27L.Ed.2d669(1971);Boylev.Landry,401U.S.77,91S.Ct.758,27L.Ed.2d696(1971);**714Perezv.Ledesma,401U.S.82,91S.Ct.674,27L.Ed.2d701(1971);andByrnev.Karalexis,401U.S.216,91S.Ct.777,27L.Ed.2d792(1971).SeealsoDom-browskiv.Pfister,380U.S.479,85S.Ct.1116,14L.Ed.2d22(1965).Wenote,inpassing,thatYoungeranditscompanioncasesweredecidedafterthethree-judgeDistrictCourtdecisioninthiscase.

[7]Dr.Hallford'scomplaintinintervention,

FN7

therefore,istobedismissed.Heisremittedtohisdefensesinthestatecriminalproceedingsagainsthim.WereversethejudgmentoftheDis-trictCourtinsofarasitgrantedDr.Hallfordrelief

andfailedtodismisshiscomplaintininterven-tion.

FN7.Weneednotconsiderwhatdiffer-entresult,ifany,wouldfollowifDr.Hallford'sinterventionwereonbehalfofaclass.Hiscomplaintininterventiondoesnotpurporttoassertaclasssuitandmakesnoreferencetoanyclassapartfromanallegationthathe‘andotherssimilarlysituated’mustnecessarilyguessatthemeaningofArt.1196.Hisapplicationforleavetointervenegoessomewhatfurther,foritassertsthatplaintiffRoedoesnotadequatelyprotecttheinterestofthedoctor‘andtheclassofpeoplewhoarephysicians...(and)theclassofpeoplewhoare...patients....’Theleaveapplication,however,isnotthecomplaint.DespitetheDistrictCourt'sstatementtothecontrary,314F.Supp.,at1225,wefailtoperceivetheessentialsofaclasssuitintheHallfordcomplaint.

[8]C.TheDoes.InviewofourrulingastoRoe'sstandinginhercase,theissueoftheDoes'standingintheircasehaslittlesignificance.TheclaimstheyassertareessentiallythesameasthoseofRoe,andtheyattackthesamestatutes.Nevertheless,webrieflynotetheDoes'posture.Theirpleadingspresentthemasachildlessmarriedcouple,thewomannotbeingpregnant,whohavenodesiretohavechildrenatthistimebecauseoftheirhavingreceivedmedicaladvicethatMrs.Doeshouldavoidpregnancy,andfor‘otherhighlypersonalreasons.’Butthey‘fear...theymayfacetheprospectofbecoming*128parents.’Andifpregnancyensues,they‘wouldwanttoterminate’itbyanabortion.TheyassertaninabilitytoobtainanabortionlegallyinTexasand,consequently,theprospectofobtaininganil-legalabortionthereorofgoingoutsideTexastosomeplacewheretheprocedurecouldbeob-tainedlegallyandcompetently.

Wethushaveasplaintiffsamarriedcouplewhohave,astheirassertedimmediateandpresentinjury,onlyanalleged‘detrimentaleffectupon

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page13

(their)maritalhappiness'becausetheyareforcedto‘thechoiceofrefrainingfromnormalsexualrelationsorofendangeringMaryDoe'shealththroughapossiblepregnancy.’TheirclaimisthatsometimeinthefutureMrs.Doemightbecomepregnantbecauseofpossiblefailureofcontra-ceptivemeasures,andatthattimeinthefutureshemightwantanabortionthatmightthenbeil-legalundertheTexasstatutes.

ThisveryphrasingoftheDoes'positionre-vealsitsspeculativecharacter.Theirallegedin-juryrestsonpossiblefuturecontraceptivefailure,possiblefuturepregnancy,possiblefutureunpre-parednessforparenthood,andpossiblefutureimpairmentofhealth.Anyoneormoreoftheseseveralpossibilitiesmaynottakeplaceandallmaynotcombine.IntheDoes'estimation,thesepossibilitiesmighthavesomerealorimaginedimpactupontheirmaritalhappiness.Butwearenotpreparedtosaythatthebareallegationofsoindirectaninjuryissufficienttopresentanactualcaseorcontroversy.Youngerv.Harris,401U.S.,at41-42,91S.Ct.,at749;Goldenv.Zwick-ler,394U.S.,at109-110,S.Ct.,at960;Abelev.Markle,452F.2d,at1124-1125;Crossenv.Breckenridge,446F.2d,at839.TheDoes'claimfallsfarshortofthoseresolvedotherwiseinthecasesthattheDoesurgeuponus,namely,invest-mentCo.Institutev.Camp,401U.S.617,91S.Ct.1091,28L.Ed.2d367(1971);**715Associ-ationofDataProcessingServiceOrganizations,Inc.v.Camp,397U.S.150,90S.Ct.827,25L.Ed.2d184(1970);*129andEppersonv.Arkansas,393U.S.97,S.Ct.266,21L.Ed.2d228(1968).SeealsoTruaxv.Raich,239U.S.33,36S.Ct.7,60L.Ed.131(1915).

TheDoesthereforearenotappropriateplaintiffsinthislitigation.TheircomplaintwasproperlydismissedbytheDistrictCourt,andweaffirmthatdismissal.

Theprincipalthrustofappellant'sattackontheTexasstatutesisthattheyimproperlyinvadearight,saidtobepossessedbythepregnantwo-man,tochoosetoterminateherpregnancy.Ap-pellantwoulddiscoverthisrightintheconceptof

personal‘liberty’embodiedintheFourteenthAmendment'sDueProcessClause;orinpersonalmarital,familial,andsexualprivacysaidtobeprotectedbytheBillofRightsoritspenumbras,seeGriswoldv.Connecticut,381U.S.479,85S.Ct.1678,14L.Ed.2d510(1965);Eisenstadtv.Baird,405U.S.438(1972);id.,at460,92S.Ct.1029,at1042,31L.Ed.2d349(White,J.,concur-ringinresult);oramongthoserightsreservedtothepeoplebytheNinthAmendment,Griswoldv.Connecticut,381U.S.,at486,85S.Ct.,at1682(Goldberg,J.,concurring).Beforeaddressingthisclaim,wefeelitdesirablebrieflytosurvey,inseveralaspects,thehistoryofabortion,forsuchinsightasthathistorymayaffordus,andthentoexaminethestatepurposesandinterestsbehindthecriminalabortionlaws.

ItperhapsisnotgenerallyappreciatedthattherestrictivecriminalabortionlawsineffectinamajorityofStatestodayareofrelativelyrecentvintage.Thoselaws,generallyproscribingabor-tionoritsattemptatanytimeduringpregnancyexceptwhennecessarytopreservethepregnantwoman'slife,arenotofancientorevenofcom-mon-laworigin.Instead,theyderivefromstat-utorychangeseffected,forthemostpart,inthelatterhalfofthe19thcentury.

*1301.Ancientattitudes.Thesearenotcap-ableofprecisedetermination.WearetoldthatatthetimeofthePersianEmpireabortifacientswereknownandthatcriminalabortionswere

FN8

severelypunished.Wearealsotold,however,thatabortionwaspracticedinGreek

FN9

timesaswellasintheRomanEra,andthat

FN10

‘itwasresortedtowithoutscruple.'TheEphesian,Soranos,oftendescribedasthegreatestoftheancientgynecologists,appearstohavebeengenerallyopposedtoRome'sprevailingfree-abortionpractices.Hefounditnecessarytothinkfirstofthelifeofthemother,andheresortedtoabortionwhen,uponthisstandard,hefeltthepro-FN11

cedureadvisable.GreekandRomanlawaf-fordedlittleprotectiontotheunborn.Ifabortionwasprosecutedinsomeplaces,itseemstohavebeenbasedonaconceptofaviolationofthefath-er'srighttohisoffspring.Ancientreligiondidnot

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page14

barabortion.

FN12

FN8.ACastiglioni,A.HistoryofMedi-cine84(2ded.1947),E.Krumbhaar,translatorandeditor(hereinafterCas-tiglioni).

FN9.J.Ricci,TheGenealogyofGynae-cology52,84,113,149(2ded.1950)(hereinafterRicci);L.Lader,Abortion75-77(1966)(hereinafterLader);K.Niswander,MedicalAbortionPracticesintheUnitedStates,inAbortionandtheLaw37,38-40(D.Smithed.1967);G.Williams,TheSanctityofLifeandtheCriminalLaw148(1957)(hereinafterWilliams);J.Noonan,AnAlmostAbso-luteValueinHistory,inTheMoralityofAbortion1,3-7(J.Noonaned.1970)(hereinafterNoonan);Quay,JustifiableAbortion-MedicalandLegalFounda-tions,(pt.2),49Geo.L.J.395,406-422(1961)(hereinafterQuay).

FN10.L.Edelstein,TheHippocraticOath10(1943)(hereinafterEdelstein).ButseeCastiglioni227.

FN11.Edelstein12;Ricci113-114,118-119;Noonan5.FN12.Edelstein13-14.

2.TheHippocraticOath.WhatthenofthefamousOaththathasstoodso**716longastheethicalguideofthemedicalprofessionandthatbearsthenameofthegreatGreek(460(?)-377(?)B.C.),whohasbeendescribed*131astheFatherofMedicine,the‘wisestandthegreatestpracti-tionerofhisart,’andthe‘mostimportantandmostcompletemedicalpersonalityofantiquity,’whodominatedthemedicalschoolsofhistime,andwhotypifiedthesumofthemedicalknow-FN13

ledgeofthepast?TheOathvariessome-whataccordingtotheparticulartranslation,butinanytranslationthecontentisclear:‘Iwillgivenodeadlymedicinetoanyoneifasked,norsuggestanysuchcounsel;andinlikemannerIwillnotgivetoawomanapessarytoproduceabortion,’FN14

or‘Iwillneithergiveadeadlydrugtoany-

bodyifaskedforit,norwillImakeasuggestiontothiseffect.Similarly,Iwillnotgivetoawo-FN15

mananabortiveremedy.'

FN13.Castiglioni148.FN14.Id.,at154.FN15.Edelstein3.

AlthoughtheOathisnotmentionedinanyoftheprincipalbriefsinthiscaseorinDoev.Bolton,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.739,35L.Ed.2d201,itrepresentstheapexofthedevelopmentofstrictethicalconceptsinmedicine,anditsinflu-enceendurestothisday.Whydidnottheauthor-ityofHippocratesdissuadeabortionpracticeinhistimeandthatofRome?ThelateDr.Edelstein

FN16

providesuswithatheory:TheOathwasnotuncontestedeveninHippocrates'day;onlythePythagoreanschoolofphilosophersfrownedupontherelatedactofsuicide.MostGreekthinkers,ontheotherhand,commendedabortion,atleastpriortoviability.SeePlato,Republic,V,461;Aristotle,Politics,VII,1335b25.ForthePythagoreans,however,itwasamatterofdogma.Forthemtheembryowasanimatefromthemo-mentofconception,andabortionmeantdestruc-tionofalivingbeing.TheabortionclauseoftheOath,therefore,‘echoesPythagoreandoctrines,’*132and‘(i)nnootherstratumofGreekopinionweresuchviewsheldorproposedinthesame

FN17

spiritofuncompromisingausterity.'

FN16.Id.,at12,15-18.FN17.Id.,at18;Lader76.

Dr.EdelsteinthenconcludesthattheOathoriginatedinagrouprepresentingonlyasmallsegmentofGreekopinionandthatitcertainlywasnotacceptedbyallancientphysicians.HepointsoutthatmedicalwritingsdowntoGalen(A.D.130-200)‘giveevidenceoftheviolationof

FN18

almosteveryoneofitsinjunctions.'Butwiththeendofantiquityadecidedchangetookplace.Resistanceagainstsuicideandagainstabortionbecamecommon.TheOathcametobepopular.TheemergingteachingsofChristianitywereinagreementwiththePhthagoreanethic.

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page15

TheOath‘becamethenucleusofallmedicaleth-ics'and‘wasapplaudedastheembodimentoftruth.’Thus,suggestsDr.Edelstein,itis‘aPy-thagoreanmanifestoandnottheexpressionofan

FN19

absolutestandardofmedicalconduct.'

FN18.Edelstein63.FN19.Id.,at.

This,itseemstous,isasatisfactoryandac-ceptableexplanationoftheHippocraticOath'sap-parentrigidity.Itenablesustounderstand,inhis-toricalcontext,along-acceptedandreveredstate-mentofmedicalethics.

3.Thecommonlaw.Itisundisputedthatatcommonlaw,abortionperformedbefore‘quickening'-thefirstrecognizablemovementofthefetusinutero,appearingusuallyfromthe16th

FN20

tothe18thweekofpregnancy-wasnotan

FN21

indictableoffense.Theabsence*133ofa**717common-lawcrimeforpre-quickeningabortionappearstohavedevelopedfromacon-fluenceofearlierphilosophical,theological,andcivilandcanonlawconceptsofwhenlifebegins.Thesedisciplinesvariouslyapproachedtheques-tionintermsofthepointatwhichtheembryoorfetusbecame‘formed’orrecognizablyhuman,orintermsofwhena‘person’cameintobeing,thatis,infusedwitha‘soul’or‘animated.’AlooseconcensusevolvedinearlyEnglishlawthattheseeventsoccurredatsomepointbetweenconcep-FN22

tionandlivebirth.Thiswas‘mediateanim-ation.’Although*134Christiantheologyandthecanonlawcametofixthepointofanimationat40daysforamaleand80daysforafemale,aviewthatpersisteduntilthe19thcentury,therewasotherwiselittleagreementabouttheprecisetimeofformationoranimation.Therewasagree-ment,however,thatpriortothispointthefetuswastoberegardedaspartofthemother,anditsdestruction,therefore,wasnothomicide.Duetocontinueduncertaintyabouttheprecisetimewhenanimationoccurred,tothelackofanyem-piricalbasisforthe40-80-dayview,andperhapstoAquinas'definitionofmovementasoneofthetwofirstprinciplesoflife,Bractonfocuseduponquickeningasthecriticalpoint.Thesignificanceofquickeningwasechoedbylatercommon-law

scholarsandfounditswayintothereceivedcom-monlawinthiscountry.

FN20.Dorland'sIllustratedMedicalDic-tionary1261(24thed.1965).

FN21.E.Coke,InstitutesIII*50;1W.Hawkins,PleasoftheCrown,c.31,s16(4thed.1762);1W.Blackstone,Com-mentaries*129-130;M.Hale,PleasoftheCrown433(1stAmer.ed.1847).FordiscussionsoftheroleofthequickeningconceptinEnglishcommonlaw,seeLader78;Noonan223-226;Means,TheLawofNewYorkConcerningAbortionandtheStatusoftheFoetus,16-1968:ACaseofCessationofConstitutionality(pt.1),14N.Y.L.F.411,418-428(1968)(hereinafterMeansI);Stern,Abortion:ReformandtheLaw,59J.Crim.L.C.&P.S.84(1968)(hereinafterStern);Quay430-432;Williams152.

FN22.Earlyphilosophersbelievedthattheembryoorfetusdidnotbecomeformedandbegintoliveuntilatleast40daysafterconceptionforamale,and80to90daysforafemale.See,forex-ample,Aristotle,Hist.Anim.7.3.583b;Gen.Anim.2.3.736,2.5.741;Hippo-crates,Lib.deNat.Puer.,No.10.Aris-totle'sthinkingderivedfromhisthree-stagetheoryoflife:vegetable,animal,rational.Thevegetablestagewasreachedatconception,theanimalat‘animation,’andtherationalsoonafterlivebirth.Thistheory,togetherwiththe40/80dayview,cametobeacceptedbyearlyChristianthinkers.

ThetheologicaldebatewasreflectedinthewritingsofSt.Augustine,whomadeadistinctionbetweenembryoinanimat-us,notyetendowedwithasoul,andem-bryoanimatus.HemayhavedrawnuponExodus21:22.Atonepoint,however,heexpressedtheviewthathumanpowerscannotdeterminethepointduringfetaldevelopmentatwhichthecriticalchangeoccurs.SeeAugustine,DeOrigineAn-

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page16

imae4.4(Pub.Law44.527).SeealsoW.Reany,TheCreationoftheHumanSoul,c.2and83-86(1932);Huser,TheCrimeofAbortioninCanonLaw15(CatholicUniv.ofAmerica,CanonLawStudiesNo.162,Washington,D.C.,1942).Galen,inthreetreatisesrelatedtoem-bryology,acceptedthethinkingofAris-totleandhisfollowers.Quay426-427.Later,Augustineonabortionwasincor-poratedbyGratianintotheDecretum,publishedabout1140.DecretumMagis-triGratiani2.32.2.7to2.32.2.10,in1CorpusJurisCanonici1122,1123(A.Friedberg,2ded.1879).ThisDecretalandtheDecretalsthatfollowedwerere-cognizedasthedefinitivebodyofcanonlawuntilthenewCodeof1917.Fordiscussionsofthecanon-lawtreat-ment,seeMeansI,pp.411-412;Noonan20-26;Quay426-430;seealsoJ.Noon-an,Contraception:AHistoryofItsTreatmentbytheCatholicTheologiansandCanonists18-29(1965).

Whetherabortionofaquickfetuswasafelonyatcommonlaw,orevenalessercrime,isstilldisputed.Bracton,writingearlyinthe13th

FN23

century,thoughtithomicide.Butthelaterandpredominant**718view,followingthegreatcommon-lawscholars,hasbeenthatitwas,atmost,alesseroffense.Inafrequentlycited*135passage,Coketookthepositionthatabortionofawoman‘quickwithchilde’is‘agreatmisprision,

FN24

andnomurder.'Blackstonefollowed,say-ingthatwhileabortionafterquickeninghadoncebeenconsideredmanslaughter(thoughnotmurder),‘modernlaw’tookalesssevereview.FN25

Arecentreviewofthecommon-lawpre-cedentsargues,however,thatthoseprecedentscontradictCokeandthatevenpost-quickeningabortionwasneverestablishedasacommon-law

FN26crime.ThisisofsomeimportancebecausewhilemostAmericancourtsruled,inholdingordictum,thatabortionofanunquickenedfetuswasnotcriminalundertheirreceivedcommonlaw,FN27

othersfollowedCokeinstatingthatabor-

tion*136ofaquickfetuswasa‘misprision,’atermtheytranslatedtomean‘misdemeanor.’FN28

ThattheirrelianceonCokeonthisaspectofthelawwasuncriticaland,apparentlyinallthereportedcases,dictum(dueprobablytothepaucityofcommon-lawprosecutionsforpost-quickeningabortion),makesitnowappeardoubt-fulthatabortionwaseverfirmlyestablishedasacommon-lawcrimeevenwithrespecttothede-structionofaquickfetus.

FN23.Bractontookthepositionthatabortionbybloworpoisonwashomicide‘ifthefoetusbealreadyformedandan-imated,andparticularlyifitbeanim-ated.’2H.Bracton,DeLegibusetCon-suetudinibusAngliae279(T.Twissed.1879),or,asalatertranslationputsit,‘ifthefoetusisalreadyformedorquickened,especiallyifitisquickened,’2H.Bracton,OntheLawsandCustomsofEngland341(S.Thorneed.1968).SeeQuay431;seealso2Fleta60-61(Book1,c.23)(SeldenSocietyed.1955).

FN24.E.Coke,InstitutesIII*50.FN25.1W.Blackstone,Commentaries*129-130.

FN26.Means,ThePhoenixofAbortion-alFreedom:IsaPenumbralorNinth-AmendmentRightAbouttoArisefromtheNineteenth-CenturyLegislativeAshesofaFourteenth-CenturyCom-mon-LawLiberty?,17N.Y.L.F.335(1971)(hereinafterMeansII).Theau-thorexaminesthetwoprincipalpreced-entscitedmarginallybyCoke,bothcon-trarytohisdictum,andtracesthetreat-mentoftheseandothercasesbyearliercommentators.HeconcludesthatCoke,whohimselfparticipatedasanadvocateinanabortioncasein1601,mayhavein-tentionallymisstatedthelaw.Theauthorevensuggestsareason:Coke'sstrongfeelingsagainstabortion,coupledwithhisdeterminationtoassertcommon-law(secular)jurisdictiontoassesspenalties

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page17

foranoffensethattraditionallyhadbeenanexclusivelyecclesiasticalorcanon-lawcrime.SeealsoLader78-79,whonotesthatsomescholarsdoubtthatthecommonlaweverwasappliedtoabor-tion;thattheEnglishecclesiasticalcourtsseemtohavelostinterestintheproblemafter1527;andthatthepre-ambletotheEnglishlegislationof1803,43Geo.3,c.58,s1,referredtointhetext,infra,at718,statesthat‘noad-equatemeanshavebeenhithertoprovidedforthepreventionandpunish-mentofsuchoffenses.’

FN27.Commonwealthv.Bangs,9Mass.387,388(1812);Commonwealthv.Parker,50Mass.(9Metc.)263,265-266(1845);Statev.Cooper,22N.J.L.52,58(1849);Abramsv.Foshee,3Iowa274,278-280(1856);Smithv.Gaffard,31Ala.45,51(1857);Mitchellv.Common-wealth,78Ky.204,210(1879);Eggartv.State,40Fla.527,532,25So.144,145(18);Statev.Alcorn,7Idaho599,606,P.1014,1016(1901);Edwardsv.State,79Neb.251,252,112N.W.611,612(1907);Grayv.State,77Tex.Cr.R.221,224,178S.W.337,338(1915);Millerv.Bennett,190Va.162,169,56S.E.2d217,221(1949).Contra,Millsv.Commonwealth,13Pa.631,633(1850);Statev.Slagle,83N.C.630,632(1880).

FN28.SeeSmithv.State,33Me.48,55(1851);Evansv.People,49N.Y.86,88(1872);Lambv.State,67Md.524,533,10A.208(1887).

4.TheEnglishstatutorylaw.England'sfirstcriminalabortionstatute,LordEllenborough'sAct,43Geo.3,c.58,camein1803.Itmadeabortionofaquickfetus,s1,acapitalcrime,butins2itprovidedlesserpenaltiesforthefelonyofabortionbeforequickening,andthuspreservedthe‘quickening’distinction.Thiscontrastwascontinuedinthegeneralrevisionof1828,9Geo.4,c.31,s13.Itdisappeared,however,together

withthedeathpenalty,in1837,7Will.4&1Vict.,c.85,s6,anddidnotreappearintheOf-fensesAgainstthePersonActof1861,24&25Vict.,c.100,s59,thatformedthecoreofEnglishanti-abortionlawuntiltheliberalizingreformsof1967.In1929,theInfantLife(Preservation)Act,19&20Geo.5,c.34,cameintobeing.Itsem-phasiswasuponthedestructionof‘thelifeof**719achildcapableofbeingbornalive.’Itmadeawillfulactperformedwiththenecessaryintentafelony.Itcontainedaprovisothatonewasnottobe*137foundguiltyoftheoffense‘unlessitisprovedthattheactwhichcausedthedeathofthechildwasnotdoneingoodfaithforthepurposeonlyofpreservingthelifeofthemother.’

AseeminglynotabledevelopmentintheEnglishlawwasthecaseofRexv.Bourne,(1939)1K.B.687.Thiscaseapparentlyansweredintheaffirmativethequestionwhetheranabor-tionnecessarytopreservethelifeofthepregnantwomanwasexceptedfromthecriminalpenaltiesofthe1861Act.Inhisinstructionstothejury,JudgeMacNaghtenreferredtothe1929Act,andobservedthatthatActrelatedto‘thecasewhereachildiskilledbyawillfulactatthetimewhenitisbeingdeliveredintheordinarycourseofnature.’Id.,at691.Heconcludedthatthe1861Act'suseoftheword‘unlawfully,’importedthesamemeaningexpressedbythespecificprovisointhe1929Act,eventhoughtherewasnomen-tionofpreservingthemother'slifeinthe1861Act.Hethenconstruedthephrase‘preservingthelifeofthemother’broadly,thatis,‘inareason-ablesense,’toincludeaseriousandpermanentthreattothemother'shealth,andinstructedthejurytoacquitDr.Bourneifitfoundhehadactedinagood-faithbeliefthattheabortionwasneces-saryforthispurpose.Id.,at693-694.Thejurydidacquit.

Recently,Parliamentenactedanewabortionlaw.ThisistheAbortionActof1967,15&16Eliz.2,c.87.TheActpermitsalicensedphysi-ciantoperformanabortionwheretwootherli-censedphysiciansagree(a)‘thatthecontinuanceofthepregnancywouldinvolverisktothelifeofthepregnantwoman,orofinjurytothephysical

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page18

ormentalhealthofthepregnantwomanoranyexistingchildrenofherfamily,greaterthanifthepregnancywereterminated,’or(b)‘thatthereisasubstantialriskthatifthechildwerebornitwouldsufferfromsuchphysicalormentalabnor-malitiesas*138tobeseriouslyhandicapped.’TheActalsoprovidesthat,inmakingthisde-termination,‘accountmaybetakenofthepreg-nantwoman'sactualorreasonablyforeseeableenvironment.’Italsopermitsaphysician,withouttheconcurrenceofothers,toterminateapreg-nancywhereheisofthegood-faithopinionthattheabortion‘isimmediatelynecessarytosavethelifeortopreventgravepermanentinjurytothephysicalormentalhealthofthepregnantwo-man.’

5.TheAmericanlaw.Inthiscountry,thelawineffectinallbutafewStatesuntilmid-19thcenturywasthepre-existingEnglishcommonlaw.Connecticut,thefirstStatetoenactabortionlegislation,adoptedin1821thatpartofLordEl-lenborough'sActthatrelatedtoawoman‘quick

FN29

withchild.'Thedeathpenaltywasnotim-posed.Abortionbeforequickeningwasmadea

FN30

crimeinthatStateonlyin1860.In1828,

FN31

NewYorkenactedlegislationthat,intworespects,wastoserveasamodelforearlyanti-abortionstatutes.First,whilebarringdestructionofanunquickendfetusaswellasaquickfetus,itmadetheformeronlyamisdemeanor,butthelat-tersecond-degreemanslaughter.Second,itincor-poratedaconceptoftherapeuticabortionbyprovidingthatanabortionwasexcusedifit‘shallhavebeennecessarytopreservethelifeofsuchmother,orshallhavebeenadvisedbytwophysi-cianstobenecessaryforsuchpurpose.’By1840,

FN32

whenTexashadreceivedthecommonlaw,

onlyeightAmericanStates*139had**720stat-FN33

utesdealingwithabortion.ItwasnotuntilaftertheWarBetweentheStatesthatlegislationbegangenerallytoreplacethecommonlaw.Mostoftheseinitialstatutesdealtseverelywithabor-tionafterquickeningbutwerelenientwithitbe-forequickening.Mostpunishedattemptsequallywithcompletedabortions.Whilemanystatutesincludedtheexceptionforanabortionthoughtbyoneormorephysicianstobenecessarytosavethemother'slife,thatprovisionsoondisappeared

andthetypicallawrequiredthattheprocedureactuallybenecessaryforthatpurpose.

FN29.Conn.Stat.,Tit.20,s14(1821).FN30.Conn.Pub.Acts,c.71,s1(1860).FN31.N.Y.Rev.Stat.,pt.4,c.1,Tit.2,Art.1,s9,p.661,andTit.6,s21,p.694(1829).

FN32.ActofJan.20,1840,s1,setforthin2H.Gammel,LawsofTexas177-178(18);seeGrigsbyv.Reib,105Tex.597,600,153S.W.1124,1125(1913).FN33.TheearlystatutesarediscussedinQuay435-438.SeealsoLader85-88;Stern85-86;andMeansII375-376.

Gradually,inthemiddleandlate19thcen-turythequickeningdistinctiondisappearedfromthestatutorylawofmostStatesandthedegreeoftheoffenseandthepenaltieswereincreased.Bytheendofthe1950'salargemajorityofthejuris-dictionsbannedabortion,howeverandwheneverperformed,unlessdonetosaveorpreservethe

FN34

lifeofthemother.Theexceptions,AlabamaandtheDistrictofColumbia,permittedabortion

FN35

topreservethemother'shealth.ThreeStatespermittedabortionsthatwerenot‘unlawfully’performedorthatwerenot‘withoutlawfuljustification,’leavinginterpretationof

FN36

thosestandardstothecourts.In*140thepastseveralyears,however,atrendtowardliber-alizationofabortionstatuteshasresultedinadop-tion,byaboutone-thirdoftheStates,oflessstringentlaws,mostofthempatternedafterthe

FN37

ALIModelPenalCode,s230.3,setforthasAppendixBtotheopinioninDoev.Bolton,410U.S.205,93S.Ct.754.

FN34.Criminalabortionstatutesinef-fectintheStatesasof1961,togetherwithhistoricalstatutorydevelopmentandimportantjudicialinterpretationsofthestatestatutes,arecitedandquotedinQuay447-520.SeeComment,ASurveyofthePresentStatutoryandCaseLawonAbortion:TheContradictionsandthe

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page19

Problems,1972U.Ill.L.F.177,179,clas-sifyingtheabortionstatutesandlisting25Statesaspermittingabortiononlyifnecessarytosaveorpreservethemoth-er'slife.

FN35.Ala.Code,Tit.14,s9(1958);D.C.CodeAnn.s22-201(1967).FN36.Mass.Gen.LawsAnn.,c.272,s19(1970);N.J.Stat.Ann.s2A:87-1(1969);Pa.Stat.Ann.,Tit.18,ss4718,4719(1963).

FN37.FourteenStateshaveadoptedsomeformoftheALIstatute.SeeArk.Stat.Ann.ss41-303to41-310(Supp.1971);Calif.Health&SafetyCodess25950-25955.5(Supp.1972);Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann.ss40-2-50to40-2-53(Cum.Supp.1967);Del.CodeAnn.,Tit.24,ss1790-1793(Supp.1972);FloridaLawofApr.13,1972,c.72-196,1972Fla.Sess.LawServ.,pp.380-382;Ga.Codess26-1201to26-1203(1972);Kan.Stat.Ann.s21-3407(Supp.1971);Md.Ann.Code,Art.43,ss137-139(1971);Miss.CodeAnn.s2223(Supp.1972);N.M.Stat.Ann.ss40A-5-1to40A-5-3(1972);N.C.Gen.Stat.s14-45.1(Supp.1971);Ore.Rev.Stat.ss435.405to435.495(1971);S.C.CodeAnn.ss16-82to16-(1962andSupp.1971);Va.CodeAnn.ss18.1-62to18.1-62.3(Supp.1972).Mr.JusticeClarkdescribedsomeoftheseStatesashaving‘ledtheway.’Religion,Morality,andAbortion:AConstitutionalAppraisal,2LoyolaU.(L.A.)L.Rev.1,11(1969).Bytheendof1970,fourotherStateshadrepealedcriminalpenaltiesforabortionsperformedinearlypregnancybyali-censedphysician,subjecttostatedpro-ceduralandhealthrequirements.AlaskaStat.s11.15.060(1970);Haw.Rev.Stat.s453-16(Supp.1971);N.Y.PenalCodes125.05,subd.3(Supp.1972-1973);Wash.Rev.Codess9.02.060to9.02.080(Supp.1972).Theprecisestatusofcrim-

inalabortionlawsinsomeStatesismadeunclearbyrecentdecisionsinstateandfederalcourtsstrikingdownexistingstatelaws,inwholeorinpart.

Itisthusapparentthatatcommonlaw,atthetimeoftheadoptionofourConstitution,andthroughoutthemajorportionofthe19thcentury,abortionwasviewedwithlessdisfavorthanundermostAmericanstatutescurrentlyineffect.Phras-ingitanotherway,awomanenjoyedasubstan-tiallybroaderrighttoterminateapregnancythanshedoesinmostStatestoday.Atleastwithre-specttotheearlystageofpregnancy,**721andverypossiblywithoutsuchalimitation,theop-portunity*141tomakethischoicewaspresentinthiscountrywellintothe19thcentury.Evenlater,thelawcontinuedforsometimetotreatlesspunitivelyanabortionprocuredinearlypreg-nancy.

6.ThepositionoftheAmericanMedicalAs-sociation.Theanti-abortionmoodprevalentinthiscountryinthelate19thcenturywassharedbythemedicalprofession.Indeed,theattitudeoftheprofessionmayhaveplayedasignificantroleintheenactmentofstringentcriminalabortionle-gislationduringthatperiod.

AnAMACommitteeonCriminalAbortionwasappointedinMay1857.Itpresenteditsre-port,12Trans.oftheAm.Med.Assn.73-78(1859),totheTwelfthAnnualMeeting.Thatre-portobservedthattheCommitteehadbeenap-pointedtoinvestigatecriminalabortion‘withaviewtoitsgeneralsuppression.’Itdeploredabor-tionanditsfrequencyanditlistedthreecausesof‘thisgeneraldemoralization’:

‘Thefirstofthesecausesisawide-spreadpopularignoranceofthetruecharacterofthecrime-abelief,evenamongmothersthemselves,thatthefoetusisnotalivetillaftertheperiodofquickening.

‘Thesecondoftheagentsalludedtoisthefactthattheprofessionthemselvesarefrequentlysupposedcarelessoffoetallife....

‘Thethirdreasonofthefrightfulextentof

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page20

thiscrimeisfoundinthegravedefectsofourlaws,bothcommonandstatute,asregardsthein-dependentandactualexistenceofthechildbeforebirth,asalivingbeing.Theseerrors,whicharesufficientinmostinstancestopreventconviction,arebased,andonlybased,uponmistakenandex-plodedmedicaldogmas.Withstrangeinconsist-ency,thelawfullyacknowledgesthefoetusinuteroanditsinherentrights,forcivilpurposes;whilepersonallyandascriminallyaffected,itfailstorecognizeit,*142andtoitslifeasyetdeniesallprotection.’Id.,at75-76.

TheCommitteethenoffered,andtheAssoci-ationadopted,resolutionsprotesting‘againstsuchunwarrantabledestructionofhumanlife,’callinguponstatelegislaturestorevisetheirabor-tionlaws,andrequestingthecooperationofstatemedicalsocieties‘inpressingthesubject.’Id.,at28,78.

In1871alongandvividreportwassubmit-tedbytheCommitteeonCriminalAbortion.Itendedwiththeobservation,‘Wehadtodealwithhumanlife.Inamatteroflessimportancewecouldentertainnocompromise.Anhonestjudgeonthebenchwouldcallthingsbytheirpropernames.Wecoulddonoless.’22Trans.oftheAm.Med.Assn.258(1871).Itprofferedresolu-tions,adoptedbytheAssociation,id.,at38-39,recommending,amongotherthings,thatit‘beunlawfulandunprofessionalforanyphysiciantoinduceabortionorprematurelabor,withouttheconcurrentopinionofatleastonerespectableconsultingphysician,andthenalwayswithaviewtothesafetyofthechild-ifthatbepossible,’andcalling‘theattentionoftheclergyofallde-nominationstothepervertedviewsofmoralityentertainedbyalargeclassoffemales-aye,andmenalso,onthisimportantquestion.’

Exceptforperiodiccondemnationofthecriminalabortionist,nofurtherformalAMAac-tiontookplaceuntil1967.Inthatyear,theCom-mitteeonHumanReproductionurgedtheadop-tionofastatedpolicyofoppositiontoinducedabortion,exceptwhenthereis‘documentedmed-icalevidence’ofathreattothehealthorlifeofthemother,orthatthechild‘maybebornwith

incapacitatingphysicaldeformityormentaldefi-ciency,’orthatapregnancy‘resultingfromleg-allyestablishedstatutoryorforciblerapeorincestmayconstituteathreattothementalorphysicalhealthofthe*143patient,’twootherphysicians‘chosenbecauseoftheirrecognizedprofessionalcompetencyhaveexaminedthepatientandhaveconcurredinwriting,’**722andtheprocedure‘isperformedinahospitalaccreditedbytheJointCommissiononAccreditationofHospitals.’Theprovidingofmedicalinformationbyphysicianstostatelegislaturesintheirconsiderationoflegis-lationregardingtherapeuticabortionwas‘tobeconsideredconsistentwiththeprinciplesofethicsoftheAmericanMedicalAssociation.’Thisre-commendationwasadoptedbytheHouseofDel-egates.ProceedingsoftheAMAHouseofDeleg-ates40-51(June1967).

In1970,aftertheintroductionofavarietyofproposedresolutions,andofareportfromitsBoardofTrustees,areferencecommitteenoted‘polarizationofthemedicalprofessiononthiscontroversialissue’;divisionamongthosewhohadtestified;adifferenceofopinionamongAMAcouncilsandcommittees;‘theremarkableshiftintestimony’insixmonths,felttobeinflu-enced‘bytherapidchangesinstatelawsandbythejudicialdecisionswhichtendtomakeabor-tionmorefreelyavailable;’andafeeling‘thatthistrendwillcontinue.’OnJune25,1970,theHouseofDelegatesadoptedpreamblesandmostoftheresolutionsproposedbythereferencecom-mittee.Thepreamblesemphasized‘thebestin-terestsofthepatient,’‘soundclinicaljudgment,’and‘informedpatientconsent,’incontrastto‘mereacquiescencetothepatient'sdemand.’Theresolutionsassertedthatabortionisamedicalprocedurethatshouldbeperformedbyalicensedphysicianinanaccreditedhospitalonlyaftercon-sultationwithtwootherphysiciansandincon-formitywithstatelaw,andthatnopartytotheprocedureshouldberequiredtoviolateperson-FN38

allyheldmoralprinciples.Proceedings*144oftheAMAHouseofDelegates220(June1970).TheAMAJudicialCouncilrendereda

FN39

complementaryopinion.

FN38.‘Whereas,Abortion,likeanyoth-

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page21

ermedicalprocedure,shouldnotbeper-formedwhencontrarytothebestin-terestsofthepatientsincegoodmedicalpracticerequiresdueconsiderationforthepatient'swelfareandnotmereacqui-escencetothepatient'sdemand;and‘Whereas,Thestandardsofsoundclinic-aljudgment,which,togetherwithin-formedpatientconsentshouldbede-terminativeaccordingtothemeritsofeachindividualcase;thereforebeit‘RESOLVED,ThatabortionisamedicalprocedureandshouldbeperformedonlybyadulylicensedphysicianandsurgeoninanaccreditedhospitalactingonlyafterconsultationwithtwootherphysicianschosenbecauseoftheirprofessionalcompetencyandinconformancewithstandardsofgoodmedicalpracticeandtheMedicalPracticeActofhisState;andbeitfurther

‘RESOLVED,Thatnophysicianorotherprofessionalpersonnelshallbecom-pelledtoperformanyactwhichviolateshisgoodmedicaljudgment.Neitherphysician,hospital,norhospitalperson-nelshallberequiredtoperformanyactviolativeofpersonally-heldmoralprin-ciples.Inthesecircumstancesgoodmed-icalpracticerequiresonlythatthephysi-cianorotherprofessionalpersonnelwithdrawfromthecasesolongasthewithdrawalisconsistentwithgoodmed-icalpractice.’ProceedingsoftheAMAHouseofDelegates220(June1970).FN39.‘ThePrinciplesofMedicalEthicsoftheAMAdonotprohibitaphysicianfromperforminganabortionthatisper-formedinaccordancewithgoodmedicalpracticeandundercircumstancesthatdonotviolatethelawsofthecommunityinwhichhepractices.

‘Inthematterofabortions,asofanyoth-ermedicalprocedure,theJudicialCoun-cilbecomesinvolvedwheneverthereis

allegedviolationofthePrinciplesofMedicalEthicsasestablishedbytheHouseofDelegates.’

7.ThepositionoftheAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.InOctober1970,theExecut-iveBoardoftheAPHAadoptedStandardsforAbortionServices.Thesewerefiveinnumber:‘a.Rapidandsimpleabortionreferralmustbereadilyavailablethroughstateandlocalpublic*145healthdepartments,medicalsocieties,orothernon-profitorganizations.

‘b.Animportantfunctionofcounselingshouldbetosimplifyandexpeditetheprovisionofabortionservices;ifshouldnotdelaytheob-tainingoftheseservices.

**723‘c.Psychiatricconsultationshouldnotbemandatory.Asinthecaseofotherspecializedmedicalservices,psychiatricconsultationshouldbesoughtfordefiniteindicationsandnotonaroutinebasis.

‘d.Awiderangeofindividualsfromappro-priatelytrained,sympatheticvolunteerstohighlyskilledphysiciansmayqualifyasabortioncoun-selors.

‘e.Contraceptionand/orsterilizationshouldbediscussedwitheachabortionpatient.’Recom-mendedStandardsforAbortionServices,61Am.J.Pub.Health396(1971).

Amongfactorspertinenttolifeandhealthrisksassociatedwithabortionwerethreethat‘arerecognizedasimportant’:

‘a.theskillofthephysician,‘b.theenvironmentinwhichtheabortionisperformed,andaboveall

‘c.Thedurationofpregnancy,asdeterminedbyuterinesizeandconfirmedbymenstrualhis-tory.’Id.,at397.

Itwassaidthat‘awell-equippedhospital’of-fersmoreprotection‘tocopewithunforeseendif-ficultiesthananofficeorclinicwithoutsuchre-sources....Thefactorofgestationalageisof

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page22

overridingimportance.’Thus,itwasrecommen-dedthatabortionsinthesecondtrimesterandearlyabortionsinthepresenceofexistingmedic-alcomplicationsbeperformedinhospitalsasin-patientprocedures.Forpregnanciesinthefirsttrimester,*146abortioninthehospitalwithorwithoutovernightstay‘isprobablythesafestpractice.’Anabortioninanextramuralfacility,however,isanacceptablealternative‘providedarrangementsexistinadvancetoadmitpatientspromptlyifunforeseencomplicationsdevelop.’Standardsforanabortionfacilitywerelisted.Itwassaidthatatpresentabortionsshouldbeper-formedbyphysiciansorosteopathswhoareli-censedtopracticeandwhohave‘adequatetrain-ing.’Id.,at398.

8.ThepositionoftheAmericanBarAssoci-ation.AtitsmeetinginFebruary1972theABAHouseofDelegatesapproved,with17opposingvotes,theUniformAbortionActthathadbeendraftedandapprovedtheprecedingAugustbytheConferenceofCommissionersonUniformStateLaws.58A.B.A.J.380(1972).Wesetforththe

FN40

Actinfullinthemargin.The*147Confer-ence**724hasappendedanenlighteningPrefat-FN41oryNote.

FN40.‘UNIFORMABORTIONACT‘Section1.(AbortionDefined;WhenAuthorized.)

‘(a)‘Abortion’meanstheterminationofhumanpregnancywithanintentionotherthantoproducealivebirthortoremoveadeadfetus.

‘(b)Anabortionmaybeperformedinthisstateonlyifitisperformed:‘(1)byaphysicianlicensedtopracticemedicine(orosteopathy)inthisstateorbyaphysicianpracticingmedicine(orosteopathy)intheemployofthegovern-mentoftheUnitedStatesorofthisstate,(andtheabortionisperformed(inthephysician'sofficeorinamedicalclinic,or)inahospitalapprovedbythe(DepartmentofHealth)oroperatedby

theUnitedStates,thisstate,oranyde-partment,agency,orpoliticalsubdivi-sionofeither;)orbyafemaleuponher-selfupontheadviceofthephysician;and

‘(2)within(20)weeksafterthecom-mencementofthepregnancy(orafter(20)weeksonlyifthephysicianhasreasonablecausetobelieve(i)thereisasubstantialriskthatcontinuanceofthepregnancywouldendangerthelifeofthemotherorwouldgravelyimpairthephysicalormentalhealthofthemother,(ii)thatthechildwouldbebornwithgravephysicalormentaldefect,or(iii)thatthepregnancyresultedfromrapeorincest,orillicitintercoursewithagirlundertheageof16years).

‘Section2.(Penalty.)AnypersonwhoperformsorprocuresanabortionotherthanauthorizedbythisActisguiltyofa(felony)and,uponconvictionthereof,maybesentencedtopayafinenotex-ceeding($1,000)ortoimprisonment(inthestatepenitentiary)notexceeding(5years),orboth.

‘Section3.(UniformityofInterpreta-tion.)ThisActshallbeconstruedtoef-fectuateitsgeneralpurposetomakeuni-formthelawwithrespecttothesubjectofthisActamongthosestateswhichen-actit.

‘Section4.(ShortTitle.)ThisActmaybecitedastheUniformAbortionAct.‘Section5.(Severability.)Ifanyprovi-sionofthisActortheapplicationthereoftoanypersonorcircumstanceisheldin-valid,theinvaliditydoesnotaffectotherprovisionsorapplicationsofthisActwhichcanbegiveneffectwithoutthein-validprovisionorapplication,andtothisendtheprovisionofthisActaresever-able.

‘Section6.(Repeal.)Thefollowingacts

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page23

andpartsofactsarerepealed:‘(1)‘(2)‘(3)

‘Section7.(TimeofTakingEffect.)ThisActshalltakeeffect___.’

FN41.‘ThisActisbasedlargelyupontheNewYorkabortionactfollowingareviewofthemorerecentlawsonabor-tioninseveralstatesanduponrecogni-tionofamoreliberaltrendinlawsonthissubject.Recognitionwasgivenalsototheseveraldecisionsinstateandfed-eralcourtswhichshowafurthertrendto-wardliberalizationofabortionlaws,es-peciallyduringthefirsttrimesterofpregnancy.

‘RecognizingthatanumberofproblemsappearedinNewYork,ashortertimeperiodfor‘unlimited’abortionswasad-visable.Thetimeperiodwasbracketedtopermitthevariousstatestoinsertafiguremoreinkeepingwiththedifferentconditionsthatmightexistamongthestates.Likewise,thelanguagelimitingtheplaceorplacesinwhichabortionsmaybeperformedwasalsobracketedtoaccountfordifferentconditionsamongthestates.Inaddition,limitationsonabortionsaftertheinitial‘unlimited’periodwereplacedinbracketssothatin-dividualstatesmayadoptalloranyofthesereasons,orplacefurtherrestric-tionsuponabortionsaftertheinitialperi-od.

‘ThisActdoesnotcontainanyprovisionrelatingtomedicalreviewcommitteesorprohibitionsagainstsanctionsimposeduponmedicalpersonnelrefusingtoparti-cipateinabortionsbecauseofreligiousorothersimilarreasons,orthelike.Suchprovisions,whilerelated,donotdirectlypertaintowhen,where,orbywhom

abortionsmaybeperformed;however,theActisnotdraftedtoexcludesuchaprovisionbyastatewishingtoenactthesame.’

VII

Threereasonshavebeenadvancedtoexplainhistoricallytheenactmentofcriminalabortionlawsinthe19thcenturyandtojustifytheircon-tinuedexistence.

*148IthasbeenarguedoccasionallythattheselawsweretheproductofaVictoriansocialconcerntodiscourageillicitsexualconduct.Texas,however,doesnotadvancethisjustifica-tioninthepresentcase,anditappearsthatnocourtorcommentatorhastakentheargumentser-FN42iously.Theappellantsandamicicontend,moreover,thatthisisnotaproperstatepurposeatallandsuggestthat,ifitwere,theTexasstatutesareoverbroadinprotectingitsincethelawfailstodistinguishbetweenmarriedandunwedmoth-ers.

FN42.See,forexample,YWCAv.Ku-gler,342F.Supp.1048,1074(D.C.N.J.1972);Abelev.Markle,342F.Supp.800,805-806(D.C.Conn.1972)(Newman,J.,concurringinresult),ap-pealdocketed,No.72-56;Walsinghamv.State,250So.2d857,863(Ervin,J.,concurring)(Fla.1971);Statev.Gedicke,43N.J.L.86,90(1881);MeansII381-382.

Asecondreasonisconcernedwithabortionasamedicalprocedure.Whenmostcriminalabortionlawswerefirstenacted,theprocedure

FN43

wasahazardousoneforthewoman.Thiswasparticularlytruepriortothe*149develop-mentofantisepsis.Antiseptictechniques,ofcourse,werebasedondiscoveriesbyLister,Pas-teur,andothersfirstannouncedin1867,butwerenotgenerallyacceptedandemployeduntilabouttheturnofthecentury.Abortionmortalitywashigh.Evenafter1900,andperhapsuntilaslateasthedevelopmentofantibioticsinthe1940's,standardmoderntechniquessuchasdilationandcurettagewerenotnearlysosafeastheyaretoday.Thus,ithasbeenarguedthataState'sreal

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page24

concerninenactingacriminalabortionlawwastoprotectthepregnantwoman,thatis,torestrainherfromsubmittingtoaprocedurethatplacedherlifeinseriousjeopardy.

FN43.SeeC.Haagensen&W.Lloyd,A.HundredYearsofMedicine19(1943).

**725Modernmedicaltechniqueshavealteredthissituation.Appellantsandvariousamicirefertomedicaldataindicatingthatabor-tioninearlypregnancy,thatis,priortotheendofthefirsttrimester,althoughnotwithoutitsrisk,isnowrelativelysafe.Mortalityratesforwomenundergoingearlyabortions,wheretheprocedureislegal,appeartobeaslowasorlowerthanthe

FN44

ratesfornormalchildbirth.Consequently,anyinterestoftheStateinprotectingthewomanfromaninherentlyhazardousprocedure,exceptwhenitwouldbeequallydangerousforhertoforgoit,haslargelydisappeared.Ofcourse,im-portantstateinterestsintheareasofhealthandmedicalstandardsdoremain.*150TheStatehasalegitimateinterestinseeingtoitthatabortion,likeanyothermedicalprocedure,isperformedundercircumstancesthatinsuremaximumsafetyforthepatient.Thisinterestobviouslyextendsatleasttotheperformingphysicianandhisstaff,tothefacilitiesinvolved,totheavailabilityofafter-care,andtoadequateprovisionforanycomplica-tionoremergencythatmightarise.Thepreval-enceofhighmortalityratesatillegal‘abortionmills'strengthens,ratherthanweakens,theState'sinterestinregulatingtheconditionsunderwhichabortionsareperformed.Moreover,therisktothewomanincreasesasherpregnancycontinues.Thus,theStateretainsadefiniteinterestinpro-tectingthewoman'sownhealthandsafetywhenanabortionisproposedatalatestageofpreg-nancy,

FN44.Potts,PostconceptiveControlofFertility,8Int'lJ.ofG.&O.957,967(1970)(EnglandandWales);AbortionMortality,20MorbidityandMortality208,209(June12,1971)(U.S.Dept.ofHEW,PublicHealthService)(NewYorkCity);Tietze,UnitedStates:TherapeuticAbortions,1963-1968,59Studiesin

FamilyPlanning5,7(1970);Tietze,MortalitywithContraceptionandIn-ducedAbortion,45StudiesinFamilyPlanning6(1969)(Japan,Czechoslov-akia,Hungary);Tietze&Lehfeldt,LegalAbortioninEasternEurope,175J.A.M.A.1149,1152(April1961).OthersourcesarediscussedinLader17-23.

ThethirdreasonistheState'sinterest-somephraseitintermsofduty-inprotectingprenatallife.Someoftheargumentforthisjustificationrestsonthetheorythatanewhumanlifeis

FN45

presentfromthemomentofconception.

TheState'sinterestandgeneralobligationtopro-tectlifethenextends,itisargued,toprenatallife.Onlywhenthelifeofthepregnantmotherherselfisatstake,balancedagainstthelifeshecarrieswithinher,shouldtheinterestoftheembryoorfetusnotprevail.Logically,ofcourse,alegitim-atestateinterestinthisareaneednotstandorfallonacceptanceofthebeliefthatlifebeginsatcon-ceptionoratsomeotherpointpriortolifebirth.InassessingtheState'sinterest,recognitionmaybegiventothelessrigidclaimthataslongasatleastpotentiallifeisinvolved,theStatemayas-sertinterestsbeyondtheprotectionofthepreg-nantwomanalone.

FN45.SeeBriefofAmicusNationalRighttoLifeCommittee;R.Drinan,TheInviolabilityoftheRighttoBeBorn,inAbortionandtheLaw107(D.Smithed.1967);Louisell,Abortion,ThePracticeofMedicineandtheDueProcessofLaw,16U.C.L.A.L.Rev.233(1969);Noonan1.

*151Partieschallengingstateabortionlawshavesharplydisputedinsomecourtstheconten-tionthatapurposeoftheselaws,whenenacted,

FN46

wastoprotectprenatallife.Pointingtotheabsenceoflegislativehistorytosupportthecon-tention,theyclaimthatmoststatelawswerede-signedsolelytoprotectthewoman.Becausemedicaladvanceshavelessenedthisconcern,atleastwithrespecttoabortioninearlypregnancy,theyarguethatwithrespecttosuchabortionsthelawscannolongerbejustifiedbyanystatein-

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page25

terest.Thereissomescholarlysupportforthis

FN47

viewoforiginalpurpose.Thefewstatecourts**726calledupontointerprettheirlawsinthelate19thandearly20thcenturiesdidfocusontheState'sinterestinprotectingthewoman'shealthratherthaninpreservingtheembryoand

FN48fetus.Proponentsofthisviewpointoutthat

FN49

inmanyStates,includingTexas,bystatuteorjudicialinterpretation,thepregnantwomanherselfcouldnotbeprosecutedforself-abortionorforcooperatinginanabortionperformedupon

FN50

herbyanother.Theyclaimthatadoptionofthe‘quickening’distinctionthroughreceivedcommon*152lawandstatestatutestacitlyrecog-nizesthegreaterhealthhazardsinherentinlateabortionandimpliedlyrepudiatesthetheorythatlifebeginsatconception.

FN46.See,e.g.,Abelev.Markle,342F.Supp.800(D.C.Conn.1972),appealdocketed,No.72-56.

FN47.SeediscussionsinMeansIandMeansII.

FN48.See,e.g.,Statev.Murphy,27N.J.L.112,114(1858).

FN49.Watsonv.State,9Tex.App.237,244-245(1880);Moorev.State,37Tex.Cr.R.552,561,40S.W.287,290(17);Shawv.State,73Tex.Cr.R.337,339,165S.W.930,931(1914);Fondrenv.State,74Tex.Cr.R.552,557,169S.W.411,414(1914);Grayv.State,77Tex.Cr.R.221,229,178S.W.337,341(1915).ThereisnoimmunityinTexasforthefatherwhoisnotmarriedtothemother.Hammettv.State,84Tex.Cr.R.635,209S.W.661(1919);Thompsonv.State,Tex.Cr.App.,493S.W.2d913(1971),appealpending.

FN50.SeeSmithv.State,33Me.,at55;InreVince,2N.J.443,450,67A.2d141,144(1949).AshortdiscussionofthemodernlawonthisissueiscontainedintheCommenttotheALI'sModelPen-alCodes207.11,at158andnn.35-37(Tent.DraftNo.9,1959).

Itiswiththeseinterests,andtheweighttobeattachedtothem,thatthiscaseisconcerned.VIII

[9]TheConstitutiondoesnotexplicitlymen-tionanyrightofprivacy.Inalineofdecisions,however,goingbackperhapsasfarasUnionPa-cificR.Co.v.Botsford,141U.S.250,251,11S.Ct.1000,1001,35L.Ed.734(11),theCourthasrecognizedthatarightofpersonalprivacy,oraguaranteeofcertainareasorzonesofprivacy,doesexistundertheConstitution.Invaryingcon-texts,theCourtorindividualJusticeshave,in-deed,foundatleasttherootsofthatrightintheFirstAmendment,Stanleyv.Georgia,394U.S.557,5,S.Ct.1243,1247,22L.Ed.2d542(1969);intheFourthandFifthAmendments,Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,8-9,88S.Ct.1868,1872-1873,20L.Ed.2d8(1968),Katzv.UnitedStates,3U.S.347,350,88S.Ct.507,510,19L.Ed.2d576(1967);Boydv.UnitedStates,116U.S.616,6S.Ct.524,29L.Ed.746(1886),seeOlmsteadv.UnitedStates,277U.S.438,478,48S.Ct.5,572,72L.Ed.944(1928)(Brandeis,J.,dissenting);inthepenumbrasoftheBillofRights,Griswoldv.Connecticut,381U.S.,at484-485,85S.Ct.,at1681-1682;intheNinthAmendment,id.,at486,85S.Ct.at1682(Goldberg,J.,concurring);orintheconceptoflibertyguaranteedbythefirstsectionoftheFour-teenthAmendment,seeMeyerv.Nebraska,262U.S.390,399,43S.Ct.625,626,67L.Ed.1042(1923).Thesedecisionsmakeitclearthatonlypersonalrightsthatcanbedeemed‘fundamental’or‘implicitintheconceptoforderedliberty,’Palkov.Connecticut,302U.S.319,325,58S.Ct.149,152,82L.Ed.288(1937),areincludedinthisguaranteeofpersonalprivacy.Theyalsomakeitclearthattherighthassomeextensiontoactivitiesrelatingtomarriage,Lovingv.Virginia,388U.S.1,12,87S.Ct.1817,1823,18L.Ed.2d1010(1967);procreation,Skinnerv.Oklahoma,316U.S.535,541-542,62S.Ct.1110,1113-1114,86L.Ed.1655(1942);contraception,Eisenstadtv.Baird,405U.S.,at453-454,92S.Ct.,at1038-1039;*153id.,at460,463-465,92S.Ct.at1042,1043-1044(White,J.,concurringinresult);familyrelationships,Princev.Mas-sachusetts,321U.S.158,166,S.Ct.438,442,

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page26

88L.Ed.5(1944);andchildrearingandeduca-tion,**727Piercev.SocietyofSisters,268U.S.510,535,45S.Ct.571,573,69L.Ed.1070(1925),Meyerv.Nebraska,supra.

[10]Thisrightofprivacy,whetheritbefoun-dedintheFourteenthAmendment'sconceptofpersonallibertyandrestrictionsuponstateaction,aswefeelitis,or,astheDistrictCourtdeterm-ined,intheNinthAmendment'sreservationofrightstothepeople,isbroadenoughtoencom-passawoman'sdecisionwhetherornottotermin-ateherpregnancy.ThedetrimentthattheStatewouldimposeuponthepregnantwomanbydeny-ingthischoicealtogetherisapparent.Specificanddirectharmmedicallydiagnosableeveninearlypregnancymaybeinvolved.Maternity,oradditionaloffspring,mayforceuponthewomanadistressfullifeandfuture.Psychologicalharmmaybeimminent.Mentalandphysicalhealthmaybetaxedbychildcare.Thereisalsothedis-tress,forallconcerned,associatedwiththeun-wantedchild,andthereistheproblemofbringingachildintoafamilyalreadyunable,psychologic-allyandotherwise,tocareforit.Inothercases,asinthisone,theadditionaldifficultiesandcon-tinuingstigmaofunwedmotherhoodmaybein-volved.Allthesearefactorsthewomanandherresponsiblephysiciannecessarilywillconsiderinconsultation.

Onthebasisofelementssuchasthese,appel-lantandsomeamiciarguethatthewoman'srightisabsoluteandthatsheisentitledtoterminateherpregnancyatwhatevertime,inwhateverway,andforwhateverreasonshealonechooses.Withthiswedonotagree.Appellant'sargumentsthatTexaseitherhasnovalidinterestatallinregulat-ingtheabortiondecision,ornointereststrongenoughtosupportanylimitationuponthewo-man'ssoledetermination,areunpersuasive.The*154Court'sdecisionsrecognizingarightofpri-vacyalsoacknowledgethatsomestateregulationinareasprotectedbythatrightisappropriate.Asnotedabove,aStatemayproperlyassertimport-antinterestsinsafeguardinghealth,inmaintain-ingmedicalstandards,andinprotectingpotentiallife.Atsomepointinpregnancy,theserespectiveinterestsbecomesufficientlycompellingtosus-

tainregulationofthefactorsthatgoverntheabor-tiondecision.Theprivacyrightinvolved,there-fore,cannotbesaidtobeabsolute.Infact,itisnotcleartousthattheclaimassertedbysomeamicithatonehasanunlimitedrighttodowithone'sbodyasonepleasesbearsacloserelation-shiptotherightofprivacypreviouslyarticulatedintheCourt'sdecisions.TheCourthasrefusedtorecognizeanunlimitedrightofthiskindinthepast.Jacobsonv.Massachusetts,197U.S.11,25S.Ct.358,49L.Ed.3(1905)(vaccination);Buckv.Bell,274U.S.200,47S.Ct.584,71L.Ed.1000(1927)(sterilization).

We,therefore,concludethattherightofper-sonalprivacyincludestheabortiondecision,butthatthisrightisnotunqualifiedandmustbecon-sideredagainstimportantstateinterestsinregula-tion.

Wenotethatthosefederalandstatecourtsthathaverecentlyconsideredabortionlawchal-lengeshavereachedthesameconclusion.Ama-jority,inadditiontotheDistrictCourtinthepresentcase,haveheldstatelawsunconstitution-al,atleastinpart,becauseofvaguenessorbe-causeofoverbreadthandabridgmentofrights.Abelev.Markle,342F.Supp.800(D.C.Conn.1972),appealdocketed,No.72-56;Abelev.Markle,351F.Supp.224(D.C.Conn.1972),appealdocketed,No.72-730;Doev.Bolton,319F.Supp.1048(N.D.Ga.1970),appealdecidedtoday,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.739,35L.Ed.2d201;Doev.Scott,321F.Supp.1385(N.D.Ill.1971),appealdocketed,No.70-105;Poev.Menghini,339F.Supp.986(D.C.Kan.1972);YWCAv.Kugler,342F.Supp.1048(D.C.N.J.1972);*155Babbitzv.McCann,310F.Supp.293(E.D.Wis.1970),appealdismissed,400U.S.1,91S.Ct.12,27L.Ed.2d1(1970);Peoplev.Belous,71Cal.2d954,80Cal.Rptr.354,458P.2d194(1969),cert.denied,397U.S.915,90S.Ct.920,25L.Ed.2d96(1970);Statev.Barquet,262So.2d431(Fla.1972).

Othershavesustainedstatestatutes.Crossenv.AttorneyGeneral,344F.Supp.**728587(E.D.Ky.1972),appealdocketed,No.72-256;Rosenv.LouisianaStateBoardofMedicalEx-

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page27

aminers,318F.Supp.1217(E.D.La.1970),appealdocketed,No.70-42;Corkeyv.Edwards,322F.Supp.1248(W.D.N.C.1971),appealdocketed,No.71-92;Steinbergv.Brown,321F.Supp.741(N.D.Ohio1970);Doev.Rampton,366F.Supp.1(Utah1971),appealdocketed,No.71-5666;Cheaneyv.State,Ind.,285N.E.2d265(1972);Spearsv.State,257So.2d876(Miss.1972);Statev.Munson,S.D.,201N.W.2d123(1972),appealdocketed,No.72-631.

Althoughtheresultsaredivided,mostofthesecourtshaveagreedthattherightofprivacy,howeverbased,isbroadenoughtocovertheabortiondecision;thattheright,nonetheless,isnotabsoluteandissubjecttosomelimitations;andthatatsomepointthestateinterestsastopro-tectionofhealth,medicalstandards,andprenatallife,becomedominant.Weagreewiththisap-proach.

[11]Wherecertain‘fundamentalrights'areinvolved,theCourthasheldthatregulationlimit-ingtheserightsmaybejustifiedonlybya‘compellingstateinterest,’Kramerv.UnionFreeSchoolDistrict,395U.S.621,627,S.Ct.1886,10,23L.Ed.2d583(1969);Shapirov.Thompson,394U.S.618,634,S.Ct.1322,1331,22L.Ed.2d600(1969);Sherbertv.Verner,374U.S.398,406,83S.Ct.1790,1795,10L.Ed.2d965(1963),andthatlegislativeenact-mentsmustbenarrowlydrawntoexpressonlythelegitimatestateinterestsatstake.Griswoldv.Connecticut,381U.S.,at485,85S.Ct.,at1682;Apthekerv.SecretaryofState,378U.S.500,508,84S.Ct.1659,16,12L.Ed.2d992(19);Cantwellv.Connecticut,310U.S.296,307-308,60S.Ct.900,904-905,84L.Ed.1213(1940);see*156Eisenstadtv.Baird,405U.S.,at460,463-4,92S.Ct.,at1042,1043-1044(White,J.,concurringinresult).

Intherecentabortioncases,citedabove,courtshaverecognizedtheseprinciples.Thosestrikingdownstatelawshavegenerallyscrutin-izedtheState'sinterestsinprotectinghealthandpotentiallife,andhaveconcludedthatneitherin-terestjustifiedbroadlimitationsonthereasonsforwhichaphysicianandhispregnantpatient

mightdecidethatsheshouldhaveanabortionintheearlystagesofpregnancy.CourtssustainingstatelawshaveheldthattheState'sdetermina-tionstoprotecthealthorprenatallifearedomin-antandconstitutionallyjustifiable.

TheDistrictCourtheldthattheappelleefailedtomeethisburdenofdemonstratingthattheTexasstatute'sinfringementuponRoe'srightswasnecessarytosupportacompellingstatein-terest,andthat,althoughtheappelleepresented‘severalcompellingjustificationsforstatepres-enceintheareaofabortions,’thestatutesout-strippedthesejustificationsandswept‘farbey-ondanyareasofcompellingstateinterest.’314F.Supp.,at1222-1223.Appellantandappelleebothcontestthatholding.Appellant,ashasbeenindicated,claimsanabsoluterightthatbarsanystateimpositionofcriminalpenaltiesinthearea.AppelleearguesthattheState'sdeterminationtorecognizeandprotectprenatallifefromandafterconceptionconstitutesacompellingstateinterest.Asnotedabove,wedonotagreefullywitheitherformulation.

A.Theappelleeandcertainamiciarguethatthefetusisa‘person’withinthelanguageandmeaningoftheFourteenthAmendment.Insup-portofthis,theyoutlineatlengthandindetailthewell-knownfactsoffetaldevelopment.Ifthissuggestionofpersonhoodisestablished,theap-pellant'scase,ofcourse,collapses,*157forthefetus'righttolifewouldthenbeguaranteedspe-cificallybytheAmendment.Theappellantcon-FN51

cededasmuchonreargument.Ontheother

FN52

hand,theappelleeconcededonreargument

thatnocasecouldbecited**729thatholdsthatafetusisapersonwithinthemeaningoftheFour-teenthAmendment.

FN51.Tr.ofOralRearg.20-21.FN52.Tr.ofOralRearg.24.

TheConstitutiondoesnotdefine‘person’insomanywords.Section1oftheFourteenthAmendmentcontainsthreereferencesto‘person.’Thefirst,indefining‘citizens,’speaksof‘personsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates.’

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page28

ThewordalsoappearsbothintheDueProcessClauseandintheEqualProtectionClause.‘Person’isusedinotherplacesintheConstitu-tion:inthelistingofqualificationsforRepresent-ativesandSenators,Art,I,s2,cl.2,ands3,cl.3;intheApportionmentClause,Art.I,s2,cl.3;FN53

intheMigrationandImportationprovision,Art.I,s9,cl.1;intheEmoulumentClause,Art,I,s9,cl.8;intheElectrosprovisions,Art.II,s1,cl.2,andthesupersededcl.3;intheprovisionoutliningqualificationsfortheofficeofPresid-ent,Art.II,s1,cl.5;intheExtraditionprovi-sions,Art.IV,s2,cl.2,andthesupersededFu-gitiveSlaveClause3;andintheFifth,Twelfth,andTwenty-secondAmendments,aswellasinss2and3oftheFourteenthAmendment.Butinnearlyalltheseinstances,theuseofthewordissuchthatithasapplicationonlypostnatally.Noneindicates,withanyassurance,thatithasanypos-FN54

sibleprenatalapplication.

FN53.Wearenotawarethatinthetak-ingofanycensusunderthisclause,afetushaseverbeencounted.

FN54.WhenTexasurgesthatafetusisentitledtoFourteenthAmendmentpro-tectionasaperson,itfacesadilemma.NeitherinTexasnorinanyotherStateareallabortionsprohibited.Despitebroadproscription,anexceptionalwaysexists.TheexceptioncontainedinArt.1196,foranabortionprocuredorat-temptedbymedicaladviceforthepur-poseofsavingthelifeofthemother,istypical.Butifthefetusisapersonwhoisnottobedeprivedoflifewithoutdueprocessoflaw,andifthemother'scondi-tionisthesoledeterminant,doesnottheTexasexceptionappeartobeoutoflinewiththeAmendment'scommand?ThereareotherinconsistenciesbetweenFourteenthAmendmentstatusandthetypicalabortionstatute.Ithasalreadybeenpointedout,n.49,supra,thatinTexasthewomanisnotaprincipaloranaccomplicewithrespecttoanabortionuponher.Ifthefetusisaperson,whyis

thewomannotaprincipaloranaccom-plice?Further,thepenaltyforcriminalabortionspecifiedbyArt.1195issigni-ficantlylessthanthemaximumpenaltyformurderprescribedbyArt.1257oftheTexasPenalCode.Ifthefetusisaperson,maythepenaltiesbedifferent?

*158[12]Allthis,togetherwithourobserva-tion,supra,thatthroughoutthemajorportionofthe19thcenturyprevailinglegalabortionprac-ticeswerefarfreerthantheyaretoday,persuadesusthattheword‘person,’asusedintheFour-teenthAmendment,doesnotincludetheunborn.FN55

Thisisinaccordwiththeresultsreachedinthosefewcaseswheretheissuehasbeensquarelypresented.McGarveyv.Magee-WomensHospit-al,340F.Supp.751(W.D.Pa.1972);Byrnv.NewYorkCityHealth&HospitalsCorp.,31N.Y.2d194,335N.Y.S.2d390,286N.E.2d887(1972),appealdocketed,No.72-434;Abelev.Markle,351F.Supp.224(D.C.Conn.1972),appealdock-eted,No.72-730.Cf.Cheaneyv.State,Ind.,285N.E.2d,at270;Montanav.Rogers,278F.2d68,72(CA71960),aff'dsubnom.Montanav.Kennedy,366U.S.308,81S.Ct.1336,6L.Ed.2d313(1961);Keelerv.SuperiorCourt,2Cal.3d619,87Cal.Rptr.481,470P.2d617(1970);*159Statev.Dickinson,28OhioSt.2d65,275N.E.2d599(1971).Indeed,ourdecisioninUnitedStatesv.Vuitch,402U.S.62,91S.Ct.1294,28L.Ed.2d601(1971),inferentiallyistothesameeffect,forwetherewouldnothaveindulgedinstatutoryin-terpretationfavorabletoabortioninspecifiedcir-cumstancesifthenecessaryconsequencewasthe**730terminationoflifeentitledtoFourteenthAmendmentprotection.

FN55.Cf.theWisconsinabortionstat-ute,defining‘unbornchild’tomean‘ahumanbeingfromthetimeofconceptionuntilitisbornalive,’Wis.Stat.s940.04(6)(1969),andthenewConnecti-cutstatute,Pub.ActNo.1(May1972SpecialSession),declaringittobethepublicpolicyoftheStateandthelegis-lativeintent‘toprotectandpreservehu-manlifefromthemomentofconcep-tion.’

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page29

Thisconclusion,however,doesnotofitselffullyanswerthecontentionsraisedbyTexas,andwepassontootherconsiderations.

B.Thepregnantwomancannotbeisolatedinherprivacy.Shecarriesanembryoand,later,afetus,ifoneacceptsthemedicaldefinitionsofthedevelopingyounginthehumanuterus.SeeDor-land'sIllustratedMedicalDictionary478-479,547(24thed.1965).Thesituationthereforeisin-herentlydifferentfrommaritalintimacy,orbed-roompossessionofobscenematerial,ormar-riage,orprocreation,oreducation,withwhichEi-senstadtandGriswold,Stanley,Loving,SkinnerandPierceandMeyerwererespectivelycon-cerned.Aswehaveintimatedabove,itisreason-ableandappropriateforaStatetodecidethatatsomepointintimeanotherinterest,thatofhealthofthemotherorthatofpotentialhumanlife,be-comessignificantlyinvolved.Thewoman'spri-vacyisnolongersoleandanyrightofprivacyshepossessesmustbemeasuredaccordingly.Texasurgesthat,apartfromtheFourteenthAmendment,lifebeginsatconceptionandispresentthroughoutpregnancy,andthat,therefore,theStatehasacompellinginterestinprotectingthatlifefromandafterconception.Weneednotresolvethedifficultquestionofwhenlifebegins.Whenthosetrainedintherespectivedisciplinesofmedicine,philosophy,andtheologyareunabletoarriveatanyconsensus,thejudiciary,atthispointinthedevelopmentofman'sknowledge,isnotinapositiontospeculateastotheanswer.*160Itshouldbesufficienttonotebrieflythewidedivergenceofthinkingonthismostsensitiveanddifficultquestion.Therehasalwaysbeenstrongsupportfortheviewthatlifedoesnotbeginuntillivebirth.Thiswasthebeliefofthe

FN56Stoics.Itappearstobethepredominant,thoughnottheunanimous,attitudeoftheJewish

FN57faith.ItmaybetakentorepresentalsothepositionofalargesegmentoftheProtestantcom-munity,insofarasthatcanbeascertained;organ-izedgroupsthathavetakenaformalpositionontheabortionissuehavegenerallyregardedabor-tionasamatterfortheconscienceoftheindi-FN58

vidualandherfamily.Aswehavenoted,

thecommonlawfoundgreatersignificancein

quickening.Physiciansandtheirscientificcol-leagueshaveregardedthateventwithlessinterestandhavetendedtofocuseitheruponconception,uponlivebirth,orupontheinterimpointatwhichthefetusbecomes‘viable,’thatis,poten-tiallyabletoliveoutsidethemother'swomb,al-FN59

beitwithartificialaid.Viabilityisusuallyplacedataboutsevenmonths(28weeks)butmay

FN60

occurearlier,evenat24weeks.TheAris-toteliantheoryof‘mediateanimation,’thatheldswaythroughouttheMiddleAgesandtheRenais-sanceinEurope,continuedtobeofficialRomanCatholicdogmauntilthe19thcentury,despiteoppositiontothis‘ensoulment’theoryfromthoseintheChurchwhowouldrecognizetheexistence

FN61

oflifefrom*161themomentofconception.

Thelatterisnow,ofcourse,theofficialbeliefoftheCatholicChurch.Asonebriefamicusdis-closes,thisisaviewstronglyheldbymanynon-Catholicsaswell,andbymanyphysicians.Sub-stantial**731problemsforprecisedefinitionofthisviewareposed,however,bynewembryolo-gicaldatathatpurporttoindicatethatconceptionisa‘process'overtime,ratherthananevent,andbynewmedicaltechniquessuchasmenstrualex-traction,the‘morning-after’pill,implantationofembryos,artificialinsemination,andevenartifi-FN62

cialwombs.

FN56.Edelstein16.

FN57.Lader97-99;D.Feldman,BirthControlinJewishLaw251-294(1968).Forastricterview,seeI.Jakobovits,JewishViewsonAbortion,inAbortionandtheLaw124(D.Smithed.1967).FN58.AmicusBrieffortheAmericanEthicalUnionetal.ForthepositionoftheNationalCouncilofChurchesandofotherdenominations,seeLader99-101.FN59.L.Hellman&J.Pritchard,Willi-amsObstetrics493(14thed.1971);Dor-land'sIllustratedMedicalDictionary16(24thed.1965).

FN60.Hellman&Pritchard,supra,n.59,at493.

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page30

FN61.Fordiscussionsofthedevelop-mentoftheRomanCatholicposition,seeD.Callahan,Abortion:Law,Choice,andMorality409-447(1970);Noonan1.FN62.SeeBrodie,TheNewBiologyandthePrenatalChild,9J.FamilyL.391,397(1970);Gorney,TheNewBiologyandtheFutureofMan,15U.C.L.A.L.Rev.273(1968);Note,Crim-inalLaw-abortion-The‘Morning-AfterPill’andOtherPre-ImplantationBirth-ControlMethodsandtheLaw,46Ore.L.Rev.211(1967);G.Taylor,TheBiologicalTimeBomb32(1968);A.Rosenfeld,TheSecondGenesis138-139(1969);Smith,ThroughaTestTubeDarkly:ArtificialInseminationandtheLaw,67Mich.L.Rev.127(1968);Note,ArtificialInseminationandtheLaw,1968U.Ill.L.F.203.

Inareasotherthancriminalabortion,thelawhasbeenreluctanttoendorseanytheorythatlife,aswerecognizeit,beginsbeforelifebirthortoaccordlegalrightstotheunbornexceptinnar-rowlydefinedsituationsandexceptwhentherightsarecontingentuponlifebirth.Forexample,thetraditionalruleoftortlawdeniedrecoveryforprenatalinjurieseventhoughthechildwasborn

FN63alive.Thatrulehasbeenchangedinalmosteveryjurisdiction.InmostStates,recoveryissaidtobepermittedonlyifthefetuswasviable,oratleastquick,whentheinjuriesweresustained,thoughfew*162courtshavesquarelysoheld.FN

Inarecentdevelopment,generallyopposedbythecommentators,someStatespermitthepar-entsofastillbornchildtomaintainanactionfor

FN65

wrongfuldeathbecauseofprenatalinjuries.

Suchanaction,however,wouldappeartobeonetovindicatetheparents'interestandisthuscon-sistentwiththeviewthatthefetus,atmost,rep-resentsonlythepotentialityoflife.Similarly,un-bornchildrenhavebeenrecognizedasacquiringrightsorinterestsbywayofinheritanceorotherdevolutionofproperty,andhavebeenrepresented

FN66

byguardiansadlitem.Perfectionofthein-terestsinvolved,again,hasgenerallybeencontin-gentuponlivebirth.Inshort,theunbornhave

neverbeenrecognizedinthelawaspersonsin

thewholesense.

FN63.W.Prosser,TheLawofTorts33k-338(4thed.1971);2F.Harper&F.James,TheLawofTorts1028-1031(1956);Note,63Harv.L.Rev.173(1949).

FN.SeecasescitedinProsser,supra,n.63,at336-338;Annotation,ActionforDeathofUnbornChild,15A.L.R.3d992(1967).

FN65.Prosser,supra,n.63,at338;Note,TheLawandtheUnbornChild:TheLegalandLogicalInconsistencies,46NotreDameLaw.349,354-360(1971).

FN66.Louisell,Abortion,ThePracticeofMedicineandtheDueProcessofLaw,16U.C.L.A.L.Rev.233,235-238(1969);Note,56IowaL.Rev.994,999-1000(1971);Note,TheLawandtheUnbornChild,46NotreDameLaw.349,351-354(1971).

Inviewofallthis,wedonotagreethat,byadoptingonetheoryoflife,Texasmayoverridetherightsofthepregnantwomanthatareatstake.Werepeat,however,thattheStatedoeshaveanimportantandlegitimateinterestinpreservingandprotectingthehealthofthepregnantwoman,whethershebearesidentoftheStateoranon-residentwhoseeksmedicalconsultationandtreatmentthere,andthatithasstillanotherim-portantandlegitimateinterestinprotectingthepotentialityofhumanlife.Theseinterestsareseparateanddistinct.Eachgrowsinsubstantialityasthewomanapproaches*163termand,atapointduringpregnancy,eachbecomes‘compelling.’

[13][14]WithrespecttotheState'simportantandlegitimateinterestinthehealthofthemother,the‘compelling’point,inthelightofpresentmedicalknowledge,isatapproximatelytheendofthefirsttrimester.Thisissobecauseofthe

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page31

now-establishedmedical**732fact,referredtoaboveat725,thatuntiltheendofthefirsttri-mestermortalityinabortionmaybelessthanmortalityinnormalchildbirth.Itfollowsthat,fromandafterthispoint,aStatemayregulatetheabortionproceduretotheextentthattheregula-tionreasonablyrelatestothepreservationandprotectionofmaternalhealth.Examplesofper-missiblestateregulationinthisareaarerequire-mentsastothequalificationsofthepersonwhoistoperformtheabortion;astothelicensureofthatperson;astothefacilityinwhichtheprocedureistobeperformed,thatis,whetheritmustbeahos-pitalormaybeaclinicorsomeotherplaceofless-than-hospitalstatus;astothelicensingofthefacility;andthelike.

Thismeans,ontheotherhand,that,fortheperiodofpregnancypriortothis‘compelling’point,theattendingphysician,inconsultationwithhispatient,isfreetodetermine,withoutreg-ulationbytheState,that,inhismedicaljudg-ment,thepatient'spregnancyshouldbetermin-ated.Ifthatdecisionisreached,thejudgmentmaybeeffectuatedbyanabortionfreeofinterfer-encebytheState.

[15]WithrespecttotheState'simportantandlegitimateinterestinpotentiallife,the‘compelling’pointisatviability.Thisissobe-causethefetusthenpresumablyhasthecapabilityofmeaningfullifeoutsidethemother'swomb.Stateregulationprotectiveoffetallifeafterviab-ilitythushasbothlogicalandbiologicaljustifica-tions.IftheStateisinterestedinprotectingfetallifeafterviability,itmaygosofarastoproscribeabortion*1duringthatperiod,exceptwhenitisnecessarytopreservethelifeorhealthofthemother.

[16]Measuredagainstthesestandards,Art.1196oftheTexasPenalCode,inrestrictinglegalabortionstothose‘procuredorattemptedbymed-icaladviceforthepurposeofsavingthelifeofthemother,’sweepstoobroadly.Thestatutemakesnodistinctionbetweenabortionsper-formedearlyinpregnancyandthoseperformedlater,anditlimitstoasinglereason,‘saving’themother'slife,thelegaljustificationforthepro-

cedure.Thestatute,therefore,cannotsurvivetheconstitutionalattackmadeuponithere.

ThisconclusionmakesitunnecessaryforustoconsidertheadditionalchallengetotheTexasstatuteassertedongroundsofvagueness.SeeUnitedStatesv.Vuitch,402U.S.,at67-72,91S.Ct.,at1296-1299.

Tosummarizeandtorepeat:

1.Astatecriminalabortionstatuteofthecur-rentTexastype,thatexceptsfromcriminalityonlyalife-savingprocedureonbehalfofthemother,withoutregardtopregnancystageandwithoutrecognitionoftheotherinterestsin-volved,isviolativeoftheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.

(a)Forthestagepriortoapproximatelytheendofthefirsttrimester,theabortiondecisionanditseffectuationmustbelefttothemedicaljudgmentofthepregnantwoman'sattendingphysician.

(b)Forthestagesubsequenttoapproximatelytheendofthefirsttrimester,theState,inpromot-ingitsinterestinthehealthofthemother,may,ifitchooses,regulatetheabortionprocedureinwaysthatarereasonablyrelatedtomaternalhealth.

(c)Forthestagesubsequenttoviability,theStateinpromotingitsinterestinthepotentialityofhumanlife*165may,ifitchooses,regulate,andevenproscribe,abortionexceptwhereitisnecessary,inappropriatemedicaljudgment,forthepreservationofthelifeorhealthofthemoth-er.

[17]2.TheStatemaydefinetheterm‘physician,’asithasbeenemployedinthepre-cedingparagraphsofthisPartXIofthisopinion,tomeanonlyaphysiciancurrentlylicensedbythe**733State,andmayproscribeanyabortionbyapersonwhoisnotaphysicianassodefined.InDoev.Bolton,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.739,35L.Ed.2d201,proceduralrequirementscon-tainedinoneofthemodernabortionstatutesare

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page32

considered.Thatopinionandthisone,ofcourse,

FN67

aretobereadtogether.

FN67.NeitherinthisopinionnorinDoev.Bolton,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.739,35L.Ed.2d201,dowediscussthefather'srights,ifanyexistintheconstitutionalcontext,intheabortiondecision.Nopa-ternalrighthasbeenassertedineitherofthecases,andtheTexasandtheGeorgiastatutesontheirfacetakenocognizanceofthefather.Weareawarethatsomestatutesrecognizethefatherundercer-taincircumstances.NorthCarolina,forexample,N.C.Gen.Stat.s14-45.1(Supp.1971),requireswrittenpermissionfortheabortionfromthehusbandwhenthewomanisamarriedminor,thatis,whensheislessthan18yearsofage,41N.C.A.G.4(1971);ifthewomanisanunmarriedminor,writtenpermissionfromtheparentsisrequired.Weneednotnowdecidewhetherprovisionsofthiskindareconstitutional.

Thisholding,wefeel,isconsistentwiththerelativeweightsoftherespectiveinterestsin-volved,withthelessonsandexamplesofmedicalandlegalhistory,withthelenityofthecommonlaw,andwiththedemandsoftheprofoundprob-lemsofthepresentday.ThedecisionleavestheStatefreetoplaceincreasingrestrictionsonabor-tionastheperiodofpregnancylengthens,solongasthoserestrictionsaretailoredtotherecognizedstateinterests.Thedecisionvindicatestherightofthephysiciantoadministermedicaltreatmentaccordingtohisprofessionaljudgmentuptothepointswhereimportant*166stateinterestsprovidecompellingjustificationsforintervention.Uptothosepoints,theabortiondecisioninallitsaspectsisinherently,andprimarily,amedicalde-cision,andbasicresponsibilityforitmustrestwiththephysician.Ifanindividualpractitionerabusestheprivilegeofexercisingpropermedicaljudgment,theusualremedies,judicialandintra-professional,areavailable.

XII

[18]OurconclusionthatArt.1196isuncon-

stitutionalmeans,ofcourse,thattheTexasabor-tionstatutes,asaunit,mustfall.TheexceptionofArt.1196cannotbestruckdownseparately,forthentheStatewouldbeleftwithastatutepro-scribingallabortionproceduresnomatterhowmedicallyurgentthecase.

AlthoughtheDistrictCourtgrantedappellantRoedeclaratoryrelief,itstoppedshortofissuinganinjunctionagainstenforcementoftheTexasstatutes.TheCourthasrecognizedthatdifferentconsiderationsenterintoafederalcourt'sdecisionastodeclaratoryrelief,ontheonehand,andin-junctiverelief,ontheother.Zwicklerv.Koota,3U.S241,252-255,88S.Ct.391,397-399,19L.Ed.2d444(1967);Dombrowskiv.Pfister,380U.S.479,85S.Ct.1116,14L.Ed.2d22(1965).Wearenotdealingwithastatutethat,onitsface,appearstoabridgefreeexpression,anareaofpar-ticularconcernunderDombrowskiandrefinedinYoungerv.Harris,401U.S.,at50,91S.Ct.,at753.

WefinditunnecessarytodecidewhethertheDistrictCourterredinwithholdinginjunctivere-lief,forweassumetheTexasprosecutorialau-thoritieswillgivefullcredencetothisdecisionthatthepresentcriminalabortionstatutesofthatStateareunconstitutional.

ThejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtastoin-tervenorHallfordisreversed,andDr.Hallford'scomplaintininterventionisdismissed.Inalloth-errespects,thejudgment*167oftheDistrictCourtisaffirmed.Costsareallowedtotheap-pellee.

Itissoordered.

Affirmedinpartandreversedinpart.Mr.JusticeSTEWART,concurring.

In1963,thisCourt,in**734Fergusonv.Sk-rupa,372U.S.726,83S.Ct.1028,10L.Ed.2d93,purportedtosoundthedeathknellforthedoc-trineofsubstantivedueprocess,adoctrineunderwhichmanystatelawshadinthepastbeenheldtoviolatetheFourteenthAmendment.AsMr.JusticeBlack'sopinionfortheCourtinSkrupaputit:‘Wehavereturnedtotheoriginalconstitu-

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page33

tionalpropositionthatcourtsdonotsubstitutetheirsocialandeconomicbeliefsforthejudg-mentoflegislativebodies,whoareelectedto

FN1

passlaws.’Id.,at730,83S.Ct.,at1031.

FN1.OnlyMr.JusticeHarlanfailedtojointheCourt'sopinion,372U.S.,at733,83S.Ct.,at1032.

Barelywhoyearslater,inGriswoldv.Con-necticut,381U.S.479,85S.Ct.1678,14L.Ed.2d510,theCourtheldaConnecticutbirthcontrollawunconstitutional.InviewofwhathadbeensorecentlysaidinSkrupa,theCourt'sopinioninGriswoldunderstandablydiditsbesttoavoidre-lianceontheDueProcessClauseoftheFour-teenthAmendmentasthegroundfordecision.Yet,theConnecticutlawdidnotviolateanypro-visionoftheBillofRights,noranyotherspecific

FN2

provisionoftheConstitution.Soitwasclear*168tomethen,anditisequallycleartomenow,thattheGriswolddecisioncanberationallyunderstoodonlyasaholdingthattheConnecticutstatutesubstantivelyinvadedthe‘liberty’thatisprotectedbytheDueProcessClauseoftheFour-FN3

teenthAmendment.Assounderstood,Gris-woldstandsasoneinalonglineofpre-Skrupacasesdecidedunderthedoctrineofsubstantivedueprocess,andInowacceptitassuch.

FN2.Thereisnoconstitutionalrightofprivacy,assuch.‘(TheFourth)Amend-mentprotectsindividualprivacyagainstcertainkindsofgovernmentalintrusion,butitsprotectionsgofurther,andoftenhavenothingtodowithprivacyatall.OtherprovisionsoftheConstitutionpro-tectpersonalprivacyfromotherformsofgovernmentalinvasion.Buttheprotec-tionofaperson'sgeneralrighttopri-vacy-hisrighttobeletalonebyotherpeople-isliketheprotectionofhisprop-ertyandofhisverylife,leftlargelytothelawoftheindividualStates.’Katzv.UnitedStates,3U.S.347,350-351,88S.Ct.507,510-511,19L.Ed.2d576(footnotesomitted).

FN3.ThiswasalsocleartoMr.JusticeBlack,381U.S.,at507,(dissenting

opinion);toMr.JusticeHarlan,381U.S.,at499,85S.Ct.,at16(opinionconcurringinthejudgment);andtoMr.JusticeWhite,381U.S.,at502,85S.Ct.,at1691(opinionconcurringinthejudg-ment).SeealsoMr.JusticeHarlan'sthor-oughandthoughtfulopiniondissentingfromdismissaloftheappealinPoev.Ullman,367U.S.497,522,81S.Ct.1752,1765,6L.Ed.2d9.

‘InaConstitutionforafreepeople,therecanbenodoubtthatthemeaningof‘liberty’mustbebroadindeed.'BoardofRegentsv.Roth,408U.S.5,572,92S.Ct.2701,2707,33L.Ed.2d548.TheConstitutionnowherementionsaspecif-icrightofpersonalchoiceinmattersofmarriageandfamilylife,butthe‘liberty’protectedbytheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmend-mentcoversmorethanthosefreedomsexplicitlynamedintheBillofRights.SeeSchwarev.BoardofBarExaminers,353U.S.232,238-239,77S.Ct.752,755-756,1L.Ed.2d796;Piercev.SocietyofSisters,268U.S.510,534-535,45S.Ct.571,573-574,69L.Ed.1070;Meyerv.Nebraska,262U.S.390,399-400,43S.Ct.625,626-627,67L.Ed.1042.Cf.Shapirov.Thompson,394U.S.618,629-630,S.Ct.1322,1328-1329,22L.Ed.2d600;UnitedStatesv.Guest,383U.S.745,757-758,86S.Ct.1170,1177-1178,16L.Ed.2d239;Carringtonv.Rash,380U.S.,96,85S.Ct.775,780,13L.Ed.2d675;Apthekerv.SecretaryofState,378U.S.500,505,84S.Ct.1659,1663,12L.Ed.2d992;Kentv.Dulles,357U.S.116,127,78S.Ct.1113,1118,2L.Ed.2d1204;Bollingv.Sharpe,347U.S.497,499-500,74S.Ct.693,694-695,98L.Ed.884;Truaxv.Raich,239U.S.33,41,36S.Ct.7,10,60L.Ed.131.

*169AsMr.JusticeHarlanoncewrote:‘(T)hefullscopeofthelibertyguaranteedbytheDueProcessClausecannotbefoundinorlimitedbytheprecise**735termsofthespecificguaran-teeselsewhereprovidedintheConstitution.This‘liberty’isnotaseriesofisolatedpointspricedoutintermsofthetakingofproperty;thefree-domofspeech,press,andreligion;therighttokeepandbeararms;thefreedomfromunreason-

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page34

ablesearchesandseizures;andsoon.Itisara-tionalcontinuumwhich,broadlyspeaking,in-cludesafreedomfromallsubstantialarbitraryimpositionsandpurposelessrestraints...andwhichalsorecognizes,whatareasonableandsensitivejudgmentmust,thatcertaininterestsre-quireparticularlycarefulscrutinyofthestateneedsassertedtojustifytheirabridgment.'Poev.Ullman,367U.S.497,543,81S.Ct.1752,1776,6L.Ed.2d9(opiniondissentingfromdismissalofappeal)(citationsomitted).InthewordsofMr.JusticeFrankfurter,‘Greatconceptslike...‘liberty’...werepurposelylefttogathermean-ingfromexperience.Fortheyrelatetothewholedomainofsocialandeconomicfact,andthestatesmenwhofoundedthisNationknewtoowellthatonlyastagnantsocietyremainsunchanged.'NationalMutualIns.Co.v.TidewaterTransferCo.,337U.S.582,6,69S.Ct.1173,1195,93L.Ed.1556(dissentingopinion).

SeveraldecisionsofthisCourtmakeclearthatfreedomofpersonalchoiceinmattersofmarriageandfamilylifeisoneofthelibertiesprotectedbytheDueProcessClauseoftheFour-teenthAmendment.Lovingv.Virginia,388U.S.1,12,87S.Ct.1817,1823,18L.Ed.2d1010;Griswoldv.Connecticut,supra;Piercev.SocietyofSisters,supra;Meyerv.Nebraska,supra.SeealsoPrincev.Massachusetts,321U.S.158,166,S.Ct.438,442,88L.Ed.5;Skinnerv.Ok-lahoma,316U.S.535,541,62S.Ct.1110,1113,86L.Ed.1655.AsrecentlyaslastTerm,inEisen-stadtv.Baird,405U.S.438,453,92S.Ct.1029,1038,31L.Ed.2d349,werecognized‘therightoftheindividual,marriedorsingle,tobefreefromunwarrantedgovernmentalintrusionintomatterssofundamentallyaffectingaperson*170asthedecisionwhethertobearorbegetachild.’Thatrightnecessarilyincludestherightofawomantodecidewhetherornottoterminateherpregnancy.‘Certainlytheinterestsofawomaningivingofherphysicalandemotionalselfduringpregnancyandtheintereststhatwillbeaffectedthroughoutherlifebythebirthandraisingofachildareofafargreaterdegreeofsignificanceandpersonalin-timacythantherighttosendachildtoprivateschoolprotectedinPiercev.SocietyofSisters,268U.S.510,45S.Ct.571,69L.Ed.1070(1925)

,ortherighttoteachaforeignlanguageprotectedinMeyerv.Nebraska,262U.S.390,43S.Ct.625,67L.Ed.1042(1923).’Abelev.Markle,351F.Supp.224,227(D.C.Conn.1972).

Clearly,therefore,theCourttodayiscorrectinholdingthattherightassertedbyJaneRoeisembracedwithinthepersonallibertyprotectedbytheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmend-ment.

ItisevidentthattheTexasabortionstatuteinfringesthatrightdirectly.Indeed,itisdifficulttoimagineamorecompleteabridgmentofacon-stitutionalfreedomthanthatworkedbythein-flexiblecriminalstatutenowinforceinTexas.Thequestionthenbecomeswhetherthestatein-terestsadvancedtojustifythisabridgmentcansurvivethe‘particularlycarefulscrutiny’thattheFourteenthAmendmenthererequires.

Theassertedstateinterestsareprotectionofthehealthandsafetyofthepregnantwoman,andprotectionofthepotentialfuturehumanlifewith-inher.Thesearelegitimateobjectives,amplysuf-ficienttopermitaStatetoregulateabortionsasitdoesothersurgicalprocedures,andperhapssuffi-cienttopermitaStatetoregulateabortionsmorestringentlyoreventoprohibittheminthelatestagesofpregnancy.Butsuchlegislationisnotbeforeus,andIthinktheCourttodayhasthor-oughlydemonstratedthatthesestateinterestscannotconstitutionallysupportthebroadabridg-ment**736ofpersonal*171libertyworkedbytheexistingTexaslaw.Accordingly,IjointheCourt'sopinionholdingthatthatlawisinvalidundertheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.

Mr.JusticeREHNQUIST,dissenting.

TheCourt'sopinionbringstothedecisionofthistroublingquestionbothextensivehistoricalfactandawealthoflegalscholarship.Whiletheopinionthuscommandsmyrespect,IfindmyselfnonethelessinfundamentaldisagreementwiththosepartsofitthatinvalidatetheTexasstatuteinquestion,andthereforedissent.

TheCourt'sopiniondecidesthataStatemay

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page35

imposevirtuallynorestrictionontheperform-anceofabortionsduringthefirsttrimesterofpregnancy.Ourpreviousdecisionsindicatethatanecessarypredicateforsuchanopinionisaplaintiffwhowasinherfirsttrimesterofpreg-nancyatsometimeduringthependencyofherlawsuit.Whileapartymayvindicatehisownconstitutionalrights,hemaynotseekvindicationfortherightsofothers.MooseLodgeNo.107v.Irvis,407U.S.163,92S.Ct.1965,32L.Ed.2d627(1972);SierraClubv.Morton,405U.S.727,92S.Ct.1361,31L.Ed.2d636(1972).TheCourt'sstatementoffactsinthiscasemakesclear,however,thattherecordinnowayindic-atesthepresenceofsuchaplaintiff.WeknowonlythatplaintiffRoeatthetimeoffilinghercomplaintwasapregnantwoman;foraughtthatappearsinthisrecord,shemayhavebeeninherlasttrimesterofpregnancyasofthedatethecom-plaintwasfiled.

NothingintheCourt'sopinionindicatesthatTexasmightnotconstitutionallyapplyitspro-scriptionofabortionaswrittentoawomaninthatstageofpregnancy.Nonetheless,theCourtuseshercomplaintagainsttheTexasstatuteasaful-crumfordecidingthatStatesmay*172imposevirtuallynorestrictionsonmedicalabortionsper-formedduringthefirsttrimesterofpregnancy.Indecidingsuchahypotheticallawsuit,theCourtdepartsfromthelongstandingadmonitionthatitshouldnever‘formulatearuleofconstitutionallawbroaderthanisrequiredbytheprecisefactstowhichitistobeapplied.’Liverpool,NewYork&PhiladelphiaS.S.Co.v.CommissionersofEmigration,113U.S.33,39,5S.Ct.352,355,28L.Ed.9(1885).SeealsoAshwanderv.TVA,297U.S.288,345,56S.Ct.466,482,80L.Ed.688(1936)(Brandeis,J.,concurring).II

Eveniftherewereaplaintiffinthiscasecap-ableoflitigatingtheissuewhichtheCourtde-cides,IwouldreachaconclusionoppositetothatreachedbytheCourt.Ihavedifficultyincon-cluding,astheCourtdoes,thattherightof‘privacy’isinvolvedinthiscase.Texas,bythestatuteherechallenged,barstheperformanceofamedicalabortionbyalicensedphysicianona

plaintiffsuchasRoe.Atransactionresultinginanoperationsuchasthisisnot‘private’intheor-dinaryusageofthatword.Noristhe‘privacy’thattheCourtfindshereevenadistantrelativeofthefreedomfromsearchesandseizuresprotectedbytheFourthAmendmenttotheConstitution,whichtheCourthasreferredtoasembodyingarighttoprivacy.Katzv.UnitedStates,3U.S.347,88S.Ct.507,19L.Ed.2d576(1967).IftheCourtmeansbytheterm‘privacy’nomorethanthattheclaimofapersontobefreefromunwantedstateregulationofconsensualtransactionsmaybeaformof‘liberty’protectedbytheFourteenthAmendment,thereisnodoubtthatsimilarclaimshavebeenupheldinourearlierdecisionsonthebasisofthatliberty.IagreewiththestatementofMr.JusticeSTEWARTinhisconcurringopinionthatthe‘liberty,’againstdeprivationofwhichwithoutdueprocesstheFourteenth*173Amendmentprotects,embracesmorethantherightsfoundintheBillofRights.Butthat**737libertyisnotguaranteedabso-lutelyagainstdeprivation,onlyagainstdepriva-tionwithoutdueprocessoflaw.Thetesttradi-tionallyappliedintheareaofsocialandeconom-iclegislationiswhetherornotalawsuchasthatchallengedhasarationalrelationtoavalidstateobjective.Williamsonv.LeeOpticalInc.,348U.S.483,491,75S.Ct.461,466,99L.Ed.563(1955).TheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentundoubtedlydoesplacealimit,al-beitabroadone,onlegislativepowertoenactlawssuchasthis.IftheTexasstatuteweretopro-hibitanabortionevenwherethemother'slifeisinjeopardy,Ihavelittledoubtthatsuchastatutewouldlackarationalrelationtoavalidstateob-jectiveundertheteststatedinWilliamson,supra.ButtheCourt'ssweepinginvalidationofanyre-strictionsonabortionduringthefirsttrimesterisimpossibletojustifyunderthatstandard,andtheconsciousweighingofcompetingfactorsthattheCourt'sopinionapparentlysubstitutesforthees-tablishedtestisfarmoreappropriatetoalegislat-ivejudgmentthantoajudicialone.

TheCourteschewsthehistoryoftheFour-teenthAmendmentinitsrelianceonthe‘compellingstateinterest’test.SeeWeberv.Aet-

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page36

naCasualty&SuretyCo.,406U.S.1,179,92S.Ct.1400,1408,31L.Ed.2d768(1972)(dissentingopinion).ButtheCourtaddsanewwrinkletothistestbytransposingitfromtheleg-alconsiderationsassociatedwiththeEqualPro-tectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmenttothiscasearisingundertheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.UnlessImisappre-hendtheconsequencesofthistransplantingofthe‘compellingstateinteresttest,’theCourt'sopin-ionwillaccomplishtheseeminglyimpossiblefeatofleavingthisareaofthelawmoreconfusedthanitfoundit.

*174WhiletheCourt'sopinionquotesfromthedissentofMr.JusticeHolmesinLochnerv.NewYork,198U.S.45,74,25S.Ct.539,551,49L.Ed.937(1905),theresultitreachesismorecloselyattunedtothemajorityopinionofMr.JusticePeckhaminthatcase.AsinLochnerandsimilarcasesapplyingsubstantivedueprocessstandardstoeconomicandsocialwelfarelegisla-tion,theadoptionofthecompellingstateintereststandardwillinevitablyrequirethisCourttoex-aminethelegislativepoliciesandpassonthewis-domofthesepoliciesintheveryprocessofde-cidingwhetheraparticularstateinterestputfor-wardmayormaynotbe‘compelling.’Thede-cisionheretobreakpregnancyintothreedistincttermsandtooutlinethepermissiblerestrictionstheStatemayimposeineachone,forexample,partakesmoreofjudiciallegislationthanitdoesofadeterminationoftheintentofthedraftersoftheFourteenthAmendment.

ThefactthatamajorityoftheStatesreflect-ing,afterallthemajoritysentimentinthoseStates,havehadrestrictionsonabortionsforatleastacenturyisastrongindication,itseemstome,thattheassertedrighttoanabortionisnot‘sorootedinthetraditionsandconscienceofourpeopleastoberankedasfundamental,’Snyderv.Massachusetts,291U.S.97,105,54S.Ct.330,332,78L.Ed.674(1934).Eventoday,whensoci-ety'sviewsonabortionarechanging,theveryex-istenceofthedebateisevidencethatthe‘right’toanabortionisnotsouniversallyacceptedastheappellantwouldhaveusbelieve.

Toreachitsresult,theCourtnecessarilyhashadtofindwithintheScopeoftheFourteenthAmendmentarightthatwasapparentlycom-pletelyunknowntothedraftersoftheAmend-ment.Asearlyas1821,thefirststatelawdealingdirectlywithabortionwasenactedbytheCon-necticutLegislature.Conn.Stat.,Tit.22,ss14,16.BythetimeoftheadoptionoftheFourteenth*175Amendmentin1868,therewereatleast36lawsenactedbystateorterritoriallegislatures

FN1

limiting**738abortion.WhilemanyStateshaveamendedorupdated*176theirlaws,21ofthelawsonthebooksin1868remainineffect

FN2today.Indeed,theTexasstatute**739struckdowntodaywas,asthemajoritynotes,firsten-actedin1857*177and‘hasremainedsubstan-tiallyunchangedtothepresenttime.’Ante,at710.

FN1.Jurisdictionshavingenactedabor-tionlawspriortotheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendmentin1868:1.Alabama-Ala.Acts,c.6,s2(1840).2.Arizona-HowellCode,c.10,s45(1865).

3.Arkansas-Ark.Rev.Stat.,c.44,div.III,Art.II,s6(1838).

4.California-Cal.Sess.Laws,c.99,s45,p.233(1849-1850).

5.Colorado(Terr.)-Colo.Gen.LawsofTerr.ofColo.,1stSess.,s42,pp.296-297(1861).

6.Connecticut-Conn.Stat.Tit.20,ss14,16(1821).By1868,thisstatutehadbeenreplacedbyanotherabortionlaw.Conn.Pub.Acts,c.71,ss1,2,p.65(1860).

7.Florida-Fla.Acts1stSess.,c.1637,subs.3,ss10,11,subc.8,ss9,10,11(1868),asamended,nowFla.Stat.Ann.ss782.09,782.10,797.01,797.02,782.16(1965).

8.Georgia-Ga.Pen.Code,4thDiv.,s20

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page37

(1833).

9.KingdomofHawaii-HawaiiPen.Code,c.12,ss1,2,3(1850).

10.Idaho(Terr.)-Idaho(Terr.)Laws,CrimesandPunishmentsss33,34,42,pp.441,443(1863).

11.Illinois-Ill.Rev.CriminalCodess40,41,46,pp.130,131(1827).By1868,thisstatutehadbeenreplacedbyasub-sequentenactment.Ill.Pub.Lawsss1,2,3,p.(1867).

12.Indiana-Ind.Rev.Stat.ss1,3,p.224(1838).By1868thisstatutehadbeensu-persededbyasubsequentenactment.Ind.Laws,c.LXXXI,s2(1859).13.Iowa(Terr.)-Iowa(Terr.)Stat.1stLegis.,1stSess.,s18,p.145(1838).By1868,thisstatutehadbeensupersededbyasubsequentenactment.Iowa(Terr.)Rev.Stat.,c.49,ss10,13(1843).14.Kansas(Terr.)-Kan.(Terr.)Stat.,c.48,ss9,10,39(1855).By1868,thisstatutehadbeensupersededbyasub-sequentenactment.Kan.(Terr.)Laws,c.28,ss9,10,37(1859).

15.Louisiana-La.Rev.Stat.,CrimesandOffensess24,p.138(1856).

16.Maine-Me.Rev.Stat.,c.160,ss11,12,13,14(1840).

17.Maryland-Md.Laws,c.179,s2,p.315(1868).

18.Massachusetts-Mass.Actssolves,c.27(1845).

Re-

p.958(1848).

22.Missouri-Mo.Rev.Stat.,Art.II,ss9,10,36,pp.168,172(1835).

23.Montana(Terr.)-Mont.(Terr.)Laws,CriminalPracticeActss41,p.184(18).

24.Nevada(Terr.)-Nev.(Terr.)Laws,c.28,s42,p.63(1861).

25.NewHampshire-N.H.Laws,c.743,s1,p.708(1848).

26.NewJersey-N.J.Laws,p.266(1849).27.NewYork-N.Y.Rev.Stat.,pt.4,c.1,Tit.2,ss8,9,pp.12-13(1828).By1868,thisstatutehadbeensuperseded.N.Y.Laws,c.260,ss1,2,3,4,5,6,pp.285-286(1845);N.Y.Laws,c.22,s1,p.19(1846).

28.Ohio-OhioGen.Stat.ss111(1),112(2),p.252(1841).

29.Oregon-Ore.Gen.Laws,Crim.Code,c.43,s509,p.528(1845-19).30.Pennsylvania-Pa.LawsNo.374ss87,88,(1860).

31.Texas-Tex.Gen.Stat.Dig.,c.VII,Arts.531-536,p.524(Oldham&White1859).

32.Vermont-Vt.ActsNo.33,s1(1846).By1868,thisstatutehadbeenamended.Vt.ActsNo.57,ss1,3(1867).

33.Virginia-Va.Acts,Tit.II,c.3,s9,p.96(1848).

34.Washington(Terr.)-Wash.(Terr.)Stats.,c.II,ss37,38,p.81(1854).35.WestVirginia-Va.Acts,Tit.II,c.3,s9,p.96(1848).

36.Wisconsin-Wis.Rev.Stat.,c.133,ss10,11(1849).By1868,thisstatutehad

19.Michigan-Mich.Rev.Stat.,c.153,ss32,33,34,p.662(1846).

20.Minnesota(Terr.)-Minn.(Terr.)Rev.Stat.,c.100,ss10,11,p.493(1851).

21.Mississippi-Miss.Code,c.,ss8,9,

93S.Ct.705FOREDUCATIONALUSEONLY410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(Citeas:410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705)

Page38

beensuperseded.Wis.Rev.Stat.,c.1,ss10,11;c.169,ss58,59(1858).FN2.Abortionlawsineffectin1868andstillapplicableasofAugust1970:1.Arizona(1865).2.Connecticut(1860).3.Florida(1868).4.Idaho(1863).5.Indiana(1838).6.Iowa(1843).7.Maine(1840).8.Massachusetts(1845).9.Michigan(1846).10.Minnesota(1851).11.Missouri(1835).12.Montana(18).13.Nevada(1861).14.NewHampshire(1848).15.NewJersey(1849).16.Ohio(1841).17.Pennsylvania(1860).18.Texas(1859).19.Vermont(1867).20.WestVirginia(1848).21.Wisconsin(1858).

Thereapparentlywasnoquestionconcerningthevalidityofthisprovisionorofanyoftheoth-erstatestatuteswhentheFourteenthAmendmentwasadopted.TheonlyconclusionpossiblefromthishistoryisthatthedraftersdidnotintendtohavetheFourteenthAmendmentwithdrawfrom

theStatesthepowertolegislatewithrespecttothismatter.

III

EvenifoneweretoagreethatthecasethattheCourtdecideswerehere,andthattheenunci-ationofthesubstantiveconstitutionallawintheCourt'sopinionwereproper,theactualdisposi-tionofthecasebytheCourtisstilldifficulttojustify.TheTexasstatuteisstruckdownintoto,eventhoughtheCourtapparentlyconcedesthatatlaterperiodsofpregnancyTexasmightimposetheseselfsamestatutorylimitationsonabortion.Myunderstandingofpastpracticeisthatastatutefound*178tobeinvalidasappliedtoaparticularplaintiff,butnotunconstitutionalasawhole,isnotsimply‘struckdown’butis,instead,declaredunconstitutionalasappliedtothefactsituationbeforetheCourt.YickWov.Hopkins,118U.S.356,6S.Ct.10,30L.Ed.220(1886);Streetv.NewYork,394U.S.576,S.Ct.1354,22L.Ed.572(1969).

Foralloftheforegoingreasons,Irespect-fullydissent.

U.S.Tex.,1973.Roev.Wade

410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147ENDOFDOCUMENT

WestlawDeliverySummaryReportfor14,IPDate/TimeofRequest:ClientIdentifier:Database:CitationText:Service:Lines:

Documents:Images:

Wednesday,August20,201421:16CentralBEIJINGFOREIGNSTUUNIKEYCITE-HIST93S.Ct.705KeyCite93510

Thematerialaccompanyingthissummaryissubjecttocopyright.UsageisgovernedbycontractwithThomsonReuters,Westandtheiraffiliates.

DateofPrinting:Aug20,2014

KEYCITE

Roev.Wade,410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(U.S.Tex.,Jan22,1973)(NO.70-18)

HistoryDirectHistory

1Roev.Wade,314F.Supp.1217(N.D.Tex.Jun17,1970)(NO.CIV.3-3690-B,CIV.3-3691-C)

JurisdictionPostponedby

2Roev.Wade,402U.S.941,91S.Ct.1610,29L.Ed.2d108(U.S.Tex.May03,1971)(NO.808)

ANDJudgmentAffirmedinPart,ReversedinPartby

3Roev.Wade,410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(U.S.Tex.Jan22,1973)(NO.70-18)

ForConcurringOpinion,see

4Roev.Wade,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.755,35L.Ed.2d147(U.S.Tex.Jan22,1973)(NO.70-18,70-40)

ANDForConcurringOpinion,see

5Roev.Wade,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.756,35L.Ed.2d147(U.S.Tex.Jan22,1973)(NO.70-18,70-40)

ANDForDissentingOpinion,see

6Roev.Wade,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.762,35L.Ed.2d147(U.S.Tex.Jan22,1973)(NO.70-18,70-40)

ANDRehearingDeniedby

7Roev.Wade,410U.S.959,93S.Ct.1409,35L.Ed.2d694(U.S.Tex.Feb26,1973)(NO.70-18)8Doev.Bolton,319F.Supp.1048(N.D.Ga.Jul31,1970)(NO.CIV.13676.)

JurisdictionPostponedby

9Doev.Bolton,402U.S.941,91S.Ct.1614,29L.Ed.2d109(U.S.Ga.May03,1971)(NO.971)

ANDAppealDismissedby

10Boltonv.Doe,402U.S.936,91S.Ct.1614,29L.Ed.2d104(U.S.Ga.May03,1971)(NO.973)

ANDAppealDismissedby

11UnbornChildofDoev.Doe,402U.S.936,91S.Ct.1633,29L.Ed.2d104(U.S.Ga.May03,1971)(NO.6172)

ANDJudgmentModifiedby

12Doev.Bolton,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.739,35L.Ed.2d201(U.S.Ga.Jan22,1973)(NO.70-40)

ForConcurringOpinion,see

13Roev.Wade,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.755,35L.Ed.2d147(U.S.Tex.Jan22,1973)(NO.70-18,70-40)

ANDForConcurringOpinion,see

14Roev.Wade,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.756,35L.Ed.2d147(U.S.Tex.Jan22,1973)(NO.70-18,70-40)

ANDForDissentingOpinion,see

15Roev.Wade,410U.S.179,93S.Ct.762,35L.Ed.2d147(U.S.Tex.Jan22,1973)(NO.70-18,70-40)

ANDRehearingDeniedby

16Doev.Bolton,410U.S.959,93S.Ct.1410,35L.Ed.2d694(U.S.Ga.Feb26,1973)(NO.70-40)

NegativeCitingReferences(U.S.A.)

DisagreementRecognizedby

17Peoplev.Berquist,239Ill.App.3d906,608N.E.2d1212,181Ill.Dec.738(Ill.App.2Dist.Jan28,1993)(NO.2-91-0970,2-91-0971,2-91-0972,2-91-0973,2-91-0974,2-91-0975,2-91-0976,2-91-0977,2-91-0978)HN:10,13,15(S.Ct.)18PlannedParenthoodofMiddleTennesseev.Sundquist,1998WL467110(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug12,1998)(NO.01A01-9601-CV-00052),rehearingdenied(Sep02,1998),appealgranted(Feb16,1999)HN:10,14,15(S.Ct.)19Women'sMedicalCenterofN.W.Houstonv.Archer,159F.Supp.2d414(S.D.Tex.Dec29,1999)(NO.CIV.A.H-99-3639)HN:10,14(S.Ct.)20Statev.Courchesne,296Conn.622,998A.2d1(Conn.Jun15,2010)(NO.17174)10,15(S.Ct.)

CalledintoDoubtby

21Coev.Melahn,958F.2d223(8thCir.(Mo.)Mar02,1992)(NO.90-1552)

22GreenvilleWomen'sClinicv.Bryant,222F.3d157(4thCir.(S.C.)Aug15,2000)(NO.99-1319,99-1710,99-1725)HN:10,14,15(S.Ct.)

HoldingLimitedby

23Websterv.ReproductiveHealthServices,492U.S.490,109S.Ct.3040,106L.Ed.2d410,57USLW5023(U.S.Mo.Jul03,19)(NO.88-605)HN:10,13,15(S.Ct.)

HoldingModifiedby

24PlannedParenthoodofSoutheasternPennsylvaniav.Casey,505U.S.833,112S.Ct.2791,120L.Ed.2d674,60USLW4795(U.S.Pa.Jun29,1992)(NO.91-744,91-902)HN:10,13,15(S.Ct.)

DeclinedtoExtendby

25JamesA.Keller,Inc.v.Flaherty,74OhioApp.3d788,600N.E.2d736,77Ed.LawRep.924(OhioApp.10Dist.Jul18,1991)(NO.AP-1455,9950)HN:2(S.Ct.)26PlannedParenthoodofSoutheasternPennsylvaniav.Casey,947F.2d682,60USLW2276(3rdCir.(Pa.)Oct21,1991)(NO.90-1662)HN:10,15,16(S.Ct.)27Peoplev.Davis,15Cal.App.4th690,20Cal.App.4th657,19Cal.Rptr.2d96(Cal.App.4Dist.May04,1993)(NO.D016246)HN:10,15,16(S.Ct.)28Quillv.Koppell,870F.Supp.78,63USLW2406(S.D.N.Y.Dec15,1994)(NO.94CIV.5321(TPG))HN:10(S.Ct.)29Emersonv.Magendantz,6A.2d409(R.I.Feb26,1997)(NO.95-306-APPEAL)(S.Ct.)

HN:8HN:

30State,Dept.ofSocialServicesv.McCorkle,694So.2d1077,97-13(La.App.5Cir.4/29/97)

(La.App.5Cir.Apr29,1997)(NO.97-CA-13)HN:10(S.Ct.)

31Santillov.Com.,30Va.App.470,517S.E.2d733(Va.App.Aug17,1999)(NO.0496-98-4)

HN:9(S.Ct.)32Watsonv.CityofKansasCity,Kan.,80F.Supp.2d1175(D.Kan.Nov08,1999)(NO.CIV.A.99-2106-KHV)HN:9(S.Ct.)33Does1,2,3,4,5,6,and7v.State,1Or.App.543,993P.2d822,103A.L.R.5th661(Or.App.Dec29,1999)(NO.98C-20424,CAA107235),reconsiderationdenied(May16,2000)HN:10(S.Ct.)34Peoplev.Valdez,109Cal.App.4th1414,1Cal.Rptr.3d148,03Cal.DailyOp.Serv.5524,2003DailyJournalD.A.R.7106(Cal.App.3Dist.Jun25,2003)(NO.C036614,C037039)HN:15(S.Ct.)35Standhardtv.SuperiorCourtexrel.CountyofMaricopa,206Ariz.276,77P.3d451,410Ariz.Adv.Rep.25(Ariz.App.Div.1Oct08,2003)(NO.1CA-SA03-0150),reviewdenied(May25,2004)HN:10(S.Ct.)36Burtonv.YorkCountySheriff'sDept.,358S.C.339,594S.E.2d888,21IERCases770(S.C.App.Apr05,2004)(NO.3771)HN:10(S.Ct.)37Doev.DelRio,241F.R.D.154(S.D.N.Y.Dec11,2006)(NO.06CIV.3761GEL)(S.Ct.)

HN:8

38Pricev.NewYorkCityBd.ofEduc.,16Misc.3d543,837N.Y.S.2d507,221Ed.LawRep.303,2007N.Y.SlipOp.27214(N.Y.Sup.May07,2007)(NO.109703/06)HN:10(S.Ct.)39Rollenv.Dwyer,2007WL2199676(E.D.Mo.Jul27,2007)(NO.406-CV-1114CEJ)40AbigailAllianceforBetterAccesstoDevelopmentalDrugsv.vonEschenbach,495F.3d695,378U.S.App.D.C.33(D.C.Cir.Aug07,2007)(NO.04-5350)HN:10,15,16(S.Ct.)41Havardv.Puntuer,600F.Supp.2d845(E.D.Mich.Jan22,2009)(NO.2:06-CV-10449)HN:2,8,12(S.Ct.)42Statev.Schroeder,324Wis.2d306,784N.W.2d182,2010WIApp46(Wis.App.Feb17,2010)(Table,textinWESTLAW,NO.2008AP2810-CR)43Farrellv.WarrenCountyDept.ofSocialServices,59Va.App.375,719S.E.2d329(Va.App.Jan10,2012)(NO.2282-10-4,2283-10-4,2284-10-4)HN:10,14(S.Ct.)44McCormackv.Hiedeman,694F.3d1004,12Cal.DailyOp.Serv.10,510,2012DailyJournalD.A.R.12,824(9thCir.(Idaho)Sep11,2012)(NO.11-36010,11-36015)HN:16,17(S.Ct.)45Moralesv.Pallito,2014WL1758163(D.Vt.Apr30,2014)(NO.2:13CV271)

Distinguishedby

46Doev.BellinMemorialHospital,479F.2d756(7thCir.(Wis.)Jun01,1973)(NO.73-1396)

HN:5,10,16(S.Ct.)47NationalSmallShipmentsTrafficConference,Inc.v.U.S.,388F.Supp.245(S.D.N.Y.Dec24,1974)(NO.74CIV.1265)48Wilsonv.Edelman,542F.2d1260(7thCir.(Ill.)Sep28,1976)(NO.75-2005,75-2006)HN:1(S.Ct.)49State,Dept.ofHealthandRehabilitativeServicesv.AliceP.,367So.2d1045(Fla.App.1Dist.Jan31,1979)(NO.II-259)HN:2,8(S.Ct.)50Peoplev.Privitera,23Cal.3d697,591P.2d919,153Cal.Rptr.431,5A.L.R.4th178(Cal.Mar15,1979)(NO.CR.20340)HN:10,13,14(S.Ct.)

51Kalinskyv.LongIslandLightingCo.,484F.Supp.176,29Fed.R.Serv.2d581(E.D.N.Y.Feb11,1980)(NO.79C3006)HN:10,16(S.Ct.)52Doev.Staples,717F.2d953(6thCir.(Ohio)Sep14,1983)(NO.81-3549)(S.Ct.)

HN:11

53Williamsv.State,77Md.App.411,550A.2d722(Md.App.Dec05,1988)(NO.535SEPT.TERM1988)54Johansenv.CityofBartlesville,Okl.,862F.2d1423(10thCir.(Okla.)Dec09,1988)(NO.84-2753)HN:4(S.Ct.)55MatterofStefanelTyeshaC.,157A.D.2d322,556N.Y.S.2d280,59USLW2027(N.Y.A.D.1Dept.May29,1990)(NO.39812,39813)HN:10(S.Ct.)56Crumptonv.Gates,947F.2d1418,60USLW2330(9thCir.(Cal.)Nov04,1991)(NO.90-55117)HN:2,12(S.Ct.)57Mussingtonv.St.Luke's-RooseveltHosp.Center,824F.Supp.427,Med&MedGD(CCH)P41,495(S.D.N.Y.Jun11,1993)(NO.92CIV.61(JSM))HN:2(S.Ct.)58McKinneyv.Pate,20F.3d1550,9IERCases1266(11thCir.(Fla.)May05,1994)(NO.91-3416)59Rooksv.SecretaryofDept.ofHealthandHumanServices,35Fed.Cl.1(Fed.Cl.Jan29,1996)(NO.93-6V)HN:12(S.Ct.)60McKenziev.Thomas,678So.2d42,95-2226(La.App.1Cir.6/28/96)(La.App.1Cir.Jun28,1996)(NO.95CA2226)HN:10(S.Ct.)61SanDiegoCountyGunRightsCommitteev.Reno,98F.3d1121,96Cal.DailyOp.Serv.7760,96DailyJournalD.A.R.12,811(9thCir.(Cal.)Oct22,1996)(NO.95-55811)HN:2,5,8(S.Ct.)62Hickmanv.StateofMo.,144F.3d1141,12NDLRP267(8thCir.(Mo.)May19,1998)(NO.97-3156)HN:4(S.Ct.)63Condonv.Reno,155F.3d453,26MediaL.Rep.2185(4thCir.(S.C.)Sep03,1998)(NO.97-2554)HN:10(S.Ct.)Portav.Klagholz,19F.Supp.2d290,130Ed.LawRep.539(D.N.J.Sep04,1998)(NO.CIV.A.98-2350JBS)65Statev.Williamson,1998WL741954(OhioApp.8Dist.Oct22,1998)(NO.73130,73132)

HN:10(S.Ct.)66Ducheneauxv.CheyenneRiverSiouxTribeElectionBd.,2Am.TribalLaw39(CheyenneRiverSiouxC.A.May25,1999)(NO.98-012-A)67U.S.West,Inc.v.F.C.C.,182F.3d1224,1999CJC.A.R.5217,17CommunicationsReg.(P&F)87(10thCir.Aug18,1999)(NO.98-9518)HN:9(S.Ct.)68RhodeIslandMedicalSoc.v.Whitehouse,66F.Supp.2d288(D.R.I.Aug30,1999)(NO.C.A.97-416L)HN:8,16,18(S.Ct.)69Hawkinsv.Freeman,195F.3d732(4thCir.(N.C.)Nov09,1999)(NO.96-7539)(S.Ct.)

HN:9

70Parvinv.Dean,7S.W.3d2(Tex.App.-FortWorthNov18,1999)(NO.2-99-135-CV)HN:12(S.Ct.)71Lewisv.Grinker,111F.Supp.2d142,70Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv.690(E.D.N.Y.Jan19,2000)(NO.CV-79-1740-CPS)HN:8,12(S.Ct.)72Cruzv.Farquharson,252F.3d530(1stCir.(Mass.)Jun12,2001)(NO.00-2261)

73Doev.DivisionofYouthandFamilyServices,148F.Supp.2d462,12A.D.Cases465,21NDLRP91(D.N.J.Jun25,2001)(NO.CIV00-3205GEB)HN:5(S.Ct.)74Byarsv.CityofWaterbury,47Conn.Supp.342,795A.2d630,1Ed.LawRep.311(Conn.Super.Nov19,2001)(NO.CV9901524S)75Colemanv.DeWitt,282F.3d908,2002Fed.App.0086P(6thCir.(Ohio)Mar12,2002)(NO.00-3688)HN:10,14,15(S.Ct.)76InreEstateofPoole,328Ill.App.3d9,767N.E.2d855,263Ill.Dec.129(Ill.App.3Dist.Apr03,2002)(NO.3-00-0724)HN:10(S.Ct.)77Acunav.Turkish,354N.J.Super.500,808A.2d149(N.J.Super.A.D.Oct29,2002)(NO.A-2209-01T5)HN:10(S.Ct.)78Chapmanv.State,313Mont.423,63P.3d514,2002MT310N(Mont.Dec13,2002)(Table,textinWESTLAW,NO.01-856)HN:2,5,8(S.Ct.)79Garrettv.UnifiedGovernmentofAthens-ClarkeCounty,246F.Supp.2d1262(M.D.Ga.Feb28,2003)(NO.3:99-CV-104(DF))80Shermanv.Jones,258F.Supp.2d440(E.D.Va.Apr22,2003)(NO.CIV.A.02-1801-AM)HN:9(S.Ct.)81Statev.Rollen,133S.W.3d57(Mo.App.E.D.Dec02,2003)(NO.ED81618),transferdenied(Mar11,2004),transferdenied(May25,2004)82Massachusettsv.MicrosoftCorp.,373F.3d1199,362U.S.App.D.C.152,2004-1TradeCasesP74,468(D.C.Cir.Jun30,2004)(NO.02-7155,03-5030)HN:5(S.Ct.)83Williamsv.AttorneyGeneralofAla.,378F.3d1232,17Fla.L.WeeklyFed.C837(11thCir.(Ala.)Jul28,2004)(NO.02-16135)HN:9,10(S.Ct.)84HorizonBank&TrustCo.v.Massachusetts,391F.3d48,94A.F.T.R.2d2004-7167,60Fed.R.Serv.3d215(1stCir.(Mass.)Dec08,2004)(NO.04-1480)85Com.v.Bullock,868A.2d516,2005PASuper16(Pa.Super.Jan14,2005)(NO.351MDA2004),reargumentdenied(Mar18,2005)HN:10,15(S.Ct.)86Dayv.Sebelius,227F.R.D.668(D.Kan.Feb24,2005)(NO.04-4085-RDR)87Sharrerv.Zettel,2005WL885129(N.D.Cal.Mar07,2005)(NO.C04-00042SI)2,8(S.Ct.)

HN:8(S.Ct.)

HN:

88Schottensteinv.Schottenstein,2005WL912017(S.D.N.Y.Apr18,2005)(NO.04CIV.5851(SAS))U.S.v.ExtremeAssociates,Inc.,431F.3d150(3rdCir.(Pa.)Dec08,2005)(NO.05-1555)HN:10(S.Ct.)90Habeckerv.TownofEstesPark,Colorado,452F.Supp.2d1113(D.Colo.Sep21,2006)(NO.CIVA05CV00153EWNMJW)HN:4(S.Ct.)91Owenv.GeneralMotorsCorp.,2006WL2808632(W.D.Mo.Sep28,2006)(NO.06-4067CVCNKL)HN:8(S.Ct.)92Lawrencev.State,211S.W.3d883(Tex.App.-DallasDec27,2006)(NO.05-05-01391-CR),pe-titionfordiscretionaryreviewgranted(Jun27,2007)HN:10,15,16(S.Ct.)93Leightonv.CityofNewYork,39A.D.3d84,830N.Y.S.2d749,217Ed.LawRep.665,2007N.Y.SlipOp.01525(N.Y.A.D.2Dept.Feb20,2007)(NO.2005-09514,23254/04)HN:8(S.Ct.)94Morrisonv.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity,2007WL627877(E.D.Mich.Feb23,2007)(NO.06-13871)HN:2(S.Ct.)

95Kirklandv.CityofNewYork,2007WL1541367(E.D.N.Y.May25,2007)(NO.06CV0331(NG)(CLP))HN:8(S.Ct.)96Lawrencev.State,240S.W.3d912(Tex.Crim.App.Nov21,2007)(NO.PD-0236-07)HN:10,16(S.Ct.)974ExoticDancersv.SpearmintRhino,2009WL250054,14Wage&HourCas.2d(BNA)1251(C.D.Cal.Jan29,2009)(NO.CV08-4038ABCSSX)HN:8(S.Ct.)98Nolenv.State,2009WL2411832(Vt.May29,2009)(NO.2008-131)

99Sherleyv.Sebelius,686F.Supp.2d1(D.D.C.Oct27,2009)(NO.1:09-CV-1575RCL)12(S.Ct.)

HN:

100HopeClinicforWomenLtd.v.Adams,2011ILApp(1st)101463,955N.E.2d511,353Ill.Dec.

44(Ill.App.1Dist.Jun17,2011)(NO.1-10-1463,1-10-1576)HN:9,10(S.Ct.)101Havardv.WayneCounty,436Fed.Appx.451(6thCir.(Mich.)Aug19,2011)(NotselectedforpublicationintheFederalReporter,NO.09-1235)102Sibleyv.Obama,819F.Supp.2d45(D.D.C.Oct21,2011)(NO.CIV.A.11-919JDB),reconsid-erationdenied(Feb02,2012)103MontanaCannabisIndustryAss'nv.State,366Mont.224,286P.3d1161,162Lab.Cas.P

61,285,2012MT201(Mont.Sep11,2012)(NO.DA11-0460),rehearingdenied(Oct23,2012)

HN:9(S.Ct.)104Grantv.Vilsack,2F.Supp.2d252(D.D.C.Sep25,2012)(NO.CIV.A.11-308JDB,CIV.A.

11-586JDB)105DoeNo.1v.Reed,697F.3d1235,12Cal.DailyOp.Serv.12,002,2012DailyJournalD.A.R.

14,700(9thCir.(Wash.)Oct23,2012)(NO.11-35854)HN:4(S.Ct.)106AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionofMassachusettsv.U.S.ConferenceofCatholicBishops,705F.3d44(1stCir.(Mass.)Jan15,2013)(NO.12-1466,12-1658)107Watkinsv.CornellCompanies,Inc.,2013WL1914713(N.D.Tex.Mar15,2013)(NO.

3:11-CV-260-M-BN)108CitizensforAppropriateRuralRoads,Inc.v.Foxx,2014WL13231(S.D.Ind.Mar31,2014)

(NO.1:11-CV-01031-SEB-DM)109O'Connorv.CapitalOne,N.A.,2014WL2215965(N.D.Cal.May29,2014)(NO.CV

14-00177-KAW)HN:9,10(S.Ct.)

LimitationofHoldingRecognizedby

110Birdv.MunicipalityofAnchorage,787P.2d119(AlaskaApp.Feb16,1990)(NO.1014,A-3063)111InreInitiativePetitionNo.349,StateQuestionNo.2,838P.2d1,61USLW2102,1992OK122(Okla.Aug04,1992)(NO.76,437)HN:10,15(S.Ct.)112PlannedParenthoodShasta-DiabloInc.v.Williams,12Cal.App.4th1817,18Cal.App.4th359,23Cal.App.4th532,16Cal.Rptr.2d540(Cal.App.1Dist.Feb05,1993)(NO.A055117),rehear-ingdenied(Mar03,1993)HN:10(S.Ct.)113Manningv.Hunt,119F.3d254(4thCir.(N.C.)Jul11,1997)(NO.97-1126)10,14,15(S.Ct.)114MidtownHospitalv.Miller,36F.Supp.2d1360(N.D.Ga.Jul24,1997)(NO.CIVA

1:97CV1786-JOF)HN:10,13,15(S.Ct.)115Evansv.Kelley,977F.Supp.1283(E.D.Mich.Jul31,1997)(NO.97-CV-71246-DT)HN:13,14,15(S.Ct.)

HN:

116InreBabyBoyBlackshear,1999WL770788(OhioApp.5Dist.Sep07,1999)(NO.

99CA00018)HN:10,15,16(S.Ct.)

117Humphreysv.ClinicforWomen,Inc.,796N.E.2d247,118A.L.R.5th771(Ind.Sep24,2003)(NO.49S00-0011-CV-714)HN:10,16(S.Ct.)

ModificationRecognizedby

118JaneL.v.Bangerter,809F.Supp.865,61USLW2451(D.UtahDec17,1992)(NO.CIV.91-C-345G)HN:13,14,15(S.Ct.)119PlannedParenthoodofSoutheasternPennsylvaniav.Casey,822F.Supp.227(E.D.Pa.May12,1993)(NO.CIV.A.88-3228)HN:1(S.Ct.)120PretermClevelandv.Voinovich,OhioApp.3d684,627N.E.2d570(OhioApp.10Dist.Jul27,1993)(NO.2737,92AP-791)HN:10,13,15(S.Ct.)121JaneL.v.Bangerter,61F.3d1493(10thCir.(Utah)Aug02,1995)(NO.93-4044,93-4059)

HN:10,15,18(S.Ct.)122Women'sMedicalProfessionalCorp.v.Voinovich,911F.Supp.1051,USLW2432(S.D.Ohio

Dec13,1995)(NO.C-3-95-414)HN:13,14,15(S.Ct.)123ValleyHosp.Ass'n,Inc.v.Mat-SuCoalitionforChoice,948P.2d963(AlaskaNov21,1997)(NO.4906,S-7417)HN:10,15,16(S.Ct.)124SummitMedicalAssociates,P.C.v.James,984F.Supp.1404(M.D.Ala.Jan26,1998)(NO.CIV.A.97-T-1149-N)HN:10,13,15(S.Ct.)125PlannedParenthoodofWisconsinv.Doyle,162F.3d463(7thCir.(Wis.)Nov03,1998)(NO.98-2521)HN:14,15,18(S.Ct.)126PlannedParenthoodofGreaterIowa,Inc.v.Miller,30F.Supp.2d1157(S.D.IowaDec21,1998)(NO.4-98-CV-90149)HN:10,13(S.Ct.)127GreenvilleWomen'sClinicv.Bryant,66F.Supp.2d691(D.S.C.Feb05,1999)(NO.CIVA6:96-18-21)HN:10,14,15(S.Ct.)128Smithv.State,6S.W.3d512(Tenn.Crim.App.Mar25,1999)(NO.01C01-9811-CR-00438),ap-pealdenied(Sep13,1999)HN:9(S.Ct.)129Karlinv.Foust,188F.3d446(7thCir.(Wis.)Aug09,1999)(NO.98-2043,98-2262)HN:10,14,15(S.Ct.)

130PlannedParenthoodofCentralNewJerseyv.Farmer,220F.3d127(3rdCir.(N.J.)Jul26,2000)

(NO.99-5042,99-5272)HN:10,13,15(S.Ct.)131PlannedParenthoodofMiddleTennesseev.Sundquist,38S.W.3d1(Tenn.Sep15,2000)(NO.M199600060SCR11CV)HN:10,14,15(S.Ct.)132TucsonWoman'sClinicv.Eden,371F.3d1173,04Cal.DailyOp.Serv.5324,2004DailyJourn-alD.A.R.7335(9thCir.(Ariz.)Jun18,2004)(NO.02-17375,02-17381,02-17382)HN:10,15(S.Ct.)133Gonzalesv.Carhart,550U.S.124,127S.Ct.1610,167L.Ed.2d480,75USLW4210,07Cal.

DailyOp.Serv.4088,2007DailyJournalD.A.R.51,20Fla.L.WeeklyFed.S180,20A.L.R.Fed.2d673(U.S.Apr18,2007)(NO.05-1382,05-380)HN:10,13,15(S.Ct.)134VisionITServices,Inc.v.Mayorkas,2011WL4695619(E.D.Mich.Oct06,2011)(NO.11-11170)HN:4(S.Ct.)135Isaacsonv.Horne,716F.3d1213,13Cal.DailyOp.Serv.5033,2013DailyJournalD.A.R.21(9thCir.(Ariz.)May21,2013)(NO.12-16670)HN:10,14,15(S.Ct.)

RelatedReferences

136Doev.Bolton,126F.R.D.85(N.D.Ga.May02,19)(NO.CIVA13676)

137Canov.Bolton,2005WL3881370(N.D.Ga.Feb23,2005)(NO.1:70-CV-13676-JOF)

Affirmedby

138Canov.Baker,435F.3d1337,63Fed.R.Serv.3d960,19Fla.L.WeeklyFed.C196(11th

Cir.(Ga.)Jan11,2006)(NO.05-111)

RehearingandRehearingenBancDeniedby

139Canov.Baker,179Fed.Appx.6(11thCir.(Ga.)Mar08,2006)(Table,NO.05-111)

ANDCertiorariDeniedby

140Canov.Baker,549U.S.972,127S.Ct.387,166L.Ed.2d302,75USLW3065,75USLW3191,

75USLW3196(U.S.Oct10,2006)(NO.06-162)

NegativeandCautionaryCitingReferences(Canada)

Distinguishedin

141R.v.Morgentaler(No.5),53D.L.R.(3d)161,30C.R.N.S.209,[1976]1S.C.R.616,20C.C.C.

(2d)449,4N.R.277,1975CarswellQue3,1975CarswellQue31F(S.C.C.Mar26,1975)

CourtDocuments

AppellateCourtDocuments(U.S.A.)

U.S.AppellatePetitions,MotionsandFilings

142Bolton,v.Doe,1970WL155653(AppellatePetition,MotionandFiling)(U.S.Nov.16,1970)

JurisdictionalStatement(NO.973)

U.S.AppellateBriefs

143JaneROE,etal.,Appellants,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.MaryDOE,etal.,Appellants,v.Arthur

K.BOLTON,etal.,Appellees.,1970WL116927(AppellateBrief)(U.S.1970)MotionforLeavetoFileBriefAmicusCuriaeandBriefAmicusCuriae(NO.70-18,70-40)144JaneROE,etal.,Appellants,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.,1970WL117028(AppellateBrief)

(U.S.1970)BriefAmicusCuriaeoftheAttorneysGeneralofArizona,Connecticut,Ken-tucky,NebraskaandUtah(NO.70-18)145Roev.Wade,1970WL122834(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Jan.01,1970)MotionForLeaveTo

FileABriefAsAmicusCuriaeandBriefOfAmicusCuriaeRobertL.SassoneInSupportOfRespondent(NO.70-18)146JaneROE,JohnDoe,andMaryDoe,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervenor,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.,1970WL117027(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Nov.05,1970)ReplytoJurisdictionalStatement(NO.70-18)147MaryDOE,etal.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.BOLTON,AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofGeorgia,

etal.,Appellees.,1971WL126685(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Term1971)MotionforLeavetoFileaBriefandBriefasAmiciCuriaefortheAmericanCollegeofObstetriciansand

Gynecologists,AmericanMedicalWomen'sAssociation,AmericanPsychiatricAssociation,

NewYork(NO.70-40)

148JaneROE,JohnDoeandMaryDoe,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervenor,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.,1971WL128053(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Term1971)BriefoftheAmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists,theAmericanPsychiatricAssociation,theAmericanMedicalWomen'sAssociation,theNewYorkAcademyofMedi-cine,andaGroupof178P(NO.70-18)149JaneROE,JohnDoe,MaryDoe,andJamesHubertHallford,M.D.,Appellants,v.HenryWADE,

DistrictAttorneyofDallasCounty,Texas,Appellee.,1971WL128054(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Term1971)BriefforAppellants(NO.70-18)150Doev.Bolton,1971WL134286(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Jul.30,1971)MotionforLeavetoFile

BriefAmiciCuriaeinSupportofAppellantsandBriefAmiciCuriae.(NO.70-40)151JaneROE,etal.,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervener,v.Henry

WADE,Appellee.,1971WL128052(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Aug.1971)MotionforLeavetoFileBriefAmiciCuriaeinSupportofAppellantsandBriefAmiciCuriae.(NO.70-18)152JaneROE,etal.,Petitioners,v.HenryWADE,Respondent.,1971WL126684(AppellateBrief)

(U.S.Aug.02,1971)MotionforLeavetoFileaBriefasAmicusCuriaeandBriefofAmicusCuriaeRobertL.SassoneinSupportofRespondent(NO.70-18)153Roev.Wade,1971WL134283(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Aug.2,1971)MotionforPermissionto

FileBriefandBriefAmicusCuriaeonBehalfofNewWomenLawyers,Women'sHealthandAbortionProject,Inc.,NationalAbortionActionCoalition(NO.70-18,70-40)154JaneROE,JohnDoe,andMaryDoe,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervenor,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.MaryDOE,etal.,etc.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.

BOLTON,AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofGeorgia,etal.,etc.,Appellees.,1971WL128048(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Aug.10,1971)MotionforLeavetoFileBriefAmiciCuriaeonBehalfofWomen'sOrganizationsandNamedWomeninSupportofAppellantsinEachCase,andBriefAmiciCuriae.(NO.70-18,70-40)155JaneROE,etal.,Appellants,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.,1971WL128055(AppellateBrief)

(U.S.Aug.30,1971)BriefofAmericansUnitedforLife,AmicusCuriae,InSupportofAp-pellee.(NO.70-18)156JaneROE,etal.,Appellant,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.,1971WL128056(AppellateBrief)

(U.S.Sep.17,1971)MotionforLeavetoSubmitaBriefAmiciCuriaeBriefofWomenfortheUnbornetalinSupportofAppellees(NO.70-18)157JaneROE,JohnDoe,andMaryDoe,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervenor,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.MaryDOE,etal.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.BOLTON,etal.,Appellees.,1971WL126671(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.Term1971)MotionforLeavetoFileaBriefwithBriefasAmiciCuriaeandAppendixforStateCommunitiesAidAssoci-ation(NO.70-18,70-40)158JaneROE,JohnDoe,andMaryDoe,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervenor,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.MaryDOE,etal.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.BOLTON,etal.,Appellees.,1971WL128049(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.Term1971)MotionforLeavetoFileaBriefwithBriefasAmiciCuriaeforPlannedParenthoodFederationofAmerica,Inc.andAmericanAssociationofPlannedParenthoodPhysicians(NO.70-18,70-40)159JaneROE,JohnDoe,andMaryDoe,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervenor,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.MaryDOE,etal.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.BOLTON,etal.,Appellees.,1971WL128050(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.Term1971)MotionforLeavetoFileaBriefwithBriefasAmiciCuriaeandAppendixforStateCommunitiesAidAssoci-

ation(NO.70-18,70-40)

160Roev.Wade,1971WL134285(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.08,1971)MotionforLeavetoFile

BriefAmicusCuriaeandBriefAmicusCuriae(NO.70-18,70-40)161JaneROE,etal.,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervener,v.Henry

WADE,Appellee.,1971WL126688(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.12,1971)MotionforLeavetoFileBriefAmiciCuriaeinSupportofAppellantsandBriefAmiciCuriae.(NO.70-18)162MaryDOE,etal.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.BOLTON,asAttorneyGeneraloftheStateofGeor-gia;LewisR.Slaton,asDistrictAttorneyofFultonCounty,Georgia;andHerbertT.Jenkins,asChiefofPoliceoftheCityofAtlanta,Georgia,Appellees.JaneROE,JohnDoe,andMaryDoe,Appellants,James,1971WL128051(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.12,1971)MotionofAmericanEthicalUnion,AmericanFriendsServiceCommittee,AmericanHumanistAssociation,AmericanJewishCongress,EpiscopalDioceseofNewYork,NewYorkStateCouncilofChurches,Union(NO.70-18,70-40)163Roev.Wade,1971WL134284(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.12,1971)MotionforLeaveto

SubmitaBriefAmiciCuriaeBriefofWomenfortheUnbornetalinSupportofAppellees(NO.70-18)1Doev.Bolton,1971WL134287(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.14,1971)MotionforLeaveto

FileABriefandBriefofFerdinandBuckleyasAmicusCuriaeinSupportofAppellees(NO.70-40)165JaneROE,etal.,Appellants,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.MaryDOE,etal.,Appellants,v.Arthur

K.BOLTON,etal.,Appellees.,1971WL128057(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.15,1971)MotionandBriefAmicusCuriaeofCertainPhysicians,ProfessorsandFellowsoftheAmericanCollegeofObstetricsandGynecologyinSupportofAppellees.(NO.70-18,70-40)166Roev.Wade,1971WL134282(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.18,1971)BriefAmicusCuriaeon

BehalfofAssociationofTexasDiocesanAttorneys,inSupportofAppellee(NO.70-18)167Roev.HenryWadeDist.Atty.ofDallasCo.,Texas,1971WL134281(AppellateBrief)(U.S.

Oct.19,1971)BriefforAppellee(NO.70-18)168MaryDOE,etal.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.BOLTON,asAttorneyGeneraloftheStateofGeor-gia;LewisR.Slaton,AsDistrictAttorneyofFultonCounty,Georgia;andHerbertT.Jenkins,asChiefofPoliceoftheCityofAtlanta,Georgia,Appellees.,1971WL126691(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Nov.09,1971)MotionforLeavetoFileaBriefandBriefofFerdinandBuckleyasAmicusCuriaeinSupportofAppellees(NO.70-40)169JaneROE,JohnDoe,MaryDoe,andJamesHubertHallford,M.D.,Appellants,v.HenryWADE,

DistrictAttorneyofDallasCounty,Texas,Appellee.,1972WL126044(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Term1972)SupplementalBriefforAppellants(NO.70-18)170Doev.Bolton,1972WL136209(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Sep.01,1972)SupplementalBriefof

theAppellants(NO.70-40)171MaryDOE;PeterG.Bourne;RobertHatcher;LillasL.James;JamesWaters;CorbettTurner;

NewtonLong;EdwardLeader;WilliamH.Biggers;GeorgeViolin;PatriciaS.Smith;JennieWilliams;JudithBourne;SusanneDunaway;JoyceParks;LouAnnIrion;MaryLong;J.EmmettHerndon;SamuelL.Williams;E,1972WL125862(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Sep.25,1972)Sup-plementalBriefoftheAppellants(NO.70-40)172Roev.Wade,1972WL136208(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Sep.26,1972)BriefAmicusCuriaeof

theAttorneysGeneralofArizona,Connecticut,Kentucky,NebraskaandUtah(NO.70-18)173JaneROE,JohnDoe,andMaryDoe,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervenor,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.MaryDOE;etal.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.BOLTON,et

al.,Appellees.,1972WL126043(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.Term1972)SupplementalBriefForAmiciCuriaePlannedParenthoodFederationofAmerica,Inc.andAmericanAssoci-ationofPlannedParenthoodPhysicians(NO.70-18,70-40)

174JaneROE,JohnDoe,andMaryDoe,Appellants,JamesHubertHALLFORD,M.D.,Appellant-Intervenor,v.HenryWADE,Appellee.MaryDOE,etal.,etc.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.

BOLTON,AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofGeorgia,etal.,etc.,Appellees.,1972WL126045(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Oct.Term1972)MotionforLeavetoFileBriefAmiciCuriaeonBe-halfofOrganizationsandNamedWomeninSupportofAppellantsinEachCase,andBriefAmiciCuriae.(NO.70-18,70-40)175DOE,etal,Appellants,v.BOLTON,AttorneyGeneralofGeorgia,etal,Appellees,ROE,etal,

Appellants,v.WADE,DistrictAttorneyofDallasCounty,Appellee.,1973WL159525

(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Feb.16,1973)BriefofStateofConnecticut,AmicusCuriae,inSup-portofPetitionsforRehearingFiledbytheStatesofGeorgiaandTexas(NO.70-18,70-40)176JaneROE,etal.,Appellants,v.HenryWADE.MaryDOE,etal.,Appellants,v.ArthurK.

BOLTON,asAttorneyGeneraloftheStateofGeorgia,etal.,1973WL159526(AppellateBrief)(U.S.Feb.16,1973)BriefofAmicusCuriaeinSupportofPetitionforRehearing(NO.70-18,70-40)

WestlawDeliverySummaryReportfor14,IPDate/TimeofRequest:ClientIdentifier:Database:CitationText:Service:Lines:

Documents:Images:

Wednesday,August20,201421:16CentralBEIJINGFOREIGNSTUUNIKEYCITE-HIST-IMG93S.Ct.705KeyCite313

Thematerialaccompanyingthissummaryissubjecttocopyright.UsageisgovernedbycontractwithThomsonReuters,Westandtheiraffiliates.

DateofPrinting:Aug20,2014

KEYCITE

Roev.Wade,410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(U.S.Tex.,Jan22,1973)(NO.70-18)

因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容

查看全文