roe v wade summary of case

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Roe v. Wade

By: History.com Editors

Updated: April 21, 2023 | Original: March 27, 2018

Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution . Prior to Roe v. Wade , abortion had been illegal throughout much of the country since the late 19th century. Since the 1973 ruling, many states imposed restrictions on abortion rights. The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade  on June 24, 2022, holding that there was no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Abortion Before Roe v. Wade

Until the late 19th century, abortion was legal in the United States before “quickening,” the point at which a woman could first feel movements of the fetus, typically around the fourth month of pregnancy.

Some of the early regulations related to abortion were enacted in the 1820s and 1830s and dealt with the sale of dangerous drugs that women used to induce abortions. Despite these regulations and the fact that the drugs sometimes proved fatal to women, they continued to be advertised and sold.

In the late 1850s, the newly established American Medical Association began calling for the criminalization of abortion, partly in an effort to eliminate doctors’ competitors such as midwives and homeopaths.

Additionally, some nativists, alarmed by the country’s growing population of immigrants, were anti-abortion because they feared declining birth rates among white, American-born, Protestant women.

In 1869, the Catholic Church banned abortion at any stage of pregnancy, while in 1873, Congress passed the Comstock law, which made it illegal to distribute contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs through the U.S. mail. By the 1880s, abortion was outlawed across most of the country.

During the 1960s, during the women’s rights movement, court cases involving contraceptives laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade .

In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning the distribution of birth control to married couples, ruling that the law violated their implied right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution . And in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults.

Meanwhile, in 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortion, although the law only applied to the state’s residents. That same year, New York legalized abortion, with no residency requirement. By the time of Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion was also legally available in Alaska and Washington .

In 1969, Norma McCorvey, a Texas woman in her early 20s, sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. McCorvey, who had grown up in difficult, impoverished circumstances, previously had given birth twice and given up both children for adoption. At the time of McCorvey’s pregnancy in 1969 abortion was legal in Texas—but only for the purpose of saving a woman’s life.

While American women with the financial means could obtain abortions by traveling to other countries where the procedure was safe and legal, or pay a large fee to a U.S. doctor willing to secretly perform an abortion, those options were out of reach to McCorvey and many other women.

As a result, some women resorted to illegal, dangerous, “back-alley” abortions or self-induced abortions. In the 1950s and 1960s, the estimated number of illegal abortions in the United States ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

After trying unsuccessfully to get an illegal abortion, McCorvey was referred to Texas attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who were interested in challenging anti-abortion laws.

In court documents, McCorvey became known as “Jane Roe.”

In 1970, the attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of McCorvey and all the other women “who were or might become pregnant and want to consider all options,” against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, where McCorvey lived.

Earlier, in 1964, Wade was in the national spotlight when he prosecuted Jack Ruby , who killed Lee Harvey Oswald , the alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy .

Supreme Court Ruling

In June 1970, a Texas district court ruled that the state’s abortion ban was illegal because it violated a constitutional right to privacy. Afterward, Wade declared he’d continue to prosecute doctors who performed abortions.

The case eventually was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, McCovey gave birth and put the child up for adoption.

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun , the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment .

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

Legacy of Roe v. Wade

Norma McCorvey maintained a low profile following the court’s decision, but in the 1980s she was active in the abortion rights movement.

However, in the mid-1990s, after becoming friends with the head of an anti-abortion group and converting to Catholicism, she turned into a vocal opponent of the procedure.

Since Roe v. Wade , many states imposed restrictions that weaken abortion rights, and Americans remain divided over support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

In 1992, litigation against Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act reached the Supreme Court in a case called Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey . The court upheld the central ruling in Roe v. Wade but allowed states to pass more abortion restrictions as long as they did not pose an “undue burden."

Roe v. Wade Overturned

In 2022, the nation's highest court deliberated on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which regarded the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Lower courts had ruled the law was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade . Under Roe , states had been prohibited from banning abortions before around 23 weeks—when a fetus is considered able to survive outside a woman's womb.

In its decision , the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Mississippi's law—and overturned Roe after its nearly 50 years as precedent.

Abortion in American History. The Atlantic . High Court Rules Abortion Legal in First 3 Months. The New York Times . Norma McCorvey. The Washington Post . Sarah Weddington. Time . When Abortion Was a Crime , Leslie J. Reagan. University of California Press .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, supreme court case, roe v. wade (1973).

410 U.S. 113 (1973)

“We . . . conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”

Selected by

Caroline Fredrickson

Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center and Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice

Ilan Wurman

Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University

At a time when Texas law restricted abortions except to save the life of the mother, Jane Roe (a single, pregnant woman) sued Henry Wade, the local district attorney tasked with enforcing the abortion statute. She argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the right of privacy, inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protects a woman’s choice to have an abortion. That right is limited, however, as the pregnancy advances, by the State’s interest in maternal health and in fetal life after viability. Amid national debate over this issue, this was the first time the Court took up this question and affirmed the “right to choose,” as it is often titled.

Read the Full Opinion

Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, . . . the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage; procreation; contraception; family relationships; and child rearing and education.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. . . .

The Court’s decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. [A] State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim . . .  that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. 

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. . . .

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. . . .

Excerpt: Dissent, Justice William Rehnquist

The Court’s opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent. . . .

I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of “privacy” is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not ‘private’ in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the ‘privacy’ that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy.

If the Court means by the term “privacy” no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the “liberty,” against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. . . . The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective . . . . But the Court’s sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court’s opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one. . . .

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’ Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the ‘right’ to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. . . . By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857, and “has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.” . . .

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter. . . .

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.

The law in Texas permitted abortion only in cases where the procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother. When Dallas resident Norma McCorvey found out that she was pregnant with her third child, she tried to falsely claim that she had been raped and then to obtain an illegal abortion. Both of these efforts failed, and she sought the assistance of Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who filed a claim using the alias Jane Roe for McCorvey. (The other named party, Henry Wade, was the District Attorney for Dallas County.) McCorvey gave birth to her child before the case was decided, but the district court ruled in her favor based on a concurrence in the 1965 Supreme Court decision of Griswold v. Connecticut, written by Justice Arthur Goldberg. This concurrence had found that there was a right to privacy based on the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution. However, the district court refrained from issuing an injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the law, leaving the matter unresolved.

• Linda Coffee (plaintiff)
• Sarah Weddington (plaintiff)
• Jay Floyd (defendant)

Issue: Whether a plaintiff still has standing to bring a case based on her pregnancy once she has given birth. Holding: Yes. The mootness doctrine does not bar her case from being heard, even though this individual plaintiff's position would no longer be affected, and she did not have an actual case or controversy. This situation fits within the exception to the mootness rule that covers wrongs that are capable of repetition yet evading review. Most cases are not heard through to appeal in a period shorter than a pregnancy, so strictly applying the mootness doctrine would prevent these issues from ever being resolved.

• Harry Andrew Blackmun (Author)
• Warren Earl Burger
• William Orville Douglas
• William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
• Potter Stewart
• Thurgood Marshall
• Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.

The majority found that strict scrutiny was appropriate when reviewing restrictions on abortion, since it is part of the fundamental right of privacy. Blackmun was uninterested in identifying the exact part of the Constitution where the right of privacy can be found, although he noted that the Court had previously located it in the Fourteenth rather than the Ninth Amendment. The opinion applied a controversial trimester framework to guide judges and lawmakers in balancing the mother's health against the viability of the fetus in any given situation. In the first trimester, the woman has the exclusive right to pursue an abortion, not subject to any state intervention. In the second trimester, the state cannot intervene unless her health is at risk. If the fetus becomes viable, once the pregnancy has progressed into the third trimester, the state may restrict the right to an abortion but must always include an exception to any regulation that protects the health of the mother. The Court, which included no female Justices at the time, appears to have been confused about the differences between the trimester framework and viability, which are not necessarily interchangeable. It is interesting to note that Blackmun was particularly invested in this case and the opinion, since he had worked at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota during the 1950s and researched the history of abortions there. This may explain why he framed the opinion largely in terms of protecting the right of physicians to practice medicine without state interference (e.g., by counseling women on whether to pursue abortions) rather than the right of women to bodily autonomy.

• Byron Raymond White (Author)
• William Hubbs Rehnquist

White criticized the majority's arbitrary choice of a rigid framework without any constitutional or other legal foundation to support it. He believed that this aggressive use of judicial power exceeded the Court's appropriate role by taking away power that rested with state legislatures and essentially writing laws for them. White argued that the political process was the appropriate mechanism for seeking reform, rather than letting the Court decide whether and when the mother should be a higher priority than the fetus.

• William Hubbs Rehnquist (Author)

Rehnquist expanded on the historical elements of White's argument. He researched 19th-century laws on abortion and the status of the issue at the time of both the Founding and the Fourteenth Amendment. His originalist approach led him to conclude that state restrictions on abortion were considered valid at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, so its drafters could not have contemplated creating rights that conflicted with it.

Concurrence

• William Orville Douglas (Author)

More concerned with doctrinal sources than Blackmun, Douglas pointed out more forcefully that the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Ninth Amendment is the appropriate source of the right of privacy.

• Potter Stewart (Author)

Stewart argued that the right of privacy was specifically rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Warren Earl Burger (Author)

Burger felt that two physicians rather than one should be required to agree to a woman's request for an abortion.

The Court was praised in many circles for its progressive attitude toward evolving social trends, even though the decision was framed in paternalistic language and seemed more focused on protecting physicians than women. However, many commentators have viewed its decision as a prime example of judicial "activism," a term that refers to when the Court is seen to infringe on the authority of other branches of government.. A magnet for controversy to the current day, Roe has been challenged consistently and lacks support from many current members of the Court. The trimester framework proved less workable than the majority had hoped, and decisions such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey have eroded what initially seemed like a sweeping statement in favor of women's rights. Many states that oppose Roe have enacted laws that will go into effect in the event that it is overturned.

U.S. Supreme Court

Roe v. Wade

Argued December 13, 1971

Reargued October 11, 1972

Decided January 22, 1973

410 U.S. 113

A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

1. While 28 U.S.C. § 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.

(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy

must exist at review stages, and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.

(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell , 401 U. S. 66 . Pp. 125-127.

(c) The Does' complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue, since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling

that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166.

314 F. Supp. 1217 , affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 410 U. S. 207 , DOUGLAS, J., post, p. 209, and STEWART, J., post, p. 167, filed concurring opinions. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 221. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 171.

• Opinions & Dissents
• Oral Arguments
• Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

You are using an outdated browser no longer supported by Oyez. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• HISTORY & CULTURE

The tumultuous history that led to the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling

In the 1960s, support for abortion mounted as two public health crises caused miscarriages and severe health problems among newborn children—setting the stage for the historic U.S. Supreme Court case.

In April 1970, Jane Hodgson picked up the phone, called her local police department, and asked them to arrest her.

Earlier that day, the Minnesota physician had performed an abortion on a 24-year-old mother of three who had contracted rubella, a disease associated with miscarriage, infant death, and severe health problems for infants that survived pregnancy. As in many other states, Minnesota law only allowed “therapeutic abortions,” procedures that terminated pregnancy only if a mother’s life was threatened.

Hodgson had seen patients beg for illegal abortions—and suffer, even die, when they obtained them from other, unqualified providers. In an affidavit to the grand jury that indicted her, she wrote that she “had to make a choice between following the existing law or fulfilling her obligation to her patient, her profession, and her society.”

In anticipation of a Supreme Court decision expected to shatter decades of precedent upholding the right to terminate a pregnancy, here’s a look at the period that led up to the landmark decisions, what those two cases involved, and their legacy.

Reconsidering the nation’s abortion bans

Though abortion was not particularly controversial in the nation’s early years, opposition grew in the late 19th century and the procedure became increasingly taboo. By the mid-20th century, it was also illegal. Though women regularly sought—and got—abortions, they were a felony in nearly every state by the late 1960s, and these laws offered few, and sometimes no, exceptions related to the mother’s health or cases of incest and rape.

( The complex early history of abortion in the United States .)

FREE BONUS ISSUE

During that decade, though, two public health crises brought debate about abortion into the open. The first was thalidomide , a drug marketed in Europe as a remedy for morning sickness, anxiety, and sleeplessness. About 10,000 babies born worldwide to mothers who had taken thalidomide had severe physical anomalies, and thousands of women experienced miscarriages due to the drug, leading manufacturers to withdraw it.

Though the drug was never legal in the U.S., Sherri Finkbine, an American actress known for her role as “Miss Sherri” on Romper Room , a show for kids, inadvertently took it early in her pregnancy. After learning she had taken the drug, she gave a newspaper interview in hopes of publicizing its dangers. She had asked for anonymity, but after the story broke, her hospital refused to provide an abortion—and neither would any other facility.

It would take a trip to Sweden to finally get the abortion. Although she weathered public condemnation and death threats, and was fired from her job, a majority of Americans supported Finkbine’s decision, according to a 1962 Gallup poll .

Support for abortion mounted in the mid-1960s with an epidemic of the rubella virus, also known as German measles. Pregnant women who had contracted rubella began experiencing miscarriages. Many newborn babies died; an estimated 20,000 were born with congenital abnormalities like deafness, atypical anatomy, intellectual disabilities, and heart problems. Though many doctors, like Hodgson, supported abortions for pregnant women who had contracted rubella, laws outlawing abortion in most cases put them in danger of arrest, loss of licensure and other penalties.

As debates about abortion raged, two test cases that would transform U.S. abortion law were making their way through the U.S. court system.

Jane Roe and the constitutional right to privacy

In 1969, 21-year-old Norma McCorvey became pregnant. It was her third pregnancy; because of struggles with money and substance abuse, she did not parent either child. This time, she wanted an abortion. But though some states had begun to slightly liberalize their abortion laws, McCorvey lived in Texas, which banned abortions unless the mother’s life was at stake.

Unlike wealthier and better resourced women, McCorvey could not afford to leave the state or obtain a hush-hush abortion from a reliable physician. But she had heard about a pair of attorneys looking to file a test case with a potential plaintiff like her—someone whose age and social class would illustrate the unfairness of abortion laws.

McCorvey agreed to participate in a lawsuit filed by attorneys Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee.   The case was filed with the pseudonym Jane Roe, a term commonly used in lawsuits when a woman wishes to conceal her identity. Her legal team sued Henry Wade, district attorney of the county in which “Jane Roe” lived, arguing that Texas’ law violated women’s constitutional right to privacy—their freedom to live without undue governmental intrusion in their personal lives.

You May Also Like

Scientists are finally studying women’s bodies. This is what we’re learning.

The menstrual cycle can reshape your brain

We finally know the cause of severe morning sickness. A remedy could be next.

A three-judge U.S. District Court panel agreed, ruling the Texas law unconstitutional. But the court declined to order Texas to stop enforcing the old law, and Wade refused to stop prosecuting doctors. As McCorvey’s case made its way through the court system, she ultimately gave birth for a third time and placed the child for adoption.

Mary Doe expands the argument

Meanwhile, Doe v. Bolton , another test case, wended its way through the courts. When 22-year-old Georgia resident Sandra Bensing got pregnant with her fourth child in 1970, she decided she wanted an abortion. Though married, she was pursuing a divorce and had trouble trying to raise her children, each of whom had been adopted or were in foster care.

At the time, Georgia forbade abortion except in cases of danger to the mother’s life or the possibility of a disabling injury; cases of rape; or cases in which a fetus was likely to be born with a severe anatomical anomaly or mental disability. Each potential caveat was accompanied by an almost insurmountable burden of proof: A woman who had been raped had to document it, for example, and family or friends could go to court to bar her from getting the procedure.

When a hospital refused to provide Bensing a therapeutic abortion, attorneys from the Legal Aid Society and the American Civil Liberties Union recruited her for a test case and sued Georgia attorney general Arthur Bolton. The lawyers argued that not only should “Mary Doe” have been approved for the abortion because of a psychiatric disability, but that the law infringed on her constitutional right to privacy and self-determination and prevented medical professionals from doing their jobs.

Bensing eventually got an abortion at a private hospital that was not subject to the same laws as the public hospital, but the lawsuit went forward anyway. In 1970 a three-judge District Court panel found that women had a right to pursue abortions even if they had not been raped, weren’t in danger of death, and were not carrying a fetus that was at risk of severe health concerns. The panel also ruled that restrictions on abortions within the first trimester violated women’s privacy rights—but added that states had a valid interest in overseeing abortion as part of their duty to protect life, which included fetuses.

Roe   and Doe at the Supreme Court

In 1973, both cases—and the future of abortion access in the U.S.—were in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Weddington argued Roe v. Wade before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 and 1972. She was just 26 years old at the time of the initial oral argument; the case was the first she had ever taken to trial. As she stood before the all-male justices, she argued that abortions were an individual decision and that when states like Texas forbade them, the courts were women’s only recourse.

Calling abortion “an important decision” in women’s personal lives, she pointed out the danger of pregnancy and childbirth. “A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life,” said Weddington in her arguments . “It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.”

The Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade   and Doe v. Bolton on the same day. On January 22, 1973, it found in Roe that a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy falls under her constitutional right to privacy. It also ruled that states have an interest in protecting both pregnant women and “the potentiality of human life”—allowing states to regulate abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy and enact requirements about things like the professional qualifications of people performing abortions. During the third trimester, states could prohibit the procedures as long as their laws contained exceptions for the mother’s life or ongoing health.

In Doe , the court reiterated that “a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion is not absolute”—but that it was unduly restrictive to require more than one medical practitioner or entire hospital committees to weigh in on an abortion’s necessity. The court also found that states could not at any point in pregnancy prohibit abortions deemed necessary to protect women’s health—which could include “all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the women’s age relevant to the well-being of the patient.”

Response to the rulings

In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court had swept aside a century of abortion restrictions and rendered 46 states’ laws unconstitutional. But initial response to the landmark decision was subdued and overshadowed by other political issues. Many Protestant leaders either did not publicly object to the ruling or expressed outright approval. But Catholic bishops protested immediately, and regional anti-abortion groups—which had been fighting liberalization laws in their own states—coalesced within weeks into a national movement determined to see the decisions reversed.

Meanwhile, American women responded in droves. Before Roe   and Doe , estimates suggested there were about 130,000 illegal abortions each year in the United States; afterward, as Center for Disease Control statisticians documented , that number dropped to 17,000 in 1975. The number of women formally determined to have died due to an illegal abortion dropped from 39 in 1972 to three in 1975, and they wrote that “with the continued increase in legal abortion services, illegal abortion may soon be virtually eliminated as a cause of death.”

By 1980, nearly 1.6 million abortions were performed per year in the U.S. Over time, the procedure became safer, more accessible, and less expensive, and was offered in freestanding clinics on an outpatient basis instead of just hospitals.

As for Hodgson, the doctor who defied Minnesota law, she never ended up serving jail time, and her conviction was overturned in the wake of Roe   and Doe . Despite harassment for her public stance, she spent the rest of her career performing abortions—and fighting to improve women’s reproductive health.

Related Topics

• SEXUAL HEALTH
• LAW AND LEGISLATION

Schizophrenia in women is widely misunderstood—and misdiagnosed

How U.S. abortion laws went from nonexistent to acrimonious

Birth control options for men are advancing. Here’s how they work.

You can't detox your uterus—debunking popular myths about PCOS

Should you get tested for a BRCA gene mutation? It’s complicated.

• History & Culture
• Photography
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

What is Roe v. Wade? Everything you need to know

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a woman's constitutional right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade. The landmark ruling legalized abortion nationwide but has been under attack ever since.

Who was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade?

The case was filed by Norma McCorvey , who went by the anonymous pseudonym "Jane Roe" in court documents.

In 1969, McCorvey, who lived in Texas, was 22, unmarried, and looking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But she couldn't: In Texas, it was abortion was a crime unless a woman's life was at risk. Similar statutes were in place in nearly every other state at the time.

So McCorvey, seeking to safely and legally abort her pregnancy, sued Henry Wade, the Dallas county district attorney, in 1970. The case went on to the Supreme Court.

What was the Supreme Court's decision?

On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down the watershed ruling that a woman's right to make her own medical decisions, including the choice to have an abortion, is protected under the 14th Amendment .

What changed after Roe v. Wade?

Before the ruling, there were hardly any abortion clinics, since abortion was criminalized in most of the U.S. The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision impacted laws in 46 states.

While it legalized abortion during the entirety of pregnancy, it stipulated that states could decide whether abortions were allowed during the second and third trimesters.

What was the response?

Reproductive rights activists hailed it as a victory that would result in significantly fewer women getting seriously — or even fatally — injured from abortions by unlicensed providers. Opponents contended it was tantamount to the murder of a fetus.

These viewpoints are still passionately held. The decision has never been overturned, but in the years since, hundreds of state laws have been passed that restrict access to abortion and narrow the scope of the ruling, including the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act signed by President George W. Bush in 2003, which outlaws a procedure used to perform second-trimester abortions.

In 2003, a motion to overturn the ruling was filed with the U.S. district court in Dallas by an unlikely character: McCorvey herself.

What became of 'Jane Roe'?

McCorvey was five months pregnant when she and her attorneys decided to sue. In June 1970, as the case worked its way through the legal system, her baby was born. McCorvey gave the baby girl up for adoption; the adoptive family has kept the child's identity hidden.

For several years after the ruling, McCorvey lived a low-profile life. Then in the 1980s, she revealed herself to be Jane Roe, and became an outspoken pro-abortion advocate, even working at a Dallas women's clinic where abortions were performed.

She changed her tune in 1995, when a Christian group, Operation Rescue, opened next to the clinic. By 1997, she had grown close with the group and became a born-again Christian, traveling around the country to speak out against abortion.

The 2003 motion that McCorvey filed to overturn Roe v. Wade was denied by a federal district court in Dallas that year, then by 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in 2004, and finally by the Supreme Court in 2005.

McCorvey died in an assisted living home in Texas at age 69, in February 2017.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Primary tabs.

Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court case that held that the Constitution protected the right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. In 2022, the Supreme Court reversed Roe and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey  (see entries on Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) and  abortion for further details).

Full text of Roe v. Wade (1973)

The case involved a Texas statute that prohibited abortion except when necessary to save the life of the pregnant person. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Blackmun, originally recognized a privacy interest in abortions. In doing so, the Court had applied the right to privacy established in  Griswold v Connecticut   (1965). At stake in this matter was the fundamental right of an individual to decide whether to terminate their pregnancy. The underlying values of this right included decisional autonomy and physical consequences (i.e., the interest in bodily integrity).

The Court had applied the strict scrutiny test because there was a fundamental right involved. 

The Court had divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. Originally, the Court asserted that during the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the individual. After the first trimester, the state could “ regulate procedure.” Again, originally during the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the pregnant individual's health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant person.

Justice White and Justice Rehnquist’s separate dissents emphasized that the people and the legislatures, not the Court, should weigh this matter. Justice White argued, “Its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court….” Justice Rehnquist believed that the majority had misconstrued “privacy” and argued that “[t]he Court’s sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under the standard….”

Abortion in the Supreme Court Post-Roe:

The decision in  Roe  faced a great deal of controversy, and  46 states needed to change their abortion laws  as a result of the holding. Almost 30 years later, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of abortion in  Casey v. Planned Parenthood  (1992). The  Casey  court had originally kept three findings made in  Roe : 

• Individuals have the right to abort pre-viability without undue interference from the state
• The state may restrict abortion post-viability
• The state has a legitimate interest in protecting pregnant individual's health and life of the fetus

In  Gonzales v. Carhart   (2007), the Court had upheld a  federal statute that banned partial-birth abortions . This was the first time since  Roe  that the Supreme Court upheld a ban on a type of abortion. 

In  Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt , the Court had found that "[t]wo provisions in a Texas law – requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and requiring abortion clinics in the state to have facilities comparable to an ambulatory surgical center – place a substantial obstacle in the path of individuals seeking an abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and therefore violate the Constitution." For more on the impact of  Hellerstedt , see this  Harvard Law Review note . 

Abortion Post-Dobbs :

In Dobbs v. Jackson , the Court reversed the Roe v. Wade and Casey decisions. The Dobbs court held that the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to abortion. Consequentially, rational-basis review is the new standard in reviewing state regulations of abortions. Essentially, states are now able to pass regulations for abortions “for legitimate reasons” and if presented with a constitutional challenge, the laws are entitled to a “ strong presumption of validity .” 

[Last updated in June of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

• civil rights
• the Constitution
• constitutional law
• individual rights
• wex articles
• wex definitions
• lawsuits-court
• STARE DECISIS
• Partial-Birth Abortion

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court case that expanded the “right to privacy” and determined that women have protected constitutional rights to make their own decisions regarding their pregnancy. In light of the sexual revolution during this time, Roe v. Wade divided the nation between ethics and faiths.

Using the 14 th  Amendment the U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2, in favor of Jane Roe. The Court’s ruling is still seen as the landmark case that solidified the basic rights to privacy and choice for women that were not explicitly protected before this case. The trimester test that the Court designed in Roe v. Wade was later changed to the viability test in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

During the 1960’s to the 1970’s, a new morality began to spread throughout America. Feminism and the sexual revolution combined to shift public opinion toward legalizing abortion as an equality standard. However, most states had adopted strict laws against abortion, only making it available to women whose lives were in danger without it. Roe v. Wade pressured the Supreme Court and divided much of the public, questioning the law and equality of choice for women.

Abortion laws had only been enacted throughout America during the later half of the nineteenth century, but the history of criminalizing abortions runs longer than that. Abortion for the protection of the life of the mother had been law in England since 1803, with harsh penalties for aborting a fetus that was viable or “quick.” While this law did not last, it was eventually recreated in 1861 and lasted until 1967. It is from these English statutory laws that the idea of criminalizing abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake first arose.

In the United States, English common law did not stand until Connecticut established the first abortion law in 1821. The Connecticut law also included the portion of the 1803 law involving a “woman quick with child.” The penalties for aborting a quick fetus were much more severe than aborting a child who was not quick. However, towards the later half of the nineteenth century and due to pressures from the American Medical Association, abortion laws became much more draconian. Penalties increased while the quickening provision disappeared. Almost all of the laws in that period outlawed all abortions that did not risk the life of the woman. 

However during the 1960s, a wave of liberalization appeared on the abortion issue. Before Roe v. Wade was brought before the court, one-third of states had relaxed their abortion regulations; a small few even completely decriminalized getting an abortion. The Catholic Church, a longtime proponent of anti-abortion laws, was incensed. They began the right-to-life movement, which later turned into the pro-life movement, in order to combat abortion reform. The Church began a grassroots campaign by using ministers to mobilize their congregations, but as that did not prove very effective, they began to look for Constitutional protections to unborn fetuses in order to further criminalize abortion.

Feminists on the other hand, had taken abortion as their rallying cry; the right of a woman to control her own body had a direct impact on her career goals and social well-being. The more extreme feminists wanted to allow abortions regardless of the fetus’s viability as long as the mother wanted an abortion. That was not very acceptable to the population at large, who accepted abortions were sometimes necessary but did not support outright decriminalization.

Finally, another group in the United States was against the feminists idea of unregulated abortion, but also recognized circumstances where abortion was acceptable. In one case, the face of a popular children’s show Sherri Chessen Finkbine was pregnant with a wanted child. However, she had taken a sleeping pill that, in Europe, caused children to be born without arms or legs. She had to leave the country in order to abort the fetus, but her case began a conversation about restructuring abortion laws to help both mother and child.

It was in this tumultuous political climate that Roe v. Wade was heard and decided.

Due to the strict laws on abortion it was common for women to travel to states where it was legal, making abortion much more difficult to access for poor women. Many women who wanted an abortion but could not legally or afford to go to another state for the operation, would perform abortions on their own that lead to a “high U.S. maternal mortality rate.”

Jane Roe, pregnant and single wanted to have an abortion in Texas, but Texas laws against abortion made it a felony. Unable to afford travel expenses to get an abortion in another state, Roe filed suit to contest Texas abortion laws.

Procedural History

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas After failing to circumvent the Texas’ regulations on abortions, Norma McCorvey (Jane Doe) reached out to her attorneys, who filed the complaint with the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Texas on McCorvey’s behalf. A panel of three judges heard the case in June, 1970. The Court declared the Texas Abortion laws unconstitutional on the Ninth Amendment ground. They, however, refused to grant McCorvey injunctive remedy, citing the precedents that suggest the federal judiciary to not interfere with states’ proceedings on declaratory judgements.

Supreme Court of the United States The appeal reached the Court’s docket in the same year, and was granted a hearing on April 22 nd , 1971. The first round of arguments took place on December 13 rd . The Justices heard rearguments ten months later on October 11 th , 1972. The case was ultimately decided on January 22 nd , 1973. The Court struck down the Texas abortion statutes and similar laws across state lines. It upheld in parts and reversed in parts the lower court’s decision.

Where does the Constitution guarantee the right to privacy?

Does the Constitutional right to privacy encompass a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy?

If abortion is a part of the right to privacy, does the right to privacy encompass all abortions?

In a landmark 7-2 decision, the Court held that the right to an abortion is a fundamental right in accordance to the Due Process Clause under the XIV Amendment.  The Texas statutes, as well as many other in almost all of the states, that make it a crime to assist a woman to terminate her pregnancy was declared unconstitutional and the Court said that the states’ efforts to regulate it must survive the scrutiny of “compelling state interest.”  Associate Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the majority opinion on behalf of the court, joined by Chief Justice Burger, and associate Justices Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Douglas and Powell.  Justices Burger, Douglas and Stewart concurred in judgement, while  Justices Rehnquist and White dissented; White’s dissent joined by Rehnquist.

The Court validated some of those anti-abortion laws by using the trimester test; during the first trimester, a state cannot regulate abortions. As the woman moves to the second and third trimester, states are allowed to regulate abortions because the fetus is more viable and the procedure more dangerous for the woman. While Roe v. Wade was just about the woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, the Court used this case to codify the right to privacy they said was guaranteed to the people in Griswold v. Connecticut. Rather than being implied in many places of the Constitution as they said in Griswold, the Court in Roe decided that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was the source of the right to privacy.

• Majority Opinion (Blackmun)

Justice Blackmun wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Burger, Powell, Douglas, Brennan, Marshall and Stewart. Basing his opinion on legal-medical history, new discoveries and the evolution of views surrounding the topic of abortion, Blackmun asserted that the right to an abortion is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore the Texas statutes and other state statute of its kind violate the Constitution.

Although he acknowledge the arguments concerning inception of life are unsettled, Blackmun cites the studies that reveal abortions during the first trimester are safer than childbirths. He also reject the anti-abortion camp’s rationale is that life begins at conception as the fetus cannot survive at this stage on its own. Blackmun decided that choosing whether or not to terminate one’s pregnancy during the the first trimester was a matter of privacy between the mother and the physician, and should be virtually uninfringed. However, Blackmun also dismissed the notion that the right to an abortion is absolute, claiming it has been rejected by previous precedents. He assert that the “compelling state interests” of protecting the well-being of the mother and the potentiality of human life could justify broadening regulations throughout the later stages of pregnancy.

• Concurring Opinion (Burger)

In a brief concurrence, Chief Justice Burger for the most parts agreed with the Majority opinion’s holding that the Texas statutes and the similar ones in Georgia violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Burger, however, expressed minor concerns that “ Court has taken notice of various scientific and medical data reaching its conclusion ”.

He also differed with the Majority regarding state’s regulations on personnel performing abortions, asserting that regulations found in Texas and Georgia statutes were not “ unduly burdensome ”.

• Concurring Opinion (Douglas)

Referring back to a previous case, Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court held that forbidding contraceptives is unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights and zones of privacy. The lower courts set precedent in Doe v. Bolton for other cases dealing with contraceptives and abortions, that broadened the right to privacy enough to allow women to chose. The Constitution gives women the freedom to make the decision whether to keep an “unwanted child,” since going through with childbirth can take away the life that the woman intended on. Although, this is critical it is also in the State’s interest to protect the life of the fetus if is seen to have acquired life. Creating laws that prohibit the right to chose can be potentially dangerous to both the woman and the fetus, so Douglas found that the mother has the right to chose, taking in count of the fetus if it “acquired life.”

“In short, I agree with the Court that endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health are standards too narrow for the right of privacy that is at stake. I also agree that the superstructure of medical supervision which Georgia has erected violates the patient’s right of privacy inherent in her choice of her own physician”

• Concurring Opinion (Stewart)

Justice Stewart’s opinion was unique seeing as he dissented in Griswold v. Connecticut on the grounds that the opinion marked a return to substantive due process, which he thought was not sound judicial policy. In his concurrence for Roe v. Wade, he wrote that he favored protecting the abortion right under privacy and cited several cases under privacy that he found were significantly less important than a woman’s right to privacy regarding abortion (i.e. the right to send a child to private school and the right to have one’s child taught a foreign language).

“ The ‘freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment .”

• Dissenting Opinion (White)

Per Justice White, the rationale of the Majority is that Constitution values the convenience of the mother during the early phases of the fetus’s development, therefore the Constitution protects her right to have an abortion against states’ ban on abortions with reasons other than protecting the mother’s health. But he argues that such right cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution, and that the Court “simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, […] with scarcely any reason or authority for its action , invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes”.  He concedes that this is an “exercise of raw judicial power”, but laments that the Court has overstepped the authority given by the Constitution. White contends that abortion is such a sensitive issue that each person’s opinion could differ greatly. Therefore, he believes, rather than having the Court supersede the statutes of the states regarding this issue, the decision should be left to the people and the legislatures of their states.

• Dissenting Opinion (Rehnquist)

Justice Rehnquist points out that while the Majority decided that states cannot restrict abortions during the first trimester of the pregnancy, the plaintiff was never in the first trimester throughout the course of the trial. He believes that the Court has abandoned a long standing tradition by deciding this case.

Rehnquist also argues that the Court makes a mistake by ruling that the right to an abortion falls under the right to privacy because the transaction between a licensed physician and a client is not “private” according to the common understanding of the word. He further asserts that if the Majority reasons “private” as liberty from state regulations, then according to previous assertions of the Court, the right to an abortion is not absolute against all deprivation, and only restrictions without Due Process are unconstitutional.

 Moreover, he contends that the Texas laws under questions should not be subjected by the “strict scrutiny” test, the most rigid standard of judicial review for which a compelling state interest must be demonstrated for a law to be deemed constitutional. Rehnquist states that the statutes should rather have been reviewed under a much more relaxing standard of state’s “rational relation”.

Full Text of Opinions

Significance / impact.

When the Supreme Court Justice ruled on Roe’s behalf, the decision overturned preexisting Texas laws on abortion. Presented by Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe v. Wade became the landmark case that stood for women’s constitutional rights to privacy.

However, parameters were created for the “different levels of state interest” while being narrow enough to be constitutional. Women have full sovereignty during the first trimester of her pregnancy, but due to health concerns for the mother, states may regulate abortions for 2 nd and 3 rd trimester pregnancies. The Court used the strict scrutiny test to distinguish then if such abortions are in the women’s best interest based on her health and the fetus.

By voting in favor of Jane Roe, the Court set precedent by extending the meaning of right to privacy. This specific right to have the autonomy to terminate a pregnancy was not plainly written in the Constitution, but could be found inherently in the  14 th  Amendment. The A mendment emphasized on that “although the right is not listed in the Constitution, it does not mean it is not retained and protected.

Many women rights advocates see Roe v. Wade as the landmark case that furthered and preserved rights for women. Although it emphasized women’s rights within the constitutional boundaries, this case’s main focus was mainly on the privacy of the woman’s physician.

Scholarly Commentary and Debate

Constitutional provisions.

Due Process Clause of the XIV Amendment:      […] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Major Statute(s) Under Review

Articles 1191-1194 and 1196 of the Penal Code of the State of Texas, 1961.

    *Article 1991:

If any person shall designedly administer to a pregnant woman or knowingly procure to be administered with her consent any drug or medicine, […], and thereby procure an abortion, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years if it be done without her consent, the punishment shall be doubled. […]

    *Article 1992:

Whoever furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended is an accomplice.

   * Article 1993:

If the means used shall fail to produce an abortion, the offender is nevertheless guilty of an attempt to produce abortion, […], and shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.

    *Article 1994:

If the death of the mother is occasioned by an abortion so produced or by an attempt to effect the same it is murder

    *Article 1996

Nothing in this chapter applies to an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother

Important Precedents

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) _The Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut statute that banned the use of contraceptives, noting it as “governmental intrusion” to marital privacy found in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) _The Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts statute that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried couples, ruling it as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Important Subsequent Cases

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)

Web Resources

Brief for Appellant – Statutes Involved – Abortion, Texas, Penal, and Code – JRank Articles. Available here .

Linder, Doug. “Right to an Abortion?” The Right to an Abortion . Web. 01 May 2017.  Available here .

McBride, Alex. “The Supreme Court: Roe v. Wade.” PBS . Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 01 May 2017.  Available here .

Roe v Wade: 40 Years On… The Legal History & Future of Reproductive Rights . Dir. The American Law Journal. The American Law Journal, 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 1 May 2017.  Available here .

“Roe v. Wade Fast Facts.” CNN . Cable News Network, 23 Apr. 2017. Web. 01 May 2017.  Available here

Roe v. Wade in PBS’ “The Supreme Court” . Youtube . PBS, 1 Dec. 2008. Web. 1 May 2017.  Available here .

“Roe v. Wade.” Planned Parenthood Action Fund . Planned Parenthood, n.d. Web. 01 May 2017.  Available here .

Supreme Court Justices on Roe v. Wade . Dir. PrevailVideos. Youtube . Prevail Videos, 16 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 May 2017.  Available here .

Academic Books, Articles and Law Reviews

“Abortion: Roe v. Wade…Doe v. Bolton.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 64.4 (1973): 393-98. Northwestern Law School. Web. 1 May 2017. Available here . 

Greenhouse, Linda, and Reva B. Siegel. “Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate before the Supreme Court’s Ruling.” New Haven, CT: Yale Law School, 2012. Yale Law School. Web. 1 May 2017.  Available here . Ruth B. Ginsburg. “Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade.” 63 N.C. L. Rev. 375 (1985).  Available here .

Ziegler, Mary. “Beyond Backlash: Legal History, Polarization, and Roe v. Wade.” Washington and Lee Law Review 71.2 (2014): 969-1021. Web. Available here .

Contributors

Spring 2017: Bao Dinh, Helen Chin, Nicholas Bloom, Myicia Wheat

Roe v. Wade , Explained: A Summary of the Landmark Abortion Case

The Supreme Court overruled it today.

The decision comes as SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, which asked the Court to examine the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The news also arrives about a month after Politico reported a leaked draft majority decision signaling the Court’s plans to overturn Roe .

Such a dramatic move by the Court is sure to impact millions of women and pregnant people, creating a ripple effect across the nation. But how these impacts will be felt on a state-by-state level is complex, and thus it’s worth breaking down the origins of Roe in simple, digestible terms. Let’s dig in.

What is Roe v. Wade ?

“ Roe ” has become shorthand for the Supreme Court case known as Roe v. Wade . First argued in 1971 and decided in 1973, the case examined whether the U.S. Constitution recognizes a woman’s right to end her pregnancy. Ultimately, the Supreme Court justices, by a 7-2 vote, decided that, yes, abortion is a constitutional right.

Who brought the case before the Supreme Court?

The case was put forth in 1970 by Jane Roe, the alias of a Texas woman who brought the case against Henry Wade, then the district attorney of Dallas County. In an eerie mirror to the present state of Texan politics , Texas law at the time deemed abortion illegal except in instances where it would prevent a mother’s death. Roe’s lawyers argued such caveats were vague and unconstitutional, and that making abortion illegal infringed upon Roe’s right to privacy.

Why did the Court rule in favor of abortion’s constitutionality?

In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court argued that making abortion broadly illegal violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures a citizen’s right to privacy. The clause reads that “no State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” in essence meaning states must respect the rights afforded to Americans. Within the context of Roe v. Wade , a person’s bodily autonomy was considered part of their right to privacy, with excessive government regulation of a person’s body being unconstitutional.

More specifically, the Court argued that abortions should be treated differently at various points in a person’s pregnancy: In the first trimester, abortion may not be regulated by anyone besides a pregnant person and their doctor; in the second, a state may regulate abortion if such a regulation is “reasonably related to maternal health.” Finally, in the third trimester, once a fetus is “viable”—in other words, can survive outside the womb—states may regulate or prohibit abortion altogether, except in cases where the act is medically necessary to save a life.

Is Roe v. Wade a federal law?

No. Roe v. Wade is constitutional precedent, not a federal law. The Supreme Court and the wider judicial branch determine whether or not it is constitutional for a state to enact certain laws. But the Court itself does not codify those laws—that’s the job of the legislative branch.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill could codify abortion protections into federal law, meaning that abortion would remain legal regardless of the Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade . However, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would’ve codified the right to an abortion, failed to pass in the Senate in May.

What does the Supreme Court overturning Roe mean for abortion access in America?

With Roe v. Wade overturned , the question of abortion’s legality would be decided entirely by individual states. Now that the case is overturned, abortion could become outright illegal in numerous states.

The Center for Reproductive Rights , a human rights organization and pro-choice group, maintains a database called “What if Roe fell?” which predicts at least 25 states are expected to ban abortion altogether if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade also calls into question the legitimacy of the Court, which is expected to maintain precedent. Such precedent prevents landmark decisions from shifting every few decades and ensures governmental stability. But in a time of increasingly polarized politics, it seems unlikely that this Court will respect precedent.

News & Politics

The Women Bringing Suffs to Broadway

Abby Phillip Is Bringing Empathy to Cable News

Veronica Escobar Is a Voice for Border Communities

The Systemic Attack on Our Private Health Data

Rep. Barbara Lee on Shirley Chisholm

Alabama Tried to Control My Frozen Embryos. What’s

Women Can Get Birth Control Without Prescription

The No Apologies Tour

Olivia Giving Out Condoms at Gigs Is Perfection

The Gender Refugees

Books About Abortion That Aren’t ‘Handmaid’s Tale’

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Research & Reports

Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court Abortion Cases

Reproductive rights in the United States, explained.

Is abortion a constitutional right?

Roe v. wade, what was the impact of the roe v. wade decision.

• The law after  Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court justices’ abortion views

Not under the U.S. Constitution, according to the current Supreme Court. In  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization  (2022), the Supreme Court overturned  Roe v. Wade  (1973), which guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion. Some state constitutions, however, independently protect abortion rights.

In  Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment protected abortion as a fundamental right. However, the government retained the power to regulate or restrict abortion access depending on the stage of pregnancy. And after fetal viability, outright bans on abortion were permitted if they contained exceptions to preserve life and health. 

For the following 49 years, states, health care providers, and citizens fought over what limits the government could place on abortion access, particularly during the second and third trimesters. But abortion was fundamentally legal in all 50 states during that period.

Writing for the majority in  Dobbs , Justice Samuel Alito said that the only legitimate unenumerated rights — that is, rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution — are those “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Abortion, the majority held, is not such a right. 

Following  Dobbs , reproductive rights are being decided state by state.  Constitutions in 10 states  — Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, and New Mexico — have been interpreted by state high courts to guarantee the right to abortion or protect access more strongly than the federal constitution. Other state legislatures have passed laws protecting abortion rights. Many states, however, have  made abortion illegal .

The road to  Roe

Abortion was illegal in most states in the 1960s, often with no exceptions for cases of rape or threat to life. A pair of high-profile crises, however, shined a spotlight on the impact of these restrictions.

Beginning in the late 1950s, thousands of babies were born with severe birth defects after their mothers took the morning sickness drug thalidomide while pregnant. The most well-known case was that of Sherri Finkbine, a host of the children’s television program  Romper Room , who was forced to travel to Sweden to obtain an abortion. A Gallup poll showed, perhaps surprisingly given the legal backdrop, that a majority of Americans  supported  Finkbine’s decision.

Shortly after the thalidomide scandal, an epidemic of rubella, or German measles, swept across the country. Babies that survived rubella in utero were often born with a  wide range of disabilities  such as deafness, heart defects, and liver damage. (A  rubella vaccine  didn’t become available until 1971.)

It was in this environment of maternal risk that high-profile doctors like  Alan Guttmacher  began to argue publicly that abortion should be treated like other medical procedures — as a decision to be made between physician and patient.

Griswold v. Connecticut  (1965)

While thalidomide and rubella impacted public perspectives on abortion, a series of cases built the foundation for the coming revolution in abortion law. The first involved the right to contraception, and the story begins in the 19th century.

In 1879, Connecticut senator P.T. Barnum (yes,  that  P.T. Barnum)  introduced a bill  barring not only contraceptives but also the distribution of information relating to them. The Barnum Act was still on the books in Connecticut in 1960, when the Food and Drug Administration approved the first oral contraceptive. Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was fined $100 for violating the law. Her appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court.

In  Griswold v. Connecticut , a seven-justice majority struck down the Barnum Act. Justice William O. Douglas explained that the Bill of Rights implies a right to privacy because when viewed as a coherent whole, it focuses on limiting government intrusions. The  Griswold  majority held that the government cannot prevent married couples from accessing contraception. (At the time, the justices did not extend the right to unmarried people.)  Griswold ’s contention that the Constitution creates a zone of privacy into which the government cannot enter paved the way for  Roe , among other landmark decisions.

Eisenstadt v. Baird  (1972)

The road from  Griswold  to  Roe  was not perfectly straight. Two years after  Griswold , reproductive rights activist  William Baird  offered contraceptives to an unmarried woman after a lecture on contraception to students at Boston University. He was sentenced to three months in prison.

Like Estelle Griswold, Baird appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. In  Eisenstadt v. Baird , the Justices extended  Griswold . Justice William Brennan, writing for the six-justice majority, explained that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. There was no reason to treat married and unmarried people differently with regard to contraception.

United States v. Vuitch  (1971) 

Over the course of nine years, Washington, DC,–based physician Milan Vuitch was  arrested 16 times  for performing abortions, which had been illegal in the district since 1901 except “as necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life or health.”

Vuitch appealed his eventual conviction, arguing in part that the exception for “health” was unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court disagreed in  United States v. Vuitch . Taking a broad view of the word “health,” the justices ruled that abortion was legal in the district whenever necessary to protect mental or physical health.

The significance of  Vuitch , however, was to be short-lived.  Roe v. Wade  was already wending its way through the courts by the time of the decision. The day after they decided  Vuitch , the justices voted to hear  Roe . 

The parties to  Roe

Texan Norma McCorvey became pregnant for the third time in 1969. Struggling with drug and alcohol use, she previously relinquished responsibility for her first two children. She decided that she did not want to continue the pregnancy. 

Texas law, however, allowed abortion only to save the patient’s life. With McCorvey six months pregnant, Texas lawyers Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed a suit on her behalf in federal court under the pseudonym Jane Roe.

Henry Wade was a legendary and  controversial  district attorney with an impressive conviction rate, most famous for prosecuting  Jack Ruby , who killed JFK’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Wade was, however, an odd foil for pro-choice activists. He did not aggressively prosecute illegal abortions and said little about them.

The lower court

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas  struck down  Texas’s abortion ban, finding it overbroad and locating the right to reproductive choice in the 9th and 14th Amendments. Citing  Griswold , the court noted that the Constitution guarantees “the right of choice over events which, by their character and consequences, bear in a fundamental manner on the privacy of individuals.” While the federal court declared the Texas law unconstitutional, it declined to immediately block its enforcement, putting  Roe v. Wade  on a fast track to the Supreme Court.

Norma McCorvey gave birth to a girl, Shelley Lynn, on June 2, 1970, fifteen days before the federal district court issued its ruling. The baby was adopted when she was three days old. Her identity was not known to the public until 2021. 

The  Roe v. Wade  oral argument

Sarah Weddington, who was just 26 years old when she stood before the justices of the Supreme Court on December 13, 1971, built her case for the constitutional right to abortion around the 9th and 14th Amendments, arguing that “meaningful” liberty must include the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Although the justices were largely receptive to Weddington’s points, Justice Byron White demanded to know whether the right to abortion extended right up to the moment of birth. After some hesitation, Weddington answered yes. Legal personhood began at birth, Weddington claimed. Until that moment, there should be an unfettered constitutional right to abortion.

After Weddington sat down, Texas Assistant Attorney General Jay Floyd stood to defend the state law. He began, inexplicably, with a sexist joke: “It’s an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.” The bafflingly inappropriate comment was followed by three seconds of dead silence.

There was, however, one moment of wit in the argument. When Floyd argued that a woman who becomes pregnant has already made her choice, Justice Potter Stewart shot back, “Maybe she makes a choice when she decides to live in Texas!” The retort brought roars of laughter from the gallery.

Of particular note is how little the oral argument focused on the history of abortion laws during the founding or the post–Civil War era when the 14th Amendment was ratified. The justices focused instead on the biological realities of abortion and the text of the Constitution itself.

Also interesting: Justice Harry Blackmun, who would write the majority opinion in  Roe v. Wade , spoke only twice during the oral argument. By contrast, Justice Thurgood Marshall spoke more than 10 times, Justices White and William Brennan more than 20 times, and Justice Stewart more than 30. (Perhaps this was because Blackmun was initially inclined to  write a much more restrained opinion  than he ultimately did.)

The  Roe v. Wade  opinion

The Supreme Court handed down its decision on January 22, 1973. Seven of the nine justices agreed that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment — which says that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” — implies a right to privacy. The majority seized upon Weddington’s definition of liberty, citing a series of prior cases indicating that the term “liberty” must be interpreted broadly in a free society.

The justices did, however, recognize that the state could place some limits on abortion if necessary to further a compelling state interest. The state’s ability to regulate increased as a pregnancy progressed. And after a fetus reached viability, the state could prohibit abortion, except when necessary to protect health or life.

Justices William Rehnquist and White dissented. Rehnquist argued that privacy, in the constitutional sense of illegal search and seizure, has nothing to do with abortion. In his view, since abortion bans implicate no fundamental rights, they must only have some rational basis, such as protecting a fetus. Foreshadowing the  Dobbs  decision in 2022, Rehnquist also declared that the only recognizable rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution are those with deep roots in the American legal tradition.

Doe v. Bolton  (1973)

On the same day the Supreme Court decided  Roe , it decided  Doe v. Bolton , which challenged Georgia’s abortion ban. The Georgia law limited abortion to cases of documented rape, a severely disabled fetus, or a threat to life. Before the procedure, it was necessary to obtain the approval of a doctor, two additional consulting physicians, and a hospital committee. The law also permitted relatives to challenge the abortion decision. It was, in short, a burdensome process.

In another 7–2 vote, with Blackmun again writing for the majority, the Court ruled that although the rights identified in  Roe  are not absolute, Georgia’s restrictions violated the constitutional right to abortion. He noted that the law established hurdles that were far higher than those that had to be overcome for other surgical procedures.

White and Rehnquist again dissented.

Roe  significantly reduced maternal mortality. A total of 39 women are known to have  died from unsafe abortions  in 1972, and this was almost certainly a drastic undercount. In 1975, there were only three such deaths. In 1965, eight years before  Roe  was decided, illegal abortion  caused 17 percent of pregnancy-related deaths . In modern times, just 0.2 percent of people who undergo abortions even require hospitalization for complications.

It’s not entirely clear what effect  Roe  had on public attitudes toward abortion because public opinion was already in flux before the case was decided. In 1965, just  5 percent  of Americans thought abortion should be legal for married people who simply didn’t want any more children. That number had risen to 36 percent by 1972, the year before  Roe  was decided. After  Roe  came down, pollsters began asking about abortion “for any reason,” and the polls show  relative stability  in the responses to that question since the mid-1970s.

The law after Roe v. Wade

Lingering resistance to abortion, particularly strong in certain parts of the country, led legislatures to test the decision’s boundaries. The Supreme Court issued many major abortion rulings up to the overturning of  Roe v. Wade  in the 2022 case  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization .

• In  Planned Parenthood v. Danforth   (1976), the justices blocked a law requiring spousal consent for abortion.
• Maher v. Roe   (1979) permitted states to exclude abortion services from Medicaid coverage.
• Colautti v. Franklin   (1979) struck down an unconstitutionally vague Pennsylvania law that required physicians to try to save the life of a fetus that might have been viable.
• In  Harris v. McRae   (1980), the Court upheld the  Hyde Amendment , a federal law that proscribed federal funding for abortions except when necessary to preserve life or as a result of rape or incest.
• In  L. v. Matheson   (1981), the Court upheld a law requiring parental notification when the patient is a minor living with parents.
• In  City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health   (1983), the justices invalidated a wide range of limitations on abortion, such as a waiting period, parental consent without judicial bypass, and a ban on abortions outside of hospitals after the first trimester.
• Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists   (1986) struck down a law that required informed consent to include information about fetal development and alternatives to abortion.
• In  Webster v. Reproductive Health Services   (1989), Justice Rehnquist upheld rules requiring doctors to test for viability after 20 weeks and blocking state funding and state employee participation in abortion services.
• Rust v. Sullivan   (1991) upheld a ban on certain federal funds being used for abortion referrals or counseling.
• Hill v. Colorado   (2000) upheld a law limiting protest and leafletting close to an abortion clinic.
• Stenberg v. Carhart   (2000) struck down Nebraska’s ban on the  dilation and extraction  abortion procedure.
• In  Gonzales v. Carhart   (2007), a slightly changed Court upheld a federal ban on the dilation and extraction procedure.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey  (1992)

One case in the period between  Roe  and  Dobbs  deserves special attention. Through the 1980s, abortion opponents demanded the appointment of Supreme Court justices who would overturn  Roe . With the confirmation of Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, and David Souter, anti-abortion activists were confident they had the votes.

In 1988 and 1989, the Pennsylvania legislature adopted new abortion restrictions, including parental consent requirements, spousal notification, a waiting period, and an expanded informed consent process. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania challenged the law, and many viewed the case as  Roe ’s last stand — an opportunity for the Court to do away with the constitutional right to abortion.

In  Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey , however, the new members of the Court disappointed anti-abortion advocates. While the Court replaced  Roe ’s trimester-by-trimester doctrine with a weaker level of protection and upheld elements of the Pennsylvania law that did not unduly burden the right to abortion, the justices declined to overrule  Roe . A plurality opinion authored by O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter explained that, while Supreme Court precedents are not eternal, there must be a compelling reason to abandon  stare decisis  — the notion that precedents should be upheld. The Court decided there was no adequate justification for overturning  Roe , especially since Americans had arranged their lives around an expectation of control over their reproductive health, including having access to abortion.  Casey  also acknowledged the strong equality concerns that justify abortion rights, arguing that women cannot participate fully in the social and economic life of the nation if they are forced to continue unwanted pregnancies. 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization  (2022)

In 2018, the Mississippi legislature  banned abortions  after 15 weeks of gestation, except in cases of narrowly defined medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality. The law was a challenge to both  Roe  and  Casey . Jackson Woman’s Health Organization, the sole abortion provider in the state, contested the ban.

Long before  Dobbs  was decided, signs pointed to the Supreme Court’s intention to rescind the constitutional right to abortion. First, in a separate case that first appeared on the Court’s  shadow docket , the justices  allowed a Texas abortion ban  that contravened  Roe  and  Casey  to remain in force. Then, in the weeks before  Dobbs  came down, a draft decision overturning  Roe  and  Casey  leaked out of the Court in an unprecedented breach of Court protocol. 

The final  decision  was little changed from the leaked draft. Writing for the five-justice majority (with Chief Justice Roberts concurring only in the judgment), Justice Samuel Alito argued that the right to privacy is not specifically guaranteed anywhere in the Constitution. When unenumerated liberty rights exist — the right to raise your child as you see fit, for example — those rights must be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” Reviewing the history of abortion restrictions in the early United States, Alito concluded that the right to abortion is not.

The opinion ignited a firestorm of controversy. Predictably so:  Dobbs  is arguably the first case to formally rescind a fundamental constitutional right. The opinion also  failed to explain  how its logic would not also result in the overturning of  Griswold ’s right to contraception or a series of other cases that rely on the same logic as  Roe . These include  Lawrence v. Texas  (2003), which invalidated laws criminalizing same-sex intimate sexual conduct, and  Obergefell v. Hodges  (2015), which recognized the right to marriage for same-sex couples. 

Also, for many Americans, Alito’s insistence that rights be “deeply rooted” in U.S. history revealed a broad discounting of historically marginalized communities, including women, people of color, and gay Americans. The only rights “deeply rooted” in our history are the ones that served the white, heterosexual men who dominated government at the time of the founding. While  Casey  had begun to address the equality dimensions of abortion rights,  Dobbs  moved in precisely the opposite direction, suggesting that non-majority groups must overcome special hurdles to have their rights recognized.

Abortion rights will now be defined on a state-by-state basis. Several state courts have ruled that their constitutions  guarantee the right to abortion , whether because of explicit references to “privacy” or by relying on language that broadly protects personal autonomy. The  Kansas Supreme Court , for example, has ruled that the constitution’s guarantee of “equal and inalienable natural rights” protects personal decision-making, self-determination, and bodily integrity. Other states have adopted an approach consistent with  Roe , in which the right to privacy, including reproductive freedom, has been recognized as implied in the state constitution.

Following the  Dobbs  case, anti-abortion activists have proposed state constitutional amendments stating that nothing in the constitution protects abortion rights. In some cases, these measures seek to overrule their state courts’ interpretations of the constitution. In others, there has been no court decision regarding the constitutional right to abortion. Other states have, in contrast, moved to expand or cement abortion rights, including through constitutional amendments.

Dobbs  also leaves a long list of unanswered practical questions. Can states ban women from traveling to obtain an abortion? How will they police the importation and use of abortion drugs? How will state courts handle the slew of “trigger laws” — state anti-abortion statutes designed to come into effect upon the overturning of  Roe ? Just as  Roe  set off years of legal uncertainty over the precise boundaries of abortion rights,  Dobbs  has launched a long period of uncertainty over states’ power to restrict abortion in the absence of those rights.

The current Court

• Chief Justice John   Roberts , during his time as a lawyer for the George W. Bush administration, wrote that  Roe  has “ no support  in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.” In his  Dobbs  concurrence, however, Roberts favored preserving a more limited constitutional right to abortion, without specifying how far it would extend. “Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of  stare decisis .”
• Justice Clarence Thomas , who was in the  Dobbs  majority, has written that  Roe  was “grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its core holding — that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child —  finds no support  in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
• Justice Samuel Alito  complained as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration about “the courts’ refusal to  allow breathing room  for reasonable state regulation” of abortion. In a job application, he wrote, “I personally believe very strongly that the Constitution  does not protect  a right to an abortion.” As the authority of the majority opinion in  Dobbs , he wrote that “ Roe  was . . . egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.”
• Justice Neil Gorsuch , who was in the  Dobbs  majority, has said and written less on abortion than many other justices, but during his confirmation hearing, he noted that  Roe  was “a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court” and added, “once a case is settled, that  adds to the determinacy  of the law.”
• Justice Amy Coney Barrett  added her name to a 2006 ad  calling for  Roe  to be overturned  and suggested that the possibility of adoption might  obviate the need for abortion rights .
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh , in 2017, proclaimed his admiration of former justice Rehnquist’s  Roe  dissent, noting that his views about unenumerated rights were “successful in  stemming the general tide  of freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.”
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson  repeatedly described  Roe  as “settled law” in her confirmation hearings. In the same hearings, when asked when human life begins, she replied simply, “ I don’t know .”
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor  has focused much of her writing about abortion on the cost that bans impose on those who are economically disadvantaged. Objecting to the Court’s decision to allow a Texas abortion ban to stand, Sotomayor wrote, “Those without the ability to make this journey [to a state allowing abortion], whether due to lack of money or childcare or employment flexibility or the myriad other constraints that shape people’s day-to-day lives, may be forced to carry to term against their wishes or  resort to dangerous methods of self-help .” The  Dobbs  dissent, authored by Justice Breyer and joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, continued that theme of disempowerment, lamenting the end of an era in which “respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.”
• Justice Elena Kagan  has a significant and slightly complicated record on abortion. As a lawyer in the Clinton administration, she wrote a  memo recommending  that the president sign a ban on “partial birth abortion” if it contained an exception in cases of serious risk to health. As a justice, however, Kagan has voted consistently against restrictions on abortion. She called a recent Texas abortion ban “patently unconstitutional” and dissented forcefully in  Dobbs . 

Notable past justices

• Justice Stephen Breyer : “Millions of Americans  believe that life begins at conception  and consequently that an abortion is akin to causing the death of an innocent child . . . Other millions fear that a law that forbids abortion would condemn many American women to lives that lack dignity, depriving them of equal liberty and leading those with least resources to undergo illegal abortions with the attendant risks of death and suffering.”
• Chief Justice Warren Burger : “The Constitution  does not compel a state to fine-tune its statutes  so as to encourage or facilitate abortions. To the contrary, state action ‘encouraging childbirth except in the most urgent circumstances’ is ‘rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of protecting potential life.’”
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg : “ Roe v. Wade  sparked public opposition and academic criticism, in part, I believe, because the Court  ventured too far in the change it ordered  and presented an incomplete justification for its action.”
• Justice Sandra Day O’Connor : “The  Roe  framework . . . is  clearly on a collision course  with itself.”
• Chief Justice William Rehnquist : “We do not see why the state’s interest in protecting human life should  come into existence only at the point of viability .”
• Justice Antonin Scalia : “We should get out of this area [abortion law], where we have no right to be, and where we  do neither ourselves nor the country  any good by remaining.”
• Justice Byron White : “The Court apparently  values the convenience of the pregnant mother  more than the continued existence of the life or potential life that she carries.”
• Justice William J. Brennan Jr. : “If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be  free from unwanted government intrusion  into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision to bear or beget a child.”
• Justice Anthony Kennedy : “Where it has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the State may  use its regulatory power  to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.”
• Justice David Souter : “I have not got any agenda on  what should be done with  Roe v. Wade , if that case is brought before me.”

Government Classification and the Mar-a-Lago Documents

Understanding how the classification system works is critical to understanding Trump’s culpability — legal and otherwise.

What Gifts Must Supreme Court Justices Disclose?

There are significant loopholes in the rules that apply to the high court.

Myths and Realities: Understanding Recent Trends in Violent Crime

The recent rise in crime is extraordinarily complex. Policymakers and the public should not jump to conclusions or expect easy answers.

Informed citizens are democracy’s best defense

Live updates: The Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

In a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a strict Mississippi abortion law. It also overturned Roe v. Wade , the 50-year-old case that was the basis for legal abortion across the United States.

These are some of the stories we're following:

• The majority opinion: The Roe decision was “ egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,” the court stated in a syllabus included with its lengthy decision.
• Scathing dissent: "After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had ," wrote Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
• What happens next: Widespread bans on abortion in the United States likely will have far-reaching effects .

At least 10 people were arrested during protests in Eugene, Ore.

By Laura Benshoff

Police in Eugene, Ore., arrested 10 people during a demonstration outside of a crisis pregnancy center on Friday night, according to a statement on the city’s website.

Earlier in the day, hundreds had rallied peacefully in front of the federal courthouse in Eugene, joining a national wave of abortion rights protests following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade .

At around 9:21 p.m., people began arriving at the Dove Medical Center, responding to a social media post calling for a “Night of Rage,” police said. A flyer for the event published in Eugene Weekly read, “If abortions aren’t safe, then they aren’t either.”

The center is “a faith-based, patient-centered organization that encourages informed decision-making about unintended pregnancy,” according to then-CEO Beverly Anderson in a 2014 interview . But such centers do not actually provide reproductive health care and instead focus on counseling pregnant people into not having an abortion, according to Planned Parenthood.

In response, Eugene Police’s Mobile Response Team blocked access to the building with a line of vehicles and officers. During the five-hour standoff, protesters shut down 11th Avenue. Police reported that “unknown people in the crowd threw smoke bombs at officers along with several filled water bottles.”

After 2 a.m., police began firing pepperballs and arresting those who would not heed a warning to disperse. One arrest was caught on video by local Register-Guard reporter Louis Krauss.

Someone just got detained by police. pic.twitter.com/BRdWemU055 — Louis Krauss (@louiskraussnews) June 25, 2022

This is not the only incident of police breaking up protesters angry about the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. The Los Angeles Police Department declared protests there an “unlawful assembly” on Friday and made some arrests , according to local news outlets.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU sue Utah to stop its abortion 'trigger ban'

By Emma Bowman

Planned Parenthood of Utah and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Utah over its 'trigger law' banning most abortions.

The lawsuit argues that the state's abortion ban violates the Utah Constitution — which, Planned Parenthood said , "protects pregnant Utahns’ rights to determine when and whether to have a family, and to determine what happens with their own bodies and lives."

Utah's trigger law, which passed in the state in 2020, makes abortion a crime, excepting if a mother’s life is at risk, there is a serious fetal abnormality, or if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. The law took effect on Friday after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade .

Around the nation, demonstrators show support for abortion rights

As nearly two dozen states move to ban or restrict access to abortion following Friday’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, reproductive rights protests continued across the country.

Marchers streamed through downtown Boston, with changes of “What do we want? Abortion rights,” according to GBH’s Jeremy Siegel .

The scene outside Government Center in Boston a day after #SCOTUS overturns #RoeVWade ⁦ @GBHNews ⁩ pic.twitter.com/b8dOMgm9oF — Jeremy Siegel (@jersiegel) June 25, 2022

In Philadelphia, Democratic attorney general and candidate for governor Josh Shapiro held a rally near the Liberty Bell, putting November’s election in focus. With a GOP majority in both chambers, the Keystone State could restrict abortion if a Republican wins the gubernatorial race.

Shapiro told the crowd of more than a thousand, “The reason why I’m hopeful today is because you’re here,” reported WHYY’s Emily Rizzo.

I’m at the National Constitution Center in Philly, where Josh Shapiro and other local officials are rallying in support of abortion rights. After speaking to just a few people, there’s lots of anger and concern that so much hinges on this race for governor. pic.twitter.com/gQ1iZbxX4O — Emily Rizzo (@_emilyrizzo_) June 25, 2022

In a statement, state Sen. Doug Mastriano, the GOP candidate, said, “Roe v. Wade is rightly relegated to the ash heap of history.”

He is the prime sponsor of a bill to restrict abortion in Pennsylvania.

In Washington, D.C., protesters in favor of abortion rights continued gathering for a second day of protest in front of the Supreme Court building, NPR's Danielle Kurtzleben reports.

Anyway here are some photos of people out protesting. pic.twitter.com/OAVFFhseFs — Danielle Kurtzleben (@titonka) June 25, 2022

One man even slept on top of D.C.’s Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge as a form of protest, Business Insider reports .

While most rallies were entirely peaceful, deputies with the Arizona Department of Public Safety fired tear gas at demonstrators outside of the capitol building in Phoenix, Arizona, on Friday. It briefly disrupted the legislative session, according to KJZZ’s Ben Giles.

“Republican state Sen. T.J. Shope said senators briefly evacuated the chamber and sheltered in an underground tunnel connecting the House and Senate before returning to work,” he reported on Saturday.

Arizona Department of Public Safety deputies fired tear gas on protesters gathered at the state Capitol on Friday night. @ben_giles reports. https://t.co/fFJy1ZyAUH — KJZZ Phoenix (@kjzzphoenix) June 25, 2022

And in Seattle last night, KNKX's Bellamy Pailthorp reports protesters risked an arrest to stage a sit-in on Second Avenue near the Jackson Federal Building, with another sit-in taking place at Pike Place Market, a popular tourist destination.

A Seattle-based abortion care provider explains how clinics will change

By Shauneen Miranda

Patients and medical professionals in states that banned abortion in recent days already have begun looking for providers in other states.

Dr. Charlie Browne, a Seattle-based physician with clinics in Washington, Oregon and Nevada, said he already has noticed an uptick in the number of patients calling from the neighboring states of Arizona, Utah and Idaho to schedule the procedure.

Arizona had a pre- Roe abortion ban on the books, while Utah and Idaho both had passed trigger bans prior to the Supreme Court striking down the 50-year-old abortion precedent.

“When things like this happen, the public may not quite understand what it means for them in their home state, so people tend to really react sometimes in ways they may not even have to, because their right to have an abortion in their state hasn’t been taken away yet,” Browne told NPR’s Susan Davis. "But for those states that it will be taken away … we already are seeing a flurry of calls.

“Just like we’ve seen an uptick in patients from other states, I’ve had an uptick in providers from other states who call or email to say they’d like to start seeing patients in these states that are protected.”

Browne said he shudders to think about the return of self-attempted abortions, which can lead to sepsis or other dire medical situations for people who try to end their own pregnancies.

The Supreme Court sees a second day of protests after it overturns Roe

By Danielle Kurtzleben

Hundreds were again in front of the Supreme Court, with the crowd growing steadily since noon Saturday. While protesters from both sides of the abortion debate are present, people supporting abortion rights appear to make up most of the crowd.

There's a mix of passion and frustration among those who back abortion rights. Carolyn Yunker, who lives in Maryland, has given up hope on congressional action.

"I have as little faith in Democrats at this point as I did in Republicans," she said. "Democrats have used this for 50 years to fundraise. They had opportunities to codify Roe ; they chose not to."

Among those opposing abortion rights, there's a sense of celebration, but also that there are now many more fights to have at the state level.

Mauricio Leone flew in from California after he heard of the decision and is protesting with Live Action. He believes that he and the group now have a duty to "educate people about abortion," and that there's a particular need to talk to men.

"They should be able to support women and everything they need. They should provide emotional support or economic support," he said. "They should provide everything that they can so women feel better about their pregnancies."

More protests may be coming soon. Calls have been circulating online among abortion rights supporters to protest at conservative justices' homes around the D.C. area.

Wisconsin doctors are likely bound by a 19th-century ban

By Jenny Peek and Madeline Fox

Wisconsin doctors are scrambling to figure out how to approach reproductive care after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade .

Without the landmark decision that affirmed the constitutional right to an abortion, Wisconsin providers are likely bound by a 19th-century ban on nearly all abortions that is still on the books. But many aren't sure exactly what that means for how they can advise and treat patients around pregnancy in 2022.

Read more at wpr.org , home of Wisconsin Public Radio.

Boston’s Cardinal Seán O’Malley praises the Supreme Court's abortion ruling

The Catholic Church's Cardinal Seán O’Malley praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade , calling it “a new chapter.”

“For all of us who have spoken, written, worked, marched, and prayed to reverse Roe v. Wade, [the] Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson is deeply significant and encouraging,” the archbishop of Boston wrote in a statement.

Read the full statement .

Mississippi clinic at center of the court ruling is about to close. The owner says it will open one in New Mexico

By Rosemary Westwood and Shauneen Miranda

Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi clinic at the center of the Supreme Court decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade , has only days left before it will close its doors for good.

The trigger law banning most abortions will take effect in just 9 days. The only exceptions to abortion in Mississippi will be in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the pregnant person.

The Jackson clinic told WWNO’s Rosemary Westwood it is fully booked and not accepting any more appointments as it tries to schedule in as many people as possible before closing.

“We’re not laying down, we’re not giving up,” said Diane Derzis, owner of the Jackson clinic.

“Women have always had abortions no matter what it took, even if it was their life, and we’re going to make sure that that’s not on the line here,” she said.

Derzis plans to open a new clinic in New Mexico, and she said it will help women get there from other states.

Listen to the story

Louisville reacts with mixed emotions after trigger law bans abortions in Kentucky

By Leila Fadel and Shauneen Miranda

While some celebrated the new abortion ban in Kentucky , others protested with rage.

The state’s trigger ban immediately went into effect Friday after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade .

EMW Women’s Surgical Center, the only independent abortion clinic in Kentucky, is closed and no longer providing abortion care. EMW shares a wall with BsideU for Life, a clinic whose goal is to convince women not to get an abortion.

The majority of people in Kentucky – 57% – support an abortion ban, according to a Pew poll. There will be a festival Saturday in Louisville to celebrate the new abortion ban.

But on Friday, hundreds of people in Louisville protested against the Supreme Court’s ruling. One of them was Stephanie Aybare.

“I'm scared for all of the women in my life, scared for all of the teenagers, all the girls who are now able to have babies, I'm scared for everybody, I'm just angry,” Aybare told NPR.

Aybare said she’s worried that access to birth control is next.

NPR also spoke with a 63-year-old woman who requested the recorder be turned off during an interview due to the sensitivity of her story.

The woman said she got an abortion in Kentucky nearly 50 years ago when Roe v. Wade first became law after being repeatedly raped at the age of 13 and without money, family support or the ability to care for a baby.

The woman said she feels like that powerless teen again and is thinking of all the 13-year-old girls who might be out there with a similar story but would today be forced to continue the pregnancy.

Eight people’s stories about abortion, told in their own words

WBEZ spoke to residents in the Chicago area about their personal experiences and varied perspectives on abortion.

Here are some of their stories , told in their own words, and edited for brevity.

California's governor signs a bill to shield patients threatened by abortion bans in other states

By Chris Nichols

Gov. Gavin Newsom says California will take extra steps to ensure it is a safe haven for people seeking abortions from out-of-state following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade .

“I want people to know all around the rest of the country and many parts of the globe, that I hope we’re your antidote to your fear, your anxiety,” Newsom said at a news conference in Sacramento.

During his remarks, the governor signed Assembly Bill 1666 , which is intended to shield patients and providers who have or assist with an abortion in California from being sued in other states with abortion bans.

Read more at capradio.org .

Abortion providers shift practices as states enact bans

While the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, abortion providers in some states already had a preview of a post-Roe world.

When Texas' law restricting abortions took effect last year, the Trust Women clinic in Oklahoma City doubled the number of days a week it provided abortions, according to Dr. Maya Bass. Even so, many pregnant people had to wait, to save money for a longer trip or to get off the waitlist.

"So we're seeing people who are later in pregnancy. We're seeing people who are sicker," Bass said.

This May, Oklahoma banned almost all abortions.

The clinic shut down. Once again, providers shifted to expand appointments elsewhere — this time, in Kansas, where abortion remains legal.

Abortion funds and clinics also started doing more outreach and education. In some states, pills that induce an abortion are available by mail. Providers expanded efforts to counsel patients over the phone about where to get them and how to use them.

"In a lot of ways, this is going to look different than before Roe. But if people don't know about [medication abortion], they might try other less safe options," Bass said.

Listen to this story

Biden vows to do what he can to protect women’s rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe

President Biden on Saturday said his administration will monitor how states implement abortion restrictions following the Supreme Court’s decision a day earlier to overturn Roe v. Wade .

“Jill and I know how painful and devastating the decision is for so many Americans — and I mean so many Americans,” Biden said, just before he signed the first major gun safety bill into law in roughly three decades.

Biden said the decision is left up to the states, which each have their own laws regarding abortion rights. A number of states with trigger laws have already banned abortion following the Supreme Court decision Friday, including Missouri, Kentucky and South Dakota.

“My administration is gonna focus on how they administer it and whether or not they violate other laws, like deciding to not allow people to cross state lines to get public health services, and we’re gonna take action to protect women’s rights and reproductive health,” Biden said.

Asked whether he thinks the Supreme Court is broken, Biden said, “The court has made some terrible decisions.”

What’s next for anti-abortion groups?

By Manuela Lopez Restrepo

Anti-abortion groups today welcomed news that Roe v. Wade was overturned, but say their work is not done yet.

Lynda Bell is the chairwoman of the board of directors for the National Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion organization, which was holding its annual convention in Georgia on Friday.

Bell said the next thing the organization planned to tackle was implementing its own “model legislation” in as many states as possible. Goals for this legislation include allowing abortion in cases where the mother’s life is threatened. In cases of rape or incest, however, they do not intend to get involved.

“That wouldn't be our job,” Bell said. “That's why each particular state is going to have the ability and the right to pass legislation that is reflective of that particular state.”

Former governor who signed a law at the center of Roe ruling reacts to the SCOTUS decision

By Patrick Wood

To the women of Mississippi who are devastated by the Supreme Court’s decision today, the state’s former governor Phil Bryant has a message: pray hard.

“I would say, first you need to kneel and pray to God, who is the god of everyone, that in your heart you can understand that that is a living human being. And that what you're planning is destruction of a human life,” he said.

Mississippi is the state that brought about this moment in America.

Jackson Women's Health Organization is the only abortion provider in the state and the defendant in the case that the Supreme Court decided today. It concerned a state law enacted in 2018 by then-Governor Bryant.

He welcomed the court’s ruling today, and said he would also support legislation that would prevent or punish women who left Mississippi and received an abortion in another state.

“If you're going to, as we did, believe that abortion is murder, you must do all of that you can't stop it,” Bryant said.

“I think people will start thinking about something called individual responsibility, I think they're going to have to take into consideration that I might not be able to get an abortion on demand.”

Abortion rights activists are ready to fight trigger laws like Louisiana's

By Paul Braun

In the hours after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the constitutional right to an abortion guaranteed for nearly 50 years, abortion-rights advocates vowed to fight the implementation and enforcement of abortion trigger laws that have banned the procedure in states like Louisiana.

Louisiana was one of only three states whose trigger law took effect immediately after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, imposing a near-absolute ban on the procedure from the moment of implantation and stiff criminal penalties on the doctors who perform the procedure.

Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights — the group that defended the facility at the center of the case that prompted Friday’s historic ruling — said her organization already has “about three dozen” pending abortion-rights cases across the country.

"We will be back in court tomorrow and the next day and the next day making sure as much as possible abortion access can be retained," she said.

Read more at wwno.org , home of New Orleans Public Radio.

Roe reversal prompts abortion providers to immediately halt care in many states

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has forced groups that provide abortions to halt those services in many states where abortion is either now illegal or soon to be illegal.

Planned Parenthood will no longer provide abortions at its facilities in states that have abortion bans, according to a spokesperson for the organization.

"We will follow all state laws and regulations in these states that have abortion bans," their director of affiliate communications Lauren Kokum told NPR.

Due to the fluid "legal landscapes" in individual states, Kokum said she couldn't say how many states or locations in which its abortion services remain available, but noted the 13 states that have a “trigger ban” on abortion , which takes effect either immediately, by state official certification or 30 days after Roe is overturned.

More than 20 states are poised to immediately ban or restrict access to abortions as soon as possible, according to the Guttmacher Institute , a research group that supports abortion rights.

Whole Woman’s Health, a private company that manages nine clinics in five U.S. states, said it temporarily closed all four of its Texas clinics and canceled appointments scheduled there on Friday in response to the ruling.

In addition to a ban that predates Roe , Texas is also one of the "trigger ban" states and is set to outlaw abortion within 30 days of the Roe reversal. State Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Twitter that abortion is “now illegal in Texas,” following the Supreme Court decision.

“We don’t agree with Ken Paxton about the interpretation of the criminal abortion ban,” said Whole Woman’s Health President Amy Hagstrom Miller in a video press conference, but that “to protect our staff and to protect our patients, we have ceased providing abortion care today.”

Miller said WWH will continue to work with its lawyers to restart abortion care at its Texas clinics in the coming weeks, but any success will likely be short-lived due to legal pressure.

The Women’s Health Center of West Virginia says it will also stop performing abortions.

"This will force West Virginians to travel hundreds to thousands of miles away from their home to access healthcare and will harm marginalized communities the most," said the center's executive director Katie Quinonez, echoing a condemnation against the ruling shared by abortion-rights supporters and reproductive health providers.

The University of California hospital system is planning to help more patients seeking abortions

By Eric Westervelt

The University of California's hospital system is "investigating options" to provide more patient care and help medical professionals be educated about abortion services.

That's according to Dr. Nerys Benfield, chief medical officer for women's health at the University of California San Francisco.

"It's a really sad state that we have to talk about creating a safe haven for women seeking evidence-based medical care," she told NPR.

Benfield anticipates Southern California will see more travelers from states like Arizona , which recently enacted a 15-week abortion ban.

For now, she plans to give a virtual hug to her mother, who protested five decades ago for abortion rights, and to go home to hug her child, "to let them know that we still live in a place where women's lives are valued."

"I'm just going to keep caring for the women and the families that I care for here who are fortunately still able to decide for themselves what's best."

Dozens of elected prosecutors say they won't prosecute those seeking or assisting abortions

By Jonathan Franklin

Dozens of elected prosecutors across several states and counties nationwide say they will refuse to prosecute anybody who is seeking, assisting or providing an abortion.

In a joint statement released Friday by the Fair and Just Prosecution, the 84 district attorneys and attorneys general said: "Not all of us agree on a personal or moral level on the issue of abortion. But we stand together in our firm belief that prosecutors have a responsibility to refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions."

"As such, we decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalize reproductive health decisions and commit to exercise our well-settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortions," the statement adds.

The list of those in the joint statement include elected prosecutors from 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Patagonia promises to cover bail for its workers who ‘peacefully protest’ abortion ruling

Patagonia, a California-based outdoor apparel company, announced Friday that it will pay for bail for full- and part-time employees who "peacefully protest for reproductive justice."

In a statement posted to LinkedIn , the company also said it would pay for travel, lodging and food for employees who have to travel to obtain an abortion.

“Caring for employees extends beyond basic health insurance, so we take a more holistic approach to coverage and support overall wellness to which every human has a right,” the company said.

Patagonia said all employees are also eligible for other benefits, including time off for voting and medical plans that cover abortion.

Planned Parenthood Arizona is pausing abortion services over ruling

Planned Parenthood Arizona says it is stopping abortion services across the state given the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade .

In an announcement posted on Facebook , the organization said: "Planned Parenthood Arizona has made the difficult decision to pause Abortion services because of the complex legal landscape in our state."

The nonprofit is urging anyone who had an abortion appointment through Planned Parenthood to contact their local health care center for additional information and services.

State attorney general says most abortions are now banned in Kentucky

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron says now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade , most abortions are now banned in the commonwealth.

In a statement released Friday, Cameron announced that Kentucky has issued an advisory on the commonwealth's "Human Life Protection Act," which was passed in 2019.

Under that law, no person may “knowingly cause or aid in the ‘termination of the life of an unborn human being.’ ” The law says performing a prohibited abortion is a felony. Abortions to save the life of the mother would still be permitted.

We've issued an advisory on Kentucky's Human Life Protection Act, which took effect today following the #SCOTUS decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Read the advisory here: https://t.co/3W6ew4abaS pic.twitter.com/NuSiuCB1MF — Attorney General Daniel Cameron (@kyoag) June 24, 2022

Georgia attorney general files court request to allow the state's 'heartbeat' law to take effect

The Georgia attorney general’s office has filed a court request with the 11th Circuit to permit Georgia’s "heartbeat" law to take effect.

The state's measure, which had been on hold since it passed in 2019, prohibits nearly all abortions after six weeks.

"I believe in the dignity, value and worth of every human being, both born and unborn," Attorney General Chris Carr said in a tweet .

"The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs is constitutionally correct and rightfully returns the issue of abortion to the states and to the people – where it belongs," he added.

Global reproductive and women's rights groups react to the overturning of Roe V. Wade

By Malaka Gharib

How will the overturn of Roe v. Wade affect abortion rights and access outside the U.S.?

Groups that are opposed to abortion have welcomed the decision, including the Family Resource Council , which has called it "a major victory for life." But many global reproductive and women's rights groups are condemning the decision and warn that the U.S. overturning of the constitutional right to abortion will have far-reaching effects around the globe.

Here's a sampling of reactions:

"Almost all unsafe abortions currently occur in developing countries, and UNFPA fears that more unsafe abortions will occur around the world if access to abortion becomes more restricted." — UNFPA , the United Nations' sexual and reproductive health agency

"From the Global Gag Rule to U.S.-funded anti-choice groups who harass women outside our clinics and lobby governments to restrict access, decisions made in the U.S. have an impact far beyond their borders." — Sarah Shaw, global head of advocacy for  MSI Reproductive Choices

"We know for a fact that banning abortion does not mean fewer abortions and that when abortion bans are enacted, women and pregnant people die, as we have seen across the globe.” — Dr. Alvaro Bermejo, director-general of the  International Planned Parenthood Federation

Read more from Goats & Soda

NAACP calls overturning Roe v. Wade an 'egregious assault on basic human rights'

The NAACP says the Supreme Court's decision in overturning Roe v. Wade will disproportionately affect Black women and "marks a significant regression of our country."

"As a legal professional, I am horrified by this decision. As a Black woman, I am outraged to my core. The deciding Justices have ignored fundamental civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution and years of judicial precedent to advance a politically partisan agenda," NAACP General Counsel Janette McCarthy Wallace said in a statement .

“There is no denying the fact that this is a direct attack on all women and Black women stand to be disproportionately impacted by the court’s egregious assault on basic human rights,” she said.

Additionally, Portia White, the policy and legislative affairs vice president for the NAACP, urged Americans to “fight back” against the court's decision by voting.

"This Supreme Court is turning back the clock to a dangerous era where basic constitutional rights only exist for a select few. They've stripped away our right to vote, and now women have lost their right to their own body. What’s next?" White said.

Cheers and tears outside the Supreme Court as groups clash over the ruling

By Lauren Hodges

“I can’t believe we’re here,” said Poppy Louthan.

She was crying against a wall on the walking path between the Capitol Building and the Supreme Court. She had come from Seattle to Washington for a librarian’s conference when news broke that the court had overturned Roe v. Wade .

“Women are gonna die,” she said through tears. “I’m just overcome with grief.”

Behind her, the shouts of protesters and revelers alike melted together in the humid air. On the right side of the crowd, a small street party was in full swing as anti-abortion groups sang songs like “I Gotta Feeling” by the Black Eyed Peas. On the left, angry demonstrators held up signs, some hastily made from cardboard boxes.

The celebratory singing from the right quickly transitioned into something new: a chant of “not your body, not your choice.”

“I’m very excited, very happy, very grateful,” said Kelsey Smith from Clemson, South Carolina.

Mason Deshant, who called himself the “pro-life Spiderman,” traveled to D.C. from Las Vegas and was holding a sign that read “make abortion unthinkable.”

“I can barely stand right now,” he said. “The champagne came out.”

He was confronted by D.C. resident Dakota Starn. “Do you have any background in reproductive health?” she asked. Deshant replied that he has a brother who is a doctor. A heated debate ensued about the definition of murder, but Starn eventually walked away with her middle finger in the air.

Meanwhile, news began breaking of trigger laws going into effect, including South Dakota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Alabama.

A woman with a stroller was slowly walking in a quieter part of the crowd, visibly holding back tears. She paused to sit on the sidewalk while her son ate a snack in his seat. Without giving her name for privacy reasons, she said she had two children at home. And has had one abortion.

“I’m devastated that there will be women who won’t have access here,” she said.

She didn’t have time to make a sign and is hoping someone has extras. The ones grabbing her attention right now are black and white and read “I will aid and abet abortion” — a reference to several laws that seek to criminalize the act of helping someone obtain an illegal abortion.

“There were so many women who helped me get an abortion when I was desperate and needed it,” she said. “I personally will help anyone I know who needs one. No matter what the legal landscape is.”

Crowds grow outside the Supreme Court following the overturning of Roe v. Wade

By Wynne Davis

Demonstrators from both the abortion rights movement and the anti-abortion rights movement gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday following the ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion that was guaranteed nearly 50 years ago by the decision in Roe v. Wade.

While the debate around the issue has been contentious at times, the scene outside the court remained calm as Friday afternoon set in and crowds continued to grow.

Signs reading “Rise up for abortion rights” were juxtaposed with those saying “I’m the post-Roe generation," NPR's Laurel Wamsley reported from the scene.

Those who opposed abortion rights sang their own rendition of Steam’s classic “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye,” to celebrate what they view as a victory. They were met by chants of “safe and legal” from abortion-rights supporters.

Though the decision came on Friday, it has largely been expected since early May, when a draft opinion indicating the court was poised to overturn Roe  was leaked. Security measures were increased around the court following the leak and remain in place today, including fencing around the entire court building, with surrounding sidewalks also blocked off.

Alabama clinic begins turning away patients who had abortion appointments

An abortion provider in Alabama has begun breaking the news to patients that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, and advising them that due to trigger laws they would not be able to go ahead with their planned procedure.

Robin Marty is the operations director of a women’s center in Alabama, a state with pre-emptive trigger laws that immediately went into effect banning abortion after the Supreme Court decision was announced.

“Even the patients who were having their appointments today were immediately told … we would not be able to provide them an abortion in the state of Alabama,” Marty said.

“For each patient that was still in the clinic, we spoke to them and offered to both do their first day appointment, regardless of paperwork, that they could then take to a clinic that we would be referring them to outside of our state, over in Atlanta, Georgia.”

Marty said these women had been left "abandoned" by the decision, and the clinic would pivot to other care it could provide.

“We said that we would do everything financially and logistically possible to make this transfer easy for them. I'm currently online raising a pool of funds in order to make sure that they are paid for gas for their new procedures, for hotels if they need them.”

Trump says abortion decision was 'possible because I delivered everything as promised'

By Arnie Seipel

Former President Donald Trump claimed credit for today’s abortion decision and other conservative victories at the Supreme Court that were delivered with votes from the three justices that he nominated: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

"Today’s decision, which is the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation, along with other decisions that have been announced recently, were only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court," Trump said in a statement.

The governors of Oregon, California and Washington are coordinating to protect abortion access

As OPB's Amelia Templeton and Lauren Drake report , the Democratic governors of Oregon, California and Washington announced a coordinated effort to take executive action to strengthen legal protections for abortion providers and patients who travel to the West Coast from states where abortion is banned.

For more head to OPB.org .

Anti-abortion groups rejoice as Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

By Dustin Jones

Anti-abortion groups across the country are rejoicing at the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade , many praising the decision of the court’s conservative majority.

Abortion-rights supporters and opponents alike have long awaited the court’s decision since a draft opinion was leaked nearly two months ago. And while Friday’s ruling left many people outraged, those who oppose abortions were overjoyed.

“This is a great day for preborn children and their mothers,” Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, said in statement Friday. “The Court has correctly decided that a right to abortion is not in the constitution, thereby allowing the people, through their elected representatives, to have a voice in this very important decision.”

Kristan Hawkins, president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, described Roe v. Wade as a “cancer growing in our Constitution” that was cut out by the Supreme Court justices. Following Friday’s win, the organization said it is reorganizing to tackle abortion rights at the state level.

Planned Parenthood prepares to go ‘state by state’ in fight for abortion access

Planned Parenthood is getting ready to go “state by state, restriction by restriction, ban by ban” to fight for abortion access, according to the organization’s CEO and president Alexis McGill Johnson.

“The abortion rights movement will continue to fight and I think it will become stronger than ever,” she said.

In the hours after the Supreme Court ruling was announced, Johnson said Planned Parenthood was also preparing to help women travel between states in search of the care they needed.

“It is around trying to support them with travel, getting the appointments, and making sure that they have what they need,” Johnson said. “We're looking at an eventuality where we're looking for 24 states to absorb the abortion care of 50. And that will mean that some people will be forced into pregnancy. And that is devastating to think about.”

Johnson said the ruling that overturned Roe v Wade left her feeling of “overwhelming sadness and devastation.”

“I think anybody who sat in the court or heard the oral arguments in December knew that the justices were poised to make this decision. And this week obviously confirmed that,” she said. “But [we were] still holding out hope that cruelty wouldn't prevail in this decision.”

Abortions are illegal in South Dakota as of today

By Eric Whitney

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem says that as of today, “all abortions are illegal in South Dakota ‘unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female.' "

In addition, Noem says she plans for a special session later this year.

'This fall, Roe is on the ballot,' President Biden says

By Bill Chappell

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn its Roe v Wade decision brings the country to a "very solemn moment," President Biden said after the justices released their long-awaited ruling. With Roe gone, Biden said, "the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk."

Biden noted that three of the justices who voted to reject Roe were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

“Make no mistake, this decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades” to clamp down on abortion access, Biden said. "It's a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.”

And he urged abortion rights supporters to make the issue a priority in upcoming elections.

"This fall, Roe is on the ballot," Biden said.

“Today, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized,” Biden said. “They didn't limit it -- they simply took it away. That's never been done to a right so important to so many Americans. But they did it. It's a sad day for the court, and for the country.”

JP Morgan says it will cover employees' abortion travel costs

By Jacqueline GaNun

JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in America, has joined a host of companies that have said they will cover the cost for employees who need to travel out of state for abortions.

After the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling overturning Roe v. Wade , JP Morgan reminded employees in a memo that if they live in states where abortion is outlawed, the company will cover the cost of travel to a state where it's legal, beginning in July.

“As always, we’re focused on the health and well-being of our employees, and want to ensure equitable access to all benefits,” Patricia Wexler, a JP Morgan spokesperson, said.

The banking giant is one of many companies that have said they will cover such travel costs. Amazon and Levi Strauss announced changes to their policies in early May, after a draft Supreme Court opinion leaked that suggested Roe would be overturned. Entertainment companies Paramount, Netflix and Warner Bros. announced Friday they plan to cover travel costs for abortions as well.

With Roe overturned, LGBTQ activists worry same-sex marriage is next

For years, LGBTQ+ activists have warned that overturning Roe. V Wade could have a domino effect onto other civil rights granted by Supreme Court rulings.

With the announcement of today’s decision, advocates are concerned about specific language that prioritizes values rooted specifically in the tradition and history of the United States.

The 2015 case, Obergefell v. Hodges , which solidified Americans’ right to same-sex marriage, is just seven years old, an age that leads community members to believe it too could soon be at risk of being overturned.

Civil rights activist Jim Obergefell was the lead plaintiff in the 2015 case, and recently shared his perspective on the leaked Supreme Court draft before Roe V. Wade was officially struck down.

“There is definitely widespread fear,” he said. “But it's also one of those things where I consider my job right now to help educate people, to help them understand why they should be concerned, why they should be afraid and why they shouldn't just think, ‘Well, that really isn't going to happen.’”

“It could happen, and people need to believe that it could happen.”

Obergefell said people needed to get involved at the state level.

“We're really going to have to rely on states to confirm and to protect, to affirm some of these rights that are at risk with the Supreme Court,” he said. “I think most of us, a lot of us in the community, we're looking at this from the state level, realizing just how important that it always has been, and how important that will be, or could be going forward.”

Liberal justices say the Supreme Court has betrayed its guiding principles

By Nell Clark

Liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion to the court's decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion, ending Roe v. Wade.

“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent.”

The searing dissent responds to arguments from the court's majority, it highlights the extreme burden the court's decision will place on low-income pregnant people, and it accuses the court of betraying its guiding principles while relegating women to second-class citizenship.

"Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens," the dissent reads.

The dissent also reflects on what may come of other precedents connected to Roe, such as contraception rights and same-sex marriage.

How the dissenting justices respond to the majority opinion

The dissenting justices argue against the majority justices' "core legal postulate" that the framers of the 14th Amendment didn't see reproductive rights as central to freedom and therefore those rights shouldn't have constitutional protection today.

Those ratifiers were all men, the dissent notes.

"So it is perhaps not so surprising that the ratifiers were not perfectly attuned to the importance of reproductive rights for women’s liberty," the dissent reads.

"When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to second-class citizenship," it continues.

The dissenting justices note low-income people will suffer most

The dissent notes that low-income pregnant people seeking abortions will suffer.

"Today’s decision, the majority says, permits 'each State' to address abortion as it pleases. ... That is cold comfort, of course, for the poor woman who cannot get the money to fly to a distant State for a procedure," they write.

The justices note that people who can't obtain legal abortions may turn to unsafe methods that can cause physical harm or death, risks which are higher for Black women and pregnant people. "Experts estimate that a ban on abortions increases maternal mortality by 21 percent, with white women facing a 13 percent increase in maternal mortality while black women face a 33 percent increase," the dissent reads.

The dissenting justices say the decision betrays the Supreme Court's guiding principles

In the dissent, the justices argue the court has upset a balance set by past decisions. "It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of," the justices write.

The three liberal justices say in the dissent that the court has struck down Roe 's decades long president not because of new developments or changes in the nation, but due to changes in the makeup of the Supreme Court.

"One of us once said that '[i]t is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.' S. Breyer, Breaking the Promise of Brown: The Resegregation of America’s Schools 30 (2022). For all of us, in our time on this Court, that has never been more true than today. In overruling Roe and Casey , this Court betrays its guiding principles," the dissent summarizes.

What the dissent says about precedents connected to Roe , like contraception and same-sex marriage

"... the majority tells everyone not to worry. It can (so it says) neatly extract the right to choose from the constitutional edifice without affecting any associated rights. (Think of someone telling you that the Jenga tower simply will not collapse.)" the dissent reads.

"Nor does it even help just to take the majority at its word. Assume the majority is sincere in saying, for whatever reason, that it will go so far and no further. Scout’s honor," the law has a way of evolving past what may have been intended when a case was decided, the justices write.

"So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other."

The dissent warns the decision in this case could be used to challenge other long decided cases involving freedoms, including the right to use contraception and the right to marry a same-sex partner.

"We fervently hope that does not happen because of today’s decision. We hope that we will not join Justice Scalia in the book of prophets. But we cannot understand how anyone can be confident that today’s opinion will be the last of its kind."

Congressional Black Caucus says the 'Dobbs' decision turns back the hands of time

“The hands of time have once again been turned back,” said Rep. Joyce Beatty, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, as she condemned Friday’s Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade .

The caucus is working to send a letter to President Biden asking him to declare a national public health emergency because of the rollback of abortion rights and access, said Beatty, an Ohio Democrat.

The decision will cause particular harm to Black communities, Beatty said, noting that the decision in the Dobbs case comes “in the midst of a Black maternal mortality crisis .”

New restrictions on abortion will result in “government-mandated pregnancy” and policing of women’s bodies, Beatty said.

“We have seen what life was like pre- Roe v. Wade, and America cannot afford to go back,” she said.

New Mexico could see influx at abortion facilities

As KUNM's Alice Fordham explains, New Mexico last year repealed language from the criminal code dating from 1969 , which banned abortion. It was not enforceable after the Roe v. Wade verdict in 1973, but could theoretically have been enforced after Roe was struck down.

Clinics in New Mexico are already stretched, especially since Texas banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy last year , but with several neighboring states now set to all but completely ban the procedure, more people are likely to travel to New Mexico for abortion care.

Keep reading at KUNM.org .

Clinics that offer abortion services have seen more harassment and threats

By Odette Yousef

A new report finds that staff and patients at clinics that offer abortion services are experiencing greater harassment and threats.

The National Abortion Federation found that reports of patients and providers being stalked and assaulted was up in 2021, compared to the year before. The same goes for instances of anti-abortion activists blocking entrances to clinics and trespassing.

Melissa Fowler of the National Abortion Federation said an overturning of Roe may further escalate the trend.

"We've been sending out guidance and security alerts because we know from past experience that news like this can really embolden anti-abortion individuals and groups," Fowler said.

The FBI is also investigating several attacks and threats on anti-abortion centers.

And 19 state attorneys general have called for the Department of Justice to investigate threats on anti-abortion organizations around the country.

Women who are denied abortions risk falling deeper into poverty. So do their kids

By Jennifer Ludden

Before the Supreme Court legalized abortion with its Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, five states and the District of Columbia had already allowed abortion for several years. Caitlin Myers, an economist at Middlebury College, says this provided researchers a natural experiment through which to study the demographic and economic outcomes of women in those states compared with others and then to look at what happened after Roe as well.

Myers says they found profound impacts and were able to document that they were discrete from all the other changes happening in society at the time.

First, legalizing abortion dramatically reduced the number of women and girls who gave birth — and got married — as teenagers. Access to abortion also offered a major boost to women's economic prospects, "allowing them, in turn, to obtain more education, to enter more professional careers, to avoid poverty," Myers says. "And also providing those same economic advantages to the children that they parented later."

Of course, abortion-rights opponents see all this differently. When Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told a recent Senate panel that overturning Roe would "set women back decades," she drew a rebuke from Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina.

"Did you say that ending the life of a child is good for the labor force participation rate?" he asked pointedly. He called it "callous" and "harsh" to frame the "painful reality" of abortion that way.

"As a guy raised by a Black woman in abject poverty," he said, "I'm thankful to be here, as a United States senator."

But Scott's success story is not the norm when those who seek an abortion are denied one. Economist Jason Lindo, with Texas A&M University, says the financial fallout extends well into the lives of such women's children.

"There's a huge empirical literature showing that there are detrimental effects on these kids' outcomes," he says. "When they grow up, they're less likely to attain higher education themselves, they're more likely to be involved in crime, have lower adult earnings."

Research into abortion's economic fallout continues. The landmark Turnaway Study followed women for a decade and found that those denied an abortion were four times as likely to be living in poverty years later.

And economists have gotten more opportunities for "natural experiment" studies as Texas and a growing number of other states have strictly limited abortion in recent years. One analysis by the Institute for Women's Policy Research calculates that such measures cost state and local economies $105 billion annually by reducing women's labor force participation and earnings.

Read more about the potential impacts this decision could have on poorer pregnant people .

Justice Department 'will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom,' attorney general says

By Carrie Johnson

Calling the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade “a devastating blow to reproductive freedom” that will “have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department will work to enforce laws and regulations on reproductive rights.

He also said that the department will not tolerate violence or threats of violence against women seeking abortion.

"The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom. And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans,” Garland said in a lengthy statement.

Citing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services, Garland said the Justice Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals in states where those services remain legal.

It also will work with other arms of the federal government to preserve access to reproductive care, Garland said. He added that states may not ban use of mifepristone, a drug used to end early pregnancy, based on disagreement with the FDA’s judgment on its safety and efficacy.

Garland also said federal agencies may continue to provide services and states “cannot impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law.”

“The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do. We also support other legislative efforts to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services,” Garland said.

Kansas voters will decide whether to remove the last barrier protecting abortion rights

By Dylan Lysen

The country is now covered with a state-by-state patchwork of differing abortion laws. Some states could follow today's ruling by enacting more restrictive laws — including Kansas. But the Sunflower State will first need to change the Kansas Constitution before it can pursue them.

Abortion rights in Kansas currently fall under the protection of a 2019  Kansas  Supreme Court ruling that found the state constitution includes the right to an abortion. But that ruling spurred the Republican-dominated Kansas Legislature to push for a change to the state constitution.

Kansas voters will decide on Aug. 2 whether to amend the state constitution with a provision that says it doesn’t promise access to abortion. All Kansas voters may cast a ballot on the issue in that primary, regardless of whether they’re affiliated with a party.

Follow KCUR for more updates

How top Congressional leaders are responding to the Supreme Court opinion

By Lisa Lambert and Deirdre Walsh

Within minutes of the Supreme Court announcing it had overturned the Roe v. Wade, Democratic congressional leaders put out statements admonishing voters to elect more Democrats while Republicans praised years of activism and pushed to go further.

Democrats currently control Congress, but they are expected to lose their majorities in the November midterm elections, which would allow Republicans to pass legislation on abortion. The parties have fought bitterly about abortion rights for years, and Friday’s statements highlighted the acrimony between them, as they traded accusations of “extremism” and being “radicals.

Here are their reactions:

A visibly angry House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, denounced the Supreme Court decision’s overturning Roe v. Wade and vowed the issue would be a factor in the midterm elections.

“Today the Republican controlled Supreme Court achieved their dark, extreme goal of ripping away woman’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions. Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and the Republican party, their supermajority on the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedoms than their mothers,” Pelosi told a Capitol Hill press conference.

Pelosi warned, “be aware of this: the Republican are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. They cannot be allowed to have a majority in the congress to do that, but that’s their goal.”

“This is deadly serious but we are not going to let this pass. A woman’s right to choose, reproductive freedom is on the ballot in November. We cannot allow them to take charge so they can institute their goal, which is to criminalize reproductive freedom.”

Pelosi called the decision “a slap in the face to women” who want to make their own judgement about their health.

The top Republican in the House, Kevin McCarthy , said on Twitter that “the Court is right to return the power to protect the unborn to the people’s elected representatives in Congress and the states.”

“In the days that follow, we must keep rejecting extreme policies that seek to allow late-term abortions and taxpayer dollars to fund these elective procedures," he added. "Much work remains to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat , called Friday “one of the darkest days our country has ever seen.” Like Pelosi, he too noted that Republicans had appointed the majority of the court.

Referring to Trump’s old campaign line of “Make America Great Again,” or “MAGA,” Schumer said, in part:

“Today’s decision makes crystal clear the contrast as we approach the November elections: elect more MAGA Republicans if you want nationwide abortion bans, the jailing of women and doctors and no exemptions for rape or incest. Or, elect more pro-choice Democrats to save Roe and protect a woman’s right to make their own decisions about their body, not politicians.”

Senate Minority Leader McConnell , meanwhile, called Democrats “extreme on abortion.” Saying that he shared in the joy anti-abortion activists were experiencing, McConnell called the decision is “an historic victory for the Constitution.”

"The Court has corrected a terrible legal and moral error, like when Brown v. Board overruled Plessy v. Ferguson," he said. "The Justices applied the Constitution. They carefully weighed the complex factors regarding precedent. The Court overturned mistaken rulings that even liberals have long admitted were incoherent, restoring the separation of powers. I commend the Court for its impartiality in the face of attempted intimidation."

What the end of Roe could mean for the rest of the world

By Rachel Treisman

Some countries have taken unprecedented steps to expand access to abortion in recent years, but international rights groups have long warned that overturning Roe v. Wade could weaken abortion rights around the world, potentially leading some nations to adopt new restrictive laws.

As NPR's Ayana Archie and Joe Hernandez report:

Many countries are expanding abortion access

Ireland legalized abortion in 2019, Argentina legalized it in 2020 and Mexico 's Supreme Court voted to decriminalize abortion last year. In February, Colombia 's highest court legalized abortion until 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Global Justice Center said in a joint brief that 60% of women of reproductive age live in countries where abortion is available.

"Only 26 countries, representing 5% of women of reproductive age, ban or prohibit abortion altogether," they wrote.

The brief adds that 34 of the 36 countries that the United Nations classifies as "economically developed" — including the U.S. — make abortions accessible. Poland and Malta were the lone exceptions.

The groups also note that the U.S. has signed several international treaties (including the U.N.'s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) that include the right to nondiscrimination; the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to privacy; and the right to life.

By restricting access to abortions, the organizations argue, people will be forced to seek out unsafe and unsanitary procedures — therefore jeopardizing their right to life.

Read more here .

But those looking to crack down on abortion could use the U.S. as an example

Human rights advocates say the reversal of Roe not only would damage the perception of the U.S. on the world stage, but also could lead some countries to adopt more restrictive laws of their own.

Licha Nyiendo, chief legal officer of the group Human Rights First, wrote in a statement after the draft opinion leak that such a move constituted a "step in a very dangerous direction for everyone in the United States and a frightening signal to authoritarians around the world that they can strip long-established rights from their countries' people."

Tarah Demant, Amnesty International's interim national director for programs, advocacy and government affairs, told NPR that other countries could point to the U.S. to legitimize their own restrictive policies.

Take Poland for example, she said: The country has faced criticism from the European Union for severely limiting abortion , but soon could argue that the bloc's close ally has done nearly the same thing.

"You're looking at an emboldened anti-rights movement," Demant said.

Read more here.

The Dobbs case: What it is and how we got here

The Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization clears the way for states to reshape abortion law in the U.S. , nearly 50 years after the court enshrined abortion rights at the federal level in the Roe v Wade decision.

The Dobbs case came to the high court from Mississippi, where the Jackson Women’s Health Organization has long been the only abortion provider. In 2018, the state enacted a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, allowing exceptions only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities — and not for cases involving rape or incest.

The "Dobbs" in the case title refers to Thomas Dobbs, an infectious diseases doctor who became Mississippi’s top health officer the same year the state enacted the new abortion restriction. The Jackson clinic and one of its doctors sued Mississippi officials in federal court, saying the state’s law was unconstitutional.

A federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the clinic, blocking Mississippi’s law. But the state then appealed to the Supreme Court, which put the case on its docket two years ago.

When the Supreme Court granted the state’s request to hear the case, it limited itself to one question : “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

The notion of viability is crucial to the case. As Priscilla J. Smith, a Yale Law professor and a supporter of abortion rights, told NPR late last year, “The central tenet of Roe is the availability of abortions up to viability.”

Mississippi’s petition to the Supreme Court called that standard “unsatisfactory.” It also noted that fetal viability has changed over time, thanks to advances in obstetrics and medical technology.

“Tomorrow, development of an artificial womb will inevitably move the ‘viability’ line to the moment of conception,” the state wrote in its petition .

But attorneys for Jackson Women’s Health Organization said the central question of viability was already settled — by Roe v. Wade in 1973 and by Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992.

The clinic wanted the Supreme Court to affirm the Fifth Circuit’s decision, citing “nearly fifty years of precedent.” But a majority of justices ruled that Roe had been wrongly decided, returning control of abortions to states.

‘The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,’ SCOTUS opinion states

In its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court produced a sea change in U.S. abortion law.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” the court stated in a syllabus included with its lengthy decision .

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Two concurring opinions were also filed — one by Chief Justice John Roberts, and one by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh.

The Roe decision was “egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,” the court’s syllabus states.

In his opinion, Alito writes that the 1973 ruling ended a political process in which states crafted their own stances on abortion. “It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State,” Alito wrote.

When the Supreme Court granted Mississippi’s request to hear the case, it limited itself to one question : “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Alito says the court looked at several issues in deciding the case, “including whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents.”

He wrote that the Roe decision “was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.”

A state’s law regulating abortion “must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests,” Alito wrote. Those interests include “respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development,” he added, along with protecting “maternal health and safety” and other issues, such as preserving “the integrity of the medical profession” and the “mitigation of fetal pain.”

“These legitimate interests justify Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act,” Alito wrote.

Alito's opinion includes two appendices — one that lists "statutes criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy in the States existing in 1868," and another that lists similar statutes from territories that became states and the District of Columbia.

7 persistent claims about abortion, fact-checked

By Jaclyn Diaz, Koko Nakajima, Nick Underwood

Since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade  decision ruled that women have a constitutional right to end their pregnancies, proponents and opponents of abortion rights have worked to own the conversation over the issue.

In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported across the United States.

Lingering claims circulate about abortion, including about its safety, the kinds of people who get abortions and even who supports or opposes access to abortion.

Below, seven popular claims surrounding abortion get fact-checked. Click expand for details, and read the full story here.

According to the Pew Research Center's polls, 37% of Americans want abortion illegal in all or most cases. But an even bigger fraction — around 6 in 10 Americans — think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. pic.twitter.com/YjyjKjRJBM — NPR (@NPR) May 6, 2022

Claim: There is big support for ending  Roe  in America.

According to the Pew Research Center's polls , 37% of Americans want abortion illegal in all or most cases.

But an even bigger fraction — around 6 in 10 Americans — think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Claim: After  Roe , abortions skyrocketed.

While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade , it has since decreased to below the 1973 level.

Current abortion rates are lower than what they were in 1973 and are now less than half what they were at their peak in the early 1980s, according to the Guttmacher Institute , a reproductive health research organization that supports abortion rights.

In 2017, pregnancy rates for females age 24 or below hit their lowest recorded levels, reflecting a long-term decline in pregnancy rates among females 24 or below.

Overall, in 2017, pregnancy rates for females of reproductive age hit their lowest recorded levels, with 87 pregnancies per 1,000 females ages 15 to 44, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Claim: Abortion is dangerous.

Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC.

The annual number of deaths related to legal induced abortion has fluctuated from year to year since 1973, according to the CDC.

An analysis of data from 2013 to 2018 showed the national case-fatality rate for legal induced abortion was 0.41 deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions, lower than in the previous five years.

The World Health Organization said people obtaining unsafe abortions are at a higher risk of death. Annually, 4.7% to 13.2% "of maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortion," the WHO said. In developing regions of the world, there are 220 deaths per 100,000 unsafe abortions.

Claim: The only people getting abortions are straight, cisgender women.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates in 2017, an estimated 462 to 530 transgender or nonbinary individuals in the U.S. had abortions. That same year, the CDC said, 609,095 total abortions were carried out in the country.

The Abortion Out Loud campaign has collected stories from thousands of people who have had an abortion. Included are stories from trans and nonbinary people who have had an abortion — such as Jae, who spoke their experience.

Claim: A lot of people are getting abortions late in pregnancy.

Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks).

"Most abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation," according to the CDC . Nearly 93% of abortions were performed at less than 13 weeks' gestation.

Abortion pills, which typically can be used up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, made up 54% of abortions in 2020. These pills were the primary choice in the U.S. for the first time since the Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion drug mifepristone more than 20 years ago.

Claim: Fetuses feel pain early in a pregnancy.

Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks. Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain at or around 22 weeks.

State legislatures moved to adopt 20-week abortion bans, with abortion opponents claiming fetuses can feel pain at that point. Roughly a third of states have implemented an abortion ban around 20 weeks .

But this contradicts widely accepted medical research from 2005. This study , published in the Journal of the American Medical Association , concluded that a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks.

Researchers wrote that fetal awareness of pain requires "functional thalamocortical connections." Those thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 and 30 weeks' gestational age, but the capacity for pain perception comes later.

Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions.

The argument against abortion has frequently been based on religion, but data shows that more than 60% of people who get an abortion have some sort of religious affiliation, according to the most recent Guttmacher Institute data , from 2014.

The Pew Research Center also shows that attitudes on whether abortion should be legal vary among evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics.

What the decision means for Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana

By Orlando Flores Jr

Most abortions are or will soon be banned across the Gulf South now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Here’s the legal landscape for each state:

Alabama : In May 2019, Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill into law that banned nearly all abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, unless a woman's life is threatened or there is a lethal fetal anomaly. The ban, however, was blocked by a federal judge . With Roe overturned, though, state officials say they would move quickly to challenge the federal judge’s ruling.

Currently, Alabama does not allow abortion past the 20th week of gestation unless a doctor has determined either that the fetus is unviable or that carrying the fetus to term would cause death or severe and irreversible impairment to the woman.

The state also has a pre-Roe ban on abortion that was never repealed. State lawmakers have also passed an amendment to the state constitution that recognizes the rights of the unborn . Some believe this amendment could open the door to outlaw abortion completely now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned.

Louisiana : Louisiana is one of three states with a trigger law that goes into effect immediately without further action by the state Legislature. The law, passed in 2006 , bans abortions completely.

On Tuesday, Gov. John Bel Edwards signed Senate Bill 342 into law , which updated the law to include exceptions for medically futile and ectopic pregnancies. No exceptions for victims of rape or incest are included. The new bill also stiffens the criminal penalties for abortion providers already outlined in state law, doubling the maximum sentences to 10 and 15 years, depending on when an abortion is performed during a pregnancy.

Mississippi : Mississippi also has a trigger law in place, but unlike Louisiana, it will require certification from state Attorney General Lynn Fitch before going into effect — one of seven states in this situation.

Read more from MPB

With Roe v. Wade overturned, Missouri's trigger ban is now in effect

In 2019, the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 126 , which contains a so-called “trigger ban” prohibiting nearly all abortions in the state.

As KCUR’s Dan Margolies reports , that ban goes into effect as soon as the governor or attorney general certifies that Roe has been overturned, or the legislature enacts a resolution to the same effect.

🚨 BREAKING 🚨 Following the SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Missouri has just become the first in the country to effectively end abortion with our AG opinion signed moments ago. This is a monumental day for the sanctity of life. pic.twitter.com/Jphy72R4rq — Attorney General Eric Schmitt (@AGEricSchmitt) June 24, 2022

View this post on Instagram A post shared by NPR (@npr)

Head to KCUR.org for more

Abortions are effectively banned outright in Texas

By Elena Rivera and Elizabeth Myong

Texas is one of 26 states that has laws in place now that would ban abortions, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute , a nonprofit research organization on reproductive health. Surrounding states Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana also have near-total bans in place now that Roe is overturned.

Texas already banned abortions around six weeks back in September 2021 when SB 8 went into effect, which also allowed private citizens to sue anyone helping a person access abortion care. Thousands of Texans went out of state to get abortions since then, with clinicians in Texas helping to connect patients with services . The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization means all Texans seeking abortions will have to travel hundreds of miles to neighboring states like New Mexico .

Follow KERA for updates

Idaho's abortion ban will take effect next month

By James Dawson

Nearly all abortions in Idaho are poised to be outlawed in 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court Friday gave individual states the right to prohibit abortion.

Doctors found violating Idaho's law would face between two and five years in prison under a felony charge. Their medical license would be suspended for six months after the first offense, and it would be permanently revoked for any following offenses.

Adopted in 2020, Idaho’s trigger law will only allow abortions in cases of rape, incest and if the mother’s life is at-risk. But there are caveats to those exceptions.

Read more from Boise State Public Radio

22 states are poised to ban or restrict abortion. Others moved to protect access

By Becky Sullivan

Jaclyn Diaz

James Doubek

Access to legal abortion could soon end for more than 100 million Americans, including those living in nearly every Southern state and large swaths of the Midwest.

Twenty-two states are poised to immediately ban or acutely curtail access to abortions with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade , according to the Guttmacher Institute , a research group in favor of abortion rights. The landmark 1973 decision had guaranteed women's right to seek an abortion for nearly 50 years.

So-called "trigger laws" are taking effect and will automatically ban or curtail abortion in 13 states. Most were enacted during the Trump administration, after conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed to the Supreme Court.

In another nine states, pre- Roe  abortion bans can once again become enforceable, or more recent bans that had been blocked by courts can now take effect.

In effect, abortions could soon be illegal or next to impossible to access in these 21 states, with a combined population of more than 135 million people — a major change from today's environment, where all 50 states have at least one operating abortion clinic.

In response, many Democratic-led states have enacted laws to shore up abortion rights at the state level.

Sixteen states and Washington, D.C., have laws protecting access to abortion, according to Guttmacher . Four states and D.C. "have codified the right to abortion throughout pregnancy without state interference," the group notes, while 12 others "explicitly permit abortion prior to viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person."

California, Oregon and Washington state also recently moved to expand financial support for abortion access.

What happens next? Here's what life without Roe might look like

As the Supreme Court prepared to issue its decision overturning Roe , NPR spent weeks speaking to experts and activists about what will likely happen after the ruling. Here's some suggested reading.

What will this mean for health care and access to services?

Kristyn Brandi, an OB-GYN and family planning doctor who is also the board chair for Physicians for Reproductive Health, and NPR health policy correspondent Selena Simmons-Duffin answered some of your most common questions here .

Here are insights from two reproductive health care providers about the options available to pregnant people in anti-abortion states, and how to find a safe clinic.

Medical and legal experts say the decision could have implications for other types of care, including birth control and fertility treatments . Plus, read up on how medication abortion works and what the end of Roe could mean for it.

And it's important to remember that this decision doesn't just affect cisgender women .

What about possible legal implications?

Dozens of states already passed trigger laws that could end access to legal abortions for many Americans. Here's what enforcement could look like . Also, the removal of federal abortion protections could spark new legal fights between states .

Liberal politicians and activists have publicly speculated that other landmark Supreme Court rulings , like those legalizing same-sex marriage and birth control, could be on shaky ground. Since the release of the draft ruling Democrats have sought to make the abortion debate about more than just abortion , hoping to jolt voters into action as the November midterms approach .

What will daily life look like?

As NPR's Joe Hernandez has reported , here's what a future without Roe could mean:

• More than  two dozen states have laws  that could restrict or ban abortion soon after the Supreme Court overturns  Roe , according to Guttmacher.  One type of statute, called a "trigger law," is designed to  take effect after a Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe . Some states also still have pre- Roe  abortion bans on the books that they could begin enforcing again. Other laws express the intent of states to crack down on abortion if permitted by the Supreme Court.
• States that continue to allow abortion could see an influx of patients seeking care.  For example, after Texas enacted its roughly six-week ban on abortion last year, some residents began to  get abortions out of state . In the final four months of last year, Planned Parenthood clinics in states near Texas reported  a nearly 800% increase in abortion patients from Texas  compared to the same period in the prior year.
• Women of color will bear the brunt of further abortion restrictions.  According to The Associated Press , Black and Hispanic women get abortions at higher rates than their peers. Women of color also experience higher poverty rates and could have a harder time traveling out of state for an abortion, the AP said.
• Limits on abortion access can lead to negative long-term health effects.  A  major study from the University of California, San Francisco  found that women are harmed by being denied abortions. The women surveyed who gave birth had economic hardships that lasted for several years, were more likely to raise the child alone, and were at higher risk of developing serious health problems than those who were able to have abortions.
• Some blue states  already are taking steps to enshrine the right to abortion in state law.  From Colorado to New Jersey, Democratic governors have  signed laws protecting reproductive rights  and announced their intention to be able to provide abortion services to people who live in states where the procedure is restricted.

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

By Washington Desk

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, reversing Roe v. Wade, the court’s five-decade-old decision that guaranteed a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority,” the court’s conservatives wrote in their majority opinion. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

The three liberals dissented.

Advertisement

Supported by

Quick Facts You Should Know About Roe v. Wade

A short history of the landmark case.

• Share full article

By Derrick Bryson Taylor

Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the United States with its decision in Roe v. Wade , reshaping the nation’s social and political landscape.

On Monday night, Politico published a leaked draft opinion that said the Supreme Court had privately voted to strike down the decision, setting the stage for abortion-rights battles across the nation and prompting a wave of protests at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Here are some quick facts you should know about the case.

When was Roe v. Wade decided?

The 7-2 ruling was announced on Jan. 22, 1973. Justice Harry A. Blackmun , a modest Midwestern Republican and a defender of the right to abortion, wrote the majority opinion .

What the case was about.

In short, it is a landmark Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. The ruling struck down laws in many states that had barred abortion, declaring that they could not ban the procedure before the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb.

That point, known as fetal viability, was around 28 weeks when Roe was decided. Today, because of improvements in medicine, most experts now estimate fetal viability to be about 23 or 24 weeks .

What led to the landmark case?

In 1970, a woman in Texas named Norma McCorvey was five months pregnant with her third child and wanted to have an abortion. Two Dallas lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, represented her in challenging the state’s prohibition on abortions except to save a mother’s life.

Who are Roe and Wade?

Jane Roe was a pseudonym for Ms. McCorvey, who was 22 when her case was filed. She later spoke out against abortion, but in a documentary in 2020, Ms. McCorvey said she had done so only because she was paid for her advocacy. She died in 2017 at 69.

“Wade” refers to the defendant, Henry Wade, who was the district attorney in Dallas County, Texas, at the time. Mr. Wade died in 2001 at 86.

What else did the case do?

Roe v. Wade created the framework to govern abortion regulation based on the trimesters of pregnancy. In the first trimester, it allowed almost no regulations. In the second, it allowed regulations to protect women’s health. In the third, it allowed states to ban abortions so long as exceptions were made to protect the life and health of the mother.

What happened next.

In 1992, the court tossed the trimester framework in Planned Parenthood v. Casey . However, Casey retained Roe’s “essential holding,” meaning that women have a constitutional right to terminate their pregnancies until fetal viability.

Derrick Bryson Taylor is a general assignment reporter. He previously worked at The New York Post’s PageSix.com and Essence magazine. More about Derrick Bryson Taylor

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it opened the floodgates for abortion-related lawsuits

T he Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear its first abortion case since the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade and upheaval of reproductive rights in America.

Consider how much the justices’ decision has changed the country:

Fourteen states now have total bans  and seven others have imposed substantial restrictions on access to abortion.

Some states that ban abortion are trying to keep abortion medication from crossing  their borders  and, separately, are seeking to block a federal law that allows emergency room physicians to terminate a pregnancy if medically necessary.

And an Alabama Supreme Court decision  impinging on in vitro fertilization  – a method used to produce, not end, pregnancy – was traced by critics, including President Joe Biden, to the Supreme Court’s erosion of a woman’s right to privacy in its overturning of Roe.

On the political front, abortion has catapulted to the top of election-year issues, with  Democrats  hoping public concern for restrictions  continues to help their candidates ; Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has recently floated the idea of a nationwide ban on abortion at  15 weeks of pregnancy .

All the while, public regard for the Supreme Court  has degenerated .

Such will be the culturally laden backdrop as the justices on Tuesday take up a controversy over Food and Drug Administration rules for access to the abortion pill mifepristone. A group of anti-abortion physicians has sued the FDA, challenging the agency’s assessment of the drug’s safety and claiming it improperly lifted “critical safeguards” for its use.

The group wants to diminish women’s access to the pill that is part of a two-drug regime to terminate a fetus in the early weeks and that has become the most common way of ending a pregnancy in America. Among the key provisions in dispute is one from 2016 allowing the drug to be used through 10 weeks of pregnancy, rather than seven, and a 2021 change that permits women to obtain their prescription by mail rather than in person.

Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe, medication abortion has been responsible for an  unexpected surge  in abortions. More than 1 million abortions were undertaken in the US last year, the highest rate in more than a decade and a 10% increase from 2020.

The Biden administration, defending the FDA, had avoided referring even once to the Dobbs decision in its written brief in the new case, perhaps to avoid that constitutional flashpoint and to accentuate the broader stakes of federal regulation and expertise.

Instead, it focuses on the drug approval process.

“To the government’s knowledge, this case marks the first time any court has restricted access to an FDA approved drug by second-guessing FDA’s expert judgment about the conditions required to assure that drug’s safe use,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices, referring to a federal appellate court’s 2023 decision against the FDA.

Since mifepristone first was approved for market in 2000, more than 5 million American women have used it to end their pregnancies, Prelogar added.

Groups that have filed “friend of the court” briefs, however, invoke Dobbs and what’s happened in America since the Supreme Court dissolved nearly a half-century of abortion rights precedent.

New York, along with 22 states and the District of Columbia backing the FDA, emphasize the overall disruption to reproductive care since Dobbs and say medication abortion via telemedicine “spiked dramatically in the first year after Dobbs.”

On the other side, the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops took a page from the Dobbs opinion to reinforce their arguments against the FDA, referring to a Dobbs’ majority assertion that “Abortion is a unique act.”

“This Court acknowledges that ‘(a)bortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life,’” lawyers for the anti-abortion groups told the justices, citing previous court decisions.

Expect more abortion debates at the Supreme Court, retired Justice Breyer says

The court that will hear the mifepristone case has changed little since June 24, 2022, when it eliminated the constitutional right that had been preserved in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

A few months after the ruling, retired Justice Stephen Breyer was succeeded by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman ever to sit on the high court. The succession of those two liberal, Democratic-appointed justices maintained the 6-3 conservative-liberal majority that has been transforming the law in America.

The year after the Dobbs ruling, the justices overturned another landmark, a 1978 decision ending racial affirmative action at colleges and universities.

Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the Dobbs opinion, and other justices have cast doubt on elements of other social milestones, including the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that declared a right to same-sex marriage.

The court divide mirrors political divisions: All six conservatives were appointed by Republican presidents, three of them by Trump, who has bragged about his role in the Dobbs decision; the three remaining liberal justices were appointed by Democrats.

Breyer, one of the Dobbs dissenters, chided the majority in his new book published Tuesday for saying it could put an end to court cases over abortion.

“The Dobbs majority’s hope that legislatures and not courts will decide the abortion question will not be realized. After all, different states will enact different laws and enforce them differently,” Breyer wrote, listing many of the possible issues that could make it to the Supreme Court over the next few years.

“Whether the Constitution assures a woman an abortion needed to save her life, her physical health, or her mental health; whether the Constitution guarantees abortion rights to victims of rape or incest; whether states can forbid sending medical methods of abortion through the mail; whether states can prosecute those in-state persons who aid or abet out-of-state abortions; and other abortion-related questions may well lead to further Court cases, not solely legislative determinations (many of which may also be subject to judicial review),” Breyer wrote.

unknown content item

How the case got to the Supreme Court

Tuesday’s Supreme Court case has spurred planned protests, and the scene in front of the marble columned court may acquire some of the atmosphere of a traditional abortion rights case. Yet FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine has a broader valence that could affect regulation and access to all drugs.

Last year, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk sided with the Alliance in its lawsuit against the initial 2000 FDA approval of mifepristone and subsequent regulations that made the drug more available to women.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Kacsmaryk’s decision related to 2000 approval – finding it untimely - but agreed that the FDA’s loosening of requirements in 2016 and 2021 lacked sufficient justification.

Among the 2016 changes was the increase in gestational age to 10 weeks of pregnancy, a reduction in the requisite number of in-person medical visits, and authorization for non-physician healthcare providers to prescribe the drug. In 2021, the FDA determined that an in-person dispensing requirement was no longer necessary and that a prescription could be obtained by mail.

As it appeals that decision, Justice Department lawyers representing the FDA say changes over the years came after numerous studies and scientific review. Of the 2021 decision to drop the in-person dispending requirement, it said, “The agency concluded, based in part on actual experience during the pandemic, that the requirement was no longer necessary to ensure mifepristone’s safe use.”

As a threshold matter in the case before the high court, the FDA argues that the anti-abortion physicians who do not prescribe mifepristone lack sufficient injury to establish legal “standing” even to bring the case.

The challengers contend, however, that because they undertake some emergency room duties, they would be pressed to care for women who have complications from medication abortion. They said that when restrictions were loosened in 2016 and 2021, the FDA increased the chances for ectopic pregnancies and other dangerous conditions.

“In removing crucial safeguards for the use of abortion drugs,” Erin Hawley, lead lawyer for the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, told the court in a filing, “FDA expressly counted on OB/GYN hospitalists and emergency-room doctors … to manage abortion-drug complications. When faced with these emergencies, (the doctors) have no choice but to provide immediate treatment, even though this kind of participation in an elective abortion harms their consciences and injures them in other ways.”

The Department of Justice counters that such hypothetical scenarios “cannot establish an imminent injury,” required for legal standing, and that the challengers “cannot identify even a single case where any of their members has been forced to provide such care.”

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

Florida top court allows for near-total abortion ban; says voters can decide issue in November

ON THE NOV. 5 BALLOT

Get weekly news and analysis on the U.S. elections and how it matters to the world with the newsletter On the Campaign Trail. Sign up here.

Reporting by Brendan Pierson and Tom Hals; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Will Dunham and Bill Berkrot

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Brendan Pierson reports on product liability litigation and on all areas of health care law. He can be reached at [email protected].

Tom Hals is an award-winning reporter with 25 years of experience working in Asia, Europe and the United States. Since 2009 he has covered legal issues and high-stakes court battles, ranging from challenges to pandemic policies to Elon Musk's campaign to end his deal for Twitter.

Russia presses for answers from West over Nord Stream blasts

Russia's general prosecutor's office has written to western countries, it said on Wednesday, asking them to respect international obligations to deliver justice as they investigate the Nord Stream blasts and "acts of terrorism" in Russia.

• The Buzz on Florida Politics

Florida to get 6-week abortion ban, but abortion access will be on 2024 ballot

• Romy Ellenbogen Times staff

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the state’s Constitution does not protect access to abortion, letting the current 15-week ban stand and triggering a stricter six-week ban.

That six-week ban is now set to take effect in 30 days.

But the court separately on Monday gave the OK for an amendment to go on November’s ballot that would protect abortion.

Justices voted 6-1 — with Justice Jorge Labarga dissenting — to uphold the constitutionality of the 15-week abortion law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022. The ruling was a departure from precedent set in the 1980s that said the state’s right to privacy protected the decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy.

When Florida lawmakers last year passed a six-week ban, they wrote a trigger provision setting it to take effect after a court ruling in favor of the 15-week abortion law.

The change will disrupt abortion access not only in Florida, but for women across the southeastern U.S., giving them fewer places to turn to for legal abortions in a part of the country where many states ban abortion almost entirely.

The justices were more split in their amendment decision, deciding in a 4-3 margin to allow it on the ballot. The amendment has been championed by abortion-rights groups and supported financially by groups like Planned Parenthood.

The amendment’s text in part reads that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” Viability is estimated to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Attorney General Ashley Moody had challenged the amendment as misleading, but the majority of Florida justices said it wasn’t. In a majority court opinion, Justices Carlos Muñiz, Charles Canady, John Couriel and Labarga said the amendment’s broad sweep is obvious from its summary, and denying that “requires a flight from reality.”

In a statement, DeSantis said that the three dissenting justices — Jamie Grosshans, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso — got it right. All three are DeSantis appointees, as are Muñiz and Couriel.

“This amendment is misleading and will confuse voters,” Julia Friedland, a spokesperson for DeSantis, said in a statement. “The language hides the amendment’s true purpose of mandating that abortions be permitted up to the time of birth.”

At least 60% of voters are needed to approve the amendment. If passed, it would effectively undo the six-week abortion ban only months after it goes into effect. It could also undo Florida’s current mandatory 24-hour delay before an abortion. Parents would still be notified before a minor child has an abortion, but passage of the proposed amendment could undo laws that require parental consent.

Voters in several states have moved to either expand abortion access or shoot down further restrictions in the nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had provided federal protection for abortion.

That includes Ohio, where about 57% of voters in November supported a measure that would protect abortion up until viability. In all seven of the states where voters have weighed in on abortion since 2022, abortion-rights advocates have come away successful.

Though Muñiz agreed to put the amendment on the ballot, he expressed concerns in a concurring opinion about how the amendment would affect the rights of the unborn, saying it would “constitutionalize restrictions on the people’s authority to use law to protect an entire class of human beings from private harm.”

It echoes questions he raised in February during oral arguments.

Mary Ziegler, a reproductive law expert at UC Davis, said she had expected Florida’s justices would eventually write about “fetal personhood,” a concept that aims to give fetuses more legal rights. But she said she didn’t expect it to come in the ballot ruling, especially because it wasn’t part of Moody’s argument.

“Usually courts are not in the business of biting off more than they have to to resolve a particular case,” Ziegler said.

The court’s dual decisions on Monday raised mixed feelings for people on both sides of the abortion issue.

Lauren Brenzel, the campaign director for the group sponsoring the proposed amendment, said in a statement that they were “thrilled Floridians will have the opportunity to reclaim their bodily autonomy” by voting for the amendment in November. Brenzel added that the six-week ban is an “extremist” policy.

“The government should not interfere in personal medical decisions that should be between Floridians and their doctors,” Brenzel said. “And doctors and nurses should not have to risk criminal prosecution to treat the patient in front of them.”

Caitlin Connors, the Southern regional director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the group was thrilled that the six-week law will soon be enacted, but disappointed that the amendment ruling could undo it.

“What we’ll certainly have ahead of us is a major fight on our hands to continue to protect the unborn and the progress that has been made in the state of Florida to protect the unborn,” Connors said.

Moody, in a statement, expressed disappointment that the justices had approved the proposed amendment to go on the ballot, but applauded the court for “revisiting its precedent on Florida’s right to privacy” in the 15-week abortion law case.

Florida’s new six-week ban includes limited exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking up to 15 weeks of pregnancy, and only with some form of proof like a medical record or police report. Beyond that, any exceptions would be for the health of the mother.

Opponents of the restriction have said that some women don’t know they’re pregnant at six weeks.

With Florida soon to have a six-week ban, North Carolina becomes the closest Southern state with more abortion access, with their 12-week cutoff. Virginia has not restricted abortion access, and abortion is available through 26 weeks. Both Georgia and South Carolina also have six-week bans. Other Southern states, like Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, have completely banned abortion with limited exceptions.

Times staff writer Ivy Nyayieka and Times/Herald Tallahassee bureau reporter Alexandra Glorioso contributed to this report.

Romy Ellenbogen is a Tallahassee correspondent, covering state government with a focus on criminal justice and health. Reach her at [email protected].

MORE FOR YOU

• Advertisement

ONLY AVAILABLE FOR SUBSCRIBERS

The Tampa Bay Times e-Newspaper is a digital replica of the printed paper seven days a week that is available to read on desktop, mobile, and our app for subscribers only. To enjoy the e-Newspaper every day, please subscribe.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Florida Supreme Court upholds state’s 15-week abortion ban, but voters will soon have a say

FILE - Participants wave signs as they walk back to Orlando City Hall during the March for Abortion Access, Oct. 2, 2021, in Orlando, Fla. The Florida Supreme Court on Monday, April 1, 2024, upheld the state’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which means a subsequently passed six-week ban can soon take effect. (Chasity Maynard/Orlando Sentinel via AP, File)

FILE - Protesters hold signs as Barbara DeVane, of the Tallahassee National Organization for Women, speaks outside the Florida Historic Capitol, June 24, 2022, in Tallahassee, Fla., during a rally protesting the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. The Florida Supreme Court issued rulings Monday, April 1, 2024, allowing the state’s voters to decide whether to protect abortion rights and legalize recreational use of marijuana, rejecting the state attorney general’s arguments that the measures should be kept off the November ballot. (Chasity Maynard/Tallahassee Democrat via AP, File)

• Copy Link copied

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — The Florida Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the state to ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant, while also giving voters a chance to remove restrictions in November.

The court, which was reshaped by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, ruled 6-1 to uphold the state’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, meaning a ban on six weeks could soon take effect. But under a separate 4-3 ruling, the court allowed a ballot measure to go to voters that would enshrine abortion rights in Florida’s constitution.

The court’s decisions could be pivotal in the presidential race and congressional contests this year by driving abortion-rights supporters to the polls. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022 , voters in every state with an abortion-related ballot measure have favored the side backed by abortion rights supporters.

The 15-week ban, signed by DeSantis in 2022, has been enforced while it was challenged in court. The six-week ban, passed by the Legislature last year, was written so that it would not take effect until a month after the 2022 law was upheld.

Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the law argued that the Florida Constitution’s unique privacy clause for more than 40 years has explicitly protected a right to abortion in the state and should remain in force.

Lawyers for the state, however, said when the privacy clause was adopted by voter referendum in 1980, few people understood it would cover abortion. They told the justices the clause was mainly meant to cover “informational privacy” such as personal records and not abortion.

The Florida justices agreed, saying that when voters approved the privacy clause, they didn’t know it would affect abortion laws.

“The debate — as framed to the public — overwhelmingly associated the Privacy Clause’s terms with concerns related to government surveillance and disclosure of private information to the public’” the court wrote. “Prolife and prochoice groups did not join in the fray. These groups are not politically bashful— not now, and not in 1980.”

DeSantis, who took office in 2019, appointed five of the court’s seven justices.

Republican House Speaker Paul Renner said the six-week ban is a good fit for Florida and noted the law includes exceptions for cases involving rape, incest and fetal abnormalities, as well as to save a mother’s life.

“It is a compromise that addresses where I think many Floridians are.”

Abortion rights proponents were disheartened by the ruling.

“This decision demonstrates how precarious our personal freedoms are in this state,” said Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani. “It’s so extreme you’re going to see Floridians having to go out of state, probably to Virginia, to get care.”

The Florida Access Network plans to switch its strategy from finding abortion care for women in Florida to paying for their travel expenses to go out of state, said Stephanie Loraine Pineiro, the advocacy group’s executive director.

“People who can’t afford to travel, can’t afford to lose their jobs because they have to travel for abortion care, these are the people who are going to be forced to remain pregnant,” she said. “The collateral damage is all of us.”

The proposed constitutional amendment that will be on the November ballot says “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” It provides for one exception that is already in the state constitution: Parents must be notified before their minor children can get an abortion.

Most Republican-controlled states have adopted bans or restrictions on abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.

A survey of abortion providers conducted for the Society of Family Planning, which advocates for abortion access, found that Florida had the second-largest increase in the total number of abortions provided since the Dobbs decision. The state’s data shows that more than 7,700 women from other states received abortions in Florida in 2023.

Fourteen states, including nearby Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, now have bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. Georgia and South Carolina bar it once cardiac activity can be detected, which is generally considered to be around six weeks into pregnancy.

Associated Press writers Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, N.J.; Terry Spencer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Stephany Matat in West Palm Beach; Mike Schneider in Orlando; Curt Anderson in St. Petersburg; and David Fischer in Miami contributed to this report.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Florida supreme court clears way for both abortion ballot measure and six-week ban

Court gave voters a chance to enshrine abortion in state constitution, but also paved way for six-week ban within 30 days

Florida residents will get the chance to vote on a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, the Florida state supreme court ruled on Monday, teeing up a dramatic electoral showdown over abortion access in a state that has become a haven for women fleeing southern abortion bans.

The decision is a victory for abortion rights activists – but one that was significantly tempered by a second decision also issued on Monday, in which the state supreme court ruled to uphold Florida’s 15-week abortion ban. That decision paves the way for a separate six-week abortion ban – passed in 2023 but on hold pending the outcome of the case over the 15-week ban – to take effect.

The six-week ban will take effect in 30 days.

In upholding the 15-week ban, which was passed shortly before the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022, the Florida state supreme court upended a 1989 decision that had found that women had the right to an abortion through the second trimester of pregnancy, thanks to privacy protections in the state constitution.

“The privacy clause of the Florida constitution does not mention abortion or include a word or phrase that clearly incorporates it. Era-appropriate dictionary definitions and contextual clues suggest that abortion does not naturally fit within the rights at issue,” reads the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Jamie Grosshans. “Reliable historical sources, like the technical meaning of the terms contained in the provision, the origin of the amendment, and the framing of the public debate, similarly do not support a conclusion that abortion should be read into the provision’s text.”

Grosshans was appointed by Florida’s current governor, Republican Ron DeSantis. In total, five of the seven justices on the Florida state supreme court were appointed by Republicans.

The fight over the constitutional amendment will now become even more urgent – if it passes, it will restore the abortion access set to be curtailed by the six-week ban. Under the constitutional amendment proposed by the ballot measure, access to abortion would be protected until fetal viability, which is generally around 24 weeks of pregnancy, as well as in cases when a doctor deems an abortion necessary to protect a patient’s health.

In the meantime, the ban is set to have a staggering impact on abortion access across the southern US, since people outside Florida rely heavily on the state for abortions. Almost 10,000 people who received abortions in Florida in 2023 hailed from outside Florida, according to a recent analysis by the Guttmacher Institute. That’s more than double the out-of-state abortion patients seen in Florida in 2020, before Roe fell.

Ashley Moody, Florida’s Republican attorney general, had asked Florida’s supreme court to stop the ballot measure from reaching voters, arguing that, in part, the term “viability” can have too many meanings.

The language of the ballot measure summary, Moody had argued in court documents, is so vague as to be misleading and is part of a “similar overall design to lay ticking time bombs that will enable abortion proponents later to argue that the amendment has a much broader meaning than voters would ever have thought”. By allowing healthcare providers to determine if an abortion is necessary to protect a patient’s health or whether a fetus has reached viability, the ballot measure would strip power away from the government – and does not clearly convey that shift in power to voters, Moody argued in court records.

In a “per curiam” opinion – meaning it was not authored by a specific judge – the Florida justices rejected that argument.

after newsletter promotion

“That the proposed amendment’s principal goal and chief purpose is to limit government interference with abortion is plainly stated in terms that clearly and unambiguously reflect the text of the proposed amendment,” they wrote. “And the broad sweep of this proposed amendment is obvious in the language of the summary. Denying this requires a flight from reality.”

Almost 1 million Florida voters signed petitions to add the measure to the November ballot, according to an unofficial tally from the Florida division of elections.

Abortion-related ballot measures are currently in the works in about a dozen states across the country, including swing states such as Arizona and Nevada. Democrats are hoping that referendums to protect abortion rights will amp up turnout and help propel their candidates to victory, since abortion rights have become a winning electoral issue after the downfall of Roe v Wade in 2022. Outrage over the fall of Roe was credited with lessening a much-heralding “red wave” in the 2022 elections, while voters have backed abortion rights even in deep-red states like Kansas and Kentucky.

“The Florida supreme court was right to let the ballot initiative go before voters – and it’s a good thing they did because voters will need to head to the polls to undo the damage the court is causing with its decision to allow an extreme ban on abortion to go into effect,” Mini Timmaraju, Reproductive Freedom for All president, said in a statement on Monday. “This is devastating news for access to abortion care in the state and the entire south.”

• US elections 2024

Most viewed

A newsletter briefing on the health-care policy debate in Washington.

Fla. abortion ban upheld, but its future lies with voters

Good morning, and happy Tuesday! Today’s newsletter top draws from a sweeping report by The Post’s Caroline Kitchener , Lori Rozsa and Beth Reinhard . Not a subscriber? Sign up here .

Today’s edition: The federal health secretary is heading to Florida to tout the Biden administration’s efforts to protect reproductive rights. Federal regulators finalized Medicare Advantage payment rates for 2025. But first …

Florida Supreme Court upholds abortion ban, but gives voters the final say

Florida’s conservative Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the state’s constitution doesn’t protect abortion rights, allowing one of the country’s strictest and most far-reaching abortion bans to take effect May 1. 

But in a separate decision, the high court also ruled that an amendment to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution can go on the November ballot, setting up a vote that could undo the new strict abortion ban in a matter of months.

Together, the two rulings ensure that abortion will be a major issue in Florida during the presidential election — with Floridians experiencing the realities of a six-week abortion ban for six months before they have the opportunity to cast a vote on the issue.

“Today’s rulings prove exactly what is at stake at the ballot box,” said Nikki Fried , the chair of the Florida Democratic Party . “Florida voters understand that voting yes on Amendment 4 in November is our last line of defense.”

RESTRICTIONS UPHELD

The abortion ban ruling significantly narrows the scope of a provision in the Florida Constitution that protects the right to privacy, added by voters in 1980 and long interpreted by courts as a safeguard against abortion restrictions. 

The decision will have a dual effect on abortion access in Florida . While the case centered on the constitutionality of the state’s existing 15-week ban, the ruling will also trigger a far stricter law passed this spring that prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.  

That ban — which includes exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies and medical emergencies — will all but eliminate abortion access in the South, while further straining abortion clinics elsewhere across the United States. 

Antiabortion advocates immediately celebrated the ruling . “I am ecstatic,” said John Stemberger , a leading abortion opponent in Florida and the president of Liberty Counsel Action , a conservative advocacy group. “We’ve been arguing for 35 years that the privacy clause was about informational privacy and was never intended by the people to create a fundamental right to abortion.”

FLORIDIANS SET TO WEIGH IN

In November, voters will have a chance to decide whether people can continue to access the procedure in Florida. 

The Floridians Protecting Freedom coalition gathered more than 1.5 million signatures in less than nine months to put the proposal on the ballot — far more than the 891,523 needed.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) objected to the language in the proposed amendment, saying it was too broad. But in their ruling Monday, the justices said the amendment’s intent and potential scope were more than clear.

• “The broad sweep of this proposed amendment is obvious in the language of the summary,” they wrote. “Denying this requires a flight from reality.” 

The proposed amendment states: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s health care provider.” A 60 percent supermajority would need to vote in favor of the amendment to add it to the constitution.

You can read Caroline, Lori and Beth’s full report here . 

More from Caroline:

I have been talking with abortion providers all night who are struggling to put into words the impact a 6-wk ban in FL will have nationwide. Florida has 80k+ abortions every year. TX used to have about 50k, and that was far more than any other ban state. https://t.co/5y0dIXfxyb — Caroline Kitchener (@CAKitchener) April 2, 2024

Becerra to attend congressional field hearing in Florida

On tap today: Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra heads to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to highlight the Biden administration’s efforts to safeguard access to reproductive care. 

Becerra is slated to testify at a House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee field hearing on Florida’s reproductive-care laws alongside affected women and local stakeholders. It will be co-led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). 

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra: 

The Florida Supreme Court ruling today puts women in danger, with a six week abortion ban taking hold in just 30 days. The impact will be devastating. I’ll be in Florida tomorrow to testify in a House field hearing on reproductive health care. Watch live: https://t.co/3J2XpMOKRL https://t.co/yTcjsCjpuq — Secretary Xavier Becerra (@SecBecerra) April 1, 2024

Agency alert

Cms finalizes 2025 medicare advantage rates.

Payments to Medicare Advantage are expected to increase by an average of 3.7 percent in 2025 under reimbursement rates finalized yesterday by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . 

The final rule is largely the same as the agency’s January proposal , despite an intense lobbying push that sought to pressure the Biden administration into boosting payments. Overall, the federal government expects to pay up to $600 billion in Medicare Advantage payments next year. 

Health insurers decried the final rate . “These policies will put even more pressure on the benefits and premiums of 33 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who will be renewing their coverage this fall,” Mike Tuffin , president and CEO of the industry trade group AHIP , said in a statement . 

Meanwhile …

The federal health department is reminding hospitals that they must secure written consent before conducting sensitive and invasive examinations, especially if the patient will be unconscious. 

In a letter to the nation’s teaching hospitals and medical schools yesterday, Becerra and other key officials cited reports of doctors and students performing breast, prostate, rectal and other exams on patients under anesthesia without their explicit permission . 

• The agency also issued new guidelines clarifying the requirement that hospitals must obtain written consent as a condition for being reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid. 

Industry Rx

Algorithms are guiding senior home staffing. managers say care is suffering..

Employees of the nation’s largest assisted-living chain say an algorithm-based system used to set staffing levels at its properties across the country fails to capture the nuances of caring for vulnerable seniors , The Post’s Douglas MacMillan and Christopher Rowland report. 

In emails and phone calls to executives at Brookdale Senior Living , building managers repeatedly complained that the algorithm underestimated the amount of labor required to meet resident needs. Several managers said they quit or were fired after objecting to the system, known as “Service Alignment.” 

Residents and their families have also decried the approach . In two civil lawsuits against Brookdale, a dozen residents or their loved ones claimed they suffered due to short-staffing caused by the company’s overreliance on algorithms. 

The view from Brookdale: In a statement to The Post, spokesperson Jackie Dickson disputed the allegations in the lawsuits and said the company empowers local facility managers to set staffing levels as they see fit. 

In other health news

• Officials confirmed that a person in Texas is being treated for bird flu , marking the second human case of an illness caused by a highly virulent virus that has rampaged through sickened dairy cows in five states in recent weeks, our colleagues Lena H. Sun and Rachel Roubein report. 
• Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D) signed a bill yesterday that makes minor drug possession a crime again , marking the end of the state’s pioneering and politically tumultuous decriminalization experiment, Noelle Crombie reports for the Oregonian . 
• A Senate committee has asked three major private-equity firms for information on how they run or staff hospital emergency departments , citing interviews with physicians who expressed “significant concerns” about patient safety and care, Gretchen Morgenson reports for NBC News . 

Health reads

Biden administration U.S. ban on menthol cigarettes delayed (By Juveria Tabassum, Emma Rumney and Ahmed Aboulenein | Reuters)

A biased test kept thousands of Black people from getting a kidney transplant. It's finally changing (By Lauran Neergaard | The Associated Press)

CNN Exclusive: Adderall prescriptions have been filled less often amid ongoing shortage in the US (Deidre McPhillips | CNN)