Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (USSC+)
Case Information
Roe v. Wade
No. 70-18
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
410 U.S. 113
December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972
January 22, 1973
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Syllabus
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 justifiable 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 justifiable. 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.
Held:
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 [p*114] 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 lifesaving 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 .
Held:
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 [p*114] 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 lifesaving 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 [p*115] that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166 .
314 F.Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Opinions
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. 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 . [p*116]
BLACKMUN, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This Texas federal appeal and its Georgia companion, Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, present constitutional challenges to state criminal abortion legislation. The Texas statutes under attack here are typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century. The Georgia statutes, in contrast, have a modern cast, and are a legislative product that, to an extent at least, obviously reflects the influences of recent attitudinal change, of advancing medical knowledge and techniques, and of new thinking about an old issue.
We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion.
In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.
Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this, and, because we do, we [p*117] have inquired into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries. We bear in mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes’ admonition in his now-vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 , 76 (1905):
[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
I
The Texas statutes that concern us here are Arts. 1191-1194 and 1196 of the State’s Penal Code. [n1] These make it a crime to “procure an abortion,” as therein [p*118] defined, or to attempt one, except with respect to “an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Similar statutes are in existence in a majority of the States. [n2] [p*119]
Texas first enacted a criminal abortion statute in 1854. Texas Laws 1854, c. 49, § 1, set forth in 3 H. Gammel, Laws of Texas 1502 (1898). This was soon modified into language that has remained substantially unchanged to the present time. See Texas Penal Code of 1857, c. 7, Arts. 531-536; G. Paschal, Laws of Texas, Arts. 2192-2197 (1866); Texas Rev.Stat., c. 8, Arts. 536-541 (1879); Texas Rev.Crim.Stat., Arts. 1071-1076 (1911). The final article in each of these compilations provided the same exception, as does the present Article 1196, for an abortion by “medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” [n3] [p*120]
II
Jane Roe, [n4] a single woman who was residing in Dallas County, Texas, instituted this federal action in March 1970 against the District Attorney of the county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face, and an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the statutes.
Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion “performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions”; that she was unable to get a “legal” abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint, Roe purported to sue “on behalf of herself and all other women” similarly situated.
James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe’s action. In his complaint, he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes, and [p*121] that two such prosecutions were pending against him. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases he, as a physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his patients’ rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
John and Mary Doe, [n5] a married couple, filed a companion complaint to that of Roe. They also named the District Attorney as defendant, claimed like constitutional deprivations, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The Does alleged that they were a childless couple; that Mrs. Doe was suffering from a “neural-chemical” disorder; that her physician had “advised her to avoid pregnancy until such time as her condition has materially improved” (although a pregnancy at the present time would not present “a serious risk” to her life); that, pursuant to medical advice, she had discontinued use of birth control pills; and that, if she should become pregnant, she would want to terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent, licensed physician under safe, clinical conditions. By an amendment to their complaint, the Does purported to sue “on behalf of themselves and all couples similarly situated.”
The two actions were consolidated and heard together by a duly convened three-judge district court. The suits thus presented the situations of the pregnant single woman, the childless couple, with the wife not pregnant, [p*122] and the licensed practicing physician, all joining in the attack on the Texas criminal abortion statutes. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and members of her class, and Dr. Hallford, had standing to sue and presented justifiable controversies, but that the Does had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy, and did not have standing. It concluded that, with respect to the requests for a declaratory judgment, abstention was not warranted. On the merits, the District Court held that the
fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment,
and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs’ Ninth Amendment rights. The court then held that abstention was warranted with respect to the requests for an injunction. It therefore dismissed the Does’ complaint, declared the abortion statutes void, and dismissed the application for injunctive relief. 314 F.Supp. 1217, 1225 (ND Tex.1970).
| Useful Information | Perspectives | Strategy & Maxims | Historical Documents | Landmark Cases | Social Phylosophy | Disaster Planning |
Ticks and Other
Insect Vector-Borne Health Risks
TEOTOWAKI Will Never Happen
The 3’s of Survival Are Worthless Tripe
Knowledge Is NOT Power !!
Learn What Is
Anti-Government & Other
Counter Productive Attitudes
Radioactive Fallout in Water Soon to Hit
the West Coast of the USA and Canada
Prudent Steps to Prepare
Hot – Breaking Topics & News
Do you have a Faraday Cage?
Earthquakes Happen Everyday What Should You Know?
Earthquake Live Feed Interactive Map
Never Heat Food or Water in Plastic
With Recycle Codes 1, 3, or 7
PETE or PVC Plastic NEVER !!
What should you do if you breakdown on the highway?
Comfort & Routine Is Your Survival
Military Styled BugOut Plans Don’t Work
I Choose the Country Lifestyle
Urban or Rural?
If You BugOut Without A Plan
You Are A Refugee
Winter Travel in Your Vehicle? Have a Kit
If the roads are flooded what should you do?
I came around the corner right into a giant puddle
Now what should I do?
If You Are Away From Home Be Prepared
You Might Not Be Able to Get Home
Water – What You Need to Know
Silver Solutions the Good, the Bad and the Facts
Understand Social Order and Teamwork
If You Want to Survive a Disaster – Sociology 101
Everything You Need to Know to be a Leader
Colloidial or Ionic Silver
Urban Dweller Perspectives on Survival
Learn How to Cut Your WayThrough the BS and Get the True Facts
Outdoor & Hiking Survival Skills & Tips
General Preparedness Tips & Skills
For Personal Home & Businesses
Urban Dwelling Requires
Special Survival Skills Every Day
Things That You Need to Know
If You Are A Hunter or Survivalist
If You Are A Prepper
These Skills Are For You
If you really want to survive, You need to understand how to build a team, lead it, create a societal structure, and history
Understand water; What you need, How stay hydrated, How to harvest it, How to carry it, How to Treat, Filter, and Purify It
Every time that you get into your vehicle; car, truck, van, etc. You are at risk. Even in the parking lot. Before you go on the road prepare and educate yourself.
Find Lots of Great Information
From Governmental Sources
Environmental, Legal, Government, & More
Please contact our Webmaster with questions or comments. © Copyright 2011 PracticeSurvival.com, SurviveWithWill.com Integrity Protection Service All rights reserved. Reproduction, printing, redistribution without expressed written permission is forbidden and illegal.
PracticeSurvival.com Disclaimer Notice
All of the information on this website is offered on the strict basis that you and others will exercise proper caution and care in doing any of the things that are presented on this site. YOU are solely responsible for the use to which you put this material. You must take responsibility for your own actions.
These pages are intended to open your eyes, begin your road to enlightenment. We are on a shoe string budget so we do our best to edit and error check, if there may be some typos for which we appologize in advance. The idea is to introduce ideas for you to investigate further and prepare you to understand his classes. Some activities related to wilderness survival and preparedness can be dangerous if done without proper care and attention. Please be careful and attentive when engaging in any of these activities.
Be reasonable, responsible, take proper precautions, and exercise common sense.
The techniques shown on this website are meant solely for use in primitive wilderness survival and emergency off grid situations. Please note that in most places it is illegal to use some of the methods suggested to capture animals unless you are actually in a life and death survival situation.
Contact Info: PO Box 1448, Bellmawr, NJ 08099 USA Email: info@survivewithwill.com Phone: 856-861-0300
