roe v wade summary essay

• 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

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

• 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 .)

For Hungry Minds

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.

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.

You May Also Like

Could menopause be delayed? The answer could lead to longer lifespans for women

The menstrual cycle can reshape your brain

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

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

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

Schizophrenia in women is widely misunderstood—and misdiagnosed

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

Oral contraceptives may help lower the risk of sports injuries

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

• Environment
• Paid Content
• Photography
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• 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

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

• 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.

Advertisement

What did Roe v. Wade say?

• Share full article

By Adam Liptak

• Dec. 1, 2021

By a 7 to 2 vote in 1973, the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion, striking down laws in many states that had barred the procedure. The court said states could not ban abortions before fetal viability, the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb. That was around 28 weeks at the time and, because of improvements in medical technology, is around 23 weeks now.

Roe also established a 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.

The court discarded the trimester framework in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But Casey retained what it called Roe’s “essential holding” — that women have a constitutional right to terminate their pregnancies until fetal viability.

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak

The Landmark Decision: Understanding Roe V. Wade

This essay about Roe v. Wade explores the landmark Supreme Court decision of 1973, which affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy. It discusses the case’s origins, the Court’s ruling on the right to privacy, and the framework established for regulating abortion. Highlighting the societal impact and ongoing debate surrounding the decision, the essay emphasizes its significance in shaping reproductive rights, political discourse, and American culture. Roe v. Wade remains a polarizing issue, symbolizing the tension between individual autonomy and state interests in matters of personal morality and medical ethics.

How it works

In the realm of American jurisprudence, few cases have had as profound an impact as Roe v. Wade. This landmark decision, handed down by the United States Supreme Court in 1973, fundamentally altered the landscape of reproductive rights in the country. At its core, Roe v. Wade addressed the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortion, sparking a national dialogue that continues to resonate to this day.

The case originated in Texas, where a woman identified as “Jane Roe” challenged the state’s abortion laws, which prohibited the procedure except to save the life of the mother.

Roe argued that these restrictions violated her constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, agreed with Roe, asserting that the right to privacy encompassed a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy.

Central to the Court’s ruling was the concept of viability, referring to the point at which a fetus could potentially survive outside the womb. The Court established a framework that divided pregnancy into three trimesters, with different levels of state interest and regulation permitted at each stage. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate a pregnancy was deemed solely within the realm of the woman and her physician. As the pregnancy progressed, the state’s interest in regulating abortion became more substantial, but could not override the woman’s right to choose until the point of viability.

Roe v. Wade ignited a firestorm of debate and controversy that continues to shape American politics and culture. Proponents hailed the decision as a victory for women’s rights and reproductive freedom, while opponents decried it as an assault on the sanctity of life and the traditional family unit. In the decades since the ruling, Roe v. Wade has faced numerous legal challenges and attempts to undermine or overturn it, yet it remains the law of the land.

Beyond its immediate legal implications, Roe v. Wade has had far-reaching societal effects. It has fueled ongoing debates over the role of government in regulating personal medical decisions, the intersection of morality and law, and the definition of personhood. The case has also become a rallying cry for activists on both sides of the abortion issue, shaping electoral politics, judicial appointments, and public policy at all levels of government.

Despite its significance, Roe v. Wade remains a contentious and divisive issue in American society. Public opinion on abortion rights fluctuates, reflecting shifting cultural attitudes, religious beliefs, and political ideologies. Yet, the decision’s enduring legacy lies in its recognition of a woman’s autonomy over her own body and the recognition of reproductive rights as fundamental to gender equality and individual liberty.

In conclusion, Roe v. Wade stands as a pivotal moment in American legal history, reshaping the landscape of reproductive rights and sparking a national conversation that endures to this day. Whether viewed as a triumph of individual freedom or a challenge to traditional values, the decision continues to shape the contours of American society and inspire passionate advocacy on all sides of the issue.

Cite this page

The Landmark Decision: Understanding Roe v. Wade. (2024, May 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-decision-understanding-roe-v-wade/

"The Landmark Decision: Understanding Roe v. Wade." PapersOwl.com , 28 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-decision-understanding-roe-v-wade/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Landmark Decision: Understanding Roe v. Wade . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-decision-understanding-roe-v-wade/ [Accessed: 31 May. 2024]

"The Landmark Decision: Understanding Roe v. Wade." PapersOwl.com, May 28, 2024. Accessed May 31, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-decision-understanding-roe-v-wade/

"The Landmark Decision: Understanding Roe v. Wade," PapersOwl.com , 28-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-decision-understanding-roe-v-wade/. [Accessed: 31-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Landmark Decision: Understanding Roe v. Wade . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-decision-understanding-roe-v-wade/ [Accessed: 31-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Roe v. Wade : Home

• Docket: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
• Cornell Law Faculty Scholarship on Roe v. Wade
• Think Tanks

Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey, also known by the pseudonym "Jane Roe",  was the plaintiff in the landmark American legal case Roe v. Wade in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that individual state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court 1973

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 when S.C.O.T.U.S. handed down the Roe v. Wade decision.

Henry Menasco Wade was an American lawyer who served as district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987. He was the named defendant in the  U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade.

U.S. Supreme Court 2022

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 when S.C.O.T.U.S handed down the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. 

LibGuide Creator

U.S. Supreme Court Building

• Next: Case Law >>
• Last Updated: Jul 7, 2022 3:44 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/roevwade

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-supreme-courts-full-opinion-overturning-roe-v-wade

Read the Supreme Court’s full opinion overturning Roe v. Wade

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday’s outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.

The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump.

POLL: Majority of Americans don’t want Roe overturned

The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.

It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls.

Alito, in the final opinion issued Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned.

Read the full Supreme Court opinion here :

Support Provided By: Learn more

Women reflect on what life was like before Roe v. Wade

Health Jun 21

5 key arguments from the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court on Friday issued its final opinion in a case that overturns Roe v. Wade , the ruling that has given women the constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years.

In delivering the opinion of the court’s conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the 1973 Roe decision was “egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.” His arguments were also made in a draft opinion that was publicly leaked in May, an unprecedented breach that has galvanized abortion rights supporters and their anti-abortion opponents.

Legal experts say the language in the official version does not significantly diverge from Alito’s draft . While the justices voted 6-3 to uphold a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a separate concurring opinion that he does not support the full repeal of abortion rights.

In their dissent, the high court’s three liberal wing justices — Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — took aim at the majority’s “draconian” ruling as a decision that will curtail women’s rights and their “status as free and equal citizens.”

Both sets of justices made compelling arguments that legal experts say will set off fierce constitutional debate. Among those key takeaways are:

Erik Ortiz is a senior reporter for NBC News Digital focusing on racial injustice and social inequality.

Nigel Chiwaya is the Senior Editor, Data Viz for NBC News Digital.

Take a Peek at How Exactly the Right Demolished Roe v. Wade

T here is a reason I have not, and likely will not, indulge in any Cancel My New York Times Subscription gesture. As crazy as much of their political coverage and a pretty big chunk of their opinion writing make me, the NYT is still one of the few newspapers with the wherewithal (and with the motivation to use it) to engage in long investigations into important stories, such as this weekend’s NYT Magazine opus on the granular details of how the Supreme Court’s carefully manufactured conservative majority was so carefully manufactured.

Nine days after Donald Trump won the 2016 election, the halls of the Mayflower Hotel, just blocks from the White House, were adorned with twinkling Christmas lights and abuzz with the possibilities of a future that had changed overnight. Hillary Clinton, the woman the anti-abortion movement feared more than perhaps anyone, had failed to win the presidency. And Leo and the conservative legal movement that he worked for years to create were about to reclaim power. With that power would come the chance to do what seemed unthinkable until this moment: strategize to take down Roe v. Wade.

The rest of the piece should be read in its entirety, in chunks permitted if you’re inclined to throw magazines across the room in disgust. It describes in excruciating detail how complete the assault on the privacy rights of 51 percent of the American people was, and how little the expressed opinion of 60 percent of those answering questions in opinion polls mattered. It is a blow-by-blow account of how, given limitless funds and almost limitless determination, and gifted with a smug, near-sighted opposition, the anti-choice forces got control of the reproductive lives of millions of American women. For example, here is a portion of the account of how the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, at the time the only abortion provider in the benighted state of Mississippi, became the weapon of the anti-choice movement’s final triumph.

The legislation was written in a way that suggested it was grounded primarily in medical reasoning. But it featured specific legal language that aimed directly at A.D.F.’s real target. Roe had called the developing embryo and fetus “potential human life.” This bill described it as “an unborn human being” and highlighted specific details of prenatal development as evidence. The legislation stated that the United States was one of seven countries in the world to allow for abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a way to argue that the country was an outlier among developed nations.

Taylor knew a 15-week ban would criminalize only about 3 percent of the roughly 2,600 abortions that were performed in Mississippi that year. But stopping procedures was not the point. A.D.F.’s primary goal was to write bills as a litigation strategy, not draft laws that would make for the strongest public policy or end the greatest number of abortions. The Mississippi bill was a legal tool to provoke a Supreme Court challenge to Roe—and set in motion a much larger plan to eventually end all abortion in America. Some lawmakers in Mississippi worried that they would be sued if the bill passed and did not want to be saddled with the exorbitant cost such litigation could bring. But A.D.F. had a plan for that too, offering to have its lawyers defend the law at no cost to the state. This free legal counsel was a selling point for Taylor when he lobbied the legislators to take up the bill.

Reading this account, which is an excerpt from an upcoming book from two NYT staffers, is to hear the echoes of a thousand op-ed tut-tuts about how the conservatives only “wanted the issue” for fundraising, about how they knew what a political disaster a complete reversal would be, as well as all those more-progressive-than-thou liberals who claimed that Hillary Clinton’s warnings about the ideological hijacking of the federal courts was “blackmail.” The end of Roe v. Wade was a towering exercise of sheer political will.

And the Los Angeles Times has brought us a warning about another shadowy, and mysteriously well-financed, conservative operation, this one aimed at further decimating voting-rights law. Let the paper introduce you to the United Sovereign Americans, of whom I suspect we will all become terribly familiar over the next several months.

The nearly 90 people gathered in the diner in February were there to understand how they can do their part in a plan to sue California to block certification of the 2024 election results unless the state can prove that ballots were cast only by people eligible to vote. If any votes are found to be ineligible, Hornik explained, then all voters are being disenfranchised—just like those decades ago who couldn’t vote because of their race. “If we think our right of suffrage...has been denied or diluted, we have to stop that immediately. We have to stop it right in its tracks,” said Hornik, co-founder of a group called United Sovereign Americans, which is led by a man who helped push former President Trump’s baseless challenges to Joe Biden’s election in 2020.

Of course, the argument is pure moonshine, but it is a distant cousin to the “equal protection” argument that prevailed in Bush v. Gore in which not even the lawyers who thought it up had any faith until Rehnquist et. al bought it for strictly political reasons.

What United Sovereign Americans has planned is a legal long shot. But election experts worry that if even one sympathetic judge rules in their favor, it could sow doubts about the integrity of a presidential rematch between President Biden and Donald Trump. “Sometimes the whole point is to whip up enough smoke that it seems like a fire,” said Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general who specializes in voting rights.

Damn right I’m worried.