United States Supreme Court Abortion Rulings
There has been a number of abortion related decisions made by the United States Supreme Court over the years. Some are well known, such as "Roe vs. Wade," but some are rarely talked about at all, such as "United States vs. Vuitch" and "Doe vs Bolton," the latter having an inormous impact on the accessibility of abortion.
Members of the US Supreme Court (January 1973)
Quick History:
Colorado became the first state in 1967 to decriminalize a doctor performing an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical disability of the woman. In 1967 California also passed the "Therapeutic Abortion Act" which decriminalized abortions when done to protect the health of the mother. Then in 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortions at the request of the woman, and New York repealed its abortion laws and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Similar laws were then passed in Alaska and Washington. A law in Washington, D.C., which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that "health" meant "psychological and physical well-being", essentially allowing abortion in Washington, DC. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only, and Alabama and Massachusetts allowed abortions only in cases where the woman's physical health was endangered.
Prior to "Roe," practically every state in the nation had wrestled with, had discussions about, and passed legislation, on allowing or keeping restrictions to abortion. Though some states were beginning to loosen restrictions to abortion, most notably New York, California ________, the vast majority of states, in the end, adopted laws which kept, for the most part, abortion as a crime. The Court's basic argument in Roe was that a woman should have the right to access abortion, per the "right to privacy" found in the Fourteenth amendment.
United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held that the District of Columbia's abortion law banning the practice except when necessary for the health or life of the woman was not unconstitutionally vague.[1]
Milan Vuitch, an abortion provider in the District of Columbia, had several times come under suit for providing abortion services that the government deemed not necessary for the life or health of the woman, as required by the DC law. Vuitch challenged the law as being unconstitutionally vague with regard to the term "health;" the law did not define health in terms that would allow doctors to determine if their actions had broken the law.[2] Federal District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell agreed, dismissing Vuitch's indictment and ruling that the law failed to give the sufficient certainty required by due process of law in criminal matters.[3] Gesell's finding was the first federal court decision declaring an abortion law unconstitutional.[4] The United States appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court.[5]
There were two questions before the court: firstly, whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide the case, and secondly, whether the D.C. law was unconstitutionally vague. On the first question, Justice Black, joined by Burger, Douglas, Stewart, and Byron White, held that they could. On the second question, Harlan and Blackmun, although dissenting in jurisdiction, joined Black on the merits, while Douglas and Stewart joined Brennan and Marshall in dissent.[1]
On the merits, Black held that "health" was not vague, since lower courts had construed it fairly concretely to mean physical as well as psychological health. Although this was the final (as well as the first) abortion case prior to Roe, only Justice Douglas, writing in dissent, suggested the existence of a general right to abortion as part of a broader right to privacy. This view would be embraced by seven justices in Roe two years later.
Vuitch lost in the sense that the statute was ruled not "vague"; the district court's decision was overturned and Vuitch could be prosecuted.[6] However, the decision treated abortion as a surgical option not fundamentally different from any other, and the Court seemed to care most about sufficient leeway being given to a doctor's professional judgement.[7]
The case was one of the first that the Supreme Court heard in regards to abortion restrictions in the United States.[8] The justices voted to hear Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, other abortion cases, the day after Vuitch's opinion was announced.[7]
WDVM-TV/Washington, DCAward for the station's investigation into malpractice and unsafe abortions at a clinic run by Dr. Milan Vuitch
repeat:::::
Colorado became the first state in 1967 to decriminalize a doctor performing an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical disability of the woman. In 1967 California also passed the ,
A bipartisan majority in the California legislature supported a new law introduced by Democratic state senator Anthony Beilenson, the "Therapeutic Abortion Act". Catholic clergy were strongly opposed but Catholic lay people were divided and non-Catholics strongly supported the proposal. Governor Ronald Reagan consulted with his father-in-law, a prominent surgeon who supported the law. He also consulted with James Cardinal McIntyre, the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles. The archbishop strongly opposed any legalization of abortion and he convinced Reagan to announce he would veto the proposed law since the draft allowed abortions in the case of birth defects. The legislature dropped that provision and Reagan signed the law, which decriminalized abortions when done to protect the health of the mother.[164][165][166] The expectation was that abortions would not become more numerous but would become much safer under hospital conditions. In 1968 the first full year under the new law there were 5,018 abortions in California. The numbers grew exponentially and stabilized at about 100,000 annually by the 1970s. 99.2% of California women who applied for an abortion were granted one. One out of every three pregnancies was ended by illegal abortion. The key factor was the sudden emergence of a woman's movement that introduced a very new idea—women had a basic right to control their bodies and could choose to have an abortion or not. Reagan by 1980 found his support among anti-abortion religious groups and said he was too new as governor to make a wise decision.[167]
In 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortions on the request of the woman,[168] and New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska and Washington. A law in Washington, D.C., which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that "health" meant "psychological and physical well-being", essentially allowing abortion in Washington, DC. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama and Massachusetts allowed abortions only in cases where the woman's physical health was endangered.
Roe vs Wade January 22, 1973.
This was the decision that started it all.
It would be good to first understand where the United States was regarding abortion policy prior to the Supreme Court's Roe decision.
a few facts about the original Supreme Court's "ROE" decision, and what the Court said (or didn't say), to better understand how we got to where we are today.
To this very day, the general consensus among the mainstream media (which is inaccurate) is that the Court determined, in their 1973 "Roe" and "Doe" decisions, that a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy before the point of fetal viability, which is typically around 24 weeks of gestation. After viability, the state has an interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus, and may regulate or prohibit abortions except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Specifically, the Court held that a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy before the point of fetal viability, which is typically around 24 weeks of gestation. After viability, the state has an interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus, and may regulate or prohibit abortions except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Surprisingly, "Roe" did not answer the question as to "when does life begin?"
The original "Roe" decision spoke extensively about abortion, and how history viewed the developing unborn fetus over the years, but it is surprising to note that the Court failed to come to any consensus on when human life began, at least to the extent whether or not that life should be protected by law. They spoke a lot about the subject, but were vague, at best, with their reasoning, and came to no concrete decision on that fundamental question.
Those who were arguing for Wade (against abortion) that day before the Court said that human life was present at the moment of conception, that prenatal life was entitled to protection under the constitution, and that the states has a legitimate responsibility to protect the health and safety of all citizens, including the unborn. Surprisingly, in the end, the Court brushed aside those concerns and concluded that "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" and that they were "...not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Chief Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion. As noted at PHSchool.com, "Approaching the matter of when life begins, Blackmun was clearly hesitant to commit the Court to any position."
"Roe" headlines Confusing and Misleading.
The headlines that made the national newspapers the next morning after the "Roe" decision was mixed. The New York Times front page headline read that the Supreme Court legalized abortion (only) in the first three months, followed by a sub-headline that said abortion could only be restricted in the last 10 weeks of pregnancy, followed by the main article itself that said (once again) a woman had the right to abortion only in the first three months of pregnancy. The Los Angeles Times front page article the next morning after "Roe" was a little more accurate, reporting that the Supreme Court ruled women had a right to abortion in the first six months of pregnancy. In all fairness to the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, the Supreme Court "Roe" decision itself has been described as "confusing," so it is no surprise for the mixed reporting, but what is important here is what was not reported.
Ramifications of "Doe" Decision.
What many people may be unaware of is that on January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion, there were actually two separate abortion-related Supreme Court decisions that day. In the well-known “Roe vs Wade” decision, the Supreme Court Justices, by a 7-2 vote, basically removed all restrictions to abortion across the country.
What was missing from those headlines was that the Supreme Court, on the same day, decided under their “Doe vs Bolton” decision, that.. "...the medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, phycological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." See page here of that particular section of the ruling.
In the most simplistic terms, what the court basically determined was that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion throughout the entire nine months of her pregnancy, and for any reason (or no reason at all). When you read the "Roe" decision, the Justices do mention that the states may have an interest in protecting "potential" human life in the third-trimester, but the subsequent "Doe" decision turns right around and strips away any such possible protection mentioned in "Roe." What we were left with then with Roe is
unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months.
Most people, to this day, are unaware of the "Doe" decision, or simply cannot believe that the Supreme Court legalized abortion for all nine months of pregnancy - but this is exactly what they did. This fact is acknowledged in an USA Today opinion piece written by Clark D. Forsythe. In his book, "Abuse of Discretion," Forsythe, noted that, ""Health" in abortion law means emotional well-being without limits. Any potential emotional reservation a woman has about being pregnant can be deemed, at the discretion of the abortion provider, as a threat to her "health," and thus a reason to ignore any abortion prohibition after fetal viability."
This ruling means that an abortionist is the person who can determine whether or not an abortion is necessary to preserve the "health" of the woman.
The abortionist can not only preform the abortion, but can do so even late in pregnancy after the unborn baby is viable (being able to live outside the womb). Today, a woman no longer needs to give any reason for obtaining an abortion. All she needs is just enough cash (always paid up front) or some other means of financial or insurance coverage.
Whatever the reason may be that the media doesn't report more about the serious ramifications of the "Doe" decision, the important thing to remember is that, from the very first day of national "legalized" abortion, the real significance and understanding of these abortion decisions were not fairly or accurately reported.
But this is not the first time that an extremely controversial story has been inaccurately reported about, and to this day, ignored by the media. A couple of examples would be, and we want to warn you that you may find this content highly offensive, the "2 Live Crew" controversy and the National Endowment for the Arts controversy.
Abortion: Today's Controversy?
Many people believe that, just like the "2 Live Crew" or the "NEA" controversies, abortion is also a subject that the media, as George Will described in the "2 Live Crew" reporting, has flinched "...from presenting the raw reality of the issue." It's true that the media does report on many different aspects of abortion, whether that be legislatively, politically, judicially, statistically, etc., everything that is, except the actual reality of abortion. Just as the lyrics of “2 Live Crew” and the descriptions of Mapplethrop's homoerotica "art" were extremely controversial and objectionable to many, the reality of abortion also falls into this category.
As for controversial content or imagery, "pro-choice" groups claim that "pro-life" people try to demonize women who have abortions, and abortion itself, by showing graphic images of aborted fetuses, but...
in fact, these groups are doing exactly what was done thorughout history, to expose an "ugly truth," whether that be Auchwitz, genecide in Ruwanda and elsewhere, or in efforts against slavery here in America. (maybe mention Emmit Till's situation/story here).
What pro-life individuals are really trying to do in showing images of aborted fetutuses is to show the humanity of the unborn child, because they believe the media has not been willing yet to do that. In reality, the majority of the "pro-life" movement are women who want nothing more than to save other women from making a terrible mistake, some that have made the same terrible mistake themselves. To be honest, the reality of abortion in America is so harsh that the real story is almost unbelievable (warning, these images are extremely offensive). As telling as images can be, there is also a landmark Esquire Magazine essay written by Professor of Surgery, Dr. Richard Selzer, titled "What I Saw at the Abortion" that speaks volumes as to what an abortion is.