Abortion In The United States

"[S]urgical dangers warned against any medical procedure. Induced abortion, in particular, involved internal use of surgical instruments, and the inevitable introduction of infection into the womb. Far better, the legislature obviously deemed, that a woman risk childbirth, than death on the operating table. Only when the risks cancelled themselves out did she have an option. Today the comparative risks weigh heavily in favor of permitting induced abortion, not as an emergency matter as in 1851, but as an elective medical procedure. Surgery in those times was almost always fatal. As the next section shows, medicine is a different science today. Induced abortion, in medical practice today, is a relatively minor surgical procedure, insofar as risks to the patient’s physical or mental well-being are concerned...."

"The law on abortion cannot be understood without reviewing the pertinent aspects of medical and legal history which gave rise to the law. When this is done, it becomes abundantly clear that public health considerations motivated this type of legislation, and that these factors no longer justify maintaining such stringent restrictions in the criminal code. In the 1820s when the first American abortion statutes were enacted, there was no medical profession as we know it. Physicians and quacks alike advertised their treatments and potions in the same marketplace. Both had little to offer the public. Medical science, an infant branch of learning in the 1800s, did not uncover the need for clean hands in gynecological examinations until the 1840s."

"Appellant Jane Roe sued as an unmarried pregnant adult woman on behalf of herself “and all other women who have sought, are seeking, or in the future will seek to obtain a legal, medically safe abortion but whose lives are not critically threatened by the pregnancy.” At the time the action was filed, Jane Roe had been “unable to secure a legal abortion in Dallas County because of the existence of the Texas Abortion Laws.” She had sought this medical procedure “because of the economic hardship which pregnancy entailed and because of the social stigma attached to the bearing of illegitimate children in our society.” Miss Roe admitted that insofar as her own interpretation of Texas law was concerned, her “life [did] not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy,” other than in a qualitative sense, and in the “extreme difficulty in securing employment of any kind” because of her pregnant condition. ane Roe suffered emotional trauma when unable to obtain a legal abortion in Texas. She regarded herself as a law-abiding citizen and did not want to participate in a felony offense by obtaining an illegal abortion. Also, she had only a tenth grade education and no well-paying job which might provide sufficient funds to travel to another jurisdiction for a legal abortion in a safe, clinical setting."

"Much research suggests that the impacts of restricted access to abortion care will be felt unequally, with the ability to seek abortion care intersecting with poverty, racism and other sociodemographic factors. Bell says that she and her fellow researchers continue to explore those demographic differences, but she stresses the importance of focusing on the individual experience, too. “People who are denied a needed abortion experience a range of negative impacts on their physical and mental health,” she said. “It’s hard to imagine the short- and long-term implications of a personal trajectory that may have been rerouted for the 9,799 people who were denied an abortion under SB8.”"

"Poor policies around paid family leave and options for child care create challenges for many in the United States, and that hasn’t changed post-Dobbs, said Beth Jarosz, a demographer and program director with the nonprofit Population Reference Bureau who focuses on child well-being. “With the end of stimulus payments and some pandemic-era social network programs, birth rates may decline because people don’t feel like they have the resources to properly care for kids,” said Jarosz, who was not involved with the new Johns Hopkins research. “Will birth rates fall faster because of that or rise faster because of more restrictive abortion access? The implications are anyone’s guess.”"

"Experts say that it’s tough to use these findings to project what the broader effects of the Dobbs decision might be. Earlier research found that the number of Texas residents who traveled out of state for an abortion spiked after the state’s Senate bill took effect, but that may not be an option for as many people under Dobbs, as many neighboring states – more than a dozen states nationwide – have also enacted abortion bans. “Now, those people are traveling much more, and those trips are getting longer, and there’s definitely a possibility that births in Texas or another state with restrictions could be larger in a post-Dobbs time,” Bell said. “During this period, there’s also growing knowledge of self-managed abortion using medication and an outpouring of support to access resources. Whether that is sustainable – and how much it will offset the restrictions – is yet to be determined.”"

"Using data from other states and from Texas in years prior to the new law, they established a version of what birth trends in Texas would have probably looked like without the law and compared that with the actual number of births reported. They found that from April to December 2022, the first months that would have reflected the effects of the policy change, there were about 297,000 total births: about 3% more than the 287,000 births that would have been expected without the law. “Texas is really unique in that it is one of the states that had one of the higher abortion rates – and, because of the population size, a relatively large number of abortions,” said Suzanne Bell, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University and co-author of the research. “At first blush, seeing the number was higher than I might have anticipated or hoped it might be.” But the 3% increase is relatively in line with what other research predicted might happen, she said. “There were still a lot of people who were going further afield for abortion care or who were self-managing their abortion,” said Bell, who studies patterns of contraceptive use and abortion. “But our results suggest that not everyone was able to overcome those barriers, and many were forced an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy to term.”"

"All it would take to cause the doctor ruin is a citizen who is confused about the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, or someone who is out for money or someone who has a vendetta against the doctor or the patient. “Physicians may be apprehensive about a situation where a woman has a miscarriage and let’s say she has an angry partner and they try to charge the physicians with aiding an abortion,” said Dr. Leah Tatum, a spokeswoman for the Texas chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

"“The Texas law pits citizens against citizens,” said Vladeck, the University of Texas legal scholar. “Even worse, I think what it does is, it encourages citizens to spy on each other.” If the citizen is wrong – if the court finds, for example, that the doctor performed a surgery for a miscarriage and not an abortion – the doctor still has to pay their own legal fees, as Texas law specifically forbids doctors from recouping fees from plaintiffs. “Even for those providers who are confident that what they’re doing is within the letter of the law, they face the specter of potentially ruinous litigation. They can’t stop it. They can’t avoid it. They can’t pre-empt it,” Vladeck said."

"Abbott is claiming that because the law allows for abortion up to six weeks, it’s not forcing anyone to do anything. As doctors, people who’ve been pregnant before, and people who’ve bothered to read a book on the subject before crafting legislation on it have noted, by the time a person misses her first period, she’s already roughly four weeks pregnant. That means that under Texas law, someone would have no more than two weeks, not six, to determine she’s pregnant and decide whether or not to get an abortion. Even in the case of people who are actively trying to get pregnant, that window can narrow even further for numerous reasons including if they have irregular cycles. Usually, then, one would make an appointment with a doctor to confirm the pregnancy, and as Abbott may or may not know, health care in American is not the greatest, so she may not be able to be seen for several weeks. And that hugely generous two weeks is not only a joke for many people actively trying to have a child, but for the majority of people who are not."

"Let's harshly punish the rapist, but we don't, we don't punish the unborn child."

"Today, a new law takes effect in Texas that directly violates the precedent established in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. This all-out assault on reproductive health effectively bans abortion for the nearly 7 million Texans of reproductive age.""

"This is an attack on women’s access to healthcare and on their right to choose. [Lyft is creating a] driver legal defense fund to cover 100 percent of legal fees if drivers on its platform get sued under the new law. [Lyft is also donating $1 million to Planned Parenthood to] ensure that transportation is never a barrier to healthcare access."

"We turn to a major setback for reproductive rights. As of midnight last night, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a Texas law to go into effect that bans abortion after six weeks. No other six-week ban has ever gone into effect in the United States. At six weeks, many people don’t even know they’re pregnant... The new Texas law is unique. It empowers private citizens — not government officials — to file a civil lawsuit against patients, medical workers, or even a patient’s family or friends who, quote, “aid and abet” an abortion — or a taxi driver who drives a woman to a clinic. If a case is successful, the person who filed it is awarded at least $10,000, plus attorneys’ fees."

"... act is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing Supreme Court precedent ... regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability."

"While the Justice Department urgently explores all options to challenge Texas SB8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion, we will continue to protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248. The FACE Act prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services. It also prohibits intentional property damage of a facility providing reproductive health services. The department has consistently obtained criminal and civil remedies for violations of the FACE Act since it was signed into law in 1994, and it will continue to do so now. The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities. We will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of the FACE Act. If you have an incident, concern, or questions, please contact the FBI"

"Several Republicans including Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) criticized Texas’ near-total ban on abortion Sunday because of its provision empowering private citizens to sue those who aid and abet abortions—potentially signaling the legal tactic could face resistance from within the GOP as more states plan to copy Texas’ law. The Maryland governor specifically pointed to the law’s “problem of bounties,” as the Texas law—known as Senate Bill 8 (SB 8)—says government officials cannot enforce the law, but rather directs private citizens to file lawsuits against anyone who “aids and abets” an abortion and stipulates they can earn at least $10,000 in damages if they win. Kinzinger said on CNN that while he’s “pro-life,” what he “doesn’t like to see” is letting “everyone being able to tattle” and the fact that under SB 8, private citizens are “deputized to enforce this abortion law” against even potentially Uber drivers that transport a Texan to their abortion. The GOP lawmaker also opposes the fact the law does not include exceptions in the case of rape and incest, though SB 8 does allow abortions in the case of medical emergencies. Former Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), who identifies as “pro-life,” said on Meet the Press she views the Texas law as “bad policy and it’s bad law,” agreeing with a Wall Street Journal op-ed that described the law as a “blunder” that “sets an awful precedent that conservatives should hate.”"

"In addition to Democrats and companies like Uber, Lyft and Bumble that have already mobilized against the law, it has sparked pushback from even some anti-abortion Republicans. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said Sunday they believe the law’s lawsuit enforcement mechanism goes too far, and Kinzinger also took issue with the law not having rape and incest exceptions."

"Asked Tuesday about the law forcing rape and incest victims to carry their pregnancies to term, Abbott claimed the law “doesn’t require that at all” because it “provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.” Abbott’s comments Tuesday have sparked widespread opposition from abortion rights advocates. “Greg Abbott is lying” about rape victims still being able to get an abortion, former San Antonio mayor and presidential candidate Julian Castro tweeted Tuesday, while progressive group Ultraviolet said of Abbott’s comments, “Maybe if you don't understand basic biology you shouldn't legislate bodily autonomy away.”"

"Texas law Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) has drawn significant criticism since going into effect last week, as the law bans abortions after a “fetal heartbeat” is detected—a term medical experts have criticized as misleading—and has an exception only for medical emergencies."

"Herrera was arrested and served with an indictment on the charge of Murder after Herrera did then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual by self-induced abortion"

"The law amounts to a near-total ban on abortion procedures given that 85% to 90% of abortions occur after six weeks of pregnancy, and would likely force many clinics to close, the abortion-rights groups said. A majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the United States, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling. Some 52% said it should be legal in most or all cases, with just 36% saying it should be illegal in most or all cases. But it remains a deeply polarizing issue...The law, signed on May 19, is unusual in that it prevents government officials from enforcing the ban, instead giving private citizens that power by enabling them to sue anyone who provides or "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks. Citizens who win such lawsuits would be entitled to at least $10,000. Abortion providers say the law could lead to hundreds of costly lawsuits that would be logistically difficult to defend."

"Very, Very Wrong... I wrote a dissent — and that's the way it works... [the court's decision was procedural] and so we'll see what happens in that area when we get a substantive matter in front of us"

"The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies."

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 'could identify no circumstances under which [partial-birth abortion] would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.' The American Medical Association agrees...."

"We are referred to substantial medical authority that [partial-birth abortion] perverts the natural birth process to a greater degree than [D&E], commandeering the live birth process until the skull is pierced. Witnesses to the procedure relate that the fingers and feet of the fetus are moving prior to the piercing of the skull; when the scissors are inserted in the back of the head, the fetus' body, wholly outside the woman's body and alive, reacts as though startled and goes limp. [Partial-birth abortion]'s stronger resemblance to infanticide means Nebraska could conclude the procedure presents a greater risk of disrespect for life and a consequent greater risk to the profession and society, which depend for their sustenance upon reciprocal recognition of dignity and respect. The Court is without authority to second-guess this conclusion."

"The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off."

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the court's judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."

"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons -- convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc."

"Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

"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...’"

"This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy....[T]he word 'person', as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn."

"Aware that in Roe it essentially created something out of nothing and that there are many in this country who hold that decision to be basically illegitimate, the Court responds defensively.... I do not share the warped point of view of the majority, nor can I follow the tortuous path the majority treads in proceeding to strike down the statute before us. I dissent."

"It thus appears the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe v. Wade, must be disassembled doorjamb by doorjamb."

"The third party killing of a fetus with malice aforethought is murder . . . as long as the state can show that the fetus has progressed beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks."

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....[P]eople have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail…. We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that, before that time, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy....[T]here is no line other than viability which is more workable. To be sure, as we have said, there may be some medical developments that affect the precise point of viability, but this is an imprecision within tolerable limits....A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices."

"When the Supreme Court hears a case about abortion, whether it was Roe in 1973 or the Mississippi case in the coming fall, it is not being asked to outlaw the practice of abortion. The court has only one power — the power of judicial review — which means all it can do is say whether a particular abortion restriction passed by a legislature is constitutional. The court cannot outlaw abortion itself. So if the court sides with Mississippi and says “you can have this law,” that simply means those states whose legislatures want such laws restricting abortion can have them. Other states that don’t want to restrict abortion do not have to. The court can’t compel abortion restrictions; it can simply permit them."

"Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. ... Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law 'would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.' ... When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners. ... [L]aws like H. B. 2 that 'do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion' cannot survive judicial inspection."

"[T]he vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."

"We agree with the District Court that the surgical center requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an “undue burden” on their constitutional right to do so."

"Only the most willful blindness could obscure the fact that sexual intimacy is a “sensitive, key relationship of human existence, central to family life, community welfare, and the development of the personality.” The fact that individuals define themselves in a significant way through their intimate sexual relationships with others suggests, in a Nation as diverse as ours, that there may be many “right” ways of conducting those relationships, and that much of the richness of a relationship will come from the freedom an individual has to choose the form and nature of these intensely personal bonds."

"Thus, “not with a bang, but a whimper,” the plurality discards a landmark case of the last generation, an casts into darkness the hopes and visions of every woman in this country who had come to believe that the Constitution guaranteed her the right to exercise some control over her unique ability to bear children…For today, at least, the law of abortion stands undisturbed. For today, the women of this Nation still retain the liberty to control their destinies. But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows."

"Few decisions are more personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman’s decision-with the guidance of her physician and with the limits specified in “Roe”-whether to end her pregnancy. A woman’s right to make that choice freely is fundamental. Any other result, in our view, would protect inadequately a central part of the sphere of liberty that our law guarantees to all."

"If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people – where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it – and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed."

"The method of killing a human child, one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child, proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion... the notion that the constitution of the United States, designed, among other things, 'to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, … and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,' prohibits the states from simply banning this visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd."

"The state could have been concerned about rendering society callous to infanticide … the horror of seeing a live human creature outside the womb dismembered. Can't that be a valid societal interest?"

"I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court’s jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott."