Abortion and the Law in America

Abortion and the Law in America Plot Summary

Introduction

On a chilly January morning in 1973, Sarah Weddington, a 27-year-old attorney, stood before the nine justices of the Supreme Court to argue that women had a constitutional right to terminate their pregnancies. Few could have predicted how the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade would transform American politics for generations to come. What began as a legal question about privacy rights evolved into one of the most divisive cultural and political battles in American history, reshaping party alignments, religious coalitions, and the very nature of constitutional discourse. The story of abortion politics in America illuminates fundamental tensions in our democratic system: the relationship between federal power and state authority, the role of courts in resolving moral controversies, and the complex interplay between constitutional rights and social access. Through examining this contentious history, we gain insight into how social movements organize and adapt their strategies over time, how medical authority becomes contested in political arenas, and how deeply personal decisions become subjects of public debate. Whether you're interested in constitutional law, gender politics, religious activism, or the mechanics of social change, understanding the evolution of abortion politics provides a powerful lens for comprehending broader patterns in American democracy.

Chapter 1: Pre-Roe Era: From Criminalization to Reform (1960-1973)

Before the 1960s, abortion was criminalized across most of the United States, with laws dating back to the mid-19th century. These restrictions emerged from several sources: a campaign by physicians to professionalize medicine and eliminate competition from midwives; concerns about declining birth rates among white Protestant Americans; and religious objections, particularly from the Catholic Church. By 1900, nearly every state had laws prohibiting abortion except when necessary to save a woman's life. Despite these prohibitions, women continued to seek abortions, often at great risk to their health and lives. The push for reform began in earnest during the early 1960s, catalyzed by several high-profile cases. In 1962, Sherri Finkbine, a mother of four and television host, sought an abortion after learning she had taken thalidomide, a drug linked to severe birth defects. Unable to obtain a legal abortion in Arizona, she traveled to Sweden, drawing national attention to the plight of women facing similar circumstances. A rubella epidemic between 1962-1965 further highlighted the issue, as the infection caused serious fetal abnormalities, leading many women to seek illegal abortions. Reform efforts initially focused on expanding therapeutic exceptions rather than repealing abortion laws entirely. The American Law Institute proposed a model law in 1962 that would permit abortion in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, or threat to the woman's physical or mental health. Between 1967 and 1970, thirteen states adopted versions of this reform model. Meanwhile, organizations like the Association for the Study of Abortion and the newly formed National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) began advocating for more comprehensive change. By the early 1970s, four states—New York, Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington—had repealed their criminal abortion laws entirely, allowing abortion on request in early pregnancy. The legal landscape was further transformed by court decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), which established constitutional protection for contraceptive use based on a right to privacy. These cases laid crucial groundwork for the Supreme Court's consideration of abortion rights. When Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court, the justices were confronting not just a medical issue but a rapidly evolving social movement that had already achieved significant victories at the state level. The Court's 7-2 decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found that the constitutional right to privacy encompassed a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. The ruling established a trimester framework that limited state regulation, especially in early pregnancy, while allowing more restrictions as pregnancy progressed. This landmark decision nationalized abortion policy and transformed what had been primarily a state-level issue into a federal constitutional question. The immediate aftermath of Roe saw abortion opponents mobilize in ways few had anticipated. Rather than settling the issue, the Court's decision catalyzed a powerful counter-movement that would reshape American politics for decades to come. The stage was set for a prolonged struggle over not just the constitutional status of abortion but also the practical accessibility of the procedure for women across the country.

Chapter 2: Rights vs. Access: The Hyde Amendment Controversy (1976-1980)

The period immediately following Roe v. Wade saw abortion opponents regroup and develop new strategies to limit access to abortion. Rather than directly challenging the constitutional right established by Roe, many focused on restricting public funding for abortion procedures. This approach culminated in the Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, which prohibited the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion except in cases where the woman's life was endangered. Representative Henry Hyde, the amendment's sponsor, was remarkably candid about his intentions: "I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the HEW Medicaid bill." The amendment created a two-tiered system of access, as middle and upper-class women could still obtain abortions while low-income women dependent on Medicaid often could not. This disparity had particular impact on women of color, who were disproportionately represented among Medicaid recipients. Abortion rights advocates challenged the Hyde Amendment in court, culminating in the 1980 Supreme Court case Harris v. McRae. Attorneys Rhonda Copelon and Sylvia Law argued that the funding restrictions violated equal protection principles and effectively nullified the right recognized in Roe for economically disadvantaged women. However, the Court upheld the Hyde Amendment, ruling that while the government could not place obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion, it had no obligation to remove obstacles not of its own creation, such as poverty. The funding battle reflected broader economic and political shifts in late 1970s America. The country faced stagflation—a combination of high unemployment and inflation—and growing skepticism about government programs. Politicians increasingly questioned welfare spending, and the Hyde Amendment debates coincided with this turn toward fiscal conservatism. The amendment also revealed growing partisan polarization on abortion, with Republicans increasingly identifying as "pro-life" and Democrats as "pro-choice." For abortion rights organizations, the funding restrictions presented a strategic dilemma. Some activists, particularly those concerned with racial and economic justice, viewed the fight against the Hyde Amendment as central to reproductive freedom. Others worried that focusing on public funding would alienate moderate supporters who might support abortion rights in principle but oppose taxpayer funding. This tension revealed class and racial divisions within the abortion rights movement itself. By 1980, the Hyde Amendment had become a permanent feature of American abortion policy. Its passage demonstrated that while Roe had established a constitutional right to abortion, access to that right could be significantly constrained through funding restrictions. This pattern—formal rights existing alongside practical barriers to access—would become a recurring theme in abortion politics for decades to come, illustrating the gap between constitutional guarantees and lived realities for many American women.

Chapter 3: Reagan Era: Incremental Challenges to Roe (1980-1992)

The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 marked a significant shift in abortion politics as his administration brought new energy to the pro-life movement. Reagan appointed conservative judges, supported anti-abortion legislation, and publicly embraced the cause. His presidency coincided with a strategic evolution in the anti-abortion movement, which increasingly focused on incremental restrictions rather than outright bans or constitutional amendments. Leading this strategic shift were organizations like Americans United for Life (AUL) and the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). Legal scholars like Victor Rosenblum and Thomas Marzen developed a comprehensive plan to gradually undermine Roe through carefully selected test cases. They argued that the Court might be receptive to arguments about the state's interest in protecting maternal health and preventing late-term abortions, even if it wasn't ready to overturn Roe entirely. This approach was exemplified by the Akron ordinance, a comprehensive set of abortion regulations passed in Akron, Ohio in 1978, which required parental consent for minors, a 24-hour waiting period, and detailed "informed consent" provisions. The Supreme Court struck down most of the Akron ordinance in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983), with Justice Lewis Powell reaffirming Roe's central holding. However, the case produced a significant dissent from newly appointed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who introduced the concept of an "undue burden" standard for evaluating abortion restrictions—an approach that would later reshape abortion jurisprudence. O'Connor argued that regulations should be upheld unless they placed a "substantial obstacle" in the path of women seeking abortions. While established pro-life organizations pursued this incremental legal strategy, more radical elements of the movement embraced direct action. Groups like Operation Rescue, founded by Randall Terry in 1986, organized clinic blockades and confrontational protests. These tactics sometimes escalated to violence, with several abortion providers murdered by extremists between 1993 and 1998. The movement's more mainstream leaders generally condemned such violence while continuing to pursue legislative and legal avenues for restricting abortion. The debate over family involvement requirements reflected deeper cultural anxieties about changing family structures and adolescent sexuality. Pro-life advocates argued that abortion undermined parental authority and family cohesion, while abortion rights supporters contended that mandatory parental involvement could endanger teens in abusive homes. Both sides claimed to protect families but defined family values differently. These debates coincided with broader cultural conflicts over women's changing roles, as more mothers entered the workforce and divorce rates increased. By 1992, the Supreme Court had a more conservative composition, with Reagan and Bush appointees constituting a majority. Many observers expected the Court to overturn Roe when it heard Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a challenge to Pennsylvania's abortion regulations. Instead, in a surprising plurality opinion, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter reaffirmed what they called the "essential holding" of Roe while replacing the trimester framework with the undue burden standard. This decision ensured that abortion would remain constitutionally protected, but opened the door to more state regulations as long as they did not place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions before viability. The Reagan era thus ended not with Roe's reversal but with its transformation, setting the stage for a new phase of abortion politics focused on testing the limits of the undue burden standard.

Chapter 4: Casey's Compromise: The Undue Burden Standard (1992-2000)

The Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 represented a pivotal moment in abortion jurisprudence. While reaffirming the core constitutional right to abortion, the Court replaced Roe's trimester framework with a new "undue burden" standard that allowed states greater latitude to regulate abortion as long as they did not place a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." This compromise reflected the Court's attempt to balance competing interests in a deeply divided nation. Under Casey, the Court upheld several Pennsylvania provisions: a 24-hour waiting period, informed consent requirements, and parental consent for minors (with a judicial bypass option). However, it struck down a spousal notification requirement, reasoning that it could endanger women in abusive relationships. The plurality opinion, authored by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, emphasized the importance of stare decisis (respecting precedent) and acknowledged that women had come to rely on the availability of abortion in organizing their lives and pursuing equal participation in economic and social life. For abortion rights attorneys like Kathryn Kolbert and Linda Wharton, who had argued the case, Casey represented a significant setback despite preserving the constitutional right. The undue burden standard was inherently subjective, giving judges considerable discretion in determining which regulations went too far. As Kolbert later reflected, "We lost what we thought was the essence of Roe, which was that the decision was for a woman to make, not the government." The decision also shifted the burden of proof, requiring challengers to demonstrate that a law created an undue burden rather than requiring states to justify restrictions. Pro-life strategists, meanwhile, saw Casey as an opportunity to pursue incremental restrictions that could survive judicial review. Organizations like Americans United for Life developed model legislation designed to test the limits of the undue burden standard. Edward Grant, an AUL attorney, viewed Casey as "a roadmap for how to effectively regulate abortion." The decision encouraged a state-by-state approach to abortion politics, with pro-life groups focusing on passing restrictions in receptive state legislatures. The years following Casey saw abortion increasingly entangled with broader cultural conflicts over family values, sexuality, and gender roles. The Clinton administration's attempts to include abortion coverage in health care reform encountered fierce resistance, contributing to the reform effort's collapse. Meanwhile, clinic violence escalated, with several abortion providers murdered by extremists between 1993 and 1998. These attacks created security challenges for clinics and contributed to a decline in the number of abortion providers nationwide. By the late 1990s, both movements had adapted to the post-Casey landscape. Abortion rights groups emphasized the concept of reproductive health rather than abstract rights, connecting abortion to broader health care concerns. Pro-life groups increasingly developed arguments about abortion's alleged harm to women, rather than focusing exclusively on fetal rights. This strategic shift, combined with advances in fetal imaging technology and growing public discomfort with later abortions, set the stage for the next major battle: the campaign against "partial-birth abortion," which would test the limits of the undue burden standard and further transform the constitutional landscape of abortion rights.

Chapter 5: Medical Authority Contested: The Partial-Birth Abortion Debate (1995-2007)

In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented a paper at a National Abortion Federation meeting describing a procedure he called "dilation and extraction" (D&X), used for some second-trimester abortions. This technical medical presentation would soon become the center of a national controversy when pro-life activists reframed it as "partial-birth abortion," complete with graphic illustrations and emotional descriptions. The National Right to Life Committee seized on the issue, believing it could shift public opinion by focusing on a procedure that seemed particularly disturbing to many Americans. The partial-birth abortion debate represented a significant strategic shift for the pro-life movement. Rather than emphasizing fetal rights or religious arguments, advocates focused on the procedure itself, claiming it was medically unnecessary and bordered on infanticide. This approach proved effective in building public support, even among those who generally supported abortion rights. By 1997, polls showed that over 70% of Americans supported banning the procedure, including many who identified as "pro-choice." Congress passed bans on partial-birth abortion in 1996 and 1997, but President Clinton vetoed both bills, arguing they lacked exceptions for women's health. The debate intensified when Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted that he had "lied through his teeth" when previously claiming the procedure was rare and performed only in extreme circumstances. This confession undermined abortion rights advocates' credibility and reinforced pro-life narratives about dishonesty in the abortion industry. The controversy highlighted growing tensions between medical expertise and political discourse. Major medical organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposed the bans, arguing they used non-medical terminology and could criminalize necessary procedures. However, pro-life groups successfully challenged the objectivity of these organizations, claiming they were ideologically biased. This pattern—questioning scientific consensus and emphasizing scientific uncertainty—reflected broader cultural trends in the 1990s, including similar dynamics in debates over climate change and vaccine safety. After George W. Bush's election in 2000, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which Bush signed into law. Abortion rights groups immediately challenged the law, arguing it was unconstitutional under Casey because it lacked a health exception. The case reached the Supreme Court as Gonzales v. Carhart, resulting in a 5-4 decision upholding the ban in 2007. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion deferred to congressional findings about the procedure's medical necessity and introduced a new rationale: protecting women from the psychological consequences they might suffer after having the procedure. The Gonzales decision marked a significant shift in abortion jurisprudence. For the first time, the Court upheld a ban on a specific abortion procedure without a health exception. It also legitimized "woman-protective" anti-abortion arguments claiming that abortion harmed women themselves. Justice Ginsburg's dissent characterized the majority opinion as reflecting "ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution" that were "at odds with the understanding of liberty that had developed in preceding decades." The partial-birth abortion controversy thus not only changed the legal landscape but also transformed how both sides argued about abortion, with increasing emphasis on competing claims about women's health and wellbeing rather than abstract rights.

Chapter 6: Regulatory Strategy: TRAP Laws and Religious Freedom (2007-2016)

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, the pro-life movement shifted its strategy toward two parallel approaches: promoting targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP laws) and expanding religious liberty claims. Both strategies reflected a sophisticated understanding of post-Casey jurisprudence and sought to limit abortion access without directly challenging the constitutional right established in Roe. TRAP laws imposed specific requirements on abortion facilities, such as mandating that providers have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals or that clinics meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers. Proponents argued these regulations protected women's health, while critics contended they were designed to force clinics to close. Between 2011 and 2016, states enacted over 300 abortion restrictions, many falling into this category. Texas's HB2, passed in 2013, exemplified this approach, requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges and clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards. The law had already caused more than half of Texas's abortion clinics to close by the time it reached the Supreme Court. The culmination of this regulatory strategy came in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), challenging Texas's HB2. In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down these requirements, with Justice Breyer writing that courts must "consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer." This decision strengthened the undue burden standard by requiring courts to evaluate whether purported health benefits actually justified the restrictions imposed. The Court found that the Texas provisions provided few, if any, health benefits while significantly reducing abortion access. Simultaneously, religious freedom emerged as a central battleground in the abortion conflict. Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the Obama administration issued regulations requiring employer health plans to cover contraception, including methods some religious conservatives considered abortifacients. This mandate prompted numerous legal challenges from religious organizations and business owners who objected to providing such coverage. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that closely held for-profit corporations could claim religious exemptions from the contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Justice Alito's majority opinion accepted the plaintiffs' belief that certain contraceptives caused abortions, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. This decision expanded religious exemption claims beyond traditional religious organizations to include secular businesses with religious owners. The religious freedom strategy connected abortion to broader cultural conflicts over same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights. After the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), some religious conservatives feared they would be forced to participate in activities they considered sinful. Pro-life groups increasingly framed abortion restrictions as protecting the conscience rights of those morally opposed to the procedure, rather than primarily as protecting fetal life. These developments occurred against the backdrop of increasing political polarization. Abortion had become a defining partisan issue, with Republicans almost uniformly opposing abortion rights and Democrats supporting them. This polarization complicated efforts to find common ground or develop compromise policies. It also affected the judiciary, as presidents from different parties appointed judges with predictably different views on abortion jurisprudence, setting the stage for even more dramatic constitutional confrontations in the years to come.

Chapter 7: Polarization and Constitutional Crisis (2016-2022)

The 2016 presidential election marked a critical juncture for abortion politics in America. During his campaign, Donald Trump explicitly promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. His victory, coupled with Republican control of the Senate, created the most significant threat to abortion rights since the 1992 Casey decision. This threat became concrete when Justice Anthony Kennedy, the crucial swing vote who had preserved abortion rights in both Casey and Gonzales, announced his retirement in 2018. Trump ultimately appointed three justices to the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, creating a 6-3 conservative majority. These appointments emboldened state legislators to pass increasingly restrictive abortion laws designed to provide vehicles for challenging or overturning Roe. Between 2019 and 2021, several states enacted "heartbeat bills" banning abortion after cardiac activity could be detected (typically around six weeks of pregnancy), while others passed "trigger laws" designed to automatically ban abortion if Roe were overturned. The pro-life movement itself experienced strategic divisions during this period. Some groups, like Americans United for Life and the National Right to Life Committee, continued to advocate incremental restrictions that could survive judicial review under existing precedents. Others, like the newly formed Personhood Alliance, pushed for absolute bans based on the concept that constitutional personhood begins at fertilization. These divisions reflected longstanding tensions between pragmatism and principle within the movement. Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates responded to the increasingly hostile legal landscape by developing multi-faceted strategies. Organizations like NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood emphasized the concept of reproductive justice, connecting abortion to broader issues of economic and racial equality. The #ShoutYourAbortion movement encouraged women to speak openly about their abortions to counter stigma and humanize the issue. At the state level, abortion rights supporters passed legislation codifying Roe's protections into state law, anticipating a potential federal reversal. The COVID-19 pandemic further complicated abortion access when several states attempted to classify abortion as a "non-essential" medical procedure that could be temporarily suspended during public health emergencies. These restrictions prompted legal challenges and highlighted the precariousness of abortion access even before any Supreme Court reconsideration of Roe. The pandemic also accelerated the adoption of medication abortion via telemedicine, potentially transforming how abortion services are delivered. By 2021, abortion had become more politically polarized than ever, with virtually no pro-life Democrats or pro-choice Republicans remaining in Congress. This polarization extended to the general public, though with more nuance—most Americans continued to support legal abortion in at least some circumstances, while also favoring certain restrictions. The impending Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, challenging Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, promised to be the most consequential abortion ruling in decades, with the potential to fundamentally reshape the constitutional landscape of reproductive rights in America. The Court's decision in Dobbs in June 2022 indeed marked a constitutional earthquake, overturning both Roe and Casey and returning abortion regulation entirely to the states. This ruling, unthinkable just a few years earlier, represented the culmination of a nearly fifty-year campaign by abortion opponents and opened a new chapter in America's ongoing struggle over reproductive rights, federalism, and the role of courts in resolving profound moral controversies.

Summary

The half-century battle over abortion rights in America reveals a fundamental tension between competing visions of liberty, equality, and the proper role of government in intimate personal decisions. What began as a medical and criminal issue transformed into a constitutional right, then evolved through decades of contestation into an increasingly regulated and politically polarized domain. Throughout this evolution, both sides have adapted their strategies and arguments—from fetal rights to women's health, from religious objections to scientific claims, from constitutional amendments to incremental restrictions. These shifting approaches reflect not just tactical adjustments but deeper changes in American society regarding gender roles, religious influence, medical authority, and partisan alignment. The abortion conflict offers crucial lessons about American democracy and social change. First, it demonstrates how the Supreme Court can both resolve and intensify political conflicts, with Roe simultaneously establishing a national right and galvanizing opposition that transformed American politics. Second, it illustrates how access to formal rights depends on material conditions—the constitutional right to abortion has always been more theoretical than practical for many low-income women and those living in restrictive states. Finally, it shows how deeply personal moral questions become entangled with broader political identities and institutional structures, making compromise increasingly difficult. As Americans continue to navigate this contentious terrain, finding ways to respect moral pluralism while ensuring equitable access to reproductive healthcare remains an urgent challenge that will shape the lives of generations to come.

About Author

Loading...

Mary Ziegler

Read more