Reproductive Rights Timeline (work in progress)

Date Event
November 18, 1971 Eisenstadt v. Baird – The Supreme Court rules 6-1 that all women
regardless of marital status had a right to contraception. Previously, only
married women could obtain contraception from their doctors.
 “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the
individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted
governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a
person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” ~Justice
William J. Brennan, Jr., majority
 “To my mind, the validity of this restriction on dispensing
medicinal substances is the only issue before the Court, and
appellee has no standing to challenge that part of the statute
restricting the persons to whom contraceptives are available.”
~Chief Justice Warren E. Berger
January 2, 1973 Roe v. Wade – In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court rules that overly
restrictive state regulations on abortion are unconstitutional. In this
specific case, the state of Texas violated Jane Roe’s (Norma McCorvey’s)
privacy, a right guaranteed under the due process clause of the 14th
Amendment. (“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.”)
 “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.” ~Justice Harry A.
Blackmun, majority opinion
 “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.” ~Justice Blackmun, majority
 “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.” ~Justice William H. Rehnquist,
dissenting
 “The court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant
woman more than the continued existence and development of the
life or potential life that she carries.” ~Justice Byron R. White,
dissent
January 22, 1973 Doe v. Bolton – The Supreme Court rules multiple caveats to Georgia’s
abortion laws unconstitutional in a 7-2 decision.
 That the procedure takes place in an accredited hospital is
unconstitutional because the State has not shown that only
hospitals meet its interest in fully protecting the patient.
 Approval from a hospital committee on abortion is
unconstitutional because no other surgical procedure requires this
under state criminal law; therefore, the requirement unduly
restricts patients’ rights.
 Approval from two of the physician’s medical peers has no
rational connection with a patient’s needs and unduly infringes on
her physician’s right to practice.
 The residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities
Clause by denying protection to people who enter Georgia for
medical services there.
 “Though often overlooked since, (Bolton) was as important as Roe.
The Court held in Doe v. Bolton that policies designed to restrict
access to abortion ... violated the rights of women to health care
and of physicians to practice.” ~Leslie Reagan, professor of
history and law at the University of Illinois
July 1, 1976 Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth – In a 6-3 vote and
an additional 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court finds various parts of
Missouri’s abortion law unconstitutional:
 The State cannot require women to get written consent from their
spouses.
 The State cannot require women under the age of 18 to get
parental consent.
 The State cannot require physicians to preserve the fetus’ life at
any stage of pregnancy.
 The State cannot outlaw saline amniocenteses after the first 12
weeks of pregnancy because it fails to take into account the
mother’s health, and the Court deemed the law written only to
prevent abortions after 12 weeks.
1977 Congress enacts the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal
funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the
mother’s life. This amendment has been attached to the congressional
appropriations bill and approved by Congress every year since then.
June 15, 1983 Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health – The Supreme Court
strikes down various ordinances in Akron, OH’s abortion laws in a 6-3
vote:
 The State cannot mandate that abortions after the first trimester be
performed in a hospital.
 The State cannot require youth under the age of 15 to receive
parental consent before having an abortion.
 “A State may not adopt regulations designed to influence the
 woman’s informed choice between abortion or childbirth.”
 The State cannot require the physician to provide an extensive list
of information before seeking informed consent from the patient.
 The physician does not necessarily need to be the one to inform
the patient about pregnancy risks or the abortion procedure.
 The State cannot issue a mandatory 24-hour waiting period from
consent to procedure without due cause.
 The State’s punishment for breaking the ordinance (a
misdemeanor) “violates the Due Process Clause by failing to give
a physician fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden.”
July 3, 1989 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services – The Supreme Court upholds
the state of Missouri’s provisions that limit abortion. This 5-4 decision
alters the understanding and implementation of Roe v. Wade.
 The preamble to the statue on abortions defining life as starting at
conception was constitutional because it had not been applied to
restrict abortions.
 The Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the
business of abortion, and did not create an affirmative right to
governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights.
 The State was within its constitutional rights to prohibit
encouragement and counseling of abortions.
 The State could enforce viability testing for patients in their 20th
week of pregnancy or later because the State’s interest in
protecting potential life could come into existence before the point
of viability.
June 29, 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey – The
Supreme Court maintains its argument from Roe v. Wade that restricting
access to abortion violates the 14th Amendment; however, the plurality
decision changes the original terms of Roe v. Wade. It overturns the
trimester framework for a fetus viability test, allowing states to regulate
abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. It also constitutionalizes
informed consent, 24-hour waiting periods, parental consent, and other
state mandates. It outlaws PA’s requirement for women to tell their
husbands before getting an abortion, citing the dangers of domestic abuse.
(The decision seems specific about husbands, not male sexual partners in
general.)
 “A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion
that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a
substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of
a nonviable fetus. A statute with this purpose is invalid because
the means chosen by the state to further the interest in
potential life must be calculated to inform the woman’s free
choice, not hinder it. And a statute which, while furthering the
interest in potential life or some other valid state interest, has the
effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s
choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its
 legitimate ends.” ~Majority opinion (written by Justices
O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter)
 “In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to
act before viability has consented to the state’s intervention on
behalf of the developing child.” ~Majority opinion
 “In well-functioning marriages, spouses discuss important intimate
decisions such as whether to bear a child. But there are millions of
women in this country who are the victims of regular physical and
psychological abuse at the hands of their husbands. Should these
women become pregnant, they may have very good reasons for not
wishing to inform their husbands of their decision to obtain an
abortion.” ~Majority opinion
 “That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the
power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the
absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance
to many women. Of course it is both. The issue is whether it is a
liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am
sure it is not.” ~Justice Antonin Scalia, dissent
May 26, 1994 President Bill Clinton signs the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances
Act (FACE), effective immediately. The Act makes it a federal crime to
use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to prevent individuals
from obtaining or providing reproductive health care services. FACE also
authorizes reproductive health care providers, the state attorney general,
and/or the federal government to bring civil lawsuits to get injunctions
against these activities, or to get monetary damages. Congress wrote the
Act in response to growing violence targeting abortion providers,
including the death of Dr. David Gunn in Pensacola, FL on March 10,
1993 and the attempted murder of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, KS on
August 19, 1993.
July 28, 1994 Norma McCorvey – the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade – denounces abortion in
an interview with the New York Times.
August 1995 Norma McCorvey quits her job at a women’s clinic in Texas and
announces she is a born-again Christian. She fights to illegalize abortion
until her death on February 18, 2017.
June 17, 2003 Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) files a motion with the US District Court in
Dallas to have Roe v. Wade overturned and asks the court to consider new
evidence that abortion hurts women. Included are 1,000 affidavits from
women who say they regret their abortions.
April 18, 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart – The Supreme Court votes 5-4 to uphold the federal
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which outlawed late termination
of pregnancy through the intact dilation and extraction method. The Court
found that outlawing this procedure does not place an undue burden on
women seeking abortion because there are other abortive methods. The
statute did not include a provision regarding the pregnant woman’s health.
Though this method is uncommon in medical practice, the Court’s
decision signals a shift towards a more restrictive view of abortion rights.
  “The medical uncertainty over whether the Act’s prohibition
creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to
conclude this facial attack that the act does not impose an undue
burden. The conclusion that the Act does not impose an undue
burden is also supported by other considerations. Alternatives are
available to the prohibited procedure.” ~Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy, majority opinion
 “Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any ground
genuinely serving the government's interest in preserving life. By
allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding
fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent.” ~Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissent
 “The court shields the woman by denying her any choice in the
matter and this way of protecting women recalls the ancient
notions about women’s place in society and under the Constitution
ideas that have long since been discredited.” ~Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, dissent
July 13, 2009 Norma McCorvey is arrested along with other anti-abortion protesters for
disrupting the confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
June 27, 2016 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme
Court declared that Texas’ restrictions on abortions created an undue
burden for women. The decision struck down a law from 2013 that
required doctors conducting abortions to have admitting privileges at a
nearby hospital and also required abortion clinics to meet the same
standards as outpatient surgery centers. For the first time since Casey,
states received some guidance on what makes a regulation an undue
burden. The Court connected “undue burden” with the requirement that
the health benefits of abortion regulations must outweigh the costs, giving
it a stronger definition. 
This is the first time a reproductive rights case has gone before a bench
with three female justices.
 “We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical
benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each
imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women
seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden
on abortion access, ...and each violates the federal Constitution.”
~Justice Stephen G. Breyer, majority
 “The Court concludes that petitioners’ prior facial attack on the
admitting privileges requirement and their current facial attack on
that same requirement are somehow not the same cause of action
or claim. But that conclusion is unsupported by authority and
plainly wrong.” ~Justice Samuel A. Alito, dissent
 “These precepts are nowhere to be found in Casey or its
successors, and transform the undue-burden test to something
much more akin to strict scrutiny.” ~Justice Clarence Thomas,
dissent