Roe v Wade: Syllabus
Concur #1 |
Concur #2 |
Concur #3 |
Dissent #1 |
ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case No. 70-18.
Argued December 13, 1971. Reargued October 11, 1972.
Decided January 22, 1973
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.
314 F. Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- 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.
- Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Pp. 34-35, 48.
- 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.
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. 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.
Sarah Weddington reargued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Roy Lucas, Fred Bruner, Roy L. Merrill, Jr., and Norman Dorsen.
Robert C. Flowers, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellee on the reargument. Jay Floyd, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellee on the original argument. With them on the brief were Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Alfred Walker, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Henry Wade, and John B.
* Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Gary K. Nelson, Attorney General of Arizona, Robert K. Killian, Attorney General of Connecticut, Ed W. Hancock, Attorney General of Kentucky, Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General of Nebraska, and Vernon B. Romney, Attorney General of Utah; by Joseph P. Witherspoon, Jr., for the Association of Texas Diocesan Attorneys; by Charles E. Rice for Americans United for Life; by Eugene J. McMahon for Women for the Unborn et al.; by Carol Ryan for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al.; by Dennis J. Horan, Jerome A. Frazel, Jr., Thomas M. Crisham, and Dolores V. Horan for Certain Physicians, Professors and Fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; by Harriet F. Pilpel, Nancy F. Wechsler, and Frederic S. Nathan for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al.; by Alan F. Charles for the National Legal Program on Health Problems of the Poor et al.; by Marttie L. Thompson for State Communities Aid Assn.; by Afred L. Scanlan, Martin J. Flynn, and Robert M. Byrn for the National Right to Life Committee; by Helen L. Buttenwieser for the American Ethical Union et al.; by Norma G. Zarky for the American Association of University Women et al.; by Nancy Stearns for New Women Lawyers et al.; by the California Committee to Legalize Abortion et al.; and by Robert E. Dunne for Robert L. Sassone.
Concur #1 |
Concur #2 |
Concur #3 |
Dissent #1 |
Posted 9 Sep 2000.
Copyright 2000 by Pregnant Pause
Contact Pregnant Pause