Roe v. Wade is probably the most controversial Supreme Court decision since the Civil War. 

Before 1973, abortion was restricted throughout the United States. 

There is controversy over the legal status and incidence of abortion in the United States before the late nineteenth century.  Historians also disagree about the reasons for more restrictive laws that were passed thereafter. 

It is often argued that Roe simply gave a nudge to a trend that was underway in the late 1960s and early 1970s toward more permissive abortion laws.  This argument minimizing the radical impact of the decision is untenable, according to a recent account. 

Although Hawaii and New York liberalized their abortion laws in 1970, the changes were narrow and hotly debated, and did not mark a turn of public opinion against protecting the lives of unborn children. 

The case of Massachusetts is more typical of the public mood of the time.  While the Supreme Court was considering Roe, the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted 178 to 46 to declare that unborn children are persons from the moment of conception. 

Public Misunderstanding Remains 
Many people also have a misconception of how permissive the abortion ruling in Roe was.  Many believe that abortion remains prohibited in several states, or that it is available only in the first trimester or before viability.  Even the extensive debates in Congress about partial-birth abortion, with their graphic depictions of the procedure, have not informed much of the public about the extent of the abortion license. 

In fact, abortion is permitted up to the moment of complete delivery throughout the United States.  The Supreme Court has theoretically permitted states to prohibit abortion in the third trimester, but not if pregnancy is regarded as a threat to a woman's health, including her psychological well-being.  This exception is so broad as to amount to abortion-on-demand. 

Thus, Massachusetts' statutory prohibition of abortions after twenty-three weeks is unenforceable because it does not provide a "health" exception. 

Sparked the Pro-Life Movement 
The astounding effects of the Supreme Court decision sparked one of the most committed and enduring political movements of the last three decades.  The Justices and the legal academic community expected the public to accept their authority and accept the Roe decision as legitimate, but that has not occurred.  Even after twenty-five years of living under the most permissive abortion regime in the world, most of the American public favors more restrictive abortion laws. 

The Supreme Court has not responded.  The most recent challenge to Roe came in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case that upheld the major premises of Roe.  The Court permitted states to enact laws requiring a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion is performed, laws requiring that women be given information about abortions, and laws requiring parental consent to abortions performed on their minor children (provided a judicial by-pass option accompanies them). 

Many states have enacted restrictions on abortion in line with the Casey decision, and the attempts of some states to prohibit partial-birth abortions are currently under judicial review. 

As the state legislature considers a bill to prohibit peaceful protest within the vicinity of abortion facilities, the pro-life movement in Massachusetts is concerned with keeping its right to protest abortion . 

The bill passed the Senate this year; Speaker Finneran is credited with stopping it in the House. 
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE