As we approach the 43rd anniversary of Roe v.

Wade, heres some background on

the ruling from the New York Daily Times newspaper
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/supreme-court-rules-roe-v-wade-1973article-1.2068726

Supreme Court rules on Roe vs. Wade in 1973

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck down local state laws restricting
abortions in the first six months of pregnancy.
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

(Originally published by the Daily News on Jan. 23, 1973. This story was written by Jeffrey Antevil.)
Washington, Jan. 22 (News Bureau) - The Supreme Court ruled in a historic decision
today that it is entirely up to a woman and her doctor to decide whether she will have
an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy.
The 7-to-2 decision, in an option written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, in effect
overturns laws in 46 states which permit abortion only under such conditions as when
the mothers life or health is in danger. Blackmun said there are three separate periods
in a pregnancy, and during these a womans right to privacy may be increasingly
restricted by state:
- During the first three months, the decision on whether to end a pregnancy is up to a
woman and her physician, with no state interference permissible.
- During the second three months - until the baby is capable of meaningful life
outside the mothers womb - state regulation is limited to such matters as who may
perform an abortion and in what kind of facility.
- During the final three months, the states interest in protecting a viable fetus gives
it the power to go so far to prescribe abortion except when it is necessary to preserve
the life or health of the mother.
There were seven separate opinions, totaling 110 pages; these included dissents by
Justice Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist. The ruling followed nearly two
years of deliberations by the high court on what Blackmun called a sensitive and
emotional issue.
Although the court dealt directly with laws in Texas and Georgia all but four other
states - New York, to get criminal penalties reinstated.
The Texas law, similar to those in 29 other states including New Jersey and
Connecticut, made it a crime to end a pregnancy at any stage except to save the
mothers life. Georgia was one of 16 states with more liberal laws permitting abortions

on limited grounds, such as danger to the life or health of the mother, cases of rape, or
the possibility of mental or physical defects in the offspring.
A Matter of Debate
Georgias statute also stipulated that an abortion could be performed only in a stateaccredited hospital staff abortion committee and two outside physicians. Blackmun
said all three procedural conditions were unconstitutional.

Based primarily on a qualified right of privacy, Blackmuns opinion appeared to reject

the claim by right to life groups and other abortion foes that a fetus is a person and
thus entitled to the same constitutional rights as other Americans.
He said the use of the word person in the Constitution applied only after birth, but he
added that the courts need not resolve the question of when life begins when those
trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to
arrive at any consensus.
President Nixon, in a letter to New Yorks Cardinal Cooke last year and other
statements, has come out strongly against an unrestricted right to abortions such as that
provided by New Yorks law. But only Rehnquist of Nixons four Supreme Court
appointees dissented from todays ruling.
Rehnquist wrote:
The decision partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of
the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment (which guarantees due process of
law and equal protection under the law).
White, a Kennedy appointee, described the ruling as an exercise of raw judicial
power... (and) an improvement and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial
review The court apparently valued the convenience of the pregnant mother more
than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life which she
carries.
Among those joining a friend-of-the-court brief against the Texas and Georgia laws
were Marian B. Javits, the wife of the New York senator; Mary Lindsay wife of the
mayor; New York Consumer Affairs Commissioner Bess Myerson; and anthropologist
Margaret Mead.
In other important actions today, the court:
- Voted 8 to 1 to stay a lower courts ruling which would have allowed paroled antiwar
priests Philip and Daniel Berrigan to travel Hanoi.
- Ruled 6 to 3 that a grand jury may compel a witness to provide handwriting and
voice samples.

- Refused to hear an appeal from Joseph C. Bonanno Jr. and Salvatore V. Bonanno,
sons of reputed mob leader Joseph (Joe Bananas) Bonanno, on their 1971 conviction
and prison terms for extortion and conspiracy.
- Agreed to decide if federal courts can halt administrative hearings while they
consider requests for disclosure of records under the Freedom of Information Act.

From the USCCB: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-anddignity/abortion/current-abortion-statistics.cfm

CURRENT ABORTION STATISTICS

Important Note
While abortion is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States, nationally valid data
is available from only two sources: the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the
Guttmacher Institute a research affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Data from both sources is
extremely limited.
The CDC provides an annual report of abortion statistics based on data voluntarily submitted to state health
departments by abortion providers. Forty-five state health departments consistently report data on abortion;
California, New Hampshire, Alaska, West Virginia and Oklahoma do not.1 Due to the fact that many states do not
report complete data on all characteristics (e.g., age, race, and weeks' of gestation), abortion statistics provided by
the CDC may not be truly accurate.
The Guttmacher Institute provides a report of abortion statistics every four years based on direct survey responses
from all known providers of abortion services in all fifty states.1 As a result, statistics on abortions reported by the
Guttmacher Institute are generally accepted as more accurate than those reported by the CDC. However, all
statistical reports from the Guttmacher Institute should be viewed and utilized in the context of their mission to
advance abortion services.
The following statistics, graphs and charts are based on research published by the Guttmacher Institute and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most recent figures available for incidence statistics are from 2005,
with the latest demographic information from 2004.
Incidence of Abortion

In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed in the U.S. 2

From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million abortions occurred in the U.S.2
The abortion ratio, the proportion of pregnancies ending in abortion, was 22.4. In other words, 22% of all
pregnancies in the U.S. (excluding miscarriages) ended in abortion in 2005. 2
The abortion rate, the number of abortions per a given subgroup, was 19.4 per 1,000 U.S. women aged
15-44.2
Each year, about 2% of U.S. women aged 1544 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one
previous abortion.3
50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25. Women aged 2024 obtain 33% of all
abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.4
Black women are 4.8 times as likely as non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic
women are 2.7 times as likely.4
37.1% of all abortions are performed on black women who make up only 14% of the total population of
U.S. women of child-bearing age. 5,6
54% of U.S. women who had an abortion in 2000-2001 had used a contraceptive method during the month
they became pregnant.7

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/cardinaldolan-statement-on-the-43rd-anniversary-of-roe.cfm

CARDINAL DOLAN: STATEMENT ON THE 43RD ANNIVERSARY OF ROE V.

WADE
January 14, 2016
What a wrenching thing it is each year. Just last month we celebrated the birth of the baby Jesus, fruit of Mary's
humble "yes" to God's gift of new life. This month we celebrated the arrival of the Wise Men to greet the newborn
King, who "appeared and the soul felt its worth." Then we observe the birthday of a great preacher whose basic
message was the dignity of the human person and the sacredness of all human life. And then we turn, as we must
each year, to recall a legal decision that said "no" to new life, has led so many women and others involved in abortion
to grieve their loss and doubt their own worth, and has deprived a whole class of people -- pre- born babies -- of their
right to life.
Such an anniversary cannot be celebrated. But it does offer an opportunity to take stock -- to ask where we are, fortythree years after the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and where we need to go.
We live in an increasingly divided nation, where people of different views as well as different races, religions, and
national origins often seem to lack the patience and good will to respect each other and try to live in harmony.
Abortion itself, despite the endorsement of our highest legal tribunal and many political and cultural elites, is as
controversial as ever. Most Americans oppose a policy allowing legal abortion for virtually any reason though many
still do not realize that this is what the Supreme Court gave us. Most want to protect unborn children at later stages
of pregnancy, to regulate or limit the practice of abortion, and to stop the use of taxpayer dollars for the destruction of
unborn children. Yet many who support important goals of the pro-life movement do not identify as "pro-life," a fact
which should lead us to examine how we present our pro-life vision to others.
Even as Americans remain troubled by abortion, a powerful and well-financed lobby increasingly insists that there is
no real issue here that abortion is just another part of "basic health care" for women, to be seamlessly integrated
into our health system and our lives. Planned Parenthood and other abortion promoters say they will no longer call
themselves "pro-choice," apparently realizing that this phrase might allow others to choose a path different from their
own. They hold that abortion must be celebrated as a positive good for women and society, and those who cannot in
conscience provide it are to be condemned for practicing substandard medicine and waging a "war on women."
We see this in the rising opposition of some political leaders to the very notion of a right of conscience on abortion. A
few years ago, for example, President Obama pledged to defend the conscience rights of those who do not accept
abortion, and his Administration assured us that longstanding federal laws protecting these rights must be fully

enforced. Yet in the final days of 2015, he and other Democratic leaders were unwilling to support the Abortion NonDiscrimination Act, a modest measure to provide for effective enforcement of these laws.
While this is disturbing, it is also an opportunity. The great majority of Americans are not committed to this extreme
ideology. They do not see the unborn child as an illness or a tumor. They are repelled when they see the
callousness of the abortion industry, as in the recent undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials calmly
discussing the harvesting of body parts. They do not want to be pushed into actively promoting and paying for
abortion. They do not want doctors and nurses who are sensitive to the value of life at its most vulnerable to be
driven from the healing professions. They are open to hearing a message of reverence for life.
In taking up this challenge, we who present the pro-life message must always strive to be better messengers. A
cause that teaches the inexpressibly great value of each and every human being cannot show disdain or disrespect
for any fellow human being. We should celebrate human freedom, always reminding others that this freedom is ours
so we can freely choose the good and that to enjoy this freedom, each of us must first of all be allowed to live. And
especially in this Year of Mercy, we recall with Pope Francis that each human life is created by a God whose love is
infinite -- and that this same love is a source of unbounded mercy and forgiveness for all who have fallen short of
God's plans for us. For its part, through the healing ministry of Project Rachel, the Catholic Church seeks to offer this
gift of God's mercy and reconciliation to all who have been involved in abortion.
I invite all who are concerned about the tragedy of abortion to recommit themselves to this vision of life and love, a
vision that excludes no one. Catholics in particular can take part in the 9 Days for Life campaign, uniting in prayer
and action from January 16-24 for the protection of life at every stage and in every circumstance. Information on the
many ways to participate and sign up is available at www.9daysforlife.com.
Finally, let us never be distracted by the false charge that this life-affirming cause is merely a political or partisan
issue. It is an essential moral vision that lifts up every human person. With Pope Francis let us remember that "this
defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right. It is not 'progressive' to
try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life" (Evangelii Gaudium, nos. 213-4). Genuine progress must be
progress for all, beginning with those most vulnerable who cannot speak for themselves. May God bless our efforts
to uphold human life!