Abortion in the United States

==History==

===Early history and rise of anti-abortion legislation===
Abortion was a fairly common practice in the history of the United States, and was not always controversial.<ref name="Reagan 1997">{{cite book|last=Reagan|first=Leslie J.|year=2022|orig-year=1997|title=When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine and the Law in the United States, 1867–1973|edition=1st|location=Berkeley|publisher=[[University of California Press]]|isbn=978-0520387416}}</ref><ref name=Ganong>{{cite book |editor1-last=Ganong |editor1-first=Lawrence H. |editor2-last=Coleman |editor2-first=Marilyn |title=The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia |date=2014 |publisher=Sage Publications |isbn=978-1-4522-8615-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=R3VpBAAAQBAJ |quote=Terminations of pregnancy were commonly practiced...many of the earliest court cases involved women who became pregnant before marriage and wished to avoid the shame associated with an illegitimate pregnancy.}}</ref> At a time when society was more concerned with the more serious consequence of women becoming pregnant out of wedlock, family affairs were handled out of public view.<ref name=Miller>{{Cite book |editor-last=Miller |editor-first=Wilbur R. |title=The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia |publisher=Sage Reference |date=2012 |isbn=978-1-4833-0593-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vs9wCQAAQBAJ |quote=During the colonial period, control over reproduction, similar to most family matters, remained a private concern...Most Americans did not consider abortion legally or morally wrong as long as it occurred prior to quickening.}}</ref><ref name=Ganong/> Abortion did not become a public controversy until the health risk of unsafe abortions by (female) unlicensed practitioners was brought to the public attention in the 19th century.<ref name="Hardin 1978">{{cite journal |last=Hardin |first=Garrett |date=December 1978 |title=Abortion in America. The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900. James C. Mohr |journal=The Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=53 |issue=4 |page=499 |doi=10.1086/410954 |quote=The long silence had led us to assume that opposition to abortion had existed from time immemorial. Not so: most of the opposition to, and all of the laws against, abortion arose in the 19th century. Historian Mohr amply documents the earlier acceptance of abortion. ... In the 19th century even many of the feminists expressed horror at abortion, urging abstinence instead. Not so in the 20th century. In the 19th century the medical profession was fairly united against abortion; Mohr argues that this arose from the commercial competition between the 'regulars' (men with M.D.'s) and the irregulars (women without M.D.'s)... A key role in generating prohibition laws was played by the press, ... . By 1900 the abortion-prohibition laws were immune to questioning, as they remained until the 1960's when feminists and a new breed of physicians combined to arouse the public to the injustice of the law.}}</ref>

James Mohr wrote that even though pre-quickening abortion was legal in the first 3 decades of the 19th century, only 1 in 25 to 1 in 30 pregnancies ended in abortion. By the 1850s and 1860s this number had increased to 1 in 5 or 1 in 6.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mohr |first=James |url=https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00jame/page/50/mode/2up?view=theater&q=%221+in+30%22 |title=Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy |publisher=New Oxford University Press |year=1978 |isbn=0-19-502249-1 |pages=50 |language=English}}</ref><ref name=JWilson-2013>{{cite news|last=Wilson|first=Jacque|title=Before and after Roe v. Wade|url=https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/health/roe-wade-abortion-timeline/index.html|work=CNN|access-date=May 9, 2022|date=January 22, 2013}}</ref> John Keown highlights some challenges in pinning down the common law view, noting that "evidence of quickening would clearly facilitate prosecution".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Stauch |first1=Marc |last2=Wheat |first2=Kay |title=Text, Cases and Materials on Medical Law and Ethics |date=2018 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |location=United Kingdom}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Keown |first1=John |title=Abortion, doctors and the law: Some aspects of the legal regulation of abortion in England from 1803 to 1982 |date=1988 |publisher=Cambridge University press |page=3}}</ref>

In the mid-18th century, [[Benjamin Franklin]] included a recipe for an [[abortifacient]] in a math textbook.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Feng |first1=Emily |last2=Restrepo |first2=Manuela López |date=May 18, 2022 |title=Benjamin Franklin gave instructions on at-home abortions in a book in the 1700s |url=https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak |access-date=2023-03-24 |website=NPR}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Farrell |first=Molly |date=2022-05-05 |title=Ben Franklin Put an Abortion Recipe in His Math Textbook |language=en-US |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html |access-date=2023-03-24 |issn=1091-2339}}</ref> In 1728, Franklin condemned publisher [[Samuel Keimer]] for publishing an article on abortion. According to biographer [[Walter Isaacson]], Franklin did not have a strong view on the issue.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/05/16/ben-franklin-abortion-math-textbook/|title=Did Ben Franklin Publish a Recipe in a Math Textbook on How to Induce Abortion?|date=May 16, 2022 }}</ref> In ''[[The Speech of Polly Baker]]'' Franklin places the blame for abortion and infanticide on the [[Gendered_sexuality#Sexual_double_standard|sexual double standard]] against women:<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rust |first1=Marion |title=Prodigal Daughters: Susanna Rowson's Early American Women |date=2012 |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |location=United States |page=53 |quote=Unsanctioned pregnancy thus threatened the optimism of a newly developing cultural ethos that emphasized man's aptitude for self-direction. Prodigal daughters were correspondingly difficult to reconcile with the ideology of self-determination that was reinforced by welcoming home a prodigal son. Hence the cruel end they inevitably met in the genre dedicated to their story, the early American seduction novel, wherein they purchased their reclamation with their lives. This point is reinforced by a case in which Franklin, ever the pragmatist, did support single motherhood as a means to augmenting the population in the "Speech of Miss Polly Baker" (1747). Here, he cites abortion and infanticide among the extreme measures to which sexually active single women are forced by the inequitable sanctions imposed on them as opposed to their male sexual partners.}}</ref>

<blockquote>Forgive me Gentlemen, if I talk a little extravagantly on these Matters; I am no Divine: But if you, great Men, must be making Laws, do not turn natural and useful Actions into Crimes, by your Prohibitions. Reflect a little on the horrid Consequences of this Law in particular: What Numbers of procur'd Abortions! and how many distress'd Mothers have been driven, by the Terror of Punishment and public Shame, to imbrue, contrary to Nature, their own trembling Hands in the Blood of their helpless Offspring! Nature would have induc'd them to nurse it up with a Parent's Fondness. 'Tis the Law therefore, 'tis the Law itself that is guilty of all these Barbarities and Murders. Repeal it then, Gentlemen; let it be expung'd for ever from your Books: And on the other hand, take into your wise Consideration, the great and growing Number of Batchelors in the Country, many of whom, from the mean Fear of the Expence of a Family, have never sincerely and honourably Courted a Woman in their Lives; and by their Manner of Living, leave unproduced (which I think is little better than Murder) Hundreds of their Posterity to the Thousandth Generation. Is not theirs a greater Offence against the Public Good, than mine? Compel them then, by a Law, either to Marry, or pay double the Fine of Fornication every Year.</blockquote>

In 1716 New York passed an ordinance prohibiting midwives from providing abortion.<ref name="scholarship.law.umn.edu"/> Founding Father and Second President of the United States [[John Adams]] praised the Spartan lawgiver [[Lycurgus (lawgiver)|Lycurgus]] for refusing his sister-in-law from having an abortion even though it prevented him from assuming power.<ref name="scholarship.law.umn.edu">{{cite web|url=https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1291&context=concomm|title=A Conversation About Abortion Between Justice Blackmun and the Founding Fathers}}</ref> 

Early U.S. statutes did not prohibit early-term abortions: for the most part, abortion was not a crime until [[quickening]], and most exceptions to this in practice were penalties imposed on practitioners if a woman under their care died as a consequence of the procedure.<ref name=Miller2>{{Cite book |editor-last=Miller |editor-first=Wilbur R. |title=The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia |publisher=Sage Reference |date=2012|page=2 |quote=States passed the first wave of abortion laws in the 1820s and 1830s. Connecticut was the first state to enact a law in 1821, followed by Missouri, Illinois, and New York. By 1840, 10 more states had passed statutes. These laws did not intend to ban abortion but to make it safer through regulation. Legislators were concerned that women sometimes faced death or serious injuries from poison potions or dangerous instruments. Legislation generally made abortion illegal only after quickening and punished the abortionist, not the woman seeking the abortion.}}</ref> Within the context of a [[sex scandal]],<ref name=Brockell-2019>{{cite news|last=Brockell|first=Gillian|title=How a sex scandal led to the nation's first abortion law 200 years ago|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/05/16/how-sensational-sex-scandal-led-nations-first-abortion-law-years-ago/|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=May 9, 2022|date=May 17, 2019}}</ref> Connecticut became the first state to regulate abortion by statute in 1821. Many states subsequently passed various abortion laws. In 1829, [[New York (state)|New York]] made post-quickening abortions a [[felony]] and pre-quickening abortions a [[misdemeanor]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Buell|first=Samuel|date=1991|title=Criminal Abortion Revisited|url=https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2798&context=faculty_scholarship|journal=New York University Law Review|volume=66|issue=6|pages=1774–1831|pmid=11652642|access-date=July 27, 2022|via=Duke.edu}}</ref> This was followed by 10 of the 26 states creating similar restrictions within the next few decades,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Jacobson|first1=Donna|date=2019|title=When Abortion Became Illegal|doi=10.5406/connhistrevi.58.2.0049|journal=Connecticut History Review|volume=58|issue=2|pages=49–81|s2cid=211430012}}</ref> in particular by the 1860s and 1870s.<ref name="Hardin 1978"/> The first laws related to abortion were made to protect women from real or perceived risks, and those more restrictive penalized only the provider.<ref name="Georgian 2022">{{cite web|last=Georgian|first=Elizabeth|date=July 1, 2022|url=https://clioandthecontemporary.com/2022/07/01/the-end-of-roe-in-historical-perspective/|title=The End of Roe in Historical Perspective|website=Clio and the Contemporary|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> 

Criminalization did not end the practice of abortion; unlicensed doctors and midwives continued to perform them. Most of the women receiving abortions from unlicensed practitioners were poor. Women's safety continued to be a concern, especially after the highly publicized death of [[Mary Rogers]]. Wealthier women could pay willing physicians to broadly interpret health exceptions in their favor. Euphemistic advertisements for [[abortifacients]] offered an assortment of herbal remedies.<ref name=Miller2/> Abortions increased during [[World War II]] as the need for female labor outweighed other concerns and bribes were often accepted in exchange for lax enforcement. Regulations were tightened after the war to encourage a return to traditional family life, until a reform movement started in the 1950s drawing attention to the public health issue of illegal abortions, and a consensus grew in the medical community that physicians should make decisions about when health exceptions apply.<ref>''[[United States v. Vuitch]]'' (1971)</ref>

A number of other factors likely played a role in the rise of anti-abortion laws. As in Europe, abortion techniques advanced starting in the 17th century, and the [[conservatism]] of most in the medical profession with regards to sexual matters prevented the wide expansion of abortion techniques.<ref name="Hardin 1978"/><ref>{{cite book|vauthors=Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG, Creinin MD, Joffe C|year=2009|chapter-url=http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/62/14051769/1405176962.pdf|url-status=live|chapter=Abortion and Medicine: A Sociopolitical History|title=Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy|edition=1st|location=Oxford|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-4443-1293-5|ol=15895486W|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119025652/http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/62/14051769/1405176962.pdf|archive-date=19 January 2012}}</ref> 

[[Physician]]s, who were the leading advocates of abortion criminalization laws, appear to have been motivated at least in part by advances in medical knowledge. Science had discovered that [[fertilization]] inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which produced a new human being. Quickening was found to be not more or less crucial in the process of [[gestation]] than any other step. Many physicians concluded that if society considered it unjustifiable to terminate pregnancy after the fetus had quickened, and if quickening was a relatively unimportant step in the gestation process, then it was just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening.<ref name="Mohr3536">{{cite book|title=Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy|last=Mohr|first=James C.|year=1978|pages=[https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/35 35–36]|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0195026160|url=https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/35}}</ref> Patricia Cline Cohen, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said that these laws had come about not because society saw abortion as a crime, but from a small group of white male doctors from Boston who had taken it upon themselves to prove to the rest of the county that pre-quickening abortion should be seen as a crime. The doctors used flawed math to convince the [[American Medical Association]] to accept that pre-quickening abortion should also be outlawed, leading to the raft of state laws banning abortion in the latter half of the 19th century.<ref name="wapost">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/24/dobbs-decision-looks-history-rescind-roe/ |title=The Dobbs decision looks to history to rescind Roe |first=Patricia Cline |last=Cohen |date=June 24, 2022 |access-date=June 28, 2022 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |archive-date=June 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220629192136/https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/24/dobbs-decision-looks-history-rescind-roe/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Doctors were also influenced by practical reasons to advocate anti-abortion laws. For one, abortion providers were usually female midwives without formal training or education. In an age where the leading doctors in the nation were attempting to standardize the medical profession, these unlicensed practitioners were considered a nuisance to public health.<ref name="Mohr34">{{cite book|title=Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy|last=Mohr|first=James C.|year=1978|page=[https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/34 34]|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0195026160|url=https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/34}}</ref><ref name="Hardin 1978"/>

Despite campaigns to end the practice of abortion, [[abortifacient]] advertising was highly effective and abortion was commonly practiced, with the help of a [[midwife]] or other women,<ref name="Blackemore 2022"/> in the mid-19th century,<ref name="Acevado 1979">{{cite journal|last=Acevedo|first=Zachary P. V.|date=Summer 1979|title=Abortion in early America|journal=Women Health|volume=4|issue=2|pages=159–167|doi=10.1300/J013v04n02_05|pmid=10297561 |quote=This piece describes abortion practices in use from the 1600s to the 19th century among the inhabitants of North America. The abortive techniques of women from different ethnic and racial groups as found in historical literature are revealed. Thus, the point is made that abortion is not simply a 'now issue' that effects select women. Instead, it is demonstrated that it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Samuels|first1=Alex|last2=Potts|first2=Monica|date=July 25, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-fight-to-ban-abortion-is-rooted-in-the-great-replacement-theory/|title=How The Fight To Ban Abortion Is Rooted In The 'Great Replacement' Theory|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=July 26, 2022|quote=Throughout colonial America and into the 19th century, abortions were fairly common with the help of a midwife or other women and could be obtained until the point that you could feel movement inside, according to Lauren MacIvor Thompson, a historian of early-20th-century women's rights and public health. Most abortions were induced through herbal or medicinal remedies and, like other medical interventions of the time, weren't always effective or safe.}}</ref> although they were not always safe.<ref name="Reagan 2022">{{cite web|last=Reagan|first=Leslie J.|date=June 2, 2022|url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/02/alitos-anti-roe-argument-wrong-00036174|title=What Alito Gets Wrong About the History of Abortion in America|website=Politico|access-date=July 26, 2022}}</ref> While the precise abortion rate was not known, James Mohr's 1978 book ''Abortion in America'' documented multiple recorded estimates by 19th-century physicians,<ref name="Hardin 1978"/> which suggested that between around 15% and 35% of all pregnancies ended in abortion during that period.<ref name="Mohr7682">{{cite book|title=Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy|last=Mohr|first=James C.|year=1978|pages=[https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/76 76–82]|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0195026160|url=https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/76}}</ref> This era also saw a marked shift in the people who were obtaining abortions. Before the start of the 19th century, most abortions were sought by unmarried women, who had become pregnant [[out of wedlock]] and for which there was much less compassion compared to married women who got an abortion; many of them were wealthy and paid well.<ref name="Hardin 1978"/> Out of 54 abortion cases published in American medical journals between 1839 and 1880, over half were sought by married women, and well over 60% of the married women already had at least one child.<ref name="Mohr100101">{{cite book|title=Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy|last=Mohr|first=James C.|year=1978|pages=[https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/100 100–101]|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0195026160|url=https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/100}}</ref>

The sense that married women were now frequently obtaining abortions worried many conservative physicians, who were almost exclusively men. In the [[Reconstruction era]], much of the blame was placed on the burgeoning [[women's rights movement]]. Though the medical profession expressed hostility toward [[feminism]], many feminists of the era were also opposed to abortion.<ref name="Hardin 1978"/><ref>Gordon, Sarah Barringer (2006). [https://books.google.com/books?id=Kg4PAtekGoAC&pg=PA67 "Law and Everyday Death: Infanticide and the Backlash against Woman's Rights after the Civil War"]. In Sarat, Austin; Douglas, Lawrence; Umphrey, Martha, eds. ''Lives of the Law''. University of Michigan Press. p. 67</ref><ref name="Schiff">[[Stacy Schiff|Schiff, Stacy]] (October 13, 2006). [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html "Desperately Seeking Susan"]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved February 5, 2009.</ref> In ''[[The Revolution (newspaper)|The Revolution]]'', a newspaper operated by [[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]] and [[Susan B. Anthony]], an 1869 opinion piece was published arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed.<ref name="Schiff" /><ref>Federer, William (2003). [https://books.google.com/books?id=8GebI40OvYAC&pg=PA81 ''American Minute'']. Amerisearch. p. 81. {{ISBN|978-0965355780}}.</ref> The writer stated that simply passing an anti-abortion law would be "only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. ... No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."<ref>Anthony, Susan B. (July 8, 1869). [http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/july81869.html "Marriage and Maternity"]. ''[[The Revolution (newspaper)|The Revolution]]''. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111005033006/http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/july81869.html|date=October 5, 2011}}. Retrieved July 26, 2022 – via the University Honors Program, Syracuse University.</ref> To many feminists of this era, abortion was regarded as an undesirable necessity forced upon women by thoughtless men.<ref name="Mohr110">{{cite book|title=Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy|last=Mohr|first=James C.|year=1978|page=[https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/110 110]|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0195026160|url=https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/110}}</ref> The [[free love]] wing of the feminist movement refused to advocate for abortion and treated the practice as an example of the hideous extremes to which modern marriage was driving women.<ref name="Mohr112">{{cite book|title=Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy|last=Mohr|first=James C.|year=1978|page=[https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/112 112]|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0195026160|url=https://archive.org/details/abortioninameric00mohr/page/112}}</ref> [[Marital rape]] and the seduction of unmarried women were societal ills, which feminists believed caused the need to abort, as men did not respect women's right to [[abstinence]].<ref name="Mohr112"/> Feminist opposition to abortion was much less prevalent by the 20th century, and it was feminists and physicians who came to question anti-abortion laws and raise public interest in the 1960s.<ref name="Hardin 1978"/>

[[File:Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg|thumb|alt=Abortion legal on request: AK, HI, NY, WA; allowed for danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus: AR, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, KS, MD, NC, NM, OR, SC, VA; allowed for danger to woman's health: AL, MA; allowed for rape but not life: MS; allowed for danger to the woman's life: AZ, CT, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OK, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WI, WV, WY; complete ban: PA.|Abortion laws in the U.S. before ''Roe'':<ref>[https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2006/06/22/states-probe-limits-of-abortion-policy "States Probe Limits of Abortion Policy"]. The Pew Charitable Trusts. June 22, 2006. Retrieved July 26, 2022. Updated April 23, 2007.</ref>
{{legend|#000000;|Fully illegal (1 state).}}
{{legend|#cc0000;|Legal in cases of risk to woman's life (29 states).}}
{{legend|#C17D11;|Legal in cases of rape (1 state).}}
{{legend|#F57900;|Legal in cases of risk to woman's health (2 states).}}
{{legend|#EDD400;|Legal in cases of risk to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus (12 states).}}
{{legend|#40D0FF;|Legal on request (5 states).}}
]]
Physicians, one of the most famous and consequential being [[Horatio Storer]], remained the loudest voice in the anti-abortion debate, and they carried their agenda to state legislatures around the country, advocating not only anti-abortion laws but also laws against birth control on [[racist]] and [[pseudoscientific]] grounds;<ref>{{cite web|last1=Samuels|first1=Alex|last2=Potts|first2=Monica|date=July 25, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-fight-to-ban-abortion-is-rooted-in-the-great-replacement-theory/|title=How The Fight To Ban Abortion Is Rooted In The 'Great Replacement' Theory|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=July 26, 2022|quote=Declining white birth rates, along with the rising eugenics movement — a now-discredited pseudoscience focused on the genetic fitness of white Americans — were connected to the practice of abortion, and this helped bolster flawed, racist arguments for a total ban of the procedure. 'The physicians trying to pass these anti-abortion laws were concerned about how abortion was a 'danger' to our society and the ways we want our country to be,' said Shannon Withycombe, a professor of history at the University of New Mexico who studies 19th-century women's health. Their tactics worked. By the 1900s, abortion was illegal in every U.S. state.}}</ref> religious groups were not particularly active within this movement,<ref>{{cite web|last1=Samuels|first1=Alex|last2=Potts|first2=Monica|date=July 25, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-fight-to-ban-abortion-is-rooted-in-the-great-replacement-theory/|title=How The Fight To Ban Abortion Is Rooted In The 'Great Replacement' Theory|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=July 26, 2022|quote=It took time for the anti-abortion movement to attract supporters, and unlike today, religious groups were not originally an active part of it. Still, momentum built as a small but influential number of physicians began arguing that licensed male doctors — as opposed to female midwives — should care for women throughout the reproductive cycle. In the late 1850s, one of the leaders of the nascent anti-abortion movement, a surgeon named Horatio Robinson Storer, began arguing that he didn't want the medical profession to be associated with abortion. He was able to push the relatively new American Medical Association to support his cause, and soon they were working to delegitimize midwives and enforce abortion bans. In an 1865 essay issued by order of the AMA, Storer went so far as to say of white women that 'upon their loins depends the future destiny of the nation.'}}</ref> which presaged the modern debate over women's body rights.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hartmann|first=B|title=Population control I: Birth of an ideology.|journal=International Journal of Health Services|year=1997|volume=27|issue=3|pages=523–540|pmid=9285280|doi=10.2190/bl3n-xajx-0yqb-vqbx|s2cid=39035850}}</ref> Though many of these laws indicated the woman as a co-criminal, she was rarely prosecuted.<ref name="Hardin 1978"/> A campaign was launched against the movement and the use and availability of [[contraceptive]]s. Criminalization of abortion accelerated from the late 1860s through the efforts of concerned legislators, doctors, and the [[American Medical Association]] influenced by Storer,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm |url-status=dead |title=Abortion History: A History of Abortion in the United States |access-date=July 26, 2022 |last=Lewis |first=Jone Johnson |year=2006 |work=Women's History |publisher=About.com |archive-date=March 3, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170303021904/http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Abdeltath|first1=Rund|last2=Arablouei|first2=Ramtin|last3=Caine|first3=Julie|last4=Kaplan-Levenson|first4=Laine|last5=Wu|first5=Lawrence|last6=Yvellez|first6=Victor|last7=Miner|first7=Casey|last8=Sangweni|first8=Yolanda|last9=Steinberg|first9=Anya|last10=George|first10=Deborah|title=Before Roe: The Physicians' Crusade|url=https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099795225/before-roe-the-physicians-crusade|work=Throughline|publisher=NPR|access-date=July 26, 2022}}</ref> and were facilitated by the press.<ref name="Hardin 1978"/> In 1873, [[Anthony Comstock]] created the [[New York Society for the Suppression of Vice]], an institution dedicated to supervising the [[morality]] of the public. Later that year, Comstock successfully influenced the [[United States Congress]] to pass the [[Comstock Law]], which made it illegal to deliver through the U.S. mail any "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" material. It also prohibited producing or publishing information pertaining to the procurement of abortion, [[birth control]], and [[venereal disease]], including to medical students.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/championsofchurc00benn/page/1017/mode/1up|title=Anthony Comstock: His Career of Cruelty and Crime, A Chapter from "The Champions of the Church: Their Crimes and Persecutions"|last=Bennett|first=DeRobigne Mortimer|author-link=D. M. Bennett|year=1878|publisher=New York: D. M. Bennett|access-date=July 27, 2022|via=Internet Archive}}</ref> The production, publication, importation, and distribution of such materials was suppressed under the Comstock Law as being obscene, and similar prohibitions were passed by 24 of the 37 states.<ref>{{cite news|last=Kevles|first=Daniel J.|title=The Secret History of Birth Control|work=The New York Times|date=July 22, 2001|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/22/books/the-secret-history-of-birth-control.html|access-date=October 21, 2006}}</ref>

In 1900, abortion was normally a felony in every state. Some states included provisions allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman's health or to terminate pregnancies arising from rape or incest.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jackson/social.issues/papers/AbortGrI.html|url-status=dead|title=A Political, Public & Moral Look at Abortion|date=February 28, 2006|access-date=July 27, 2022|publisher=New York University|archive-date=October 4, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161004195611/http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jackson/social.issues/papers/AbortGrI.html}}</ref> Most Americans did not view abortion as a crime, and abortions continued to occur and became increasingly available.<ref name="Cohen 2022">{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Patricia Cline|date=June 24, 2022|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/24/dobbs-decision-looks-history-rescind-roe/|title=The Dobbs decision looks to history to rescind Roe|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> The [[American Birth Control League]] was founded by [[Margaret Sanger]] in 1921; it would become Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.<ref>{{cite web|last=Sanger|first=Margaret|date=November 18, 1921|url=https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/margaretsangermoralityofbirthcontrol.htm|title=The Morality of Birth Control|access-date=July 27, 2022|via=American Rhetoric}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Cullen-DuPont|first=Kathryn|title=Encyclopedia of Women's History in America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oIro7MtiFuYC&pg=PA374|access-date=November 28, 2011|year=2000|publisher=Infobase Publishing|isbn=978-0816041008|page=11|via=Google Books}}</ref> By the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimated 800,000 abortions a year.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Boyer|editor1-first=Paul S.|title=The Oxford companion to United States history|year=2006|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=978-0195082098|page=[https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00paul_0/page/3 3]|url=https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00paul_0/page/3|access-date=July 27, 2022|via=Internet Archive}}</ref>

=== Sherri Finkbine ===
{{main|Sherri Chessen}}
In the early 1960s, a controversy centered around children's television host Sherri Finkbine that helped bring abortion and abortion law more directly into the American public eye. Living in the area of [[Phoenix, Arizona]], Finkbine had had four healthy children; during her pregnancy with her fifth child, she discovered the child might have severe deformities when born.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://advocatesaz.org/2012/08/15/sherri-finkbines-abortion-its-meaning-50-years-later/|title=Sherri Finkbine's Abortion: Its Meaning 50 Years Later|date=August 15, 2012|work=Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona|access-date=December 2, 2017}}</ref> This was likely because Finkbine had been taking sleeping pills that she was unaware contained [[thalidomide]], a drug that increases the risk of fetal deformities during pregnancy.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/whitny-braun/thalidomide-the-connectio_b_8881702.html|title=Thalidomide: The Connection Between a Statue in Trafalgar Square, a 1960s Children's Show Host and the Abortion Debate|last=Braun|first=Whitny|date=December 29, 2015|website=The Huffington Post|access-date=December 2, 2017}}</ref> Though Finkbine wanted an abortion, the [[abortion law]]s of Arizona only allowed abortions if a pregnancy posed a threat to the woman's life. The situation gained public attention after Finkbine shared the story with a reporter from ''[[The Arizona Republic]]'', who disclosed her identity in spite of her requests for anonymity. On August 18, 1962, Finkbine traveled to [[Sweden]] to obtain a legal abortion, where it was confirmed that the fetus had severe deformities.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cliohistory.org/click/body-health/reproduction/|title= Debating Reproductive Rights – Reproductive Rights and Feminism, History of Abortion Battle, History of Abortion Debate, Roe v. Wade and Feminists|website=Cliohistory.org|access-date=December 2, 2017}}</ref>

Finkbine's story marked a turning point for [[women's reproductive rights]] and abortion law in the United States. Still, Finkbine was only able to get an abortion because she could afford to travel overseas for it,<ref>{{cite web|title=Abortion|url=https://www.who.int/westernpacific/health-topics/abortion|access-date=December 16, 2020|website=Who.int}}</ref> highlighting an inequality in abortion rights persisting to this day whereby many women cannot afford or otherwise do not have the resources to obtain a legal abortion; in such cases, women may turn to [[illegal abortion]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dore |first=Kate |date=June 24, 2022 |title=Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade will financially hurt the 'most marginalized' women, experts say |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-decision-expected-to-financially-hurt-marginalized-women.html |access-date=June 28, 2022 |website=[[CNBC]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lenharo |first=Mariana |date=June 24, 2022 |title=After Roe v. Wade: US researchers warn of what's to come |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume=607 |issue=7917 |pages=15–16 |doi=10.1038/d41586-022-01775-z |pmid=35750925 |bibcode=2022Natur.607...15L |s2cid=250022457 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Pre-''Roe'' precedents===
In 1964, [[Gerri Santoro]] of Connecticut died trying to obtain an illegal abortion, and her photo became the symbol of an [[Abortion-rights movements|abortion-rights movement]]. Some women's rights activist groups developed their own skills to provide abortions to women who could not obtain them elsewhere. As an example, in Chicago, a group known as "[[Jane Collective|Jane]]" operated a floating abortion clinic throughout much of the 1960s. Women seeking the procedure would call a designated number and be given instructions on how to find "Jane".<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.cwluherstory.org/something-real-jane-and-me-memories-and-exhortations-of-a-feminist-ex-abortionist.html
|title=Something Real: Jane and Me. Memories and Exhortations of a Feminist Ex-Abortionist
|last=Johnson
|first=Linnea
|publisher=CWLU Herstory Project
|access-date=May 23, 2010

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725214230/http://www.cwluherstory.org/something-real-jane-and-me-memories-and-exhortations-of-a-feminist-ex-abortionist.html
|archive-date=July 25, 2011
}}</ref>

In 1965, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] case ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' struck down one of the remaining contraception [[Comstock laws]] in [[Connecticut]] and [[Massachusetts]].<ref>{{ussc|name=Griswold v. Connecticut|volume=381|page=479|year=1965}}.</ref> However, ''Griswold'' only applied to marital relationships, allowing married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. It took until 1972, with ''[[Eisenstadt v. Baird]]'', to extend the precedent of ''Griswold'' to unmarried persons as well.<ref>{{ussc|name=Eisenstadt v. Baird|link=|volume=405|page=438|pin=|year=1972}}.</ref> Following the ''Griswold'' case, the [[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] (ACOG) issued a medical bulletin accepting a recommendation from six years earlier that clarified that "conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum",<ref>American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Terminology Bulletin. Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus. No. 1. Philadelphia: Davis, September 1965.</ref> and consequently [[birth control]] methods that prevented implantation became classified as [[contraceptive]]s, not [[abortifacients]].

In 1967, [[Colorado]] became the first state to decriminalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical [[disability]] of the woman. Similar laws were passed in [[California]], [[Oregon]], and [[North Carolina]]. In 1970, [[Hawaii]] became the first state to legalize abortions on the request of the woman,<ref>{{cite news| title=Medicine: Abortion on Request | date=March 9, 1970 | magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] | url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878789,00.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101201211449/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878789,00.html | archive-date=December 1, 2010 | access-date=October 15, 2012}} {{subscription required}}</ref> and New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Similar laws were soon passed in [[Alaska]] and [[Washington (state)|Washington]]. In 1970, Washington held a referendum on legalizing early pregnancy abortions, becoming the first state to legalize abortion through a vote of the people.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.historylink.org/File/5313|title=Abortion Reform in Washington State - HistoryLink.org|website=Historylink.org|access-date=October 9, 2017}}</ref> A law in [[Washington, D.C.]], which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in ''[[United States v. Vuitch]]''. The court upheld the law, deeming that "health" meant "psychological and physical well-being", essentially allowing abortion in Washington, D.C. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while [[Mississippi]] allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and [[Alabama]] and [[Massachusetts]] allowed abortions only in cases where the woman's physical health was endangered. In order to obtain abortions during this period, women would often travel from a state where abortion was illegal to one where it was legal. The legal position prior to ''Roe v. Wade'' was that abortion was illegal in 30 states and legal under certain circumstances in 20 states.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/22/charts-how-roe-v-wade-changed-abortion-rights/ |title=Charts: How Roe v. Wade changed abortion rights |first=Sarah |last=Kliff |date=January 22, 2013 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

In the late 1960s, a number of organizations were formed to mobilize opinion both against and for the legalization of abortion. In 1966, the [[National Conference of Catholic Bishops]] assigned Monsignor [[James T. McHugh]] to document efforts to reform abortion laws, and anti-abortion groups began forming in various states in 1967. In 1968, McHugh led an advisory group which became the [[National Right to Life Committee]].<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zYZQBc9426QC&pg=PA140 |page=140 |title=The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective |editor=Donald T. Critchlow |chapter=The Right to Life Movement |last=Cassidy |first=Keith |publisher=Penn State Press |year=1995 |isbn=978-0271015705 |series=Issues in Policy History}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/prochoicemovemen0000stag_j0h7 |url-access=registration |page=[https://archive.org/details/prochoicemovemen0000stag_j0h7/page/35 35] |title=The Pro-Choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict |first=Suzanne |last=Staggenborg |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1994 |isbn=978-0195089257}}</ref> The forerunner of the [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]] was formed in 1969 to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nwhn.org/content-module-example-page/|title=Content Module Example Page|access-date=October 21, 2019|archive-date=February 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190209124003/https://www.nwhn.org/content-module-example-page/}}</ref> Following ''Roe v. Wade'', in late 1973, NARAL became the National Abortion Rights Action League.

===''Roe v. Wade''===
{{main|Roe v. Wade|l1=''Roe v. Wade''}}
[[File:Burger Court in 1973.jpg|thumb|The [[United States Supreme Court]] membership in 1973<br>F.l.t.r. seated [[Potter Stewart]], [[William O. Douglas]], [[Warren E. Burger]] (chief justice), [[William J. Brennan Jr.|William Brennan]], and [[Byron White]].<br>Standing [[Lewis F. Powell]], [[Thurgood Marshall]], [[Harry Blackmun]], and [[William Rehnquist]].]]

Prior to ''Roe v. Wade'', 30 states prohibited abortion without exception, 16 states banned abortion except in certain special circumstances (e.g. rape, incest, and health threat to mother), 3 states allowed residents to obtain abortions, and New York allowed abortions generally.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue |title=Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue? |work=The Guttmacher Policy Review |volume=6 |issue=1 |Date=2023-03-01 |accessdate=2017-01-11 |firast1=Rachel |last1=Benson Gold}}</ref> Early that year, on January 22, 1973, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''Roe v. Wade'' invalidated all of these laws, and set guidelines for the availability of abortion. The decision returned abortion to its liberalized pre-1820 status.<ref name="Hardin 1978"/> ''Roe'' established that the [[right of privacy]] of a woman to obtain an abortion "must be considered against important state interests in regulation".<ref name=":1">''Roe v. Wade'', {{ussc|410|113|1973|source=j|pin=154}} "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."</ref> ''Roe'' also established a trimester framework, defined as the end of the first [[pregnancy trimester]] (12 weeks), as the threshold for state interest, such that states were prohibited from banning abortion in the first trimester but allowed to impose increasing restrictions or outright bans later in pregnancy.<ref name=":1" />

In deciding ''Roe v. Wade'', the Court ruled that a [[Texas]] statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the [[right of privacy in the United States]] (e.g. federal constitutionally-protected right), in the sense of the right of a person not to be encroached by the state. In its opinion, it listed several landmark cases where the court had previously found a right to privacy implied by the Constitution. The Court did not recognize a right to abortion in all cases, saying: "State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."<ref name="Roe 1973">''Roe v. Wade'', [http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011130053106/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html 410 U.S. 113] (1972). Findlaw.com. Retrieved April 14, 2011.</ref>

The Court held that a right to privacy existed and included the right to have an abortion. The court found that a mother had a right to abortion until viability, a point to be determined by the abortion doctor. After viability a woman can obtain an abortion for health reasons, which the Court defined broadly to include psychological well-being. A central issue in the ''Roe'' case and in the wider abortion debate in general is whether human life or personhood begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, writing: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American [[common law]] and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized ... as persons in the whole sense", and thus the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the Court declared that the state has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.<ref name="Roe 1973"/>

====''Doe v. Bolton''====
{{main|Doe v. Bolton|l1=''Doe v. Bolton''}}
Under ''Roe v. Wade'', state governments may not prohibit [[Late termination of pregnancy|late terminations of pregnancy]] when "necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother", even if it would cause the demise of a viable fetus.<ref>{{ussc|name=Roe v. Wade|volume=410|page=113|pin=164|year=1973}} ("If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during [the third trimester], except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.")</ref> This rule was clarified by the 1973 judicial decision ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'', which specifies "that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient".<ref>{{ussc|name=Doe v. Bolton|volume=410|page=179|pin=192|year=1973}}</ref><ref name=PBS_Wars>{{cite web|title=Frontline / Abortion Wars / Roe v Wade and Beyond|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/wars/cases.html|website=PBS|access-date=October 5, 2015}}</ref><ref name=ACLU_25>{{cite web|title=The Right to Choose at 25: Looking Back and Ahead|url=https://www.aclu.org/right-choose-25-looking-back-and-ahead|website=ACLU|access-date=October 5, 2015}}</ref> It is by this provision for the mother's mental health that women in the U.S. legally choose abortion after viability when screenings reveal abnormalities that do not cause a baby to die shortly after birth.<ref name=Dailard>{{cite journal|last1=Dailard|first1=Cynthia|title=Issues and Implications, Abortion Restrictions and the Drive for Mental Health Parity: A Conflict in Values?|journal=The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy|date=June 1999|volume=2|issue=3|url=https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/02/3/gr020304.html|access-date=October 2, 2015|archive-date=October 4, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151004000450/https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/02/3/gr020304.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=Palley>{{cite book|last1=Palley|first1=Marian Lief and Howard|title=The Politics of Women's Health Care in the US|date=2014|publisher=Palgrave Pivot|location=New York & London|isbn=978-1137008633|page=74|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pa7mAgAAQBAJ&q=institute%20women's%20health%20doe%20bolton&pg=PA74|access-date=October 5, 2015}}</ref><ref name=PP_After_1st>{{cite news|title=Abortion after the First Trimester in the United States|url=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf|access-date=October 5, 2015|publisher=Planned Parenthood|date=February 2014}}</ref><ref name=DU_viability>{{cite web|title=Fetal Viability And Late-Term Abortion: The Facts And The Law|url=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5758875|website=Democratic Underground|access-date=October 5, 2015}}</ref>

===''Planned Parenthood v. Casey''===
In the 1992 case of ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', the Court abandoned ''Roe's'' strict trimester framework but maintained its central holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion before viability.<ref name=Casey /> ''Roe'' had held that statutes regulating abortion must be subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]"—the traditional Supreme Court test for impositions upon fundamental [[Constitution of the United States|Constitutional]] rights. ''Casey'' instead adopted the lower, [[undue burden]] standard for evaluating state abortion restrictions,<ref name=Casey>{{ussc|name=Planned Parenthood v. Casey|505|833|1992|source=j|pin=878}} ("(a) To protect the central right recognized by ''Roe v. Wade'' while at the same time accommodating the State's profound interest in potential life, we will employ the undue burden analysis as explained in this opinion. An undue burden exists, and therefore, a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.")</ref> but re-emphasized the right to abortion as grounded in the general sense of liberty and privacy protected under the constitution: "Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. It declares that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is 'liberty'."<ref>''Planned Parenthood v. Casey'', {{ussc|505|833|1992|source=j|pin=846}}</ref>

The Supreme Court continues to make decisions on this subject. On April 18, 2007, it issued a ruling in the case of ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'', involving a federal law entitled the [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act|Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]] which President [[George W. Bush]] had signed into law. The law banned [[intact dilation and extraction]], which opponents of abortion rights referred to as "partial-birth abortion", and stipulated that anyone breaking the law would get a prison sentence up to 2.5 years. The United States Supreme Court upheld the 2003 ban by a narrow majority of 5–4, marking the first time the Court has allowed a ban on any type of abortion since 1973. The opinion, which came from justice Anthony Kennedy, was joined by Justices [[Antonin Scalia]], [[Clarence Thomas]], and the two recent appointees, [[Samuel Alito]] and Chief Justice [[John G. Roberts|John Roberts]].

In the case of ''[[Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt]]'', the Supreme Court in a 5–3 decision on June 27, 2016, swept away forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function. The Texas legislature enacted in 2013 restrictions on the delivery of abortions services that, it was argued by its opponents, created an undue burden for women seeking an abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain "admitting privileges" at a local hospital and by requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. The Court supported this argument and struck down these two provisions "facially" from [[Texas House Bill 2|the law at issue]]—that is, the very words of the provisions were invalid, no matter how they might be applied in any practical situation. According to the Supreme Court, the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to abortion belongs with the courts, and not the legislatures.<ref name="20160627SCOTUSDenniston">{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-abortion-rights-reemerge-strongly/|title=Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt – Opinion analysis: Abortion rights reemerge strongly|last=Denniston|first=Lyle|date=June 27, 2016|website=SCOTUSblog|access-date=June 29, 2016}}</ref>

The Supreme Court ruled similarly in ''[[June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo]]'' on June 29, 2020, in a 5–4 decision that a Louisiana state law, modeled after the Texas law at the center of ''Whole Woman's Health'', was unconstitutional.<ref name="nytimes june medical decision"/> Like Texas' law,  the Louisiana law required certain measures for abortion clinics that, if having gone into effect, would have closed five of the six clinics in the state. The case in Louisiana was put on hold pending the result of ''Whole Woman's Health'', and was retried based on the Supreme Court's decision. While the District Court ruled the law unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit found that unlike the Texas law, the burden of the Louisiana law passed the tests outlined in ''Whole Woman's Health'', and thus the law was constitutional. The Supreme Court issued an order to suspend enforcement of the law pending further review, and agreed to hear the case in full in October 2019. It was the first abortion-related case to be heard by President [[Donald Trump]]'s appointees to the Court, [[Neil Gorsuch]] and [[Brett Kavanaugh]].<ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-review-ruling-on-louisiana-abortion-law/2019/10/04/85eaf2b0-e6ab-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html | title = Supreme Court to review ruling on Louisiana abortion law | first= Robert | last= Barnes | date =  October 4, 2019 | access-date = October 4, 2019 | newspaper = [[The Washington Post]] }}</ref> The Supreme Court found the Louisiana law unconstitutional for the same reasons as the Texas one, reversing the Fifth Circuit. The judgment was supported by Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] who had dissented on ''Whole Woman's Health'' but joined in judgment as to upholding the court's respect for the past judgment in that case.<ref name="nytimes june medical decision">{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana.html | title = Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions | first= Adam | last =Liptak | date = June 29, 2020 |access-date = June 29, 2020 | work  = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref>

===''Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization''===
{{main|Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization|l1=''Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization''}}
[[File:Supreme Court of the United States - Roberts Court 2020.jpg|thumb|The composition of the Supreme Court at the time of ''Dobbs''<br>Front row, l.t.r.: [[Samuel Alito]], [[Clarence Thomas]], [[John G. Roberts, Jr.]], [[Justice Stephen G. Breyer]], [[Sonia Sotomayor]].<br>Back row, l.t.r.: [[Brett M. Kavanaugh]], [[Elena Kagan]], [[Neil M. Gorsuch]], [[Amy Coney Barrett]].]]

The Supreme Court granted ''[[certiorari]]'' to ''Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization'' in May 2021, a case that challenges the impact of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' in blocking enforcement of a 2018 [[Mississippi]] law (the [[Gestational Age Act]]) that had banned any abortions after the first 15 weeks.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-mississippi-abortion-ban-takes-case/|title=Supreme Court takes up blockbuster case over Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban|first=Melissa|last=Quinn|date=May 17, 2021|access-date=May 17, 2021|work=CBS News}}</ref> Oral arguments to ''Dobbs'' were held in December 2021, and a decision was expected by the end of the 2021–22 Supreme Court term. On September 1, 2021, [[Texas]] passed the [[Texas Heartbeat Act]], one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation, banning most procedures after six weeks.<ref>{{cite news|title=Answers to Questions About the Texas Abortion Law|work=The New York Times|first=Roni Caryn|last=Rabin|date=September 1, 2021|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/health/texas-abortion-law-facts.html|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211001005809/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/health/texas-abortion-law-facts.html|archive-date=October 1, 2021}}</ref> On May 2, 2022, a leaked draft majority opinion for ''Dobbs'', written by [[Samuel Alito]], set to overturn ''Roe'' was reported by ''[[Politico]]''.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Gerstein|first1=Josh|last2=Ward|first2=Alexander|title=Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473|access-date=May 3, 2022|work=Politico|date=May 2, 2022}}</ref>

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overruled both ''Roe'' and ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' in the ''Dobbs'' case on [[originalist]] grounds that a right to abortion cannot be found in the U.S. Constitution. [[John Roberts]], the [[Chief Justice of the United States]], concurred in the decision to uphold the law at question as constitutional, by a 6–3 vote, and did not support overruling both ''Roe'' and ''Casey''.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/24/us/politics/supreme-court-dobbs-jackson-analysis-roe-wade.html|title=The Dobbs v. Jackson Decision, Annotated|work=The New York Times|date=June 24, 2022|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Breuninger|first1=Kevin|last2=Mangan|first2=Dan|title=Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-by-supreme-court-ending-federal-abortion-rights.html|work=CNBC|access-date=June 24, 2022|date=June 24, 2022}}</ref> This enabled [[trigger law]]s, which had been passed in 13 states,<ref>{{cite news|last=Wolfe|first=Elizabeth|date=May 3, 2022|title=13 states have passed so-called 'trigger laws,' bans designed to go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned|url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html|work=CNN|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Chiwaya|first=Nigel|date=May 3, 2022|title=Map: These 'trigger law' states would ban abortion only if Roe is overturned|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-trigger-law-states-ban-abortion-only-roe-overturned-rcna27119|work=NBC News|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|first=Jesus|last=Jiménez|date=May 4, 2022|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/abortion-trigger-laws.html|title=What is a trigger law? And which states have them?|work=The New York Times|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref> to effectively ban abortions in those states.<ref>{{cite web|last=Thomson-DeVeaux|first=Amelia|date=June 24, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-argument-for-overturning-roe-v-wade/|title=The Supreme Court's Argument For Overturning Roe v. Wade|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref><ref name="Thomson-DeVeaux 2022">{{cite web|last=Thomson-DeVeaux|first=Amelia|date=June 24, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/roe-v-wade-defined-an-era-the-supreme-court-just-started-a-new-one/|title=Roe v. Wade Defined An Era. The Supreme Court Just Started A New One.|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=July 27, 2022}}</ref>

Abortion-related initiatives were placed on the [[2022 United States elections#Referendums|2022 ballot]] in six states, the most in a single year. [[2022 California Proposition 1]], [[2022 Michigan Proposal 3]], and Vermont Proposal 5 enshrined the right to an abortion in state constitutions, while the [[2022 Kansas abortion referendum]], [[2022 Kentucky Amendment 2]], and Montana Legislative Referendum No. 131 rejected restrictions on abortion.<ref name="Weixel">{{Cite news |last=Weixel |first=Nathaniel |date=August 21, 2022 |title=State ballot measures are new abortion battleground |language=en |work=The Hill |url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3608609-state-ballot-measures-are-new-abortion-battleground/ |access-date=September 9, 2022}}</ref> Voters in Ohio defeated [[August 2023 Ohio Issue 1]] intended to make changes to the state's constitution more difficult, ahead of [[November 2023 Ohio Issue 1]], which added the right to an abortion to the Ohio constitution.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/abortion-rights-won-every-election-roe-v-wade-overturned-rcna99031 | title = Abortion rights have won in every election since Roe v. Wade was overturned | first1 = Amanda | last1 = Terkel | first2 = Jiachuan | last2 =  Wu | date = August 9, 2023 | accessdate = August 9, 2023 | work  = [[NBC News]] }}</ref>