After Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade established the limited right of a woman to have an abortion. Recognizing that fact, states liberalized their abortion laws following the Supreme Court’s decision, but abortion soon became an even more divisive issue in the United States. Groups opposed to abortion, including the Catholic Church, became organized and politically powerful. The issue of abortion became a platform issue for all candidates for federal office, including the office of the U.S. president. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan, an opponent of abortion, used his presidency to argue for a reversal of Roe v. Wade. He appointed C. Everett Koop, another abortion opponent, to the position of surgeon general and referred to abortion as a “silent holocaust.” Reagan believed that abortion caused pain to the fetus and that the rights of the fetus were not outweighed by the rights of the pregnant woman.

Groups opposed to abortion, known as pro-life groups, have worked in various ways to reduce or eliminate entirely abortions in the United States. These groups have sponsored legislation limiting access to abortion and have attempted unsuccessfully to reverse Roe v. Wade by way of a constitutional amendment. Some groups opposed to abortion attempt to persuade patients not to undergo abortions by demonstrating outside of abortion clinics. In some extreme cases, individuals and groups opposed to abortion have bombed abortion clinics, injuring and killing patients and staff members, or have murdered doctors who provide abortions. Because of these extreme actions, many doctors are unwilling to perform abortions and many abortion clinics have shut down, making access to abortion difficult in some regions.

Other attempts to reduce the number of abortions have involved eliminating public funding of abortions and even prohibiting health care clinics that receive public funding from counseling women about the option of abortion. Soon after taking office in 1993, President Bill Clinton effectively reversed federal regulations that prohibited staff members at health care clinics that receive public funding from dispersing information about abortions or referring women to abortion providers. Once this so-called “gag rule” was lifted, these clinics once again were able to give women information about abortion.

Also complicating the issue of abortion rights are rules requiring a woman to get informed consent or parental consent. Informed consent involves a requirement that before undergoing an abortion, the abortion provider must give the woman information about the risks of abortion, alternatives to abortion, the age of the fetus, and the availability of government assistance for carrying the pregnancy to term. Parental consent involves a requirement that a minor wishing to undergo an abortion first obtain consent from her parent or guardian. The Supreme Court generally has upheld parental consent laws provided the laws allow a minor the ability to obtain permission to have an abortion from a judge rather than a parent and provided that the judge’s decision take into account the minor’s best interests, maturity, and ability to make decisions. The Supreme Court generally has upheld laws requiring the notification, as opposed to consent, of parents of minors seeking to undergo an abortion. The Supreme Court generally has upheld informed consent laws so long as the laws do not create an undue burden on the woman seeking an abortion. The Supreme Court has not upheld laws requiring a woman to obtain her spouse’s permission before undergoing an abortion.

Laws regarding the right to undergo an abortion continue to evolve. The pro-choice movement and the anti-abortion movement battle aggressively to protect their causes, and the issue remains deeply mired in differing opinions about ethics, religion, and medical science. There is little question that abortion will remain a divisive and powerful political issue in decades to come.


Inside After Roe v. Wade