{ "id": "95-724", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "95-724", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 342445, "date": "2009-01-15", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T22:32:40.522714", "title": "Abortion Law Development: A\u00a0Brief\u00a0Overview", "summary": "In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Constitution protects a woman\u2019s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. In a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), the Court held further that a state may not unduly burden a woman\u2019s fundamental right to abortion by prohibiting or substantially limiting access to the means of effectuating her decision. Rather than settle the issue, the Court\u2019s decisions kindled heated debate and precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or hinder their effectuation. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy.\nThe law with respect to abortion in mid-19th century America followed the common law of England in all but a few states. By the time of the Civil War, a number of states had begun to revise their statutes in order to prohibit abortion at all stages of gestation, with various exceptions for therapeutic abortions. The year 1967 marked the first victory of an abortion reform movement with the passage of liberalizing legislation in Colorado. The legislation was based on the Model Penal Code. Between 1967 and 1973, approximately one-third of the states had adopted, either in whole or in part, the Model Penal Code\u2019s provisions allowing abortion in instances other than where only the mother\u2019s life was in danger. Between 1968 and 1972, abortion statutes of many states were challenged on the grounds of vagueness, violation of the fundamental right of privacy, and denial of equal protection. In 1973, the Court ruled in Roe and Doe that Texas and Georgia statutes regulating abortion interfered to an unconstitutional extent with a woman\u2019s right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy. The decisions rested upon the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment right of personal privacy encompassed a woman\u2019s decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term.\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in Roe and Doe did not address a number of important abortion-related issues which have been raised subsequently by state actions seeking to restrict the scope of the Court\u2019s rulings. These include the issues of informed consent, spousal consent, parental consent, and reporting requirements. In addition, Roe and Doe never resolved the question of what, if any, type of abortion procedures may be required or prohibited by statute. In 1989, the Court indicated in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, that, while it was not overruling Roe and Doe, it was willing to apply a less stringent standard of review to state restrictions respecting a woman\u2019s right to an abortion. Then, in 1992, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court rejected specifically Roe\u2019s strict scrutiny standard and adopted the undue burden analysis. In 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), the Court determined that a Nebraska statute prohibiting the performance of \u201cpartial-birth\u201d abortions was unconstitutional. In 2007, however, the Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). In upholding the federal act, the Court distinguished between the federal measure and the Nebraska statute.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/95-724", "sha1": "1e190799b5b69d66cc3cda804c680ff47e9f832b", "filename": "files/20090115_95-724_1e190799b5b69d66cc3cda804c680ff47e9f832b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/95-724", "sha1": "b1df583846fa83ea9362d860a04acacd57d81c15", "filename": "files/20090115_95-724_b1df583846fa83ea9362d860a04acacd57d81c15.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3178, "name": "Abortion, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806058/", "id": "95-724_2007Jun12", "date": "2007-06-12", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Abortion Law Development: A Brief Overview", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20070612_95-724_4900b050bd27feee9a90764e5597993cf95ecbb0.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20070612_95-724_4900b050bd27feee9a90764e5597993cf95ecbb0.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc820406/", "id": "95-724_2001Jan02", "date": "2001-01-02", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Abortion Law Development: A Brief Overview", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20010102_95-724_ad1f1fd461891bb40b3f054a2027edf9429958dc.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20010102_95-724_ad1f1fd461891bb40b3f054a2027edf9429958dc.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions", "Health Policy" ] }