text:
Definitely how i remember it from the 90s. Its a garage sale. So it wont be too expensive. Buy it.
Thread: Is this vintage Fahrenheit?
I found this at a garage sale. The box appears to be pre-formulated, but I was wondering how I can date the bottle. The package is sealed, but there are reference numbers stamped on the cellophane. The reference numbers are 4220S.
Here are some pictures
There are no list of ingredients on the box. The sides just read "keep away from flame, flammable. Alcohol-Fragrance
Definitely how i remember it from the 90s. Its a garage sale. So it wont be too expensive. Buy it.
Chances are good, that it is. The blue/red/yellow box is known to be the original design, AFAIK although I believe that also the first one or two reformulations came in this kind of box. That round symbol consisting of arrows in center of your first picture is the "Grüne Punkt" and it has been used not earlier then 1990, which would be at the very least two years after Fahrenheit's launch in 1988.
I possess a box with this design (100ml atomizer) that I believe is not the original formulation (still good an way better then the current one, mind you). It differs from yours in that it says "30 avenue Hoche" instead of "33" and the LOT (?) printed on mine is "9112C". On the side that you're looking at when you hold the box like in your second picture and turn it 1x clockwise, there's a black "3" printed under the warning texts and "Ref. 6624" in golden letters under it in the yellow area. Also the text on the front looks slightly different but I suppose that's because yours is a smaller sized bottle.
Last edited by Nasenmann; 29th June 2011 at 05:16 PM.
Hope you picked it up.
Thanks for the valuable information. In looking at my Fahrenheit closer, I do not see a black "3" under the warning text or a "Ref. 6624 in golden letters in the yellow area. Does this mean it is one of the earlier reformulations? That would be disappointing, but a find nonetheless.
By the way, what does AFAIK refer too?
AFAIK = "As Far As I Know"
I really can't tell what the differences between our boxes mean.
Thank you for your help.
ointments and perfume delight the heart....
I have a bottle of Fahrenheit purchased in the early 90s, does this mean it's vintage? I don't have the box.
Congratulations, its a vintage without that idiot gasoline!
I bought one for me today too, coincidently
How beautiful is the vintage bottles and boxes, uhm!
I think I also recently acquired one, as I said on another thread today: Just acquired an old 3.4 ounce one from a friend's elder relative. Mine is the old style bottle and the serial number is either AB1 or A31. There is also what I think is a bottle identification number of 23 (the 3 is small and it's possible it's something else). In the picture in post #32, the label on the bottom is similar to the middle large bottle. My friend thinks it's a very early version. Any ideas? I haven't tried it yet.
Possumbility: When you open the box, take a look at the bottom of the bottle and please post back here and describe exactly what you see (if you can't post a pic). Thanks.
Last edited by Bigsly; 30th June 2011 at 02:06 AM.
Visit my huge swap page: http://www.basenotes.net/threads/211...-ml-Gotham-etc
Or visit my Sales page: http://www.basenotes.net/threads/211...o-make-offers!
Samples, etc. for Sale at my Crystal Flacon page: http://flacon.ambaric.net/viewtopic.php?t=282
My fragrance blog: http://bigslyfragrance.wordpress.com/
Congrats.....Nice find!
"Christian Dior uses a combination of numbers and letters but only the first two are important*with the year as denoted in the 1st digit, followed by a letter denoting the month starting with A for January*up to*M for December (the letter I is skipped). "
There is also http://cosmeticswizard.net/ for finding dates from batch codes.
I was trying to not open the box as I would like to sell it to finance a bottle of Mona di Orio Cuir - Les Nombres dOr.
Vintage Fahrenheit is great. I even like the the reformulated one-gasoline, love it-but Cuir - Les Nombres dOr makes me want to go kill a beaver for the castoreum and roll in it. So good...
So mine appears to be from early 2000. I sprayed once today, a few inches above the navel. The atomizer did a good job of creating an even spray and a wide coverage area. That was over two hours ago. So far, I don't find this to be offensive, though there is the grass clippings and gasoline accord that's a little weird and not pleasant. I'm not getting much beyond this, though, which surprises me. I was hoping for some interesting base notes, perhaps the grass & gas giving way to strong oakmoss, leather, and/or wood, with a touch of sweetness. It's so weak at this point, though, I can't imagine that happening. Conclusion: there's nothing especially pleasant nor unpleasant, and the base (which is most important to me) is of no interest. If it does develop further I'll update this post.
Visit my huge swap page: http://www.basenotes.net/threads/211...-ml-Gotham-etc
Or visit my Sales page: http://www.basenotes.net/threads/211...o-make-offers!
Samples, etc. for Sale at my Crystal Flacon page: http://flacon.ambaric.net/viewtopic.php?t=282
My fragrance blog: http://bigslyfragrance.wordpress.com/
yes... i find the vintage fahrenheit smells nicer than the current formulation (which i find has too much leather and also a bit gasoline smelling). incidentally, a couple of years ago, i bought a fake vintage fahrenheit from ebay. i could not tell from the picture initially, but when it arrived, it was an obvious fake. box and inner cardboard layer were thin and flimsy. even the glass bottle was not well made. the scent was hardly there as well... managed to return it but had to pay for postage...
luckily i still have my very first 1988 version (which my classmates bought for my birthday). incidentally, the spray is aerosol (ie. just press and it keeps spraying until u release it) and not the usual kind of mechanical spray. brings back wonderful memories which the new version cannot conjure.
Last edited by dark phoenix 123; 9th November 2011 at 06:40 AM.
my current top five (always in transition)
Dior Eau Noire
HdP 1725 Casanova
eau de gloire parfum d'empire
Dia man Amouage
comme des garçons man 2
Yes, you are very fortunate! 4220S is the original batch number from the vintage product in 1988. It was actually made in 87. You found a gem, and an excellent fragrance.
my current top five (always in transition)
Dior Eau Noire
HdP 1725 Casanova
eau de gloire parfum d'empire
Dia man Amouage
comme des garçons man 2
Any starting with 422 were from the vintage batch/original formulation. Fahrenheit has been reformulated 4 times, and is working on a 5th from what I have been told.
Alright.. I will do this the best that I can. I am not 100% accurate of all serial numbers.. just the ones I have come across. Here goes..
Vintage formulation was made in 1987, hit shelves in 88. The batch numbers are: Anything from 4000S-4999S. This includes OP's serial # 4220S. This also includes others with 4 numbers followed by a letter, such as 7621F; which was the number on my original vintage bottle. All vintage bottles from the first formulation will have 4 numbers and then a letter. <--To the best of my knowledge.
Second formulation. This was the first reformulation. Fahrenheit was first reformulated in 1994.. I do not know the serials on this batch, but I do no know it was reformulated again in 98.. see below.
The last 2 reformulations; the first of which was in 1998, the 2nd which in 2006.. these bottles contain serials that are: number, letter, number, number. For example, my current bottle, 5K02, which was manufactured in 2004.
The third formulation, which is the one I currently have a bottle of, was the last of the "decent".
Once reformulated in 2006, that is what is on the shelves now.. Not as powerful as the 3rd formulation.
The first and second formulations are hard to tell apart, they were both very strong.
To my understanding, it will be reformulated again some time in 2012, as will many other Dior fragrances.
Of course, there are visual details on the boxes and bottles as well, they have changed them quite a few times. The newest bottle obviously has a more sleek design.
Below is a clear image of a bottle from either the first or second formulation.
Sometime around the second formulation, the presentation changed to this:
The third formulation, the bottle changed in color, and the box changed, but the cap remained the same, but changed in color slightly.
Somewhere either after the last reformulation (above; or 3rd formulation) or perhaps a little after it, was when they changed the bottle to its current more sleek design. See below:
This took me a good while to put everything together.. I hope it helps Fahrenheit fanatics!
Last edited by The_Cologneist; 21st November 2011 at 02:23 PM.
Sorry.. I guess in theory, it's been "reformulated" 3 times, since the original would just be the formulation. But, in total there have been 4 formulations. Hope this helps!!
Thank you The_Cologneist! This is indeed a big help!
As I've said before in another thread, I'm pretty sure that the first digit of the serial number at the bottom of the bottle/box indicates the year of production. I have various bottles of Fahrenheit here and the first digit always matches the year when I purchased that particular bottle. For example:
2L01 = Fahrenheit 0 Degree (from 2002)
3C02 = Fahrenheit 0 Degree (from 2003)
4M01 = Fahrenheit (bought in 2004)
6D01 = Fahrenheit Summer 2006
7G05 = Fahrenheit (bought in 2007)
0W03 = Fahrenheit (bought in 2010)
0Z03 = Aqua Fahrenheit (bought in early 2011, probably produced in 2010)
Then I bought two bottles from eBay which I'm not sure of:
9C01 (can't be from 2009 because of the old box, might be from 1999 - see below)
1P533 (no idea what to make of this number)
I have noticed that the color of the batch numbers on the bottle seems to be of importance as well. All the bottles from the 2000's that I own have black numbers, while the last two have white numbers. Since those last two came in vintage boxes, I suspect that the white numbers are from the 1990's. So I speculate that my 9C01 botlle might be from 1999. What year the 1P533 is from, I have no idea.
Since The Cologneist said that the original formulation used a numbering system of four numbers and a letter, it's possible that the system that I mentioned above hadn't been in use prior to 1994 (first reformulation) or even 1998 (second reformulation).
Can anyone confirm or deny my speculations?
Last edited by osoblanco; 7th December 2011 at 07:37 PM.
Mine was bought in 1997. The box is same as shown at Possumbility pictures. Batch number is 8D02.
According to 'the batch number theory' this could be a second reformulation bottle in 1998.No way.
Batch number is engraved, colorless. Not stamped.
By the way, the bottles currently being sold in the shops all have codes starting with "1", like 201"1".
This one fits your description of the very first and original formulation, right?
I've never encountered a pattern like this before, but the label on the bottom is exactly like the one above (incl. alcohol content).
This one fits the current pattern and is the only ne of those three that has the batch number actually engraved into the box, no alcohol content given on the bottom label.
Do you have any idea which years those three bottles might be from? Which year did the box change from the original colour to the second one? 9C01 could be from 1989 or more likely 1999 but had the old box been in use that long?
Edit: The 4594Y is a little different in colour. While the other two are almost the same colour from top to bottom, this one goes a little lighter towards the bottom.
Last edited by osoblanco; 27th January 2012 at 07:54 AM.
Is it a fake or a vintage? It has not arrived yet as I bought it online, when it arrives I'll post more pictures.
Was quite cheap so I took a chance buying it. It's a 50ml.
All the vintage 50 ml bottles I bought from eBay were genuine. But out of the three 100 ml bottles, I received three fakes. Got my money back every time, but it's annoying!
Here is the bottom of the box:
The code is 9601S or 9501S, I can't see it that clearly.
There is the box and bottle. It has not arrived yet, these are pictures I requested.
I got the Fahrenheit today, it's code is 9601. Four numbers and no letter, I put it in this site http://checkcosmetic.net/ and it's saying it's from 2009. The box and bottle are exactly the same as the one Cologneist posted:
Exactly the same as this except it says 'for men natural spray' instead of 'pour homme vaporisateur'.
Is it a new-er formulation in an old bottle/box? It was cheaper to buy than buying the current 50ml (current formulation 50ml £40 retail, this 'vintage' cost me £30) so I'm definitely happy with the purchase. The smell though, upon spraying it, straight away I could tell it doesn't have the gasoline/petroleum smell as strongly as my 100ml 2010 bottle of Fahrenheit. This smells different, much better and closer to the one I had back in 2004.
It was purchased from Selfridges in Manchester.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
This is my Fahrenheit bottle, as you see it seems to be 'vintage'. Also it came with an small leaflet inside the box, displaying the full line products.
Here you are some pictures showing the batch number stamped on bottom box & bottle:
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I have also checked batch number in 'checkcosmetic.net' and it says April 2008. Certainly...not!
I purchased 2 x 1.7 oz in 1997 on a dutyfree during a trip. This is the latter bottle I use of this pair, and also have as a backup a 6.4 oz bottle from 2006, unopened yet.
I am so sure I purchased this one in 1997 because it was when going on a cruising.
I do not think this helps but confuse , but this is all I can say. Sorry!
Mine is exactly the same as that ^^
edited - Upon closer inspection of my code, it's actually 9G01 and not 9601. Number, letter, two numbers, like yours.
I'm convinced this is not made in 2008/9 like that site says.
Last edited by Vitamin B Complex; 14th February 2012 at 02:35 PM.
If 1998 porduction, bottle was back in time in 1997 on the shelf awaiting for me to pick up & purchase , but I am pretty it was 1997 since I do not buy on a 'floating' duty free shop 'every day' . May I be wrong but I check my 'memories' and only find September 1997 as a date to purchase these 2 bottles.
You're correct I think, it must be 1997 or before. According to Cologneist's information - 'Second formulation. This was the first reformulation. Fahrenheit was first reformulated in 1994.. I do not know the serials on this batch, but I do no know it was reformulated again in 98.. see below.'
The codes for the 2nd formulation, he says he does not know, so maybe it's possible that 2nd and 3rd formulations both had number, letter, number, numbers codes? Also did the 2nd formulation come in the same box as the original Fahrenheit from the 80s?
I personally think your (and mine) bottles were manufactured pre-1998 and are 2nd formulation bottles.
How come vintage Fahrenheit is so easy to find? Why are some shops still selling it?
By the way, yesterday I received a bottle with the batch code 7814K, which - according to the leaflet - is from 1997. So it seems that the batch code pattern changed somewhen around 1997/1998 from four numbers and a letter to number, letter, two numbers. The colour of the bottles seem to have changed as well. The 1997 bottle goes a little orange towards the bottom, while a 1999 bottle I have that also came in a vintage box is all red.
Last edited by osoblanco; 17th February 2012 at 08:58 AM.
I have a bottle that says 9C01, and it's from 1999 (the leaflet stating 1998, but that's probably when the leaflet was printed). Or it was produced in 1998 and meant for sale in 1999 (see my post above).
Does anybody know when exactly the colour of the bottle changed from red top/orange bottom to all red? Maybe that marks the formulation change.
I purchased a small splash bottle of vintage Fahrenheit (I think), it's 7.5ml I think. Smells great.
I also saw a 200ml bottle of vintage Fahrenheit go for £88 on Ebay a couple of days ago. Seems really easy to find.
Can someone who's experienced please identify if this Fahrenheit is a real vintage one?
On checkcosmetics it tells me the production was Nov 2010, that makes me a bit suspicious.
Here are some pics:
I find it a bit strange that the writing has a red color till the 2nd H of Fahrenheit and then it continues in white.
thanks in advance
Forget checkcosmetics. If it was produced from the year 2000 onwards, the batch code on the bottom of the bottle should be printed in black, not in white. The whole bottle design should be different, that changed around 2006 if I remember correctly. And this particular box style hasn't been in use for at least 10 years. It looks completely different now.
So, it can't be from 2010 or 2000 (wrong batch code colour) and it can't be from 1990 (they were using five digit batch codes back then). This and the colour change you are describing is making me think that it's fake. What about the quality of the glass? The fake bottles I've encountered had the glass colour completely off and had some air bubbles enclosed in the glass.
And most importantly: How does it smell? Fake Fahrenheits usually smell nothing like Fahrenheit.
Where did you get it? Ebay? I saw quite a few fakes there recently. PM me the name of the seller, maybe I can help!


text:
Caol Ila 12
Dutch Treat
As the North Sea catch hits the States, the traditional pairing of jarred herring and schnapps makes way for refinement
How to Protect the Conversion Process3:02 PM —
My friend was recorded in a mikveh by a rabbi. Let's ensure the end of this abuse of power.
Less Dairy, More Davening12:37 PM —
How I observe Shavuot despite my life-threatening allergy
The Chaplain and the Survivors12:24 PM —
After Buchenwald was liberated, my father, Rabbi Herschel Schacter, led survivors in a moving prayer service
Cancer, As We Know It9:02 AM —
Our coverage of the illness is raw, inspiring, scientific, sad, historical, and familial. Have a look.
The Art of Fixing the Failures of Plastic Surgery4:30 PM —
TV's fasctinating 'Botched' takes on the limits of aesthetic procedures
Kosher Fusion Gone Wrong3:51 PM —
Pigeons, brains, and chocolate-covered locusts at the oldest congregation in the U.S.
Fighting Facebook's Armchair Rabbis1:25 PM —
My daughter is black and Jewish. Will she have to defend her identity online?
Reality TV: Nazi-Occupation Style10:32 AM —
Czech family must survive for two months under re-created WWII conditions, complete with Gestapo
10 Memorable 'Letterman' Appearances5:38 PM —
The Late Night legend ends his run tonight. We'll miss you.
Yale President Calls on Graduates To Commit to Tikkun OlamBy Yair Rosenberg — 'Your purpose in life ... is simply this: to improve the world'
The Immeasurable Value of a Fake Diamond RingBy Jill Werman Harris — It's made of nickel and a piece of crystal. But it helped save Jews from the Nazis.
Why Shavuot Is Jewish Mother-in-Law's DayBy Marcia Friedman — A convert to Judaism reflects on the Jewish woman who embraced her, and honors her with a holiday recipe
Woman in Gold and an Old Toyota
Facing Death
'I don't believe in you, "salvation," I never have and I never will. And very soon I won't even be.'
Greek Mayor Flip-Flops Over Holocaust Memorial Unveiling
Rugelach, an American Treat
The Mormons on Mount Scopus
Fighting Facebook's Armchair Rabbis
Twitter: tabletmag
- What cheesecake has to teach us about the history of Jews and France, by the inestimable @Joan_Nathan! http://t.co/pxyU5oKIyG
A Lullaby for Auschwitz
On a new album, Italian singer Shulamit offers modern interpretations of haunting songs left by women in the Holocaust
I Was a Teenage Stowaway
Victor Rodack dreamed of visiting Israel. In 1967, he found an unusual way to make his dream a reality.
Abraham Lincoln's Other Minority
Historian Jonathan Sarna discusses the Great Emancipator's ties to a chiropodist, military men, and other Jews

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This might be our toughest game. A Boozerless Jazz team that doesn't quit.
This would be a great win for us.
Clippers gave it all they got and handed us our second loss. This would be a true test for Chris Paul and the Hornets. Great match ups all around. We need to end this road trip at least 3-1.
This might be our toughest game. A Boozerless Jazz team that doesn't quit.
This would be a great win for us.
It will be interesting to see Jack and CP playing against D. Will. I think Monty plays them both and keeps Jack on D. Will while CP guards the SG.
we do not need to go 3-1 on this trip...2-2 would be good at this point imo
Deron last night - 12 pts, 9 ast.
CP3 - 14 pts, 6 ast.
these 2 gonna explode in this one.
Millsap better.A Boozerless Jazz team that doesn't quit
The Jazz have had our # for like 5 years. We need this win to prove we really can beat anyone. You might think we need to beat the celtics and lakers to prove we can beat the best but we have a better record vs those two than we do the jazz over the same span. Thankfully we are not coming off of a back to back.
If you Jimmer it, they will come.
Deron Williams has owned Chris Paul the last 5 years....it's like he turns his game up to another level when he sees CP.
Dell Demps PLEASE get us some scorers!
That's what you do when you know you're a step behind. It's probably his version of the finals(until he leaves Utah)
Big bounce back game is needed.
CP3 is going to need alot of help for the team to win tomorrow.
West is going to have to outplay Millsap.
Okafor needs to shut down Jefferson
The bench needs to outscore their bench.
Belinelli needs to make his open threes.
The Jazz aren't that great, but they're dangerous. This game will tell us alot about the team.
Emeka Okafor - Joe Smith - Carmelo Anthony - Manu Ginobili - Jason Williams
Al Jefferson - James Posey - Aaron McKie - Shaun Livingston
belinelli has got to make his open 3s...it is sooo frustrating to watch him brick wide open 3s! i think West has to step it up (which he always does) which means the bench has to be huge...what ive noticed throughout this season is that we get up on teams with double digit leads and then blow them at the end...we need to put the throttle on once we get up
The starters have blown their fair share of leads, especially last night. The bench played solid offensively, especially Jack. Whenever Belinelli is struggling from the arc, I think Jack will get the majority of minutes at SG unless the team wants Green's defense out there.
Green has been solid so far defensively, but he won't be able to slow down great scorers all the time which is why Belinelli or Jack will have to be on the floor in the 4th with CP3 to provide some offense. West is the only guy who can create his own offense, especially with CP3 struggling to shoot off the dribble. Basically, CP3 is better off trying to create for everyone else since he struggles driving past quicker defenders and shooting over them.
Unlike in years past, this team seems capable of defending the 20,000 screens the Jazz like to run every game.Originally Posted by UNO Gracias
no okur, so thats good since he always kills us...there bench is horrible except for cj miles who is hot and cold
This matchup scares me a lot. Williams always plays with inspiration against CP3 and Jazz showed lately (road games vs. Heat & Magic) that they never give up no matter which teams opposes them. Surely, Jefferson is soft and Millsap is undersized but it won't be easy to overplay them under the rim. I can only hope that we will not play the way we did last three games. Then, the 'W' is very probable.
Last edited by Ivan Balakhonov; 11-24-2010 at 07:55 AM.
millsap being undersized says nothing about him as a player. the guy is a horse and will get his numbers no matter if the other guy is 7'6 or 5'4.
Millsaps will give David West fits all night long, and I don't see CP doing to much against Deron Williams.
Emeka, Ariza, or Belly are gonna have to step up for us tonight.
bellinelli has to make his shots today...cp3 is not 100% and has not been aggressive this season so someone has to help dwest out...
West should score all night against Millsap. Much taller.
Otherwise team may have trouble finding offense.
You guys are crazy....CP3 will do nothing against D-Will? CRAZY TALK! CP3 is due for a big game..why not this one.
Last edited by shanetrain93; 11-24-2010 at 06:01 PM.
CP should be extra motivated for this game. We heard all last season and all during the offseason that DWill has overtaken CP as the best PG in the NBA. Tonights the night CP takes that crown back. My highschool coach once said, if you can't get amped for this game you have no soul.
PelicansReport.com Sim League
New Orleans Hornets General Manager
for those with nba league pass what channel is it on? it says its on channel 651 (1) but it isn't even a channel! wtfffffffffffff/.
thanks, what about those with cox??? arrrrrrrrg.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


text:
Current Position: Special Advisor to the Chief Executive Officer. Prior to stepping down from his role as CFO on March 3, 2015, he was responsible for the following functions: accounting, treasury, risk management, tax, strategic planning, business development and investor relations.
Previous Positions: Before beginning his career at CenterPoint Energy in 2001, Whitlock was vice president of Finance and CFO of Dow AgroSciences, a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. He started his career with Dow in 1972 at the company's Texas operations in Freeport in the controllers organization. In 1981, he transferred to Dow's global headquarters where he was responsible for the worldwide financial consolidation and management reporting. In 1984, he transferred to Dow Europe and served as the finance director in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where he was also responsible for information systems.
Whitlock returned to the U.S. in 1989 as director of Financial Reporting and Analysis for Dow's U.S. Area. In 1993, he was named North American Controller and a member of the North American Operating Board, and two years later was named a vice president for Dow North America. While at Dow, he served on the board of directors of various Dow entities.
Education and Accreditation: Whitlock is a Certified Public Accountant and received a bachelor of business administration degree in accounting from Sam Houston State University in 1972, where he was named a Distinguished Alumni.
Affiliations and Honors: Whitlock is a member of the Texas Society of CPAs, American Institute of CPAs, Financial Executives International, Sam Houston State University President's Circle, Sam Houston University Foundation Trustee, and the Indiana University Kelley School of Business Dean's Council. He has previously served on the Texas Genco Board of Directors, and currently serves on the Board of Directors of Enable Midstream Partners, LLC, the Board of Directors of CHI St. Luke's Health System, The Woodlands, Leadership Cabinet Texas Children's Hospital, and of KIOR, Inc., a next-generation renewable fuels company, where he is lead director and chairman of the Audit Committee.
Personal: He lives in The Woodlands, Texas, and is married with two children and one granddaughter.


text:
I love Casio. Over the past 15 years, I have had G-Shocks, Waveceptors, Atomic G-Shocks and now a Solar Pathfinder. I guess I'm pretty familiar with the techy-er Casio watches. My previous watch, a Casio Atomic G-Shock pretty much never came off of my wrist. It really never needed to because it was solar power (no battery replacement), atomic (automatically set the time every morning), and rugged and waterproof (to 100 meters). I slept and showered with it on and pretty much never took it off. Until last week.
That is when I received the Casio Pathfinder (model PAG240). I have always liked watches that were big. The Pathfinder is probably has one of the larger faces/body in their collection. And it has to because it actually houses quite a bit of measurement capacity. The primary sensors are:
- Barometer
- Altimeter
- Thermometer
- Temperature
Those items alone would be enough to make an outdoorsy person quite happy. But similar to my previous watch, the Pathfinder is solar powered, meaning that its internal battery is charged every time it comes into contact with light. Sunlight charges the battery faster but it can charge on standard inside lighting.
{ 0 comments }


text:
Roe v. Wade
|Roe v. Wade
|Argued December 13, 1971
Reargued October 11, 1972
Decided January 22, 1973
|Full case name
|Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County
|410 U.S. 113 (more)
93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159
|Prior history
|Judgment for plaintiffs, injunction denied, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970); probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U.S. 941 (1971); set for reargument, 408 U.S. 919 (1972)
|Subsequent history
|Rehearing denied, 410 U.S. 959 (1973)
|Oral argument
|Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.
|Court membership
|Case opinions
|Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
|White, joined by Rehnquist
|Laws applied
|U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1191–94, 1196
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
The Court later rejected Roe 's trimester framework, while affirming Roe 's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[3][4] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
- 1 Background
- 2 Before the Supreme Court
- 3 Supreme Court decision
- 4 Dissents
- 5 Reception
- 6 Role in subsequent decisions and politics
- 7 In popular media
- 8 See also
- 9 Footnotes
- 10 References
- 11 Further reading
- 12 External links
History of abortion laws in the United States
According to the Court, "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage." In 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[5] In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime,[6] though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have "roots in the English common-law tradition."[7]
Prior history of the case
In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[8] (McCorvey would give birth before the case was decided.)
In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade who represented the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.[9][10] "Rape" is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in this case.[11]
The district court ruled in McCorvey's favor on the legal merits of her case, but declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion.[11] The district court's decision was based upon the 9th Amendment, and the court relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut,[12] finding in the decision for a right to privacy.[13]
Before the Supreme Court
Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court on appeal in 1970. The Justices delayed taking action on Roe and a closely related case, Doe v. Bolton, until they decided Younger v. Harris, as they felt that the appeals raised difficult questions on judicial jurisdiction, and United States v. Vuitch, where they considered the constitutionality of a District of Columbia statute that criminalized abortion except where the mother's life or health was endangered. In Vuitch, the Court narrowly upheld the statute, though in doing so, it treated abortion as a medical procedure and stated that the physician must be given room to determine what suffices as a danger to (physical or mental) health. The day after they announced their decision in Vuitch, they voted to hear both Roe and Doe.[14]
Arguments were scheduled by the full Court for December 13, 1971. Before the Court could hear the oral arguments, Justices Black and Harlan retired. Chief Justice Burger asked Justices Stewart and Blackmun to determine whether Roe and Doe, among others, should be heard as scheduled. According to Blackmun, Stewart felt that the cases were a straightforward application of Younger v. Harris and recommended that the Court move forward as scheduled.[15]
In his opening argument in defence of the abortion restrictions, Jay Floyd made a joke that was later described as the "Worst Joke in Legal History".[16] Appearing against two female lawyers, Floyd began, "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word." His remark was met with cold silence; one observer thought that Chief Justice Burger "was going to come right off the bench at him. He glared him down".[17][18]
Following a first round of arguments, all seven Justices tentatively agreed that the law should be struck down, but for varying reasons.[19] Burger assigned the role of writing the Court's opinion in Roe (as well as Doe) to Blackmun, who began drafting a preliminary opinion that emphasized what he saw as the Texas law's vagueness.[20] Justices Rehnquist and Powell joined the Supreme Court too late to hear the first round of arguments. Additionally, Blackmun felt that his opinion was an inadequate reflection of his liberal colleagues' opinions.[21] In May 1972, Blackmun proposed that the case be reargued. Justice Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order (he and the other liberal Justices were suspicious that Rehnquist and Powell would vote to uphold the statute), but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues, and his dissent was merely mentioned in the reargument order without further statement or opinion.[22][23] The case was reargued on October 11, 1972. Weddington continued to represent Roe, and Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers stepped in to replace Jay Floyd for Texas.
Blackmun continued work on his opinions in both cases over the summer recess, despite the fact that there was no guarantee that he would be assigned to write the opinions again. Over the recess, Blackmun spent a week researching the history of abortion at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, where he had worked in the 1950s. After the Court heard the second round of arguments, Powell stated that he would agree with Blackmun's conclusion but pushed for Roe to be the lead of the two abortion cases being considered. Powell also suggested that the Court strike down the Texas law on privacy grounds. White was unwilling to sign on to Blackmun's opinion, and Rehnquist had already decided to dissent.[24]
Supreme Court decision
The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Burger and Douglas' concurring opinions and White's dissenting opinion were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[25]
Right to privacy
The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[26] Douglas, in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."[27]
The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests – protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.[28] The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.[29]
The Justices had discussed the trimester framework extensively. Powell had suggested that the point where the State could intervene be placed at viability, which Marshall supported as well.[30] Blackmun wrote of the majority decision he authored: "You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary."[31] Douglas preferred the first trimester line,[32] while Stewart said the lines were "legislative" and wanted more flexibility and consideration paid to the state legislatures, though he joined Blackmun's decision.[33] Brennan proposed abandoning frameworks based on the age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the mother.[32]
An aspect of the decision that attracted comparatively little attention was the Court's disposition of the issues of standing and mootness. Under the traditional interpretation of these rules, Jane Roe's appeal was "moot" because she had already given birth to her child and thus would not be affected by the ruling; she also lacked "standing" to assert the rights of other pregnant women.[34] As she did not present an "actual case or controversy" (a grievance and a demand for relief), any opinion issued by the Supreme Court would constitute an advisory opinion, a practice forbidden by Article III of the United States Constitution.
The Court concluded that the case came within an established exception to the rule; one that allowed consideration of an issue that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review".[35] This phrase had been coined in 1911 by Justice Joseph McKenna.[36] Blackmun's opinion quoted McKenna, and noted that pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an appellate process: "If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied."[37]
Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. White wrote:
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[38][39]
White asserted that the Court "values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries." Despite White suggesting he "might agree" with the Court's values and priorities, he wrote that he saw "no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States." White criticized the Court for involving itself in this issue by creating "a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it." He would have left this issue, for the most part, "with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."
Rehnquist elaborated upon several of White's points, by asserting that the Court's historical analysis was flawed:
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[40][41][42]
From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded that, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Therefore, in his view, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."
The most prominent organized groups that mobilized in response to Roe are the National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Right to Life Committee.
Advocates of Roe describe it as vital to the preservation of women's rights, personal freedom, and privacy. Denying the abortion right has been equated to compulsory motherhood, and some scholars (not including any member of the Supreme Court) have argued that abortion bans therefore violate the Thirteenth Amendment:
When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.[43]
Some opponents of abortion maintain that personhood begins at fertilization (also referred to as conception), and should therefore be protected by the Constitution;[44] the dissenting justices in Roe instead wrote that decisions about abortion "should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."[38]
The majority opinion allowed states to protect "fetal life after viability" even though a fetus is not "a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment". Supporters of Roe contend that the decision has a valid constitutional foundation, or contend that justification for the result in Roe could be found in the Constitution but not in the articles referenced in the decision.[43][44]
Every year, on the anniversary of the decision, opponents of abortion march up Constitution Avenue to the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., in the March for Life.[45] Around 250,000 people have attended the march until 2010.[46][47] Estimates put both the 2011 and 2012 attendances at 400,000 each,[48] and the 2013 March for Life drew an estimated 650,000 people.[49]
Opponents of Roe have asserted that the decision lacks a valid constitutional foundation.[50] Like the dissenters in Roe, they have maintained that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and that proper solutions to the question would best be found via state legislatures and the legislative process, rather than through an all-encompassing ruling from the Supreme Court.[51]
A prominent argument against the Roe decision is that, in the absence of consensus about when meaningful life begins, it is best to avoid the risk of doing harm.[52]
In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion, such as laws requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions, parental notification laws, spousal mutual consent laws, spousal notification laws, laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals but not clinics, laws barring state funding for abortions, laws banning intact dilation and extraction (also known as partial-birth abortion), laws requiring waiting periods before abortion, and laws mandating women read certain types of literature and watch a fetal ultrasound before undergoing an abortion.[53] Congress in 1976 passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions (except in the cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother) for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).[54]
Perhaps the most notable opposition to Roe comes from Roe herself; in 1995, Norma L. McCorvey revealed that she became pro-life and is now a vocal opponent of abortion.[55]
Harry Blackmun, who authored the decision, became inexorably attached to the decision. Despite his initial reluctance, he eventually became the decision's chief champion and protector during his later years on the Court.[56] Others have joined him in support of Roe, including Judith Jarvis Thomson, who before the decision had offered an influential defense of abortion.[57]
Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One reaction has been to argue that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.[58] Another reaction has been to argue that the end achieved by Roe does not justify the means.[59]
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the decision, has suggested that it should have been more narrowly focused on the issue of privacy. According to Stevens, if the decision had avoided the trimester framework and simply stated that the right to privacy included a right to choose abortion, "it might have been much more acceptable" from a legal standpoint.[60] His colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, before joining the Court, criticized the decision for terminating a nascent movement to liberalize abortion law through legislation.[61] Ginsburg has also faulted the approach taken by the Court in the decision for being "about a doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best.... It wasn't woman-centered. It was physician-centered."[62] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: "[Roe's] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."[63]
In a highly cited 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[64] Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."[65] Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure." Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."[66] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[67] Cass Sunstein,[68] and Kermit Roosevelt[69] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.
Jeffrey Rosen[70] and Michael Kinsley[71] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative approach movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. William Saletan wrote that "Blackmun's [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."[72] Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply".[73] And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe's author like a grandfather" wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible....Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."[74]
The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the Court's decision.[75] The "viability" criterion, which Blackmun acknowledged was arbitrary, is still in effect, although the point of viability has changed as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive.[76]
Public opinion
A Gallup poll conducted in May 2009 indicates that a minority of Americans, 37%, believe that abortion should be legal in any or most circumstances, compared to 41% in May 2008.[77] Similarly, an April 2009 Pew Research Center poll showed a softening of support for legal abortion compared to the previous years of polling. People who said they support abortion in all or most cases dropped from 54% in 2008 to 46% in 2009.[78]
In contrast, an October 2007 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade asked the following question:
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?[79]
In reply, 56 percent of respondents indicated favour while 40 percent indicated opposition. The Harris organization concluded from this poll that "56 percent now favours the U.S. Supreme Court decision." Pro-life activists have disputed whether the Harris poll question is a valid measure of public opinion about Roe's overall decision, because the question focuses only on the first three months of pregnancy.[80][81] The Harris poll has tracked public opinion about Roe since 1973:[79][82]
Regarding the Roe decision as a whole, more Americans support it than support overturning it.[83] When pollsters describe various regulations that Roe prevents legislatures from enacting, support for Roe drops.[83][84]
Role in subsequent decisions and politics
Opposition to Roe on the bench grew when President Reagan, who supported legislative restrictions on abortion, began making federal judicial appointments in 1981. Reagan denied that there was any litmus test: "I have never given a litmus test to anyone that I have appointed to the bench…. I feel very strongly about those social issues, but I also place my confidence in the fact that the one thing that I do seek are judges that will interpret the law and not write the law. We've had too many examples in recent years of courts and judges legislating."[85]
In addition to White and Rehnquist, Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor began dissenting from the Court's abortion cases, arguing in 1983 that the trimester-based analysis devised by the Roe Court was "unworkable."[86] Shortly before his retirement from the bench, Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested in 1986 that Roe be "reexamined";[87] the associate justice who filled Burger's place on the Court—Justice Antonin Scalia—vigorously opposed Roe. Concern about overturning Roe played a major role in the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination to the Court in 1987; the man eventually appointed to replace Roe-supporter Lewis Powell was Anthony M. Kennedy.
The Supreme Court of Canada used the rulings in both Roe and Doe v. Bolton as grounds to find Canada's federal law restricting access to abortions unconstitutional. That Canadian case, R. v. Morgentaler, was decided in 1988.[88]
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
In a 5–4 decision in 1989's Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, declined to explicitly overrule Roe, because "none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri Act properly before us conflict with the Constitution."[89] In this case, the Court upheld several abortion restrictions, and modified the Roe trimester framework.[89]
In concurring opinions, O'Connor refused to reconsider Roe, and Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Court and O'Connor for not overruling Roe.[89] Blackmun – author of the Roe opinion – stated in his dissent that White, Kennedy and Rehnquist were "callous" and "deceptive," that they deserved to be charged with "cowardice and illegitimacy," and that their plurality opinion "foments disregard for the law."[89] White had recently opined that the majority reasoning in Roe v. Wade was "warped."[87]
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
During initial deliberations for Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), an initial majority of five Justices (Rehnquist, White, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) were willing to effectively overturn Roe. Kennedy changed his mind after the initial conference,[90] and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter joined Blackmun and Stevens to reaffirm the central holding of Roe,[91] saying, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."[92] Only Justice Blackmun would have retained Roe entirely and struck down all aspects of the statute at issue in Casey.
Scalia's dissent acknowledged that abortion rights are of "great importance to many women", but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it, and because longstanding traditions have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Scalia concluded: "[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish."[92]
Stenberg v. Carhart
During the 1990s, the state of Nebraska attempted to ban a certain second-trimester abortion procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called partial birth abortion). The Nebraska ban allowed other second-trimester abortion procedures called dilation and evacuation abortions. Ginsburg (who replaced White) stated, "this law does not save any fetus from destruction, for it targets only 'a method of performing abortion'."[93] The Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska ban by a 5–4 vote in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), citing a right to use the safest method of second trimester abortion.
Kennedy, who had co-authored the 5-4 Casey decision upholding Roe, was among the dissenters in Stenberg, writing that Nebraska had done nothing unconstitutional.[93] Kennedy described the second trimester abortion procedure that Nebraska was not seeking to prohibit: "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off." Kennedy wrote that since this dilation and evacuation procedure remained available in Nebraska, the state was free to ban the other procedure sometimes called "partial birth abortion."[93]
The remaining three dissenters in Stenberg – Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist – disagreed again with Roe: "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so."
Gonzales v. Carhart
In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which led to a lawsuit in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. The Court had previously ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a state's ban on "partial birth abortion" was unconstitutional because such a ban would not allow for the health of the woman. The membership of the Court changed after Stenberg, with John Roberts and Samuel Alito replacing Rehnquist and O'Connor, respectively. Further, the ban at issue in Gonzales v. Carhart was a clear federal statute, rather than a relatively vague state statute as in the Stenberg case.
On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, asserting that Congress was within its power to generally ban the procedure, although the Court left the door open for as-applied challenges. Kennedy's opinion did not reach the question whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart were valid, and instead the Court said that the challenged statute is consistent with those prior decisions whether or not those prior decisions were valid.
Joining the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Ginsburg and the other three justices dissented, contending that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent, and also offering an equality-based justification for that abortion precedent. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed, and also noting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act may exceed the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause.
Activities of Norma McCorvey
Norma McCorvey became a member of the pro-life movement in 1995; she now supports making abortion illegal. In 1998, she testified to Congress:
It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[10]
As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[94] In a concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development, but Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot. On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, and McCorvey's appeal ended.
Presidential positions
President Richard Nixon did not publicly comment about the decision.[95] In private conversation later revealed as part of the Nixon tapes, Nixon said "There are times when an abortion is necessary, I know that. When you have a black and a white" (a reference to interracial pregnancies) "or a rape."[96][97] However, Nixon was also concerned that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family."[96]
Generally, presidential opinion has been split between major party lines. The Roe decision was opposed by Presidents Gerald Ford,[98] Ronald Reagan,[99] and George W. Bush.[100] President George H.W. Bush also opposed Roe, though he had supported abortion rights earlier in his career.[101][102]
President Jimmy Carter supported legal abortion from an early point in his political career, in order to prevent birth defects and in other extreme cases; he encouraged the outcome in Roe and generally supported abortion rights.[103] Roe was also supported by President Bill Clinton.[104] President Barack Obama has taken the position that "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade."[105]
State laws regarding Roe
Several states have enacted so-called trigger laws which would take effect in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Those states include Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.[106] Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes that criminalized abortion, and some of those statutes could again be in force if Roe were reversed.[107]
Other states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.[106]
The Mississippi Legislature has attempted to make abortion infeasible without having to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Mississippi law is currently being challenged in federal courts and has been temporarily blocked.[108]
In popular media
- The trial was the focus of the award-winning 1989 TV movie Roe vs. Wade starring Holly Hunter and directed by Gregory Hoblit.
- "Roe vs Wade: The Musical" is the title of Episode 12 of Season 4 of Boston Legal which aired January 23, 2008.
See also
- A, B and C v Ireland (2010), the leading decision on abortion in the European Court of Human Rights
- Birth control movement in the United States
- Doe v. Bolton
- R. v. Morgentaler, Canada's equivalent Supreme Court decision effectively legalizing all abortions (while the Mogentaler case does refer to Roe v. Wade, most of the court's findings are more similar to the findings in Doe v. Bolton).
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 410
- ^ "Roe v. Wade and Beyond", Frontline, PBS (2006-01-19): "while reaffirming the central holding of Roe v. Wade, the court rejected 'Roe's rigid trimester framework'...."
- ^ Wood, Mary and Hawkins, Lisa. "State Regulation of Late Abortion and the Physician's Duty of Care to the Viable Fetus", 45 Mo. L. Rev. 394 (1980).
- ^ Mears, William; Franken, Bob (2003-01-22). "30 years after ruling, ambiguity, anxiety surround abortion debate". CNN.
In all, the Roe and Doe rulings impacted laws in 46 states.
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 72
- ^ Cole, George; Frankowski, Stanislaw. Abortion and protection of the human fetus : legal problems in a cross-cultural perspective, page 20 (1987): "By 1900 every state in the Union had an anti-abortion prohibition." Via Google Books. Retrieved (2008-04-08).
- ^ Wilson, James, "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals" (1790–1792): "In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb." Also see Blackstone, William. Commentaries (1765): "Life ... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb."
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 92
- ^ McCorvey, Norma and Meisler, Andy. I Am Roe: My Life, Roe V. Wade, and Freedom of Choice (Harper Collins 1994).
- ^ Richard Ostling. "A second religious conversion for 'Jane Roe' of Roe vs. Wade", Associated Press (1998-10-19): "She confessed that her tale of rape a decade before had been a lie; she was simply an unwed mother who later gave the child up for adoption.".
- ^ a b McCorvey, Norma. Testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights (1998-01-21), also quoted in the parliament of Western Australia (PDF) (1998-05-20): "The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn't happen the way I said it did, pure and simple." Retrieved 2007-01-27
- ^ a b Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970): "On the merits, plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that the Texas Abortion Laws must be declared unconstitutional because they deprive single women and married couple of their rights secured by the Ninth Amendment to choose whether to have children. We agree." Retrieved 2008-09-04.
- ^ O'Connor, Karen. Testimony before U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, "The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton", via archive.org (2005-06-23). Retrieved 2007-01-30
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 78–79
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 77–79
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 80
- ^ Sant, Geoffrey. "8 horrible courtroom jokes and their ensuing legal calamities", Salon.com (2013-07-27): "The title of Worst Joke in Legal History belongs to one of history's highest-profile cases. Defending Texas's abortion restrictions before the Supreme Court, attorney Mr. Jay Floyd decided to open oral argument with a sexist joke. Arguing against two female attorneys, Floyd begins: 'It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.'" Retrieved 2010-08-10.
- ^ Malphurs 2010, p. 48
- ^ Garrow 1994, p. 526
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 81
- ^ Schwartz 1988, p. 103
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 81–88
- ^ Garrow 1994, p. 556
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 89
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 93–95
- ^ Although abortion is still considered a fundamental right under current jurisprudence, subsequent cases, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, and Gonzales v. Carhart have affected the legal standard.
- ^ Chase, H. et al. Supplement to Edward S. Corwin's The constitution and what it means today: Supreme Court decisions of 1973, 1974, and 1975, page 36 (Princeton University Press 1975): "The abortion cases afforded the Supreme Court another opportunity to caress the Ninth Amendment without embracing it."
- ^ Devins, Neal and Watson, Wendy. Judicial Nominations, page 225 (1995).
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 98–99
- ^ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, Section IX (S. Ct. 1973).
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 96–97
- ^ Woodward, Bob. "The Abortion Papers", Washington Post (1989-01-22). Retrieved 2007-02-03.
- ^ a b Greenhouse 2005, p. 97
- ^ Kmiec, Douglas. "Testimony Before Subcommittee on the Constitution, Judiciary Committee, U.S. House of Representatives" (1996-04-22), via the "Abortion Law Homepage". Retrieved 2007-01-23.
- ^ Abernathy, M. et al., Civil Liberties Under the Constitution (U. South Carolina 1993), page 4. Retrieved 2007-02-04.
- ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin (2003). Federal Jurisdiction. Introduction to Law (4th ed.). Aspen Publishers. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-7355-2718-8.
- ^ Southern Pacific v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498 (1911). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26
- ^ Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973); see also Schwartz 1988, pp. 108–109
- ^ a b Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
- ^ Potts, Malcolm et al. Abortion, page 347 (1977).
- ^ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26
- ^ Currie, David (1994). "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888–1986" 2. University of Chicago Press. p. 470.
- ^ "Rehnquist's legacy", The Economist (2005-06-30).
- ^ a b Koppelman, Andrew. "Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion", Northwestern Law Review, Volume 84, page 480 (1990).
- ^ a b What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said; The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial decision, Jack Balkin Ed. (NYU Press 2005). Retrieved 2007-01-26
- ^ Shimron, Yonat. "Democratic Gains Spur Abortion Foes into Action," The News & Observer (2009-01-18): "The annual March for Life procession is already among Washington's largest rallies, drawing an estimated 200,000 people."
- ^ Harper, Jennifer. "Pro-life marchers lose attention," Washington Times (2009-01-22): "the event has consistently drawn about 250,000 participants since 2003."
- ^ Johnston, Laura. "Cleveland's first March for Life anti-abortion event draws 200," The Plain Dealer (2009-01-18): "the Washington March for Life…draws 200,000 annually on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision."
- ^ "Youth Turnout Strong at US March for Life". Catholic.net. Zenit.org. January 25, 2011. Retrieved 2011-02-09.
- ^ Portteus, Danielle (10 February 2013). "Newport: 650,000 In March For Life". MonroeNews. MonroeNews. Retrieved 14 April 2013.
- ^ James F. Childress (1984). Bioethics Reporter. University Publications of America. p. 463. Retrieved 2 August 2013.
Roe v. Wade itself provided abortion rights with an unstable foundation.
- ^ Alex Locay (January 2008). Unveiling the Left. Xulon Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-1-60266-869-0. Retrieved 2 August 2013.
To justify their decision the Court made up a new "right", not found in the Constitution: the right to privacy. The founders of course never intended for such rights to exists, as we know privacy is limited in many ways.
- ^ Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, (Nelson 1984): "If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn." Retrieved 2007-01-26
- ^ Guttmacher Institute, "State Policies in Brief, An Overview of Abortion Laws (PDF)", published 2007-01-01. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
- ^ Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
- ^ McCorvey, Norma, with Andy Meisler. 1994. I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice. New York: Harper-Collins.
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 183–206; 250
- ^ Thomson, Judith. "A Defense of Abortion", in Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (1971), pp. 47–66.
- ^ Balkin, Jack. Bush v. "Gore and the Boundary Between Law and Politics", 110 Yale Law Journal 1407 (2001): "Liberal and feminist legal scholars have spent decades showing that the result was correct even if Justice Blackmun's opinion seems to have been taken from the Court's Cubist period."
- ^ Cohen, Richard. "Support Choice, Not Roe", Washington Post, (2005-10-19): "If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well." Retrieved 2007-01-23.
- ^ Rosen, Jeffrey. "The Dissenter", The New York Times Magazine (2007-09-23). Rosen notes that Stevens is "the oldest and arguably most liberal justice."
- ^ Ginsburg, Ruth. "Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade", 63 North Carolina Law Review 375 (1985): "The political process was moving in the early 1970s, not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict." Retrieved 2007-01-23.
- ^ Bullington, Jonathan (May 11, 2013). "Justice Ginsburg: Roe v. Wade not 'woman-centered'". Chicago Tribune.
- ^ Cox, Archibald. The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government, 113–114 (Oxford U. Press 1976), via Google Books. Retrieved 2007-01-26. Stuart Taylor has argued that "Roe v. Wade was sort of conjured up out of very general phrases and was recorded, even by most liberal scholars like Archibald Cox at the time, John Harvey Link – just to name two Harvard scholars – as kind of made-up constitutional law." See Stuart Taylor Jr., Online News Hour, PBS 2000-07-13.
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 135–136
- ^ Ely, John Hart. "The Wages of Crying Wolf", 82 Yale Law Journal 920 (1973). Retrieved 2007-01-23. Professor Ely "supported the availability of abortion as a matter of policy." See Liptak, Adam. "John Hart Ely, a Constitutional Scholar, Is Dead at 64", New York Times (2003-10-27). Ely is generally regarded as having been a "liberal constitutional scholar." Perry, Michael (1999). We the People: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court at Google Books Archived June 25, 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Tribe, Laurence (1973). "The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law". Harvard Law Review 87: 1 [p. 7]. doi:10.2307/1339866. Quoted in Morgan, Richard Gregory (1979). "Roe v. Wade and the Lesson of the Pre-Roe Case Law". Michigan Law Review (The Michigan Law Review Association) 77 (7): 1724–1748. doi:10.2307/1288040. JSTOR 1288040.
- ^ Dershowitz, Alan. Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (Oxford U. Press 2001): "Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)...." quoted by Green, "Bushed and Gored: A Brief Review of Initial Literature", in The Final Arbiter: The Consequences of Bush V. Gore for Law And Politics, ed. Banks C, Cohen D & Green J., editors, page 14 (SUNY Press 2005), via Google Books. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
- ^ Sunstein, Cass. Quoted by McGuire, New York Sun (2005-11-15): "What I think is that it just doesn't have the stable status of Brown or Miranda because it's been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning....As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached." Retrieved 2007-01-23. Sunstein is a "liberal constitutional scholar." See Herman, Eric. "Former U of C law prof on everyone's short court list", Chicago Sun-Times (2005-07-11). Archived December 23, 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Roosevelt, Kermit. "Shaky Basis for a Constitutional 'Right'", Washington Post, (2003-01-22): "[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result….This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional 'person' entitled to the protection of the 14th Amendment....By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values." Retrieved 2007-01-23. Archived March 19, 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Rosen, Jeffrey. "Why We'd Be Better off Without Roe: Worst Choice", The New Republic via Archive.org (2003-02-24): "In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people." Retrieved 2007-01-23.
- ^ Kinsley, Michael. "Bad choice", The New Republic (2004-06-13): "Against all odds (and, I'm afraid, against all logic), the basic holding of Roe v. Wade is secure in the Supreme Court....[A] freedom of choice law would guarantee abortion rights the correct way, democratically, rather than by constitutional origami." Retrieved 2007-01-23.
- ^ Saletan, William. "Unbecoming Justice Blackmun", Legal Affairs, May/June 2005. Retrieved 2007-01-23. Saletan is a self-described liberal. See Saletan, William. "Rights and Wrongs: Liberals, progressives, and biotechnology", Slate (2007-07-13).
- ^ Wittes, Benjamin. "Letting Go of Roe", The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005. Retrieved 2007-01-23. Wittes also said, "I generally favor permissive abortion laws." Wittes has elsewhere noted that, "In their quieter moments many liberal scholars recognize that the decision is a mess." See Wittes, Benjamin. "A Little Less Conversation", The New Republic 2007-11-29
- ^ Lazarus, Edward. "The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell's Nomination Only Underlined Them", Findlaw's Writ (2002-10-03). Retrieved 2007-01-23.
- ^ Bush, George W. Quoted in Boston Globe, p. A12 (2000-01-22). "Roe v. Wade was wrong because it 'usurped the power of the legislatures,' Bush said. 'I felt like it was a case where the court took the place of what legislatures should do in America,' he said. But Bush refused to say how he felt each state should act. Instead, he said that when it comes to legalizing abortion, 'it should be up to each legislature.'" Retrieved 2007-02-02.
- ^ Stith, Irene. Abortion Procedures, CRS Report for Congress (PDF) (1997-11-17). Retrieved 2007-02-02.
- ^ Saad, Lydia. More Americans "Pro-Life" Than "Pro-Choice" for First Time, Gallup (2009-05-15).
- ^ "Public Takes Conservative Turn on Gun Control, Abortion Americans Now Divided Over Both Issues", Pew Research Center (2009-04-30).
- ^ a b Harris Interactive, (2007-11-09). "Support for Roe v. Wade Increases Significantly, Reaches Highest Level in Nine Years." Retrieved 2007-12-14.
- ^ Franz, Wanda. "The Continuing Confusion About Roe v. Wade", NRL News (June 2007).
- ^ Adamek, Raymond. "Abortion Polls", Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 411–413. Dr. Adamek is pro-life. Dr Raymond J Adamek, PhD Pro-Life Science and Technology Symposium.
- ^ Harris Interactive. 'U.S. Attitudes Toward Roe v. Wade". The Wall Street Journal Online, (2006-05-04). Retrieved 2007-02-03.
- ^ a b Ayres McHenry Poll Results on Roe v. Wade via Angus Reid Global Monitor (2007).
- ^ Gallagher, Maggie. "Pro-Life Voters are Crucial Component of Electability", Realclearpolitics.com (2007-05-23).
- ^ Reagan, Ronald. Interview With Eleanor Clift, Jack Nelson, and Joel Havemann of the Los Angeles Times (1986-06-23). Retrieved 2007-01-23.
- ^ Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
- ^ a b Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-02-02.
- ^ R. v. Morgentaler 1 S.C.R. 30 (1988).
- ^ a b c d Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-02-02.
- ^ Totenberg, Nina (2004-03-04). "Documents Reveal Battle to Preserve 'Roe'; Court Nearly Reversed Abortion Ruling, Blackmun Papers Show". Morning Edition (NPR). Retrieved 2007-01-30.
- ^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 203–206
- ^ a b Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Retrieved 2007-02-03.
- ^ a b c Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000). Retrieved 2007-02-02.
- ^ McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F3d 846 (PDF) (5th Cir 2004). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26
- ^ Reeves, Richard (2001). President Nixon: Alone in the White House (1st ed.). Simon & Schuster. p. 563. ISBN 0-684-80231-7.
The President did not comment directly on the decision.
- ^ a b Savage, Charlie (June 23, 2009). "On Nixon Tapes, Ambivalence Over Abortion, Not Watergate". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-18.
- ^ Harnden, Toby. "President Richard Nixon Said it Was 'Necessary' to Abort Mixed-Race Babies, Tapes Reveal," The Daily Telegraph (2009-06-24).
- ^ Ford, Gerald. Letter to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, published online by The American Presidency Project. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (1976-09-10).
- ^ Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (Nelson 1984).
- ^ Kornblut, Anne E. (January 22, 2000). "Bush Tells Addicts He Can Identify". Boston Globe. p. A12.
- ^ Fritz, Sara (August 18, 1992). "'92 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION: Rigid Anti-Abortion Platform Plank OKd Policy". Los Angeles Times.
President George Bush supported abortion rights until 1980, when he switched sides after Ronald Reagan picked Bush as his running mate.
- ^ Bush, George Herbert Walker.Remarks to Participants in the March for Life Rally (1989-01-23): "I think the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade was wrong and should be overturned."
- ^ Carter, James Earl. Larry King Live, CNN, Interview With Jimmy Carter (2006-02-01). Also see Bourne, Peter, Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Postpresidency: "Early in his term as governor, Carter had strongly supported family planning programs including abortion in order to save the life of a woman, birth defects, or in other extreme circumstances. Years later, he had written the foreword to a book, Women in Need, that favored a woman's right to abortion. He had given private encouragement to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, Doe v. Bolton, filed against the state of Georgia to overturn its archaic abortion laws."
- ^ Clinton, Bill. My Life, page 229 (Knopf 2004).
- ^ Obama, Barack. "1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test", Project Vote Smart, via archive.org. Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
- ^ a b Vestal, Christine. "States probe limits of abortion policy", Stateline.org (2007-06-11).
- ^ Marcus, Frances Frank. "Louisiana Moves Against Abortion", New York Times (1989-07-08).
- ^ LZ Granderson "Mississippi's end run around abortion", CNN (2012-07-12).
- Garrow, David J. (1994). Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-542755-5.
- Greenhouse, Linda (2005). Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8050-7791-X.
- Malphurs, Ryan A. (2010). ""People Did Sometimes Stick Things in my Underwear": The Function of Laughter at the U.S. Supreme Court" (PDF). Communication Law Review 10 (2): 48–75. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
- Schwartz, Bernard (1988). The Unpublished Opinions of the Burger Court. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505317-3.
Further reading
- Critchlow, Donald T. (1996). The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-01570-5.
- Critchlow, Donald T. (1999). Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504657-9.
- Hull, N.E.H. (2004). The Abortion Rights Controversy in America: A Legal Reader. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-2873-4.
- Hull, N.E.H.; Peter Charles Hoffer (2001). Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1143-6.
- Mohr, James C. (1979). Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-502616-0.
- Rubin, Eva R. [ed.] (1994). The Abortion Controversy: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood. ISBN 0-313-28476-8.
- Staggenborg, Suzanne (1994). The Pro-Choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-506596-4.
External links
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:
- Full text of opinion in Roe v. Wade:
- The concurring opinions of Burger and Douglas, as well as White's dissenting opinion, were issued along with Doe v. Bolton and may be found at:
- Audio of oral argument at www.oyez.org
- Summary of Roe v. Wade at Lawnix.com
- Major Decisions-Roe v Wade
- United States Supreme Court cases
- United States abortion case law
- History of women's rights in the United States
- United States substantive due process case law
- United States privacy case law
- 1973 in United States case law
- American Civil Liberties Union litigation
- United States mootness case law
- Judicial activism
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court


text:
Enter THE BONES OF PARIS Pinterest Contest!
You could win an iPad mini with a complete Laurie R. King library! Find out how, here.Read More
In a rich historical novel of family and World War II, #1 New York Times bestselling author Danielle Steel unfurls a powerful saga that spans generations and continents.
NOW A STARZ ORIGINAL SERIES! Unrivaled storytelling . . . unforgettable characters . . . rich historical detail . . . these are the hallmarks of Diana Gabaldon's work.
In this moving, emotionally charged novel, Danielle Steel introduces readers to an unforgettable cast of characters striving to overcome tragedy and discover the inner resources and resilience to win at life—once again.
In this thrilling new book, King leads readers into the vibrant and sensual Paris of the Jazz Age—and reveals the darkest secrets of its denizens.
For fans of Jodi Picoult, Kim Edwards, and William Landay, The Deepest Secret is part intimate family drama, part gripping page-turner, exploring the profound power of the truths we're scared to face.
Get exclusive author content, video interviews, podcast episodes, image galleries and more from our books and authors.Click here to see our full list of newsletters
You could win an iPad mini with a complete Laurie R. King library! Find out how, here.Read More
Powerhouse author Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum novels are "laugh-out-loud funny" (St. Louis Post Dispatch), "brilliantly evocative" (The Denver Post), and "making trouble and winning hearts" (USA Today).
Stephanie Plum has her sights set on catching a notorious mob boss. If she doesn't take him down, he may take her out.
New Jersey bounty hunter Stephanie Plum knows [...]
A collection of 12 lovely novels could be yours just in time for Mother's Day!Read More
Yes we…Cat? SNEAKY PIE FOR PRESIDENT by Rita Mae Brown is on sale today!Read More
IF YOU KNOW HER is the third and final book in Shiloh Walker's romantic suspense Ash Trilogy. A follow up to If You See Her and If You Hear Her, this book is just as full of unsuspected twists and turns, and a steamy (if dangerous) love story.
Nia Hollister doesn't scare easily. She's returned [...]
"Stachniak's brilliant, bold historical novel of eighteenth-century Russia is a masterful account of one woman's progress toward absolute monarchical rule. . . . This superb biographical epic proves the Tudors don't have a monopoly on marital scandal, royal intrigue, or feminine triumph."—Booklist (starred review)
From the war-torn streets of Baghdad to the bittersweet comforts of the home front, two wounded hearts navigate the battlefield of coming home from war in this explosive eBook original from newcomer Jessica Scott.Read More
Meet Flavia de Luce—an eleven-year-old sleuth with a passion for chemistry and a penchant for crime-solving.Read More


text:
(5 Reviews) Read Reviews
Questions & Answers
Low Price Guarantee
Please measure the circumference of your waist using a cloth tape measure and add 1" if the measurement is an odd number to get to the next even number and choose your size from the chart below.
Please note all measurements are in inches.
Comment: this item fits well and is very comfortable , warm and easy to get into, would buy again
Lacey Washington
Comment: Great pant for the money. Well made. Comforatable. Easily adjustable. Easy to get into and out of. Great for cooler days with inner lining. No regrets. Great pant for the money!
Comment: Love them - warm, easy out liner. Fit is good. Perfect pairing with my Tourmaster jacket.
Andy N
Comment: Quality is great, true to sizing fit, comfortable to wear and they keep you WARM.
Albuquerque, NM
Comment: I am 5.8' 152 pounds an medium fits as it should.Nice pants overall.Good quality and they look good too.Price is decent and shipping was fast.Jafrum is the place to shop for gear.
mike zane
Canton GA
Same Day Shipping.For Most OrdersPlaced by 4pm EST.
Contact us | About us | Giveaways |Site Map |
Privacy Policy |
- Available only for FedEx Ground for 48 US contiguous states for retail customers.
- Price is before any taxes or additional shipping fees
- Not applicable for orders being shipped to an International address


text:
Visiting Andrews
Thinking about coming to see us at Andrews? We're delighted! Here's what you need to know about making the trip out here as well some of the ins and outs of staying at or around Andrews.
Prospective Student Visit
If you are a interested in attending Andrews University and would like to visit our campus, click here to register and learn more.
Getting to Andrews
Driving directions, airports, bus & train stations, Office of Transportation and more
Staying at Andrews
Lodging on/off campus, dining on/off campus, visitors parking permit and more
Exploring Andrews & Community
Campus tours, campus culture, community life and more
Attending Graduation?
View the schedule of events online.


text:
Browse AMNH.tv
Museum Launches Master of Arts in Teaching Program
The program pairs Museum scientists and educators.
Inside the Collections: Wasps
Tour the world's largest collection of wasp nests.
Picturing Science
See stunning images from current Museum research.
Museum Scientific Expeditions 2010
Provost Michael Novacek discusses the Museum's 2010 field expeditions.
Human Evolution and Why It Matters
Donald Johanson and Richard Leakey discuss human evolutionary history.
Barnum Brown: The Man Who Discovered Tyrannosaurus Rex
Learn about the greatest dinosaur collector of all time.
2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate
Physicists consider "The Theory of Everything."
Revisiting Akeley's Gorillas
Stephen C. Quinn shares work from his Congo expedition.
Science Bulletins: WISE Focus on Infinity
WISE's data shows new pictures of the universe.
Dr. Oliver Sacks on The Mind's Eye
Dr. Oliver Sacks discusses the ways we perceive and navigate the world.


text:
Projects to Go Tote Sewing Pattern
|« Go Back
Customer Reviews for Projects to Go Tote Sewing Pattern:
August 31, 2014
Jo Ann D
This is a fabulous pattern with or without the drawstring topper on it. It's big, easy to make & has a place for everything. I made one with the topper on it for a gift for a friend who knits & has pockets for needles, all the little tools, the inside has room for a couple skeins plus the project with room to spare. I used fusible batting but may make the next one with fabric spray temp adhesive & quilt first in one big piece.
From here you can:


text:
Notify Me! The product you are searching for is out of stock. If you wish us to notify you when the product is in stock please submit your name and email.
|The Deathwish Gang Logo T-Shirt features a clsasic tie dye style with a large Deathwish Logo print at the front and a premium style fit.


text:
9am - 6pm ET M-F
9am - 5pm ET Sat
Jack's has replacement commercial Bunton Pulleys for your lawn mower maintenance or small engine repair. If you need replacement Bunton Pulleys, including Cast Iron Pulleys, Jack's is the place to check first. Look below to find your replacement Bunton Pulley.


text:
Favored by law firms, this is the "iron man" of end tab file pockets. If you require years of heavy use from your bulky files, you'll appreciate our virtually indestructible file pocket that won't rip out, even when pulled from the shelf by the gusset. Gusset is fully lined with tear-resistant Tyvek, has special rollover reinforcement at the top, and extends into the front and back panels twice as far as standard file pockets. Super heavyweight front and back panels provide rigid support and have a hidden reinforcement strip at the point of greatest stress. Extra-wide pockets accommodate standard size top tab file folders to create a complete client file.
Delivery orders under $250, before tax, will be charged a $25 delivery surcharge. Additional delivery fees may apply, including re-delivery charges if applicable. Enjoy next-business-day delivery (in most areas) when you place your order by 3 p.m. Orders placed after 3 p.m. will be processed the following business day. For additional questions regarding delivery, please call (800) 788-9968.
Costco.com products can be returned to any of our more than 500 Costco warehouses worldwide.
Remember that Costco.com and Business Delivery maintain separate websites and shopping carts.Orders must be checked out separately.
Please note Costco.com and Business Delivery maintain separate websites and shopping carts.Orders must be checked out separately.


text:
Though Mandy Moore has been under the Radar lately, the actress showed up in star style to the Dubai International Film Festival on Wednesday, absolutely smoldering in a black gown.
PHOTOS: Mandy Moore, Anna Wintour, Nicky Hilton, Taylor Swift, Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, Mariah Carey, Nick Cannon, Jared Leto, Kat Von D, Rachel Weisz, Debi Mazar, Kim Kardashian, Victoria Beckham, Amber Heard And Boy George In The Best And Worst
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, Britney Spears did a little Holiday shopping wearing an oversized spiderweb ponchoŠwith black heels and white socks!
Mariah Carey and Nick Cannon stepped out in Washington D.C. last night, dressed up for the TeenNick Halo Awards. Which half of the duo made the Best Dressed list? Check out the gallery in Style to find out!


text:
A source code editor and MS Windows Notepad replacementRead More
Notepad++, a source code editor and MS Windows Notepad replacement, has the mission to offer a greener environment. By optimizing its routines, it results in reducing CPU power consumption then reducing the world carbon dioxide emissions.
- Syntax Highlighting and Syntax Folding
- User Language Defined System
- Tabed document and Multi-View
- More than 50 languages supported
- Full Drag 'N' Drop supported
- Macro recording and playback
- Extensible with its plugin system
Follow @httpstwittercomNotepad_plus
KEEP ME UPDATEDGet project updates, sponsored content from our select
partners, and more.
Reviews (685)Write a Review
Highest Rated
I have been working for a long time with NOTEPAD++. However after updating from a 6.2.x version to 6.4.1 it was no longer possible to work with big files (> 1 MB). Every change in the file takes an awful long time until NOTEPAD++ answers. I tried the 6.3.3 version - same problem. Going back to 6.2.2 the problem is resolved. So I cannot use any version higher than 6.2.x. Would be nice to resolve this problem in higher versions!!
Lowest Rated
It was a great editor until the dev decided he should make it type out a political message on startup. I agree with the message, but it's totally wrong to exhibit malware-like behavior just to get your political agenda across *in a professional editor.*
The best free editor
The newest version (6.7.4) can't install on x64 machine <(")
I use it everyday, it is a very good tool. thanks!!!
My go-to text editor for many years now. Lots of features, but lightweight and easy to use.
Mr f-u off, you are in no position to DEMAND anything. You're computer/programming skills are SEVERELY lacking if you cannnot find a way convert .txt to .csv. Perhaps instead of criticizing real devs who have real skills, you ought to educate yourself a wee bit or just download another free text editor. Thee are about a billion of them on this thing called the "internet"...


text:
Have a Nashville Wraps Catalog mailed to
See our catalogs online here:
Buy more, Save more! Choose any 12 colors and save!
6" x 25 yards Tulle -
Glimmer Tulle -
Christmas Packaging -
Wedding Packaging
Watch a video on how to wrap a gift basket with tulle:
Click image to enlarge
More White Tulle
Wedding Packaging