Source: http://ronthenut.org/fem/fem0610.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:02:53+00:00

Document:
[*116] MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
new thinking about an old issue.
color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.
tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.
1854 c. 49, § 1, set forth in 3 H. Gammel, Laws of Texas 1502 (1898).
unchanged to the present time. See Texas Penal Code of 1857, c. 7 Arts.
531-536; G. Paschal, Laws of Texas, Arts. 2192-2197 (1866); Texas Rev.
restraining the defendant from enforcing the statutes.
behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated.
First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
constitutional deprivations, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
"on behalf of themselves and all couples similarly situated."
application for injunctive relief. 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1225 (ND Tex. 1970).
The plaintiffs Roe and Doe and the intervenor Hallford, pursuant to 28 U.
Carter v. Jury Comm'n, 396 U.S. 320 (1970); Florida Lime Growers v.
resolution," Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 101 (1968), and Sierra Club v.
394 U.S. 103 (1969), are both present.
on the following June 17 when the court's opinion and judgment were filed.
Rights, 404 U.S. 403 (1972).
Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178-179 (1968); United States v. W.
T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633 (1953).
County, Texas to-wit: (1) The State of Texas vs. James H.
is charged with abortion ...."
representations as to the abortion charges pending in the state court.
filed in support of his motion for summary judgment.
the three-judge District Court decision in this case.
Dr. Hallford relief and failed to dismiss his complaint in intervention.
attack the same statutes. Nevertheless, we briefly note the Does' posture.
pregnancy, and for "other highly personal reasons." But they "fear . . .
where the procedure could be obtained legally and competently.
might then be illegal under the Texas statutes.
This very phrasing of the Does' position reveals its speculative character.
394 U. S., at 109-110; Abele v. Markle, 452 F. 2d, at 1124-1125; Crossen v.
U. S. 97 (1968). See also Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33 (1915).
nor more than one thousand dollars.
produced or by an attempt to effect the same it is murder."
1972 special session) (in 4 Conn. Leg. Serv. 677 (1972)), and Conn. Gen.
§ 35-1-58-1 (1971); Iowa Code § 701.1 (1971); Ky. Rev. Stat.
for the life of the mother under the criminal statute); Me. Rev. Stat.
N.E.2d 264 (1969)); Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.14 (1948); Minn. Stat.
§ 617.18 (1971); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.100 (1969); Mont. Rev.
Codes Ann. § 94-401 (1969); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-405 (1964); Nev.
4719 (1963) ("unlawful"); R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 11-3-1 (1969); S.D.
39-302 (1956); Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-2-1, 76-2-2 (1953); Vt. Stat.
Tex. Cr. R. 79, 89, 115 S.W. 262, 268 (1908).
are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Thompson v. State (Ct. Crim.
State of Texas has a compelling interest to protect fetal life"; that Art.
v. State, 172 Tex. Cr. R. 162, 168-169, 354 S.W.2d 161, 166-167 (1962). Cf.
entries, App. 2, and the transcript, App. 76, reveal this to be an error.
7 We need not consider what different result, if any, would follow if Dr.
who are ... patients ...."

References: § 1
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 

§ 35
 § 701
 § 750

§ 617
 § 559
 § 94
 § 28
 § 11
 v. 

v.