Editing Roe v. Wade (section)

==Background==

===History of abortion laws in the United States===
[[File:Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg|thumb|350x350px|State abortion laws at the time of ''Roe v. Wade'' were predominately loosest in the [[Southern United States]]''.'' Since, demographic support for legality has radically shifted.<ref name="Williams-2015">{{Cite journal |last=Williams |first=Daniel K. |date=June 2015 |title=The Partisan Trajectory of the American Pro-Life Movement: How a Liberal Catholic Campaign Became a Conservative Evangelical Cause |journal=Religions |language=en |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=451–475 |doi=10.3390/rel6020451 |issn=2077-1444 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sullivan |first=Andy |date=2022-06-25 |title=Explainer: How abortion became a divisive issue in U.S. politics |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-abortion-became-divisive-issue-us-politics-2022-06-24/ |access-date=2023-04-07}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Williams |first=Daniel K. |date=2022-05-09 |title=This Really Is a Different Pro-Life Movement |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/south-abortion-pro-life-protestants-catholics/629779/ |access-date=2023-04-06 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref>

{{legend|#000000;|Fully illegal (1 state).}} {{legend|#cc0000;|Legal in cases of risk to woman's life (29 states).}} {{legend|#C17D11;|Legal in cases of rape (1 state).}} {{legend|#F57900;|Legal in cases of risk to woman's health (2 states).}} {{legend|#EDD400;|Legal in cases of risk to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus (13 states).}} {{legend|#40D0FF;|Legal at doctor's discretion (5 states).}}]]

Abortion was a fairly common practice in the history of the United States, and was not always a public controversy.<ref name=Ganong>{{cite book |editor1-last=Ganong |editor1-first=Lawrence H. |editor2-last=Coleman |editor2-first=Marilyn |title=The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia |date=2014 |publisher=Sage Publications |isbn=978-1-4522-8615-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=R3VpBAAAQBAJ |quote=Terminations of pregnancy were commonly practiced...many of the earliest court cases involved women who became pregnant before marriage and wished to avoid the shame associated with an illegitimate pregnancy.}}</ref><ref name="Hardin 1978">{{cite journal |last=Hardin |first=Garrett |date=December 1978 |title=Abortion in America. The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900. James C. Mohr |journal=The Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=53 |issue=4 |page=499 |doi=10.1086/410954 |quote=The long silence had led us to assume that opposition to abortion had existed from time immemorial. Not so: most of the opposition to, and all of the laws against, abortion arose in the 19th century.}}</ref><ref name=Brodie>{{cite book |last1=Brodie |first1=Janet Farrell |title=Contraception and Abortion in Nineteenth-century America |date=1994 |publisher=Cornell University Press |location=United States |page=39 |quote=So rare and hushed was any public discussion of reproductive control that no laws or statutes proscribed contraceptive practices. Abortion, on the other hand, was a serious offense, in the eyes of both the law and the church...and abortion was not uncommonly linked with witchcraft accusations against women. Convictions for abortion, however, were rare. Middlesex county in Massachusetts had only four convictions for attempted abortion between 1633 and 1699.}}</ref><ref name="Blackemore 2022">{{cite web |last=Blakemore |first=Erin |date=May 22, 2022 |title=The complex early history of abortion in the United States |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-complex-early-history-of-abortion-in-the-united-states |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220517150742/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-complex-early-history-of-abortion-in-the-united-states |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 17, 2022 |access-date=July 26, 2022 |website=National Geographic |quote=But that view of history is the subject of great dispute. Though interpretations differ, most scholars who have investigated the history of abortion argue that terminating a pregnancy wasn't always illegal—or even controversial. ... A pregnant woman might consult with a midwife, or head to her local drug store for an over-the-counter patent medicine or douching device. If she owned a book like the 1855 ''Hand-Book of Domestic Medicine'', she could have opened it to the section on 'emmenagogues,' substances that provoked uterine bleeding. Though the entry did not mention pregnancy or abortion by name, it did reference 'promoting the monthly discharge from the uterus.'}}</ref> At a time when society was more concerned with the serious consequences of women becoming pregnant out of wedlock, family affairs were handled out of public view.<ref name=Ganong/><ref name=Miller>{{Cite book |editor-last=Miller |editor-first=Wilbur R. |title=The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia |publisher=Sage Reference |date=2012 |isbn=978-1-4833-0593-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vs9wCQAAQBAJ |quote=During the colonial period, control over reproduction, similar to most family matters, remained a private concern...Most Americans did not consider abortion legally or morally wrong as long as it occurred prior to quickening.}}</ref> The criminality of abortion at common law is a matter of debate by historians and legal scholars.<ref name="Acevado 1979">{{cite journal|last=Acevedo|first=Zachary P. V.|date=Summer 1979|title=Abortion in early America|journal=Women Health|volume=4|issue=2|pages=159–167|doi=10.1300/J013v04n02_05|pmid=10297561 |quote=During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced.}}</ref><ref name="Reagan 1997">{{cite book|last=Reagan|first=Leslie J.|year=2022|orig-year=1997|title=When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine and the Law in the United States, 1867–1973|edition=1st|location=Berkeley|publisher=[[University of California Press]]|isbn=978-0520387416}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Jensen |first1=Vickie |title=Women Criminals: An Encyclopedia of People and Issues |date=2011 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |page=224 |quote=Mohr (1978), Means(1968), and Buell (1991) maintain that abortions carried out prior to [[quickening]], the first time the mother feels the fetus move, were not defined as criminal during the common law period...It is important to note that some legal scholars challenge the conclusion that American common law during the early decades of the 19th century protected pre-quickening abortions.}}</ref>

In 1821, [[Connecticut]] passed the first state statute legislating [[abortion in the United States]];<ref name="cole" /> it forbade the use of poisons in abortion.<ref name="Hardin 1978" /> After the 1840s, there was an upsurge in abortions. In the 19th century, the medical profession was generally opposed to abortion, which Mohr argues arose due to competition between men with medical degrees and women without one. The practice of abortion was one of the first medical specialties, and was practiced by unlicensed people; well-off people had abortions and paid well. The press played a key role in rallying support for anti-abortion laws.<ref name="Hardin 1978" /> According to James S. Witherspoon, a former briefing attorney for the Court of Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas, abortion was not legal before quickening in 27 out of all 37 states in 1868;<ref name="Witherspoon 1985">[https://www.thecatholicthing.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/https:__bearspace.baylor.edu_Francis_Beckwith_www_Sites_ReexaminingRoe.pdf "Reexamining ''Roe'': Nineteenth-Century Abortion Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment"] by James S. Witherspoon, ''St. Mary's Law Journal'', Volume 29, 1985, Part III. Nineteenth-Century Criminal Abortion Statutes, Section B. The Prohibition of Pre-Quickening Attempts and the Elimination of the Quickening Distinction, pages 33–34, (pages 5–6 of the pdf)</ref> by the end of 1883, 30 of the 37 states, six of the ten U.S. territories, and the [[Kingdom of Hawaiʻi]], where abortion had once been common,<ref name="schmitt">[https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/195/JL08102.pdf Population Policy in Hawaii] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221013063007/https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/195/JL08102.pdf |date=October 13, 2022 }} by Robert C. Schmitt, ''Hawaiian Journal of History'', Volume 8, 1974, page 91 (page 2 of the pdf), also see [https://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/penalcode/pdf/Penal_Code.pdf The Penal Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Compiled from the Penal Code of 1850] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220121081544/https://hawaiiankingdom.org/penalcode/pdf/Penal_Code.pdf |date=January 21, 2022 }}, Chapter XII. Causing Abortion—Concealing the Death of an Infant, Honolulu, Oahu: Government Press, 1869, page 19 (page 63 of the pdf)</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Wi6CuWN3TNEC&pg=PA201 Historical Ethnography] by Marshall Sahlins, Volume 1 of Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii, Part IV: "Kawailoa Society in the Mid-Nineteenth Century", Chapter 9: "Maka'ainana", University of Chicago Press, 1992, page 201; also see "On the Decrease of Population on the Hawaiian Islands" by [[David Malo]], ''Hawaiian Spectator'', Volume 2, April 1839, page 123: "Even the unborn child did not escape, but was put to death for mothers, thinking they should prematurely become old women without having gained property, pierced their unborn, and thus many a child was destroyed before it was born. Others, from the time of conception to the birth of the child made it their business to extinguish its life."</ref> had codified laws that restricted abortion before quickening.<ref name="Witherspoon 1985" /> More than 10 states allowed pre-quickening abortions, before the quickening distinction was eliminated,<ref name="Witherspoon 1985" /> and every state had anti-abortion laws by 1900.<ref name="cole">Cole, George; Frankowski, Stanislaw (1987). [https://books.google.com/books?id=-ujuOMTNAQAC&pg=PA20 ''Abortion and Protection of the Human Fetus: Legal Problems in a Cross-Cultural Perspective'']. Leiden, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 20. Retrieved April 8, 2008 – via Google Books. "By 1900 every state in the Union had an anti-abortion prohibition."</ref>

In the United States, before specific statutes were made against it, abortion was sometimes considered a [[Common law offense in the United States|common law offense]], such as by [[William Blackstone]] and [[James Wilson (Founding Father)|James Wilson]].<ref>Blackstone, William (1765). [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIXs1.html "Commentaries"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224161750/http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIXs1.html |date=February 24, 2019 }}. "Life{{nbsp}}... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb."</ref><ref>Wilson, James (1790–1792). [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=831 "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080924041107/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=831 |date=September 24, 2008 }}. "In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb."</ref> In all states throughout the 19th and early 20th century, pre-quickening abortions were always considered to be actions without a lawful purpose. This meant that if the mother died, the individual performing the abortion was guilty of murder. This aspect of common law regarded pre-quickening abortions as a type of [[inchoate offense]].<ref>[https://www.ncregister.com/blog/fact-checking-the-abortion-claims-in-dobbs-v-jackson-women-s-health-oral-arguments Fact-Checking the Abortion Claims in 'Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health' Oral Arguments] by Lauretta Brown, ''National Catholic Register'', December 3, 2021</ref> [[Negative liberty]] rights from common law do not apply in situations caused by consensual or voluntary behavior, which allowed for abortions of [[fetus]]es conceived in a consensual manner to be common law offenses.<ref>[https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=nulr_online Symposium on Anita Bernstein's The Common Law Inside the Female Body] by David S. Cohen, ''Northwestern University Law Review'', Volume 114, page 145 (page 6 of the pdf)</ref> The majority opinion for ''Roe v. Wade'' authored in Justice [[Harry Blackmun]]'s name would later state that the criminalization of abortion did not have "roots in the English common-law tradition",{{sfnp|Greenhouse|2005|p=92}} and was thought to return to the more permissive state of pre-1820s abortion laws.<ref name="Hardin 1978"/> One purpose for banning abortion was to preserve the life of the fetus,<ref>[https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=facpubs The "Right" to an Abortion, the Scope of Fourteenth Amendment Personhood, and the Supreme Court's Birth Requirement] by John D. Gorby, ''Southern Illinois University Law Review'', Volume 4, 1979, page 19, (page 20 of the pdf)</ref> another was to protect the life of the mother, another was to create deterrence against future abortions,<ref name="buell">{{Cite journal|last=Buell|first=Samuel|date=1991-01-01|title=Criminal Abortion Revisited|url=https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2174|journal=New York University Law Review|volume=66|issue=6|pages=1785–1786 (pages 12–13 of the pdf)|pmid=11652642}}</ref> and another was to avoid injuring the mother's ability to have children. Judges did not always distinguish between which purpose was more important.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=zHMEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA399 ''State v. Howard'' 32 Vt. 399 (Vt. 1859)], November 1859</ref> Rather than arresting the women having the abortions, legal officials were more likely to [[interrogate]] them to obtain evidence against the individual doing the abortions.<ref name="Paltrow 17–21">{{Cite journal |title=Roe v Wade and the New Jane Crow: Reproductive Rights in the Age of Mass Incarceration |journal=American Journal of Public Health |volume=103 |issue=1 |last=Paltrow |first=Lynn M. |date=January 2013  |pages=17–21 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.2012.301104 |pmc=3518325 |pmid=23153159 }}</ref> This law enforcement strategy was a response to juries which refused to convict women prosecuted for abortion in the 19th century.<ref>[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/enforcement-of-abortion-laws-before-roe-v-wade.html Caught in the Net] by Leslie J. Reagan, ''Slate'' September 10, 2021</ref> In 1973, Justice Blackmun's opinion stated that "the restrictive criminal [[abortion law]]s in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage".<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/#tab-opinion-1950137 ''Roe'', 410 U.S.] at 130.</ref>

During the 1960s and early 1970s, opposition to abortion was concentrated among members of the political left and the Democratic Party, although [[Feminism|feminists]] within predominately supported legalization. Most liberal [[Catholic Church|Catholics]] and [[Mainline Protestant]]s (both of which tended to vote for the Democratic Party) opposed liberalizing laws surrounding abortion while most other [[Protestantism|Protestants]], including [[Evangelicalism|evangelicals]], supported doing so as a matter of [[Freedom of religion|religious liberty]], what they saw [[Christianity and abortion|as a lack]] of [[Christianity and abortion|biblical condemnation]], and belief in [[Anti-statism|non-intrusive government]].<ref name="Williams-2015" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Halpern |first=Sue |date=November 8, 2018 |title=How Republicans Became Anti-Choice |language=en |work=[[The New York Review of Books]] |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/08/how-republicans-became-anti-choice/ |access-date=2023-04-14 |issn=0028-7504}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Balmer |first=Randall |author-link=Randall Balmer |date=August 30, 2021 |title=The Evangelical Abortion Myth: An Excerpt from 'Bad Faith' |url=https://religiondispatches.org/the-evangelical-abortion-myth-an-excerpt-from-bad-faith/ |access-date=2023-04-07 |website=Religion Dispatches |language=en-US}}</ref>

By 1971, elective abortion on demand was effectively available in Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, Washington, and Washington, D.C.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Joyce |first1=Ted |last2=Tan |first2=Ruoding |last3=Zhang |first3=Yuxiu |date=September 2013 |title=Abortion before & after Roe |journal=Journal of Health Economics |language=en |volume=32 |issue=5 |at=804–815, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791164/#FN5 footnote 4] |doi=10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.05.004 |pmc=3791164 |pmid=23811233}}</ref> Some women traveled to jurisdictions where it was legal, although not all could afford to.<ref>Blumenthal, Karen (2020). ''Jane Against the World: Roe v. Wade and the Fight for Reproductive Rights''. New York: Roaring Brook Press.</ref> In 1971, Shirley Wheeler was charged with [[Manslaughter (United States law)|manslaughter]] after Florida hospital staff reported her illegal abortion to the police. Wheeler was one of a few women who were prosecuted by their states for abortion.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=pPWQCkzPYO8C&pg=PA172 Dangerous Pregnancies: Mothers, Disabilities, and Abortion in Modern America] by Leslie J. Reagan, Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2010, page 172</ref> She received a sentence of two years [[probation]], and as an option under her probation, chose to move back into her parents' house in North Carolina.<ref name="Paltrow 17–21" /> The [[Playboy Foundation]] donated $3,500 to her defense fund and ''[[Playboy (magazine)|Playboy]]'' denounced her prosecution.<ref name="pitzulo157">[https://books.google.com/books?id=g7LLDB4y8sYC&pg=PA157 Bachelors and Bunnies: The Sexual Politics of Playboy] by Carrie Pitzulo, University of Chicago Press, page 2011, page 157</ref> The Boston Women's Abortion Coalition raised money and held a rally where attendees listened to speakers from the Women's National Abortion Action Coalition (WONAAC).<ref>{{Cite news |title=Rally Today Supports Wheeler |url=http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1971/10/21/rally-today-supports-wheeler-pthe-boston/ |website=The Harvard Crimson |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |access-date=November 29, 2016}}</ref> Her conviction was overturned by the [[Supreme Court of Florida]].<ref name="Paltrow 17–21" />

===History of the case===
[[Sarah Weddington]] recruited [[Linda Coffee]] to help her with abortion litigation. Their first plaintiffs were a married couple; they joined after the woman heard Coffee give a speech.<ref name="question50">[https://books.google.com/books?id=hym-OJhp5V0C&pg=PA39 Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal] by Marian Faux, New York City: Cooper Square Press, 2001, page 39, [https://books.google.com/books?id=wBa5g9JQQGMC&dq=Weddington&pg=PA52 ''Roe v. Wade'': Abortion and a Woman's Right to Privacy] by Melissa Higgins, Chapter 5, Constructing and Filing ''Roe v. Wade'', North Mankato, MN: Abdo Publishing, 2012, page 52, and [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780140177985/page/50/mode/1up A Question of Choice] by Sarah Weddington, New York: Penguin Books, 1993, page 50</ref> The intended suit would state abortions were medically necessary for the woman. The woman had a neurochemical disorder and it was considered medically necessary that she not give birth or raise children, yet they did not want to abstain from sex, and contraception might fail.<ref name="question50" /> The attorneys were concerned about standing since the woman was not pregnant. Weddington later wrote that they "needed to find a pregnant Texas woman who wanted an abortion and would be willing to be a [[plaintiff]]."<ref name="question" /> They also wanted to increase the likelihood that the [[Judicial panel#Panel selection|panel selection]] would help them win in court. They wanted to present their case to a three-judge panel which included a judge they thought would be sympathetic,<ref name="question" /> which was a possibility only by filing a case in Dallas.<ref name="pragerd" /> If either of the two cases they filed in Dallas were assigned favorably, they intended to ask for the other one to be consolidated with it.<ref name="question">[https://books.google.com/books?id=wBa5g9JQQGMC&dq=Weddington&pg=PA54 ''Roe v. Wade'': Abortion and a Woman's Right to Privacy] by Melissa Higgins, Chapter 5, Constructing and Filing ''Roe v. Wade'', North Mankato, MN: Abdo Publishing, 2012 page 54 and [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780140177985/page/53/mode/1up A Question of Choice] by Sarah Weddington, New York: Penguin Books, 1993, page 53</ref>

{{multiple image
| align             = right
| total_width       = 360
| perrow            = 2
| image1            = Sarah Weddington - NARA - 181411.jpg
| image2            = Linda Coffee in 1961.png
| image3            = Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) onthe steps of the Supreme Court, 1989 (cropped).jpg
| image4            = Henry Wade 1963 cropped smaller.png
| footer            = Sarah Weddington (upper left) and Linda Coffee (upper right) were the two attorneys who represented the pseudonymous "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey, lower left) against Henry Wade (lower right).
}}

At first, Weddington was unsuccessful in finding a suitable pregnant woman.<ref>[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780140177985/page/50/mode/2up A Question of Choice] by Sarah Weddington, New York: Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 50–51.</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=hym-OJhp5V0C&pg=PA38 Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal] by Marian Faux, New York City: Cooper Square Press, 2001, p. 38.</ref> In June 1969, 21-year-old [[Norma McCorvey]] discovered she was pregnant with her third child.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/09/us/key-abortion-plaintiff-now-denies-she-was-raped.html Key Abortion Plaintiff Now Denies She Was Raped] by Kenneth B. Noble, ''The New York Times'', September 9, 1987. Retrieved June 26, 2022.</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=1Uw0DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA176 The Lawyers Who Made America: From Jamestown to the White House] by Anthony Arlidge, Oxford, United Kingdom and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2017, p. 176.</ref> Ordinarily, lawyers are not allowed to directly solicit clients without any prior relationship, but McCorvey's situation qualified for an exception in the [[Attorney misconduct#No solicitation rule|no solicitation rule]] which allows lawyers to solicit new clients for [[Public interest law#United States|public interest]] cases.<ref>[https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&context=ilj Revisiting ''Roe v. Wade'': Substance and Process in the Abortion Debate] by Margaret G. Farrell and Benjamin N. Cardozo, ''Indiana Law Journal'', Volume 68, Issue 2, spring 1993, section one on Solicitation and Representation", pages 282–283 (pages 15–16 of the pdf)</ref> According to a sworn statement made in 2003, McCorvey asked if she had what was needed to be part of Weddington and Coffee's lawsuit. She recounted being told, "Yes. You're white. You're young, pregnant, and you want an abortion."<ref>[https://thejusticefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Norma_McCorvey_Affidavit.pdf Affidavit of Norma McCorvey], U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Norma McCorvey, formerly known as Jane Roe, Plaintiff, vs. Henry Wade, Through His Official Successor in Office, William "Bill" Hill, Dallas County District Attorney, Defendant., Civil Action No. 3—3690-B and No. 3-3691-C, June 11, 2003, paragraph 11 on page 5 of 13, affidavit page 000006.</ref><ref>[https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/norma-mccorvey-jane-roe-roe-193000566.html Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe" Of Roe V. Wade, Is Dead At 69] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221013063002/https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/norma-mccorvey-jane-roe-roe-193000566.html |date=October 13, 2022 }} by Sara Murphy, Yahoo!, February 18, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2022.</ref> Both McCorvey's [[White people|whiteness]] and her lower social class were crucial factors in the attorneys' choice to have her as their plaintiff.<ref>''[https://digitalcommons.slc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=womenshistory_etd Jane Roe Gone Rogue: Norma McCorvey's Transformation as a Symbol of the U.S. Abortion Debate]'' by Christianna K. Barnard, MA thesis, Sarah Lawrence College, May 2018, page 14, (page 32 of the pdf)</ref>

McCorvey recounted that the lawyers asked if she thought abortion should be legal. McCorvey said she did not know. Weddington told her, "It's just a piece of tissue. You just missed your period." This convinced McCorvey that abortion should be legal.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=nAtiDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA97 A Woman's Right to an Abortion: ''Roe v. Wade''] by D. J. Herda, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey: Enslow Publishing, 2016, page 97 and [https://thejusticefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Norma_McCorvey_Affidavit.pdf Affidavit of Norma McCorvey], U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Norma McCorvey, formerly known as Jane Roe, Plaintiff, vs. Henry Wade, Through His Official Successor in Office, William "Bill" Hill, Dallas County District Attorney, Defendant., Civil Action No. 3—3690-B and No. 3-3691-C, June 11, 2003, paragraph 9 on pages 4–5 of 13, affidavit pages 000005–000006</ref> She agreed to let them represent her under the impression that she would be able to eventually get a legal abortion.<ref>''[https://digitalcommons.slc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=womenshistory_etd Jane Roe Gone Rogue: Norma McCorvey's Transformation as a Symbol of the U.S. Abortceion Debate]'' by Christianna K. Barnard, MA thesis, Sarah Lawrence College, May 2018, page 22, (page 40 of the pdf) and ''I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice'' by Norma McCorvey and Andy Meisler, New York City: HarperCollins, 1994, page 124</ref> She smoked an illegal drug and drank wine so she would not have to think about her pregnancy.<ref>''[https://digitalcommons.slc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=womenshistory_etd Jane Roe Gone Rogue: Norma McCorvey's Transformation as a Symbol of the U.S. Abortion Debate]'' by Christianna K. Barnard, MA thesis, Sarah Lawrence College, May 2018, page 22, (page 40 of the pdf) and ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=5Mq1AAAAIAAJ&q=dope I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice]'' by Norma McCorvey and Andy Meisler, New York City: HarperCollins, 1994, page 125</ref> McCorvey gave birth to a daughter at Dallas Osteopathic Hospital on June 2, 1970; the baby, [[Shelley Lynn Thornton]], was adopted by a couple in Texas.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/jane-roe-v-wade-baby-norma-mccorvey/620009/ Jane Roe's Baby Tells Her Story] by Joshua Prager, ''The Atlantic'', September 9, 2021</ref>

In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed ''Roe v. Wade'' as a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of McCorvey under the legal pseudonym "[[John Doe|Jane Roe]]",<ref name="bothcasenames" /> and they also filed ''Does v. Wade'' on behalf of the married couple.<ref name="bothcasenames">[https://books.google.com/books?id=hym-OJhp5V0C&pg=PA85 Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal] by Marian Faux, New York City: Cooper Square Press, 2001, page 85</ref> The [[defendant]] for both cases was [[Dallas County District Attorney]], [[Henry Wade]], who represented the State of Texas. Weddington later stated that she "saw ''Roe'' as part of a much larger effort by many attorneys" whose collective interests she represented.<ref>[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780140177985/page/154/mode/1up A Question of Choice] by Sarah Weddington, New York: Penguin Books, 1993, page 154 and [http://issues.texasobserver.org/pdf/ustxtxb_obs_1992_11_13_issue.pdf Roe Reconsidered] by Nina Butts, ''The Texas Observer'', November 13, 1992, page 15</ref> James H. Hallford was a physician who was in the process of being prosecuted for performing two abortions.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=hym-OJhp5V0C&pg=PA93 Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal] by Marian Faux, New York City: Cooper Square Press, 2001, page 93</ref> The Court allowed him to join the suit as a physician-[[Intervention (law)|intervenor]] on behalf of Jane Roe.<ref name="Robert">[https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/what-is-roe-v-wade What does the original Roe v. Wade really say?] by Amanda Robert, ''American Bar Association Journal'', May 3, 2022, and [https://web.archive.org/web/20121022102151/http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html Summary of ''Roe v. Wade'' at Lawnix.com] (Archived October 22, 2012)</ref>

One of the cases was assigned to a panel of judges which included Judge Sarah T. Hughes, who they thought would be sympathetic, and the cases were consolidated.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=hym-OJhp5V0C&pg=PA91 Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal] by Marian Faux, New York City: Cooper Square Press, 2001, page 91 and [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780140177985/page/58/mode/2up A Question of Choice] by Sarah Weddington, New York: Penguin Books, 1993, page 58</ref> In accordance with the Court's rules, two of the judges hearing the consolidated case were assigned on the basis of their judicial district, and the third judge on the panel was a [[circuit court]] judge<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=wBa5g9JQQGMC&dq=Weddington&pg=PA55 ''Roe v. Wade'': Abortion and a Woman's Right to Privacy] by Melissa Higgins, Chapter 5, Constructing and Filing ''Roe v. Wade'', North Mankato, MN: Abdo Publishing, 2012, page 55</ref> chosen by the [[Chief Justice of the United States]].<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=hym-OJhp5V0C&pg=PA128 Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal] by Marian Faux, New York City: Cooper Square Press, 2001, page 128</ref>

The consolidated lawsuit was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of district court judges [[Sarah T. Hughes]] and [[William McLaughlin Taylor Jr.]] and appellate judge [[Irving Loeb Goldberg]] of the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]].<ref name="dist" /> Hughes knew Coffee, who clerked for her from 1968 to 1969.<ref name="pragerd">[https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2022/january/the-untold-dallas-origins-of-roe-v-wade/ The Untold Dallas Origins of Roe v. Wade] by [[Joshua Prager (writer)|Joshua Prager]], ''D Magazine'', January 11, 2022</ref> Additionally, the backgrounds of two other judges also gave Weddington and Coffee hope they would be successful.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=hym-OJhp5V0C&pg=PA126 Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal] by Marian Faux, New York City: Cooper Square Press, 2001, pages 126–127</ref> On June 17, 1970, the three judges unanimously<ref name="dist">{{cite court |litigants=Roe v. Wade |vol=314 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=1217 |pinpoint=1221 |court=N.D. Tex. |date=1970 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/314/1217/1472349/ |access-date=May 16, 2018 |quote=On the [[Merit (law)|merits]], plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that the Texas Abortion Laws must be declared unconstitutional because they deprive single women and married couples of their rights secured by the Ninth Amendment to choose whether to have children. We agree.}}</ref> ruled in McCorvey's favor and declared the Texas law unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to privacy found in the [[Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Ninth Amendment]]. The court relied on Justice [[Arthur Goldberg]]'s 1965 concurrence in ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]''. Yet the Court also declined to grant an [[injunction]] against enforcing the law, and ruled against the married couple on the basis that they lacked standing.<ref>[https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/what-is-roe-v-wade What does the original Roe v. Wade really say?] by Amanda Robert, ''American Bar Association Journal'', May 3, 2022, [https://web.archive.org/web/20121022102151/http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html Summary of ''Roe v. Wade'' at Lawnix.com] (Archived October 22, 2012), and {{cite web |title=Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/314/1217/1472349/ |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref> Since Wade said he would continue to prosecute people for performing abortions, the lack of an injunction meant that McCorvey could not get an abortion.<ref>[https://law.uoregon.edu/sites/law1.uoregon.edu/files/faculty/law%20bios%20files/law-mpeccol-e564.pdf Roe v. Wade Case (US)], by Merle H. Weiner, ''Oxford Constitutional Law'', August 2016, page 4, Part B. The Factual Backdrop: Access to Abortion in the United States Prior to Roe v Wade, item number 14; At this point McCorvey had been now pregnant for six months.</ref>