Editing Roe v. Wade (section)

== Reception ==
There was a strong response to the decision shortly after it was issued.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://archive.org/details/supremecourtrevi0000unse_z3m8/page/185/mode/1up?view=theater|title=Substantive Due Process by any other name: The Abortion Cases|first=Richard A.|last=Epstein|journal=The Supreme Court Review |volume=1973|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=1974|page=185}}</ref> The Catholic Church condemned the ruling.<ref name="Chronology">{{harvnb|Greenhouse|2005|p=101}}</ref> Prominent organized groups that responded to ''Roe'' include [[National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws]], which became the National Abortion Rights Action League in late 1973 to reflect the Court's repeal of restrictive laws,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hollisarchives.lib.harvard.edu/repositories/8/resources/6738|title=Records of the National Abortion Rights Action League, 1969–1976s|website=Hollis Archival Collection Guides|publisher=Radcliffe College Harvard University|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> and the [[National Right to Life Committee]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Karrer|first=Robert N.|date=2011|title=The Pro-Life Movement and Its First Years under 'Roe'|journal=American Catholic Studies|volume=122|issue=4|pages=47–72|issn=2161-8542|jstor=44195373}}</ref>

The legal scholar [[Ronald Dworkin]] described it as "undoubtedly the best-known case the United States Supreme Court has ever decided."<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Prager|first=Joshua|date=January 19, 2017|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/roe-v-wades-secret-heroine-tells-her-story|title=Exclusive: Roe v. Wade's secret heroine tell her story|magazine=Vanity Fair|access-date=June 30, 2022}}</ref>

=== Support for ''Roe'' and abortion rights ===
==== 1960s–1970s ====
In the 1960s, there was an alliance between the [[population control movement]] and the [[abortion-rights movement in the United States]].<ref name=ziegler98/> [[Abortion rights]] were especially supported by younger women within the [[population control]] movement.<ref>{{harvnb|Ziegler|2015|p=103}}</ref> The cooperation was mostly due to [[feminists]] who wanted some of the popularity already enjoyed by the population control movement.{{citationneeded|date=May 2024}} In addition, population control advocates thought that legalizing abortion would help solve the coming population crisis that demographers had projected.<ref name=ziegler98/>

In 1973, [[Hugh Moore (businessman)|Hugh Moore]]'s [[Population Crisis Committee]] and [[John D. Rockefeller III]]'s [[Population Council]] both publicly supported abortion rights following ''Roe''.<ref name=ziegler117>{{harvnb|Ziegler|2015|p=117}}</ref> Previously, public support for abortion rights within the population control movement instead came from less established organizations such as [[Zero Population Growth]].<ref>{{harvnb|Ziegler|2013|p=19}}</ref> An exception was [[Planned Parenthood-World Population]], which supported repealing all laws against abortion in 1969.<ref>In 1969, Planned Parenthood-World Population took a position in favor of repealing all laws against abortion; see [https://books.google.com/books?id=-3J_3pDNZlkC&pg=PA744 Gender and Women's Leadership: A Reference Handbook] by Karen O'Connor, London: SAGE Publications, 2010, page 744; the Planned Parenthood organization had merged with the World Population Emergency Campaign organization in 1961 to create Planned Parenthood-World Population; see [https://books.google.com/books?id=rwU3AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA916 Population Crisis], Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Expenditures of the Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Eighty-Ninth Congress, First Session on S. 1676, June 29; July 9–24, 1965, Part 2-A, page 916; the merger occurred during a shift within the birth control movement away from individual health and towards population control; see [https://books.google.com/books?id=SNs1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA6742 Competitive Problems in the Drug Industry], Hearings before the Subcommittee on Monopoly of the Select Committee on Small Business. United States Senate, Ninety-First Congress, First session on Present Status of Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry, February 24 – March 4, 1970, Part 16, Oral Contraceptives (Volume Two), page 6742</ref> Together, population control and abortion rights advocates voiced the benefits of legalized abortion such as smaller welfare costs, fewer illegitimate births, and slower population growth.<ref name=ziegler98/> At the same time, the use of these arguments put them at odds with [[civil-rights movement]] leaders and [[Black Power]] activists who were concerned that abortion would be used to eliminate non-whites.<ref name=ziegler98>{{harvnb|Ziegler|2015|p=98}}</ref> [[H. Rap Brown]] denounced abortion as "black genocide",<ref name=ziegler115>{{harvnb|Ziegler|2015|p=115}}</ref> and [[Dick Gregory]] said that his "answer to genocide, quite simply, is eight Black kids and another one on the way."<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dS4eA77qau0C&pg=PA215|title=Black Maverick: T.R.M. Howard's Fight for Civil Rights and Economic Power|first1=David T.|last1=Beito|first2=Linda Royster|last2=Beito|location=Urbana, Illinois|publisher=University of Illinois Press|year=2009|page=215|isbn=978-0-252-03420-6 }}</ref>

Soon after ''Roe'', the population control movement suffered setbacks, which caused the movement to lose political support and instead appear divisive.<ref>{{harvnb|Ziegler|2013|p=35}}</ref> On June 27, 1973, a lawsuit was filed concerning [[the Relf sisters]], 14-year-old Minnie Lee and her 12-year-old sister Alice Lee. A worker at a federally-funded family planning clinic lied to their illiterate mother, saying they would get birth control shots. Instead, the Relf sisters were sterilized without their knowledge or consent.<ref>[https://voicesofthecivilrightsmovement.com/video-collection/2015/12/04/relf-sisters-sue-for-involuntary-sterilization Relf Sisters Sue for Involuntary Sterilization], Moments in the Civil Rights Movement, ''Voices of the Civil Rights Movement'', ''Comcast/NBC Universal'', April 4, 2015</ref> During the next fifteen months, 80 additional women came forward about their forced sterilizations, all belonging to minority races. Concerns rose that abortions would also become compulsory.<ref name="ziegler117"/> During the 1974 [[World Population Conference]] in [[Bucharest]], Romania, most developing nations argued that the developed nations' focus on population growth was an attempt to avoid solving the deeper causes of underdevelopment, such as the unequal structure of international relations.<ref name=dobos/> Instead, they wanted more favorable terms under the [[New International Economic Order]]. A draft plan with fertility targets was strongly opposed by the developing countries, which surprised the delegations from the United States, Canada, and Great Britain.<ref name=dobos>{{cite journal|url=https://brill.com/view/journals/eceu/45/2-3/article-p215_215.xml?language=en|title=Global Challenges, Local Knowledges: Politics and Expertise at the World Population Conference in Bucharest|first=Corina|last=Doboș|journal=East Central Europe|volume=45|date=November 29, 2018|pages=219–220|doi=10.1163/18763308-04502004 |s2cid=195477022 }}</ref> The final plan omitted fertility targets and instead stated, "A population policy may have a certain success if it constitutes an integral part of socio-economic development."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=C11EAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22A+population+policy+may%22&pg=RA5-PA15 Translations on Sub-Saharan Africa], United States Joint Publications Research Service circular #72986, issue number 2074 March 13, 1979, page 15</ref>

As members questioned the political benefits of population control rhetoric, the abortion-rights movement distanced itself from the population control movement.<ref name=ziegler36>{{harvnb|Ziegler|2013|p=36}}</ref> In October 1973, Robin Elliott circulated a memo to other Planned Parenthood members concerning opposition to "Planned Parenthood's credibility in its reference to the population problem".<ref name=ziegler36/> Instead, she thought they should use ''Roe'' inspired rhetoric about "the reaffirmation of commitment to freedom of choice in parenthood."<ref name=ziegler36/> By 1978, a NARAL handbook denounced population control.<ref>{{harvnb|Ziegler|2013|p=28}}</ref>

==== 21st century ====
[[File:October 2021 Women's March in Washington DC 03.jpg|thumb|[[2021 Women's March]], where many speakers bemoaned a looming threat to ''Roe''<ref>{{cite news |last=Kitchener |first=Caroline |date=October 2, 2021 |title=Thousands gather at Women's March rallies in D.C., across U.S. to protect Roe v. Wade |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/10/02/womens-march-dc-abortion/ |newspaper=The Washington Post }}</ref>]]
Into the 21st century, advocates of ''Roe'' describe it as vital to the preservation of [[women's rights]], personal freedom, bodily integrity, and privacy. Advocates have also reasoned that access to safe abortion and reproductive freedom generally are [[fundamental rights]]. Supporters of ''Roe'' contend that even if abortion rights are also supported by another portion of the constitution, the decision in 1973 accurately founds the right in the Fourteenth Amendment. Others support ''Roe'' despite concern that the fundamental right to abortion is found elsewhere in the Constitution but not in the portions referenced in the 1973 decision.<ref name="Koppelman">[https://web.archive.org/web/20090225130324/http://www.law1.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/koppelman/forcedlabor.pdf "Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion"], Archived February 25, 2009, by Andrew Koppelman, ''Northwestern Law Review'', Vol. 84, p. 480 (1990).</ref><ref name="Balkin">''[https://books.google.com/books?id=Us-277i9ZJYC&pg=PP1 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 January 26, 2007</ref> They also tend to believe that the power balance between men and women is unequal, and that issues like access to birth control and political representation affect women's equality.<ref name="Conroy & Thomson-DeVeaux 2022">{{cite web|last1=Conroy|first1=Meredith|last2=Thomson-DeVeaux|first2=Amelia|date=May 20, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-dividing-line-on-abortion/|title=The Real Dividing Line On Abortion|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref>

Opinion polls in late 2021 indicated that while a majority of Americans oppose overturning ''Roe'',<ref>Manchester, Julia (December 6, 2021). [https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/584587-majority-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade-poll/ "Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade: poll"]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 26, 2022.</ref> a sizable minority opposed overturning ''Roe'' but also desired to make abortion illegal in ways that ''Roe'' would not permit. This was attributed to poll respondents misunderstanding ''Roe v. Wade'' or misinterpreting the poll question.<ref>Desanctis, Alexandra (December 7, 2021). [https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/poll-americans-continue-to-misunderstand-roe/ "Poll: Americans Continue to Misunderstand Roe"]. ''National Review''. Retrieved June 26, 2022.</ref><ref name="Thomson-DeVeaux & Yi 2022">{{cite web|last1=Thomson-DeVeaux|first1=Amelia|last2=Yi|first2=Jean|date=May 6, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/|title=Where Americans Stand On Abortion, In 5 Charts|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> 2018–2019 polls showed that while 60 percent of Americans generally support abortion in the first trimester, this drops to 20 percent for the second trimester, even though ''Roe'' protects the right to abortion until the last weeks of the second trimester, and at the same time 69 percent said they would not like to see ''Roe'' overturned, compared to 29 percent who said they would like to see ''Roe'' overturned.<ref name="Thomson-DeVeaux & Yi 2022"/> Another poll showed that 43 percent of those who said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases opposed overturning ''Roe'', while 26 percent of those who said abortion should be legal in most or all cases supported overturning ''Roe''.<ref name="Jackson 2022">{{cite web|last=Jackson|first=Natalie|date=June 22, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-possible-for-some-americans-to-support-abortion-yet-oppose-roe/|title=Why It's Possible For Some Americans To Support Abortion Yet Oppose Roe|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> Polls also found that men and women have similar views on abortion,<ref>{{cite web|last=Iglesis|first=Matthew|date=May 20, 2019|url=https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion|title=Men and women have similar views on abortion|website=Vox|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> which are linked to how people think about motherhood, sex, and women's social roles; supporters of ''Roe'' and abortion rights tend to see women's ability to make decisions about their bodies as fundamental to [[gender equality]].<ref name="Conroy & Thomson-DeVeaux 2022"/>

Most polls in the late 2010s and early 2020s showed overwhelming support,<ref name="Thomson-DeVeaux & Yi 2022"/> at between 85 and 90 percent, among Americans that abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances, which varies or drops depending on the specifics.<ref name="Thomson-DeVeaux & Yi 2022"/><ref>{{cite web|last=Molla|first=Rani|date=June 24, 2022|url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-public-opinion-polls-americans|title=What Americans think about abortion, in 3 charts|website=Vox|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref><ref name="Durkee 2022">{{cite web|last=Durkee|first=Alison|date=June 24, 2022|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-reportedly-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/|title=How Americans Really Feel About Abortion: The Sometimes Surprising Poll Results As Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade|website=Forbes|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> A January 2022 [[CNN]] poll found a 59% majority of Americans want their state to have laws that are "more permissive than restrictive" on abortion if ''Roe'' is overturned, 20% want their state to ban abortion entirely, and another 20% want it to be restricted but not banned.<ref name="Durkee 2022"/> In two March 2022 polls, between 61 and 64 percent of Americans said abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while between 35 and 37 percent said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.<ref name="Jackson 2022"/><ref>{{cite web|last=Williams|first=Tarah|date=May 31, 2022|url=https://theconversation.com/most-people-support-abortion-staying-legal-but-that-may-not-matter-in-making-law-182930|title=Most people support abortion staying legal, but that may not matter in making law|website=The Conversation|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> A May 2022 [[Gallup (company)|Gallup]] poll showed that 50% of Americans thought abortions should be legal under certain circumstances, with 35% saying it should be legal under any circumstances, and 15% saying it should be illegal in all circumstances,<ref name="Abortion">{{cite web|url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx|title=Abortion|publisher=Gallup|date=May 2–22, 2022|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> as well as a record number of Americans who identify as ''[[pro-choice]]''.<ref>{{cite web|last=Treisman|first=Rachel|date=June 3, 2022|url=https://www.npr.org/2022/06/03/1102872199/gallup-poll-pro-choice-roe-v-wade-supreme-court|title=In a new U.S. poll, a majority identify as 'pro-choice' for the first time in decades|publisher=NPR|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref>

Before ''Roe'' was overturned in ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', a majority of Americans thought that ''Roe'' was safe and would not be overturned. Since the draft's leaks showed ''Roe'' to be overturned in ''Dobbs'', as happened in June 2022, abortion became a concern and a very important issue for Democrats, who previously lagged behind Republicans on this;<ref>{{cite web|last=Tesler|first=Michael|date=May 25, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/for-the-first-time-in-years-democrats-are-more-concerned-about-abortion-than-republicans-are/|title=For The First Time In Years, Democrats Are More Concerned About Abortion Than Republicans Are|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> some Americans, in particular liberals but also a few conservatives, may have become more aware of the popular support for ''Roe'', which they had previously understated.<ref>{{cite web|last=Thomson-DeVeaux|first=Amelia|date=June 13, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-overturning-roe-could-change-the-way-americans-think-about-abortion/|title=How Overturning Roe Could Change The Way Americans Think About Abortion|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> In June 2022, Gallup reported that a 61% majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. It also recorded the highest partisan divide since 1995,<ref name="Abortion"/> compared to the mid-1970s and throughout the 1980s when both Democrats and Republicans were closer on the issue.<ref>{{cite web|last=Thomson-DeVeaux|first=Amelia|date=June 24, 2022|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/roe-v-wade-defined-an-era-the-supreme-court-just-started-a-new-one/|title=Roe v. Wade Defined An Era. The Supreme Court Just Started A New One.|website=FiveThirtyEight|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref> That same month, the Congregation L'Dor Va-Dor filed a lawsuit against a new law in Florida that would outlaw abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, including in cases of rape or incest. Unlike other legal challenges to abortion restrictions in the United States that generally rely on the right to privacy established by ''Roe'', the synagogue argued that Florida's abortion law violates religious freedom, as "Jewish law says that life begins at birth, not at conception."<ref>{{cite news|last=Kestler-D'Amours|first=Jillian|date=June 17, 2022|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/17/religious-freedom-the-next-battleground-for-us-abortion-rights|title=Religious freedom: The next battleground for US abortion rights?|publisher=Al Jazeera|access-date=June 26, 2022}}</ref>

=== Opposition to ''Roe'' ===
====Condemnation by Catholic Bishops====
{{multiple image
 | align = right
 | total_width = 360
 | perrow = 2
 | image1 = Terence Cardinal Cooke, Archbishop, Diocese of New York.jpg
 | image2 = Ronald Reagan and John Cardinal Krol.jpg
 | footer = Terence Cardinal Cooke, archbishop of New York (left), along with his Philadelphia counterpart, John Cardinal Krol, pictured with Ronald Reagan (right), issued statements that the Catholic Church condemned ''Roe v. Wade''.
}}
The Catholic Church condemned the ruling by the Supreme Court.<ref name="Chronology"/> Blackmun wrote in his diary, "Abortion flak&mdash;3 Cardinals&mdash;Vatican&mdash;Rochester wires!"<ref name="Chronology"/>

[[John Krol|John Cardinal Krol]], the [[archbishop of Philadelphia]] who was also the president of the [[United States Conference of Catholic Bishops]] and [[Terence Cooke|Terence Cardinal Cooke]], the [[archbishop of New York]], both issued statements condemning the ruling.<ref name="Cardinals">{{cite news|title=Statements by 2 Cardinals|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 23, 1973|page=20}}</ref> Krol called the ruling "an unspeakable tragedy for this nation" that "sets in motion developments which are terrifying to contemplate."<ref name="Cardinals"/> Cooke called the decision a "horrifying action" and added:<ref name="Cardinals"/>

<blockquote>How many millions of children prior to their birth will never live to see the light of today because of the shocking action of the majority of the United States Supreme Court today?<ref name="Cardinals"/></blockquote>

==== Opposition to ''Roe'' but support for abortion rights ====
Some supporters of abortion rights oppose ''Roe v. Wade'' on the grounds that it laid a foundation for abortion in [[civil rights]] rather than in [[human right]]s, which are broader and would require government entities to take active measures to ensure every woman has access to abortion.<ref name="Ross & Solinger 2017">{{cite book|title=Reproductive Justice: An Introduction| last1 = Ross |first1=Loretta|last2=Solinger|first2=Rickie |isbn=978-0-520-28820-1|location=Oakland, California|oclc=960969169|date = 2017 |publisher=University of California Press}}</ref>{{page needed|date=March 2024}} This particular position is indicated by the use of rhetoric concerning "[[Reproductive justice#Definition|reproductive justice]]", which replaces earlier rhetoric centered around "choice", such as the "pro-choice" label.<ref>{{cite journal| vauthors = West R |date=2009|title=From Choice to Reproductive Justice: De Constitutionalizing Abortion Rights|journal=Yale Law Journal|volume=118|pages=1394–1432}}</ref> Reproductive justice proponents contend that factors permitting choice are unequal, thus perpetuating oppression and serving to divide women.<ref>{{cite journal| vauthors = Gaard G |date=2010|title=Reproductive Technology, or Reproductive Justice? An Ecofeminist, Environmental Justice Perspective on the Rhetoric of Choice|journal=Ethics and the Environment|volume=15|issue=2|pages=103–129|doi=10.2979/ete.2010.15.2.103|s2cid=144393726}}</ref> Reproductive justice advocates instead want abortion to be considered an affirmative right that the government would be obligated to guarantee equal access to, even if the women seeking abortions are nonwhite, poor, or live outside major [[Metropolitan statistical area|metropolitan areas]].<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 147 (page 8 of the pdf)</ref> With a broader interpretation of the right to an abortion, it would be possible to require all new [[obstetricians]] to be in favor of abortion rights, lest as professionals they employ [[Conscience clause in medicine in the United States|conscience clause]]s and refuse to perform abortions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/do-we-need-a-pro-choice-l_b_178456.html|title=Do We Need a Pro-Choice Litmus Test for Obstetricians?|last=Appel|first=Jacob M.|website=[[Huffington Post]]|date=24 April 2009|access-date=December 18, 2021}}</ref> In the 1989 decision of ''Webster v. Reproductive Health Services'', the Supreme Court ruled against an affirmative right to [[:wikt:nontherapeutic|nontherapeutic]] abortions and noted that states would not be required to pay for them.<ref name="Webster"/>

Some in academia have equated the denial of abortion rights to compulsory motherhood, and reason that because of this abortion bans violate the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth Amendment]]: "When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Even 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."<ref name="Koppelman" /> In 1993, a district court rejected an attempt to justify abortion rights apart from ''Roe'' and instead upon the basis that pregnancy and childrearing constituted [[involuntary servitude]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/828/1544/2352063/|title=Jane L. v. Bangerter, 828 F. Supp. 1544 (D. Utah 1993)|website=Justia Law}}</ref>

==== Opposition to both ''Roe'' and abortion rights ====
{{multiple image
 | align = right
 | total_width = 360
 | perrow = 2
 | image1 = Nellie_Gray_in_2012.jpg
 | image2 = March for Life (49436216846).jpg
 | footer = Nellie Gray (left) started March for Life to overturn ''Roe v. Wade''. On right, the rally in 2020.
}}
Every year, on the anniversary of the decision, opponents of abortion march up [[Constitution Avenue]] to the [[United States Supreme Court Building|Supreme Court Building]] in [[Washington, D.C.]], in the [[March for Life (Washington, D.C.)|March for Life]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Shimron|first=Yonat|title=Democratic Gains Spur Abortion Foes into Action|newspaper=[[The News & Observer]]|date=January 18, 2009|quote=The annual March for Life procession is already among Washington's largest rallies, drawing an estimated 200,000 people.}}</ref> Around 250,000 people attended the march until 2010.<ref>{{cite news|last=Harper|first=Jennifer|url=http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/22/pro-life-rally-yearns-for-media-spotlight/|title=Pro-life marchers lose attention|newspaper=[[Washington Times]]|date=January 22, 2009|quote=The event has consistently drawn about 250,000 participants each year since 2003.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Johnston|first=Laura|title=Cleveland's first March for Life anti-abortion event draws 200|newspaper=[[The Plain Dealer]]|date=January 18, 2009|quote=The Washington March for Life{{nbsp}}... draws 200,000 annually on the anniversary of the ''Roe v. Wade'' decision}}</ref> Estimates put the 2011 and 2012 attendances at 400,000 each,<ref name="zenit2011">{{cite web|title=Youth Turnout Strong at US March for Life|date=January 25, 2011|publisher=Zenit.org|website=Catholic.net|url=http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/youth-turnout-strong-at-us-march-for-life|access-date=February 9, 2011}}</ref> and the 2013 March for Life drew an estimated 650,000 people.<ref name="MonroeNews">{{cite web|url=http://www.monroenews.com/news/2013/feb/10/newport-650000-march-life/ |title=Newport: 650,000 In March For Life |last=Portteus |first=Danielle |date=February 10, 2013 |website=The Monroe News |publisher=MonroeNews |access-date=April 14, 2013  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140213230423/http://www.monroenews.com/news/2013/feb/10/newport-650000-march-life/ |archive-date=February 13, 2014 }}</ref> The march was started in October 1973 by [[Nellie Gray (activist)|Nellie Gray]] and the first march took place on January 22, 1974, to mark the first anniversary of ''Roe v. Wade''.

Opponents of ''Roe'' say that the decision lacks a valid constitutional foundation.<ref name="Childress1984">{{cite book|first=James F.|last=Childress|title=Bioethics Reporter|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=S8keAQAAMAAJ|access-date=August 2, 2013|year=1984|publisher=University Publications of America|page=463|quote=Roe v. Wade itself provided abortion rights with an unstable foundation.}}</ref> Like the dissenters in ''Roe'', they maintain 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.<ref name="Locay2008">{{cite book|author=Alex Locay|title=Unveiling the Left|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=X9hr6zWiPhIC&pg=PA187|access-date=August 2, 2013|year=2008|publisher=Xulon Press|isbn=978-1-60266-869-0|page=187|quote=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 exist as we know privacy is limited in many ways.}}</ref> Another argument against the ''Roe'' decision, as articulated by former president [[Ronald Reagan]], is that, in the absence of consensus about when meaningful life begins, it is best to avoid the risk of doing harm.<ref>Reagan, Ronald. ''[http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/oclc/10456929?tab=holdings 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 January 26, 2007</ref>

In response to ''Roe v. Wade'', most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion, such as laws requiring [[parental consent]] or parental notification for minors to obtain abortions; spousal mutual consent laws; [[Paternal rights and abortion|spousal notification]] laws; laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals, 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 abortions; and laws mandating that women read certain types of literature and watch a [[Obstetric ultrasonography|fetal ultrasound]] before undergoing an abortion.<ref>Guttmacher Institute, "[http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf State Policies in Brief, An Overview of Abortion Laws (PDF)]", published January 1, 2007. Retrieved January 26, 2007.</ref> In 1976, Congress passed the [[Hyde Amendment]], barring the federal government from using [[Medicaid]] to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother. The Supreme Court struck down some state [[Types of abortion restrictions in the United States|restrictions]] 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).<ref>{{ussc|name=Harris v. McRae|volume=448|page=297|pin=|year=1980}}.</ref> Some opponents of abortion maintain that [[personhood]] begins at [[Human fertilization|fertilization]] or [[Conception (biology)|conception]], and should therefore be protected by the Constitution;<ref name="Balkin" /> 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."<ref name="Doe">{{ussc|name=Doe v. Bolton|volume=410|page=179|pin=|year=1973}}.</ref>

===Responses within the legal profession===
[[Modern liberalism in the United States|Liberal]] and [[feminist]] legal scholars have had various reactions to ''Roe'', not always giving the decision unqualified support. One argument is that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.<ref name="Balkin 2001">[[Jack Balkin|Balkin, Jack]]. [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/72834756.pdf Bush v. "Gore and the Boundary Between Law and Politics"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227213608/http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/110-8/balkin.pdf |date=February 27, 2008 }}, 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."</ref> Another is that the end achieved by ''Roe'' does not justify its means of [[judicial fiat]].<ref name="Cohen 2005">[[Richard Cohen (Washington Post columnist)|Cohen, Richard]]. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101901974.html "Support Choice, Not Roe"], ''Washington Post'', (October 19, 2005): "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 January 23, 2007.</ref>

{{multiple image
 | align = right
 | total_width = 360
 | perrow = 2
 | image1 = ANCExplorer Harry Blackmun grave.jpg
 | image2 = Blackmun 8.jpg
 | footer = In 1997, Justice Blackmun (grave, left) gave his papers to the [[Library of Congress]] under terms concerning when his papers, including notes tracing the development of the ''Roe'' opinion, would be released. To accommodate demand on the day of the final release to the general public five years after his death, the library set up a temporary media center with 18 workstations. The two employees in the foreground are from [[CNN]].<ref>[https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0404/blackmun.html Supreme Court Justice's Papers Opened for Research] by Daun Van Ee, ''Library of Congress Information Bulletin'', Volume 63, Number 4, April 2004</ref>
}}

[[David Garrow]] said that the decision in ''Roe'' and also ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'' "owed a great amount of their substance and language" to Justice Blackmun's [[law clerks]], George Frampton and Randall Bezanson. He thought the extent of their contributions were remarkable, and that the clerks exhibited an "unusually assertive and forceful manner" in voicing their views to Justice Blackmun. In his research, it was the earliest significant example he found of this behavior pattern, which grew more consistent later on. In Garrow's evaluation, the clerks' contributions were "historically significant and perhaps decisive" in shaping the two decisions.<ref name=garrow>[https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_garrow_mayjun05.msp The Brains Behind Blackmun] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220622210030/https://legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_garrow_mayjun05.msp |date=June 22, 2022 }} by David J. Garrow, ''Legal Affairs: The Magazine at the intersection of law and life'', May/June 2005</ref>

In response to Garrow, [[Edward Lazarus]] said that Justice Blackmun's later clerks like himself did not need as much direction on reproductive rights since they had Justice Blackmun's prior opinions to draw from. Lazarus thought that on at least some occasions when legal formulations were created for opinions to be published in Justice Blackmun's name, the justice himself was not engaged in originating every significant thought pattern that they employed. Lazarus agreed that Garrow's depiction of how the trimester framework came about was an example of one of these occasions.<ref name=garrow/> He concluded: "The problem of excessive clerk delegation was less serious in Blackmun's chambers than Garrow suggests but is also more commonplace among the justices. The modern Supreme Court has deep problems in its decisional culture and the overuse of law clerks is an aspect of this."<ref name=Lazarus>[https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_response_mayjun05.msp Readers Respond: Justice Blackmun] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211219030600/https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_response_mayjun05.msp |date=December 19, 2021 }}, letter by Edward Lazarus, ''Legal Affairs: The Magazine at the intersection of law and life'', May/June 2005</ref>

Justice [[John Paul Stevens]], while agreeing with the decision, 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.<ref>{{cite news|last= Rosen|first=Jeffrey|author-link=Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)|title=The Dissenter|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html|work=[[The New York Times Magazine]]|date=September 23, 2007 }} Rosen notes that Stevens is "the oldest and arguably most liberal justice".</ref> Before joining the Court, Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] criticized the decision for venturing "too far in the change it ordered".<ref>[https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2961&context=nclr Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to ''Roe v. Wade''] by Ruth Ginsburg, ''North Carolina Law Review'' Volume 63, Number 2, Article 4, 1985, page 381, (page 8 of the pdf)</ref> Had the decision been limited in scope to only permit abortion during certain circumstances, "physicians might have been less pleased with the decision, but the legislative trend might have continued in the direction in which it was headed".<ref>[https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2961&context=nclr Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to ''Roe v. Wade''] by Ruth Ginsburg, ''North Carolina Law Review'' Volume 63, Number 2, Article 4, 1985, page 382, (page 9 of the pdf); page 385 (page 12 of the pdf) reads: "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 January 23, 2007.</ref> After becoming a Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg faulted the Court's approach for being "about a doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best{{nbsp}}... It wasn't woman-centered. It was physician-centered."<ref>{{cite news|last=Bullington|first=Jonathan|title=Justice Ginsburg: Roe v. Wade not 'woman-centered'|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-justice-ginsburg-roe-v-wade-not-womancentered-20130511,0,3079568.story|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|date=May 11, 2013}}</ref> Justice Ginsburg thought that ''Roe'' was originally intended to complement Medicaid funding for abortions, but this did not happen.<ref name=bazelon/> About ''[[Harris v. McRae]]'', which upheld restrictions on Medicaid abortion funding, she said:<ref name=bazelon>[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print The Place of Women on the Court] by Emily Bazelon, ''New York Times Magazine'', July 7, 2009</ref>
<blockquote>Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time ''Roe'' was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that ''Roe'' was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided ''McRae'', the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.</blockquote>

[[Watergate]] prosecutor [[Archibald Cox]] thought the "failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations whose validity is good enough this week but will be destroyed with new statistics upon the medical risks of child birth and abortion or new advances in providing for the separate existence of a fetus. Neither historian, nor [[Laity|layman]], nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."<ref>Cox, Archibald. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZrYdAAAAMAAJ The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government]'', 113–14 (Oxford U. Press 1976), quoted in the [https://books.google.com/books?id=5TdOKCFEJ7UC&dq=%22failure+to+confront%22&pg=PA916 statement of Hon. Henry Hyde, A U.S. Representative from the State of Illinois], from the ''Hearings before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate'', Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982, page 916; [[Stuart Taylor Jr.|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." Stuart Taylor Jr, ''Online News Hour'', ''PBS'' July 13, 2000</ref>

In a highly cited ''[[Yale Law Journal]]'' article published in the months after the decision,{{sfnp|Greenhouse|2005|pp=135–136}} the American legal scholar [[John Hart Ely]] criticized ''Roe'' as a decision that was disconnected from American constitutional law.<ref>Ely, John Hart. "[https://walldorf.typepad.com/politics_economics_and_ot/files/wages_wolf.pdf The Wages of Crying Wolf] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070625170521/http://www.timothypcarney.com/wages-wolf.htm |date=2007-06-25 }}", 82 ''Yale Law Journal'' 920 (1973). Retrieved January 23, 2007. Professor Ely "supported the availability of abortion as a matter of policy." See Liptak, Adam. [https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E2DF1131F934A15753C1A9659C8B63 "John Hart Ely, a Constitutional Scholar, Is Dead at 64"], ''The New York Times'' (October 27, 2003). Ely is generally regarded as having been a "liberal constitutional scholar." Perry, Michael (1999). {{Google books|ka8ajkxQWxkC|We the People: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court}}</ref> 
{{Blockquote
|text=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.{{nbsp}}... The problem with ''Roe'' is not so much that it bungles the question it sets itself, but rather that it sets itself a question the Constitution has not made the Court's business.{{nbsp}}... [''Roe''] is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is ''not'' constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.<ref>{{harvp|Ely|1973|pp=935–36, 943, 947}}, quoted in part in {{harvp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§ 10.3.3.1, p. 856}}.</ref>
}}

American constitutional law scholar [[Laurence Tribe]] said: "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."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Tribe |first=Laurence |year=1973|title=The Supreme Court, 1972 Term – Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law |journal=[[Harvard Law Review]] |volume=87|issue=1 |pages=1–314 |doi=10.2307/1339866|jstor=1339866 |pmid=11663596 }} Quoted in {{cite journal |last=Morgan |first=Richard Gregory|year=1979 |title=''Roe v. Wade'' and the Lesson of the Pre-''Roe'' Case Law |journal=[[Michigan Law Review]] |volume=77 |issue=7 |pages=1724–48|doi=10.2307/1288040 |jstor=1288040|pmid=10245969|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol77/iss7/4}}</ref> Centrist-liberal law professors [[Alan Dershowitz]],<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=-nCKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA433 Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law] by Alan Dershowitz, New York: Broadway Books, 2013, page 433, "Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)...{{nbsp}}."</ref> [[Cass Sunstein]],<ref>Sunstein, Cass, quoted in [http://www.nysun.com/article/23046 Roe v. Wade an Issue Ahead of Alito Hearing] by Brian McGuire, ''New York Sun'' (November 15, 2005): "What I think is that it just doesn't have the stable status of ''[[Brown v. Board of Education|Brown]]'' or ''[[Miranda v. Arizona|Miranda]]'' because it's been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning{{nbsp}}... As a constitutional matter, I think ''Roe'' was way overreached." Retrieved January 23, 2007. Sunstein is a "liberal constitutional scholar". See  [https://web.archive.org/web/20071223044406/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050711/ai_n14852520 "Former U of C law prof on everyone's short court list"] by Eric Herman, ''Chicago Sun-Times'' (Archived December 23, 2007)</ref> and [[Kermit Roosevelt III]] have also expressed disappointment with ''Roe v. Wade''.<ref name="Roosevelt 2003">Roosevelt, Kermit. "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/01/22/shaky-basis-for-a-constitutional-right/dd30d42e-188d-42f6-8fb2-b935394e63aa/ Shaky Basis for a Constitutional 'Right']", ''Washington Post'', (January 22, 2003): "[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.{{nbsp}}... 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 [[Aether (classical element)|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.{{nbsp}}... 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 January 23, 2007.</ref>

[[Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)|Jeffrey Rosen]],<ref>{{cite news|last= Rosen|first=Jeffrey|author-link=Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)|title=Why We'd Be Better off Without ''Roe'': Worst Choice|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030309173117/http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=rosen022403 |archive-date=March 9, 2003|url=http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=rosen022403|magazine=The New Republic|quote=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.|date=February 24, 2003 |access-date=January 23, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last= Rosen|first=Jeffrey|author-link=Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)|url= https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-day-after-roe/304882/|title=The Day After Roe|work=[[The Atlantic]]|access-date=May 20, 2019|date=June 1, 2006}}</ref> as well as [[Michael Kinsley]],<ref>Kinsley, Michael. "Bad choice", ''The New Republic'' (June 13, 2004): "Against all odds (and, I'm afraid, against all logic), the basic holding of ''Roe v. Wade'' is secure in the Supreme Court.{{nbsp}}... [A] freedom of choice law would guarantee abortion rights the correct way, democratically, rather than by constitutional origami." Quoted in [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/honest-pro-choicers-admit-roe-v-wade-was-a-horrible-decision Honest pro-choicers admit Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision] by Timothy P. Carney, ''Washington Examiner'', January 22, 2011</ref> echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. [[William Saletan]] wrote, "Blackmun's papers vindicate every indictment of ''Roe'': invention, overreach, [[Standard of review#Arbitrary and capricious|arbitrariness]], [[Textualism|textual]] indifference."<ref>Saletan, William. [http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_saleton_mayjun05.msp "Unbecoming Justice Blackmun"] {{Webarchive|url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091015062126/http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_saleton_mayjun05.msp |date=October 15, 2009 }}, ''Legal Affairs'', May/June 2005. Retrieved January 23, 2007. Saletan is a self-described liberal. See Saletan, William. [http://www.slate.com/id/2170311/ "Rights and Wrongs: Liberals, progressives, and biotechnology"], ''Slate'' (July 13, 2007).</ref> [[Benjamin Wittes]] argued that ''Roe'' "[[disenfranchised]] millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply."<ref>Wittes, Benjamin. "[https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/wittes Letting Go of ''Roe'']", ''The Atlantic Monthly'', Jan/Feb 2005. Retrieved January 23, 2007. Wittes also said, "I generally favor permissive abortion laws." He has elsewhere noted, "In their quieter moments, many liberal scholars recognize that the decision is a mess." See Wittes, Benjamin. [http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=30f9cb45-53e4-4e16-b447-968c6ea52e2a "A Little Less Conversation"], ''The New Republic'' November 29, 2007</ref> 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.{{nbsp}}... 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."<ref>Lazarus, Edward. "[https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-lingering-problems-with-roe-v-wade-and-why-the-recent-senate-hearings-on-michael-mcconnells-nomination-only-underlined-them.html The Lingering Problems with ''Roe v. Wade'', and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell's Nomination Only Underlined Them]", ''Findlaw's Writ'' (October 3, 2002). Retrieved January 23, 2007.</ref>

[[Richard Epstein]] thought that the majority opinion relied on a book written by [[William Lloyd Prosser]] about [[tort]] law when it stated that it "is said" recovery of [[damages]] was allowed "only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained".<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/#tab-opinion-1950137 ''Roe'', 410 U.S.] at 161</ref> He compared this to what was in fact written in the book,<ref>''The Law of Torts'' by William Lloyd Prosser, 4th edition, St Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing, 1971, page 337</ref> which was that "when actually faced with the issue for decision, almost all of the jurisdictions have allowed recovery even though the injury occurred during the early weeks of pregnancy, when the child was neither viable nor quick."<ref>[https://archive.org/details/supremecourtrevi0000unse_z3m8/page/174/mode/1up?view=theater Substantive Due Process by any other name: The Abortion Cases] by Richard A. Epstein, ''The Supreme Court Review 1973'', University of Chicago Press, 1974, page 174</ref>

[[Matt Bruenig]], lawyer and founder of the [[People's Policy Project]], criticized ''Roe'' as being "weaker than normal" and observed that similarly broad interpretations of the Constitution could be used to argue the opposite outcome, saying "right now we have a constitutional right to an abortion—you could also constitutionally ban abortion. If you wanted to, someone could bring a case, file it in a district court, hit the appeal button twice, and then if you get five judges together, the opinion would be the easiest thing in the world to write. You would say, 'the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to life, liberty, and property without due process and all that shit. So we're looking at that, and we think that abortion takes a life and so we think that in fact states may not permit abortion'. So you could constitutionally ban it and say that no state or federal government is allowed to legalize abortion".<ref>{{cite podcast |host=[[Matt Bruenig]] |title=The Bruenigs |website=Apple Podcasts |date=25 June 2022 |url=https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/audio-grab-bag-alitos-draft-opinion-on-roe-casey/id1393726435?i=1000567653331 |access-date=26 June 2022}}</ref>

The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the ruling.<ref>{{harvnb|Forsythe|2013|p=496}}</ref> The "viability" criterion was still in effect, although the point of viability changed as medical science found ways to help [[premature babies]] survive.<ref>Stith, Irene. ''[https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19971117_95-1101SPR_4cea14f2084054f44aafea51ee41bd0a949ba4d1.pdf Abortion Procedures, CRS Report for Congress (PDF)]'' (November 17, 1997). Retrieved December 21, 2021.</ref>

=== Later responses by those involved ===

==== Harry Blackmun ====
Justice Blackmun, who authored the ''Roe'' decision, subsequently had mixed feelings about his role in the case. During a 1974 television interview, he stated that ''Roe'' "will be regarded as one of the worst mistakes in the court's history or one of its great decisions, a turning point."<ref name=scsentinel>[https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19830116.1.65&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1 Legalized abortion a decade later], ''Santa Cruz Sentinel'', Volume 127, Number 13, January 16, 1983
</ref>

In a 1983 interview for a newspaper journalist, he responded that he was "mildly annoyed at those, law professors included, who personalize it" because "it was a decision of the court, not my decision. There were seven votes." As a Methodist, he felt hurt that Methodist pastors wrote condemning letters to him, but as time passed, the letters did not hurt "as much anymore". In defense he responded, "People misunderstand. I am not for abortion. I hope my family never has to face such a decision", noting that "I still think it was a correct decision" because "we were deciding a constitutional issue, not a moral one."<ref name=nytimes1983>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/18/us/blackmun-accepts-aftermath-of-writing-abortion-opinion.html|title=Blackmun Accepts Aftermath of Writing Abortion Opinion|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 18, 1983|page=A20}}</ref> He described ''Roe'' as "a no-win case" and predicted that, "fifty years from now, depending on the fate of the proposed constitutional amendment, abortion probably will not be as great a legal issue. I think it will continue to be a moral issue, however."<ref name=scsentinel/>
He reflected that his role in the decision meant he was most known as the "author of the abortion decision". His response was that "we all pick up tags. I'll carry this one to my grave" and "so be it".<ref name=nytimes1983/>

In 1987, Justice Blackmun explained in a letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist:<ref name=forsythe18>{{harvnb|Forsythe|2013|p=18}}</ref>
<blockquote>I remember that the old Chief appointed a screening committee, chaired by Potter, to select those cases that could (it was assumed) be adequately heard by a Court of seven. I was on that little committee. We did not do a good job. Potter pressed for ''Roe v. Wade'' and ''Doe v. Bolton'' to be heard and did so in the misapprehension that they involved nothing more than an application of ''Younger v. Harris''. How wrong we were.</blockquote>

In 1991, he regretted how the Court decided to hear ''Roe'' and ''Doe'' in a televised interview: "It was a serious mistake{{nbsp}}... We did a poor job. I think the committee should have deferred them until we had a full Court."<ref name=forsythe19>{{harvnb|Forsythe|2013|p=19}}</ref>

In 1992, he stood by the analytical framework he established in ''Roe'' during the subsequent ''Casey'' case.<ref name=Blackmun>''Casey'', 505 U.S. at 930–34 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("In sum, ''Roe''<nowiki/>'s requirement of strict scrutiny as implemented through a trimester framework should not be disturbed.").</ref> He often gave speeches and lectures promoting ''Roe v. Wade'' and criticizing ''Roe''{{'}}s critics.{{sfnp|Greenhouse|2005|pp=183–206, 250}}

==== Norma McCorvey ====
A few years after the Supreme Court decided ''Roe'', [[Norma McCorvey]] made a claim—which she recanted many years later—that she had a nightmare about "little babies lying around with daggers in their hearts". She said this was the first of recurring [[nightmare]]s that kept her awake at night.<ref name="autogenerated1">[https://books.google.com/books?id=Dj2CAlbeX8UC&pg=PT38 Won by Love: Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, Speaks Out for the Unborn as She Shares Her New Conviction For Life] by Norma McCorvey and Gary Thomas, Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1997, Chapter 5, The Shadow Plaintiff pages 38–39</ref> She became worried and wondered, "What really, had I done?"<ref name="autogenerated2">[https://books.google.com/books?id=Dj2CAlbeX8UC&pg=PT38 Won by Love: Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, Speaks Out for the Unborn as She Shares Her New Conviction For Life] by Norma McCorvey and Gary Thomas, Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1997, Chapter 5, The Shadow Plaintiff pages 38</ref> and "Well, how do they kill a baby inside a mother's stomach anyway?" McCorvey later claimed:

<blockquote>I couldn't get the thought out of my mind. I realize it sounds very naïve, especially for a woman who had already conceived and delivered three children. Though I had seen and experienced more than my share of the world, there were some things about which I still didn't have a clue—and this was one of them. Ironically enough, Jane Roe may have known less about abortion than anyone else.<ref name="autogenerated3">[https://books.google.com/books?id=Dj2CAlbeX8UC&pg=PT39 Won by Love: Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, Speaks Out for the Unborn as She Shares Her New Conviction For Life] by Norma McCorvey and Gary Thomas, Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1997, Chapter 5, The Shadow Plaintiff pages 39</ref></blockquote>

McCorvey joined with and accompanied others in the anti-abortion movement. During this time, McCorvey said that she had publicly lied about being raped and apologized for making the false claim.<ref>[https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/153030575/ This Woman and This Man Made History] by Lloyd Shearer, Parade magazine, May 8, 1983; for a book which relied on Shearer, see [https://archive.org/details/stormcentersupre00davi/page/22/mode/2up Storm center: the Supreme Court in American politics] by David M. O'Brien, New York City: W. W. Norton, 1986, pages 22–24</ref><ref>[https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/09/08/The-woman-whose-famous-abortion-case-led-to-the/9459558072000/ The woman whose famous abortion case led to the...], UPI archives, September 8, 1987</ref> Norma McCorvey became part of the movement against abortion from 1995 until shortly before her death in 2017.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39016181 |title=Roe v Wade: Woman in US abortion legal test case dies |website=bbc.co.uk |date=February 18, 2017}}</ref> In 1998, she testified to Congress:
{{blockquote|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 clothing|maternity clothes]].<ref>McCorvey, Norma. [https://books.google.com/books?id=4b0TAAAAIAAJ Testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights] (January 21, 1998), [http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hans35.nsf/(ATT)/A4C48AF367A417A84825661A007776E1/$file/C0520006.PDF also quoted in the parliament of Western Australia (PDF)] (May 20, 1998); for a description of an incident which brought McCorvey to reflect about "women already wearing maternity clothes", see ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=Dj2CAlbeX8UC&pg=PT60 Won by Love: Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, Speaks Out for the Unborn as She Shares Her New Conviction For Life]'', Norma McCorvey and Gary Thomas, Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1997, page 60.</ref>}}

[[File:Edith Jones in Iraq (cropped).jpg|thumb|Judge Edith Jones]]
In 2002, along with [[Sandra Cano (Mary Doe)]] from ''Doe v. Bolton'' and [[Bernard Nathanson]], a co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America, McCorvey appeared in a television advertisement intended to persuade the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] to nominate Supreme Court Justices who would oppose abortion.<ref>{{cite news |title=Pro-life ad campaign features former abortion-rights figures |url=https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/pro-life-ad-campaign-features-former-abortion-rights-figures/ |date=January 15, 2002 |work=Baptist Press |access-date=December 22, 2021 }}</ref>

As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in [[United States district court|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]]''.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=McCorvey v. Hill |vol=385 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=846 |court=5th Cir. |date=2004 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/385/846/582508/ |access-date=May 17, 2018 }}</ref> 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. However, Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot.<ref>{{Cite web|title=FindLaw's United States Fifth Circuit case and opinions.|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1344628.html|access-date=2021-11-29|website=Findlaw|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Adams|first=Andrew|date=2004|title=Aborting Roe: Jane Roe Questions the Viability of Roe v. Wade|journal=Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.}}</ref> On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a [[writ of certiorari]], and McCorvey's appeal ended.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Supreme Court declines to revisist abortion case McCorvey v. Hill|website=Westlaw|url=https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ibdeb312153f211dbbd2dfa5ce1d08a25/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)|access-date=2021-11-29}}</ref>

In an interview shortly before her death, McCorvey stated that she had taken an anti-abortion position because she had been paid to do so and that her campaign against abortion had been an act. She also stated that it did not matter to her if women wanted to have an abortion and they should be free to choose.<ref name="FRBS-20200519">{{cite news |last1=Porterfield |first1=Carlie |title='Roe Vs. Wade' Plaintiff Was Paid To Switch Sides In Abortion Fight, Documentary Reveals |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/05/19/roe-vs-wade-plaintiff-was-paid-to-switch-sides-in-abortion-fight-documentary-reveals/#5a50f4d37c08 |access-date=20 May 2020 |work=[[Forbes]] |date=19 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200520061338/https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/05/19/roe-vs-wade-plaintiff-was-paid-to-switch-sides-in-abortion-fight-documentary-reveals/ |archive-date=20 May 2020}}</ref><ref name="Reuters">{{cite news |last1=Serjeant |first1=Jill |title=Plaintiff in Roe v. Wade U.S. abortion case says she was paid to switch sides |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-jane-roe-idUSKBN22V33D |access-date=20 May 2020 |work=www.reuters.com |publisher=Reuters |date=20 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200520061612/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-jane-roe-idUSKBN22V33D?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook |archive-date=20 May 2020}}</ref> [[Rob Schenck]], a [[Evangelical Methodist Church|Methodist]] pastor and activist who once had anti-abortion views stated that he and others helped entice McCorvey to claim she changed sides and also stated that what they had done with her was "highly unethical" and he had "profound regret" over the matter.<ref>Lozano, Alicia Victoria. [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/anti-abortion-movement-paid-jane-roe-thousands-switch-sides-documentary-n1210826 "Anti-abortion rights movement paid 'Jane Roe' thousands to switch sides, documentary reveals"] ''[[NBC News]]'' (May 19, 2020).</ref>

[[Frank Pavone]], a priest with whom McCorvey talked after the interview, reflected after her death that "There was no indication whatsoever, at the end of her life," that she had given up her pro-life positions. Pavone stated that following the interview, McCorvey talked positively with him about a message she wanted him to convey at the next March for Life. The message concerned encouraging young people to oppose abortion.<ref>[https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/44580/the-painful-journey-of-jane-roe-and-the-pro-life-movement The 'painful journey' of Jane Roe and the pro-life movement] by J.D.Flynn, ''Catholic News Agency'', May 19, 2020 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20211206230433/https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/44580/the-painful-journey-of-jane-roe-and-the-pro-life-movement Archived] December 6, 2021)</ref>

==== Sarah Weddington ====
After arguing in ''Roe v. Wade'' at the age of 26, [[Sarah Weddington]] was elected to the [[Texas House of Representatives]] for three terms. Weddington also was [[general counsel]] for the [[United States Department of Agriculture|U.S. Department of Agriculture]], an assistant to President [[Jimmy Carter]],<ref>[https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/assets/documents/oral_histories/exit_interviews/Weddington.pdf Sarah Weddington Exit Interview] by Emily Soapes, ''Carter Presidential Library'', January 2, 1981</ref> lecturer at the [[Texas A&M University School of Law#History|Texas Wesleyan University School of Law]], and speaker and [[Professors in the United States#Adjunct professor|adjunct professor]] at the [[University of Texas at Austin]].<ref name=Lapinski>[https://nation.time.com/2013/01/22/winning-roe-v-wade-qa-with-sarah-weddington/ Winning Roe v. Wade: Q&A with Sarah Weddington] by Valerie Lapinski, ''Time''  (January 22, 2013)</ref>

In a 1993 speech for the Institute for Educational Ethics in Oklahoma, Weddington discussed her conduct during ''Roe'' and stated, "My conduct may not have been totally [[Ethics|ethical]]. But I did it for what I thought were good reasons."<ref>''Tulsa World'', May 24, 1993, selection reprinted in [https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=coyote-chronicle The Coyote Chronicle], California State University, San Bernardino, Volume 30, Issue 14, May 29, 1996, page four of the Human Life Alliance Advertising Supplement, (page 21 of the pdf)</ref>

In 1998, she said that the lack of doctors to abort fetuses could undermine ''Roe'': "When I look back on the decision, I thought these words had been written in granite. But I've learned it was not granite. It was more like sandstone. The immediate problem is, where will the doctors come from?"<ref>[https://archive.org/details/consistentlyoppo0000unse/page/4/mode/1up Consistently Opposing Killing: From Abortion to Assisted Suicide, the Death Penalty, and War] by Rachel MacNair and Stephen Zunes, April 2008, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, page 4, quoted from the February 15, 1998 ''Milwaukee Journal Sentinel''</ref> Weddington died on December 26, 2021.<ref>[https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/26/sarah-weddington-texas-roe-v-wade/ Sarah Weddington, lawyer in Roe v. Wade case, dies at 76] by Kate McGee, ''Texas Tribune'', December 26, 2021 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20211226233510/https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/26/sarah-weddington-texas-roe-v-wade/ Archived] December 26, 2021)</ref>