CHAPTER SIX

1. Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas; Lucas to Clement E. Vose, 2 July 1969, Lucas Box 25; Linda Greenhouse, “Constitutional Question: Is There a Right to Abortion?” New York Times Magazine, 25 January 1970, pp. 30–31, 88–91; The Commentator [NYU Law School], 25 February 1970, p. 9; Lucas Interview with Vose; [Lucas], “Preludes to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton,” n.d., 5pp., Whitehall Papers; Lucas, “Notes on the Efforts in 1965–1973”; Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), both argued 5 October 1964; Garrow conversations with Norman Dorsen; McKay, “The Right of Privacy: Emanations and Intimations,” Michigan Law Review 64 (December 1965): 259–282; Emerson, “Nine Justices in Search of a Doctrine,” Michigan Law Review 64 (December 1965): 219–234, at 232; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (12 June 1967). See as well [Lucas], “Crowded-Art Doctrine Rejected by District Court,” New York University Law Review 39 (November 1964): 895–899. Lucas also recalls being influenced by his reading of the abortion section of Edwin M. Schur’s Crimes Without Victims (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 11–66, and by a movie, The Cardinal.

Argued on April 10, the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving reversed a 1966 ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court (206 Va. 924) and declared, in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Warren, that “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” 388 U.S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Originally married in June of 1958 in Washington, D.C., Richard P. Loving and Mildred D. Jeter Loving had been arrested six weeks later after returning to their hometown of Central Point in Caroline County, Virginia. After standing trial and then being induced to plead guilty, in January 1959 they were given suspended sentences on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return. Four years later, unhappy with that ongoing state of affairs, they had contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and had been referred to the ACLU, which put them in touch with two Alexandria attorneys, Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkopf. Those lawyers in November 1963 filed a motion in state court to vacate the 1959 sentence, and only in January 1965, under pressure from a newly instituted federal court case, did the state court judge finally deny the motion and allow them to appeal that action to the Virginia Supreme Court, whose 1966 affirmance was then challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. Also see Walter Wadlington, “The Loving Case: Virginia’s Anti-Miscegenation Statute in Historical Perspective,” Virginia Law Review 52 (October 1966): 1189–1223; Simeon Booker, “The Couple That Rocked the Courts,” Ebony, September 1967, pp. 78–80; Robert F. Drinan, “The Loving Decision and the Freedom to Marry,” Ohio State Law Journal 29 (1968): 358–398; Henry H. Foster, Jr., “Marriage: A ‘Basic Civil Right of Man,’” Fordham Law Review 37 (October 1968): 51–80; and Robert J. Sickles, Race, Marriage, and the Law (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1972), pp. 76–91.

2. Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas and Uta Landy; Pilpel to Means, 18 April 1967, Lader Box 7; Lucas, “Preludes to Roe v. Wade,” and “Notes on the Efforts in 1965–73.” Unfortunately, no copy of the initial 1967 version of Lucas’s paper appears to have survived in either Lucas’s, Lader’s, or Pilpel’s files.

3. Birmingham Post-Herald, 29 June 1967, p. 5, 25 August 1967, p. 2; Birmingham News, 24 July 1967, p. 17; Lucas to Lader, 10 and 28 August 1967, Lader Box 4; [Lucas], “The Relationship of the Alabama State Abortion Law to Requirements of the United States Constitution,” 2pp., n.d., Lader Box 5; Lucas, “Federal Constitutional Limitations on the Enforcement and Administration of State Abortion Statutes,” North Carolina Law Review 46 (June 1968): 730–778, at 755–756, 761, 777–778; Lader to Alvin J. Conway, 15 August 1967, Lader Box 7; Dorsen to Lucas, 1 September 1967, Lucas Box 28. Again, no typescript, prepublication copy of the revised paper appears to have survived either in Lader’s files or elsewhere. An influential stimulus for his analysis, Lucas emphasizes, was a Note on “Declaratory Relief in the Criminal Law,” Harvard Law Review 80 (May 1967): 1490–1513, esp. at 1507 (“it is likely that the germinative right to privacy announced in Griswold … may present situations apt for declaratory resolution”).

4. Lader to Alvin J. Conway, 15 August 1967, Lader to John Lassoe, Jr., 28 September 1967, Lader Boxes 7 and 4; Hall in Medical Economics 44 (21 August 1967): 21–35; Hardin, “Semantic Aspects of Abortion,” ETC 24 (September 1967): 263–281, at 270. Also see Hardin, “Abortion—Or Compulsory Pregnancy?, “Journal of Marriage and the Family 30 (May 1968): 246–251. ICMCA’s Don Shaw made the same point as Hardin in a 4 August 1967 letter to Howard Moody: “We feel that the states following the [ALI] model penal code will appear to move forward [but] are actually making future much needed changes more difficult for themselves.… Surely the trend is toward a much more enlightened policy than represented in” the ALI provisions. ARAI 1–15.

5. Washington Post, 7 September 1967, pp. G1, G2, 9 September 1967, p. E1; New York Times, 9 September 1967, p. 30, 10 September 1967, p. E11; Time, 15 September 1967, p. 84; Walter W. Sackett, Jr., to Jimmye Kimmey, 1 May 1968, Guttmacher Papers; Newsweek, 18 September 1967, pp. 60–61. Subsequently published papers from the conference include Natalie Shainess, “Abortion: Social, Psychiatric, and Psychoanalytic Perspectives,” New York State Journal of Medicine 63 (1 December 1968): 3070–3073 (proliberalization), and David W. Louisell’s tractlike “Abortion, the Practice of Medicine and the Due Process of Law,” UCLA Law Review 16 (February 1969): 233–254. Selected proceedings of the conference appear in Robert E. Cooke et al, eds., The Terrible Choice (New York: Bantam, 1968), which in one chart (p. 57) asserted that the total number of deaths from abortion in the U.S. in 1965 was 235, with 49 of those occurring in New York and 39 in California. Statistician Tietze in his remarks had estimated an annual nationwide total of between five hundred and one thousand. Also see Tietze and Sarah Lewit, “Abortion,” Scientific American 220 (January 1969): 21–27.

6. ASA Newsletter Vol. 2, #3 (Fall 1967): 3. On the initially titled Michigan Abortion Review Council, which by early 1968 had changed its name to the Michigan Council for the Study of Abortion, see the 13 November and 20 December 1967 minutes in the Jack Stack Papers, Box 1. On Lonny Myers’s ongoing efforts to build ICMCA, see Myers to Robert E. Hall, 14 September 1967, Ruth Smith Papers, Box 1, Barbara Siegel to Nat Lehrman, 19 September 1967, ARAI 1–7, Jimmye Kimmey to Myers, 28 September 1967, ARAI 10–15, Myers to Lader, 2 October 1967, Smith Box 1, Ruth Smith to Lehrman, 5 October 1967, ARAI 1–7, Lader to Myers, 9 October 1967, and Myers to Hall, 23 October 1967, ARAI 10–15. On Edie Rein’s attempts to expand the Wisconsin Committee to Legalize Abortion, see Rein to Lader, 11 August 1967, Lader Box 4; and Anne Nicol Gaylor, Abortion Is A Blessing (New York: Psychological Dimensions, 1975), pp. 1–4.

7. Sagar C. Jain and Laurel F. Gooch, Georgia Abortion Act, 1968: A Study in Legislative Process (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina School of Public Health, 1972), pp. 33–34; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 27 August 1967; John L. Moore, Jr., “Abortion Laws,” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 56 (October 1967): 439; Atlanta Journal, 6 December 1967; Atlanta Constitution, 22 December 1967.

8. Bowers to Estelle Griswold, 24 September 1966, PPLC 38-R; Bowers, “Favoring Reform of Connecticut’s Criminal Law on Abortion,” 29 May 1967, 2pp., Schlesinger 289–1–13; New Haven Register, 21 July 1967; Bowers to Harriet Pilpel, 2 October 1967, PPLC 38-R; Bowers to Cantor, 10 October 1967, and Bowers to Lowell Levin, 30 October 1967, Cantor Papers; Bowers to Lincoln Day, 30 October 1967, PPLC 38-R; Evelyn Warren to ICMCA, 14 November 1967, Warren to Lonny Myers, 18 November 1967, and Bowers to ICMCA, 12 December 1967, ARAI 3–24; Carol Fessenden to Richard D. Lamm, 4 December 1967, Lamm Papers; Bowers to “Dear Director,” 21 December 1967, PPLC 38-R; Warren to Lonny Myers, 3 January 1968, ARAI 3–24; Griswold Interview with Cheek, pp. 47–48; Garrow conversations with Donald J. Cantor and Richard M. Bowers. Also see Buxton, “One Doctor’s Opinion of Abortion Laws,” American Journal of Nursing 68 (May 1968): 1026–1028.

9. Time, 13 October 1967, pp. 32–33. Also see “Should Abortion Laws Be Eased?” Good Housekeeping, October 1967, pp. 14–22, and “Coping With Abortion,” Mademoiselle, October 1967, pp. 172–173, 211–216.

10. Abraham Heller and H. G. Whittington, “The Colorado Story: Denver General Hospital Experience with the Change in the Law on Therapeutic Abortion,” American Journal of Psychiatry 125 (December 1968): 809–816; John T. Foster, “Abortion,” Modern Hospital 109 (August 1967): 90–94; Wall Street Journal, 18 August 1967, p. 1; Medical World News, 29 September 1967, pp. 46–52; Lamm to Lader, 18 September 1967, Lader Box 6; New York Times, 26 October 1967, p. 1, 20 January 1968, p. 16; Z. Alexander Aarons, “Therapeutic Abortion and the Psychiatrist,” American Journal of Psychiatry 124 (December 1967): 745–754, at 753. Also see Sam W. Downing, Richard Lamm, and Abraham Heller, “Abortion Under the New Colorado Law,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2 (May 1969): 256–264, at 262, and Arthur Peck, “Therapeutic Abortion: Patients, Doctors, and Society,” American Journal of Psychiatry 125 (December 1968): 797–804, at 802–803. On North Carolina, see W. Joseph May, “Therapeutic Abortion Experience in North Carolina Under the Liberalized 1967 Law,” North Carolina Medical Journal 32 (May 1971): 186–187; on the California statute taking effect, see New York Times, 17 December 1967, p. 47, SHA Newsletter Vol. 3, #2 (December 1967-January 1968), and Hamlet C. Pulley, “Abortions—First Annual Report,” California Medicine 108 (May 1968): 403. A total of 479 abortions—out of 549 that were applied for—took place in California between November 8 and the end of 1967.

11. “The Abortion Question,” America, 9 December 1967, p. 706, Drinan, “Abortion,” pp. 713–715, Byrn, “Abortion,” pp. 710–713; Donald A. Giannella, “The Difficult Quest for a Truly Humane Abortion Law,” Villanova Law Review 13 (Winter 1968): 257–302, at 302; Drinan, “The Right of the Foetus to be Born,” Dublin Review 241 (Winter 1967–1968): 365–381, at 374, 381. Also see New York Times, 27 March 1968, p. 26, 17 February 1969, p. 32, Drinan, “Catholic Moral Teaching and Abortion Laws in America,” Catholic Theological Society of America Proceedings 23 (June 1968): 118–130, Drinan, “The Morality of Abortion Laws,” Catholic Lawyer 14 (Summer 1968): 190–198, 264; Thomas A. Wassmer, “Contemporary Attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church Toward Abortion,” Journal of Religion and Health 7 (October 1968): 311–323; and Daniel Callahan, Abortion (New York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 436. See as well James Voyles, “Changing Abortion Laws in the United States,” Journal of Family Law 7 (Fall 1967): 496–511; “Abortion Legislation: The Need for Reform,” Vanderbilt Law Review 20 (November 1967): 1313–1328; Nathan Hershey, American Journal of Nursing 67 (November 1967): 2310–2312; [Editorial], Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association 8 (November 1967): 661–665; Paul G. Reiter, “Trends in Abortion Legislation,” St. Louis University Law Journal 12 (Winter 1967–68): 260–276; Dennis M. Mahoney, “Therapeutic Abortion,” Dickinson Law Review 72 (Winter 1968): 270–295; Paul Ramsey, “The Morality of Abortion,” in Daniel H. Labby, ed., Life or Death (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968), pp. 60–93; Ralph B. Potter, Jr., “The Abortion Debate,” in Donald R. Cutler, ed., The Religious Situation: 1968 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pp. 112–161; Loren G. Stern, “Abortion: Reform and the Law,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 59 (March 1968): 84–95; Edwin M. Schur, “Abortion,” The Annals 376 (March 1968): 136–147; “Survey of Abortion Reform Legislation,” Washington Law Review 43 (March 1968): 644–654; and William Diller, “The Unborn Child,” Suffolk University Law Review 2 (Spring 1968): 228–243.

12. Boston Globe, 13 September 1967, 9 October 1967, p. 13, 18 October 1967; Boston Record American, 12 September 1967; B.U. News, 13 September 1967, 18 October 1967, p. 3; New York Times, 18 October 1967; Long Island Press, 18 October 1967; Macaulay, “Report to the Supreme Judicial Court,” Commonwealth v. Baird, #29688 and 29689, 3 November 1967, Baird Case File, National Archives; National Guardian, 25 November 1967, p. 10, and 2 December 1967, p. 10; Harvard Graduate Bulletin, 6 December 1967, pp. 3–4. Also see Long Island Star-Journal, 11 September 1967, p. 4; Hartford Courant, 26 October 1967, p. 48.

13. On NOW, see New York Times, 22 November 1966, pp. 1, 44; Maren L. Carden, The New Feminist Movement (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1974), pp. 104–135; Jo Freeman, The Politics of Women’s Liberation (New York: David McKay, 1975), pp. 71–102; Sheila M. Rothman, Woman’s Proper Place (New York: Basic Books, 1978), pp. 244–246; Barbara S. Deckard, The Women’s Movement, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), pp. 324–326; Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor, Survival in the Doldrums (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 179–186; Winifred S. Wandersee, On the Move (Boston: Twayne, 1988), pp. 36–54; Marcia Cohen, The Sisterhood (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), p. 141; and especially Flora Davis, Moving the Mountain (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991), pp. 52–59, 66–68.

14. Cusack Interview with Garrow; Cusack to John T. Knox, 16 May 1965, Cusack to Blumenthal, 13 November 1967, Cusack to Duryea, 21 November 1967, Cusack to Gloria [Nelson], 22 November 1967, Duryea to Cusack, 28 November 1967, Cusack et al. to “Fellow Unitarians,” December 1967, Cusack to Pat [Maginnis], Rowena [Gurner], and Bob [Bick], 29 December 1967, Cusack, “A Proposal for Elective Abortion,” 18 January 1968, Cusack to Anthony J. Travia, and Gloria [Nelson] to Cusack, 22 January 1968, Cusack to New York State legislators, 25 January 1968, Cusack to Blumenthal, and to Duryea, 26 January 1968, Blumenthal to Cusack, 30 January 1968, Duryea to Cusack, 31 January 1968, Maginnis to Cusack, 6 February 1968, Cusack to Duryea, 11 February 1968, Duryea to Cusack, 15 February 1968, Cusack Papers; Newsday, 16 January 1970, p. A3 (on Cusack); and Oliver Quayle & Co., “A Survey of Public Opinion on Abortion in New York,” January 1968, 33pp., Guttmacher Papers.

15. New York Times, 3 January 1968, p. 46, 4 January 1968, pp. 26, 36, 8 January 1968, p. 28, 10 January 1968, pp. 1, 23, 11 January 1968, p. 36, 14 January 1968, p. IV-8, 19 January 1968; McManus, WCBS-TV Editorial Reply, 18 January 1968, Guttmacher Papers. On the ongoing referral work, also see Lader, “The Mother Who Chose Abortion,” Redbook, February 1968, pp. 76–77, 147–151.

16. New York Times, 21 January 1968, pp. 1, 79, 23 January 1968, p. 23, 24 January 1968, p. 26; Myers to Guttmacher, and to Lader, 17 January 1968, Guttmacher Papers and Lader Box 4; Hall to Myers, 22 January 1968, Lader to Myers, 11 February 1968, Fletcher to Myers, 23 January 1968, Ober to Myers, 28 January 1968, ARAI 10–16; Lader, Abortion II, p. 62; Guttmacher to Myers, 22 January 1968, and Guttmacher, “Abortion,” 2pp., 2 February 1968, Guttmacher Papers.

17. New York Times, 7 February 1968, pp. 1, 66, 10 February 1968, p. 32, 25 February 1968, p. 56, 1 March 1968, p. 26, 9 March 1968, p. 1, 17 March 1968, p. 25, 20 March 1968, p. 1, 24 March 1968, p. IV-11; Cusack to Blumenthal, 10 February 1968, Blumenthal to Cusack, 19 February 1968, Cusack to Maginnis, n.d. [c.4 March 1968] and 7 March 1968, Cusack Papers; OALR Press Release, 28 February 1968, ARAI 4–28; Transcript of Hearing, Governor’s Select Committee to Review the State’s Abortion Law, 29 February 1968, 326pp., Guttmacher Papers; Guttmacher, “The Genesis of Liberalized Abortion in New York,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 23 (Summer 1972): 756–778; Garrow conversations with Ruth Cusack, John Lassoe, Jimmye Kimmey, and Robert E. Hall. Also see Guttmacher, “When Pregnancy Means Heartbreak,” McCalls, April 1968, pp. 61, 130–134; Guttmacher’s comments in “Law, Morality, and Abortion,” Rutgers Law Review 22 (Spring 1968): 415–445; and Lader, “The New Abortion Laws,” Parents Magazine, April 1968.

18. New York Times, 31 March 1968, pp. 1, 75, 2 April 1968, p. 10, 4 April 1968, pp. 1, 31, 6 April 1948, p. 38; John V. P. Lassoe, Jr., “This Week’s Action on Abortion Law Reform,” 10 April 1968, Lader Box 6. Also see Robert M. Byrn, “Demythologizing Abortion Reform,” and Wilfred R. Caron, “New York Abortion Reform: A Critique,” Catholic Lawyer 14 (Summer 1968): 180–189 and 199–213.

19. Jain and Gooch, Georgia Abortion Act, 1968, pp. 35–62; Atlanta Journal, 2, 16, 17, 19, and 31 January, 26 February and 2 March 1968; Atlanta Constitution, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 31 January and 28 February 1968; New York Times, 27 February 1968, p. 32. Also see John L. Moore and Trammell E. Vickery, “Therapeutic Abortion Law,” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 57 (June 1968): 323–328; Cyril Means to Jimmye Kimmey, 12 July 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; the comments by Smalley and Eugene Griffin in “Abortion and the Law,” Current Medical Digest, September 1969, pp. 751–775, at 772–775; and James M. Ingram, “Changing Aspects of Abortion Law,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 105 (1 September 1969): 35–45.

20. Jain and Gooch, Georgia Abortion Act, 1968, p. 62. On Maryland, where an initial repeal bill was backed by the Maryland Citizens Committee on Abortion Law, see the comments of legislative sponsor Allen B. Spector in “Abortion and the Law,” Current Medical Digest, September 1969, pp. 751–775, at 756–760; Newsweek, 17 March 1969, p. 104; John F. King, “Abortion and the New Maryland Law,” Journal of the American Medical Association 207 (24 March 1969): 2341–2342; Irvin M. Cushner to Lonny Myers, 6 January 1969, Cushner to Harold S. Goodman, 7 January 1969, ARAI 2–14, and Cushner, “The Aftermath of Abortion Legislation in Maryland,” Advances in Planned Parenthood 6 (1971): 158–163. Passage of the Maryland law was never noted in the New York Times. On Florida see Walter W. Sackett, Jr., to Jimmye Kimmey, 1 May 1968, Guttmacher Papers; on Hawaii see Steinhoff and Diamond, Abortion Politics, p. 11; on Connecticut, see New York Times, 4 June 1968, p. 22; on New Jersey, see New York Times, 2 April 1968, p. 41, 13 May 1968, p. 86, 29 October 1968, p. 40, 14 November 1968, p. 40, 18 March 1969, p. 33, 9 May 1969, p. 15, and a superb six-part series of early June articles by Naomi Rock in the Perth Amboy Evening News, reprinted in booklet form, in the Lucas Papers. On Texas see C. Lincoln Williston to Savage, Downs, et al., 28 June 1967, Savage to Downs et al., 12 February 1968, Texas Medical Association, Transactions of the House of Delegates, 2–5 May 1968, pp. 76–82, and Ben B. Shaver and Downs to “Dear Doctor,” 8 July 1968, Savage Papers; Houston Post, 8 October 1967, 31 July 1968; Dallas Times Herald, 3 April 1968; Dallas Morning News, 2 May 1968, p. A18, 5 May 1968, p. A18; also see Dallas Morning News, 17 September 1967, p. 27, 22 September 1967, and 7 November 1967, p. 14; Dallas Times Herald, 7 November 1967; John P. Vanderpool and Robert B. White, “Psychiatry and the Abortion Problem,” Texas Medicine 64 (January 1968): 48–51; Houston Post, 17 and 24 March 1968; Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 5 May 1968.

21. On the Santa Barbara conference, see Thomas M. Hart and Thomas P. Lowry, eds., Abortion Law Reform: A Report on the California Conference on Abortion (Ross, CA: Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, 1968), 90pp., esp. p. 39; also see Hart to Lader, 3 September 1967, Lader Box 4, and Leavy to Garrett Hardin, 14 February 1968, CCTA Box 5. On CCTA, see Ruth Roemer to Keith Russell, 10 January 1968, CCTA Box 5, Ellen Studhalter, CCTA Board Minutes, 31 January and 28 May 1968, Roemer to Board Members, 14 June 1968, CCTA Box 4, and CCTA Newsletter, August 1968. On the Shively situation, see New York Times, 15 February 1968, p. 14, The Nation, 26 February 1968, p. 261, and Ned Overstreet to Roemer, 7 June 1968, CCTA Box 5. On the Los Angeles Clergy Consultation Service, see Carmen and Moody, Abortion Counseling, pp. 47–48, Luker, Abortion, p. 122, and Los Angeles Times, 15 May 1968; on the initiative planning, see SHA Newsletter Vol 4, #1 (September 1968).

22. On Nevada, see Bernard Burton to Vanessa Brown, 20 May 1968, and the 28 May CCTA Minutes, CCTA Box 4, Nevada Committee for the Rights of Women, “The Truth About Abortion,” n.d., CCTA Box 3, and CCTA Newsletter, August 1968, p. 3. On ASA, see Hall to Stephen Enke, 2 February 1968, “Enke Report on Abortion Liberalization,” 12 February 1968, Mott to Hall, and Mott to Louis Hellman, 25 April 1968, Hellman to Mott, 2 May 1968, Guttmacher Papers; Mott to Hellman, 27 December 1968, Lader Box 6; U.S. Medicine, 1 June 1968, pp. 3, 34; Garrow conversations with Robert E. Hall, Jimmye Kimmey, and John Lassoe. Mott too contributed to the Nevada effort; see Mott to Don Green, 27 December 1968, Lader Box 6.

23. On the ACLU’s interminably prolonged internal discussions, see Alan Reitman to Dorothy Kenyon et al., 20 October 1967, Norman Dorsen to Reitman, 26 October 1967, Reitman and Trudy Hayden to ACLU Board, “ACLU Abortion Policy …” 31 October 1967, 10pp., Robert E. Hall to Reitman, 1 November 1967 (“I have never before seen a group become so hung up on tangential matters”), Thomas L. Shaffer to Reitman, 6 November 1967, Hayden to Dorsen, 7 November 1967, Pilpel to Reitman, 13 November 1967, Ad Hoc Committee on Abortion to ACLU Board, 22 November 1967, Minutes, ACLU Plenary Board Meeting, 2–3 December 1967, pp. 19–23, Reitman to Edward Ennis, 7 December 1967, ACLU Board Minutes, 25 January 1968, pp. 3–5, ACLU 1967 Vol. 5; Civil Liberties, January 1968, p. 3, and March-April 1968; New York Times, 25 March 1968, p. 35; Current, May 1968, pp. 26–32; Garrow conversations with Norman Dorsen and Robert E. Hall. Also see Thomas L. Shaffer, “Abortion, the Law and Human Life,” Valparaiso University Law Review 2 (Fall 1967): 94–106. On ACOG, see New York Times, 10 May 1968, p. 21; also see 13 July 1968, p. 28.

24. Myers to Richard Rosenzweig, 14 May 1968, ARAI 8–9, Myers to Bob Hall, 3 June 1968, ARAI 10–15; ICMCA Executive Meeting Minutes, 12 and 26 June 1968, ARAI 7–14, and 9 July 1968, Lader Box 6; Myers to Bob Hall, 10 and 15 July 1968, ARAI 10–15; Lader, Abortion II, p. 88; Myers to Lader, and to Garrett Hardin, 2 August 1968, Lader Box 15; Myers to Ruth Smith, 8–9 August 1968, NARAL-NYPL Box 2; Myers to John Lassoe, 22 August 1968, ARAI 1–7; Myers to Joseph Sunnen, 26 August 1968, and Sunnen to Myers, 12 September 1968, ARAI 2–7; Gloria Hunt to John Lassoe, 26 September 1968, Smith Box 1; ICMCA Journal #5 (Summer 1968) and #6 (Fall 1968); Garrow conversations with Lonny Myers, Don C. Shaw, Robert E. Hall, and Lawrence Lader.

25. Lader to Myers and Hardin, “Memo No. 1,” 3 September 1968, 5pp., Lader Box 15; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 1–4, 26, 46; Carmen and Moody, Abortion Counseling, p. 102–104. Also see Lader, “Non-Hospital Abortions,” Look, 21 January 1969, pp. 63–65. Most of the New York CCS expenses were privately covered by Stewart Mott; see Mott to Moody, 27 December 1968, Lader Box 6.

26. New York Times, 9 June 1968, p. 33, 19 August 1968, p. 20; Washington Post, 16 June 1968, p. G2; David Whieldon, “New Abortion System,” Medical Economics 45 (28 October 1968): 238–243. The Times’s number was erroneous; the actual total for Colorado’s first twelve months was 407. William Droegemueller et al., “The First Year Experience in Colorado with the New Abortion Law,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 103 (1 March 1969): 694–702, and John C. Cobb, “Abortion in Colorado 1967–1969: Changing Attitudes and Practices Since the New Law,” Advances in Planned Parenthood 5 (1970): 186–189.

27. Lucas, “Notes on the Efforts in 1965–1973,” pp. 5–7; Dickey v. Troy State University, 273 F. Supp. 613, Troy State University v. Dickey, 394 F.2d 490, 402 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1968); Morris Dees, A Season For Justice (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1991), pp. 89, 94–95, 97–99, 101–103; Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), 21 L.Ed 975; Linda Greenhouse, “Constitutional Question: Is There a Right to Abortion?,” New York Times Magazine, 25 January 1970, pp. 30–31, 88–91; The Commentator [NYU Law School], 25 February 1970, p. 9; Lucas Interview with Vose; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas, Morris Dees, Richard G. Singer, Charles Morgan, Cyril Means, Jimmye Kimmey, and Robert E. Hall.

28. Lucas to Wulf, 4 July 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Lucas to ASA Board, n.d. [c.12 July 1968], Lucas Papers; Lucas, “Trial Brief for an Abortion Test Case Prepared for the Association for the Study of Abortion, Inc.,” n.d., 106pp., ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Norton to Alan Reitman, “Abortion,” 5 December 1967, and Norton to John Fordon, “Abortion Project,” 3 July 1968, Fordon to Nat Lehrman, 9 July 1968, ACLU 1967 Vol. 19; Wulf to Lehrman, 16 July 1968, Kimmey to Pilpel et al., “Meeting of July 18,” 22 July 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37.

29. James Hennesey, American Catholics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 327–329; Jay P. Dolan, The American Catholic Experience (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1985), pp. 434–436; Mary C. Segers, “The Bishops, Birth Control, and Abortion Policy: 1950–1985,” in Segers, ed., Church Polity and American Politics (New York: Garland, 1990), pp. 215–231, at 221; Lawrence Lader, Politics, Power and the Church (New York: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 41–49; Norman B. Ryder and Charles F. Westoff, Reproduction in the United States, 1965 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), pp. 185–221; Westoff and Larry Bumpass, “The Revolution in Birth Control Practices of U.S. Roman Catholics,” Science 179 (5 January 1973): 41–44. Also see Joseph Roddy, “The Pope’s Unsolvable Problem,” Look, 13 December 1966, pp. 120–128, Ambrogio Valsecchi, Controversy: The Birth Control Debate, 1958–1968 (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968), and Westoff and Ryder, “Experience with Oral Contraception in the United States, 1960–1965,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 11 (September 1968): 734–752.

30. New York Times, 3 August 1968, 25 October 1968, p. 93; Andrew J. Eyman, “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” Shiuely v. Board of Medical Examiners, #590333, San Francisco County Superior Court, 24 September 1968; ASA Newsletter Vol. 3, #3 (Fall 1968); People v. Belous, Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 3, 13 August 1968; Los Angeles Times, 27 September 1968, p. II-6, 25 October 1968, pp. 1, 21; Fred Okrand to Mel Wulf, 9 October 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Leavy to Enersen, 3 December 1968, CCTA Box 4; Munger to Lader, 28 February 1972, Lader Box 5; Garrow conversations with Ruth Roemer, Zad Leavy, Keith P. Russell, and Charles T. Munger. A full transcript of Belous’s January 1967 trial appears in the U.S. Supreme Court case file on People v. Belous, O.T. 1970, #971, RG 267, Box 9564. The provider to whom Belous made the referral, Karl Lairtus, testified at the trial that he often sent Belous one hundred dollars for each such referral, but Belous denied ever receiving any money from Lairtus.

31. Cusack to Cook, 19 July 1968, Gloria Nelson to Cusack, 26 and 30 July and 4 August 1968, Cook to Cusack, 19 August 1968, Cusack to Cook, 26 August 1968, Cusack to Arlene Carmen, 31 August 1968, Cook to Cusack, 10 September 1968, Cusack to Blumenthal, and to Manfred Ohrenstein, 13 September 1968, Cusack to Duryea, 14 September 1968, Duryea to Cusack, 19 September 1968, Cusack to Lader, 22 September 1968, Cusack to Robert E. Hall, 1 October 1968, Cusack to Arlene Carmen, 3 October 1968, Cusack to John Lassoe, and to Duryea, 4 October 1968, Duryea to Cusack, 10 October 1968, Hall to Cusack, and Cusack to Franz Leichter, 11 October 1968, Leichter to Cusack, 14 October 1968, Cusack to Duryea, 10 November 1968, Arlene Emery Brown to Lader, 5 December 1971, Cusack to Lader, 19–20 December 1971, Cusack Papers; Cook Interview with Chesler, pp. 32–34; Cusack Interview with Garrow.

32. Pilpel to Wulf, 12 September 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Lucas to Ad. Hoc Test Case Committee Members, “Consideration of Further Steps,” 15 October 1968, Lucas to Ann Israel, 18 October 1968, Pilpel to Lucas, 4 November 1968, Lucas Boxes 16 and 17; Sylvia Bloom, ASA Executive Committee Minutes, 6 November 1968, NARAL Box 6; Means to Ad. Hoc Test Committee Members, 30 October 1968, Lucas to Ad Hoc Test Case Committee Members, “Belous v. California …” 12 November 1968, and Hall to Gordon W. Douglas et al., 12 November 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Means, “The Law of New York Concerning Abortion,” New York Law Forum 14 (Fall 1968): 411–515, esp. at 418 and 507; Mel Wulf to Jules Bernfeld, 12 November 1968, ACLU 1968 Vol. 7; Wulf to Aryeh Neier, n.d., and Neier to Wulf, 19 November 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Richard H. Schwarz to Lucas, 26 November 1968, Lucas Box 16; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas and Cyril Means. Also see “Testimony of Cyril C. Means, Jr., Before the Legislative Commission to Review the New Jersey Statutes Relating to Abortion,” 28 October 1968, 20pp., Lucas Box 15 and ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; and Pilpel and Kenneth P. Norwick, When Should Abortion Be Legal? (New York: Public Affairs Pamphlets, #429, January 1969).

33. Zarky to Paul Halvonik, Wulf, and Lucas, 11 and 21 November 1968, Fred Okrand to Halvonik et al., 19 November 1968, Zarky to Wulf, 11 December 1968, Zarky to Wulf et al., 26 December 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Lucas to Ad Hoc Test Case Committee Members, “Belous v. California …” 12 November 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37.

34. New York Times, 14 November 1968, p. 50, 15 November 1968, p. 28, 18 November 1968, p. 46, 30 November 1968; Wall Street Journal, 15 November 1968, p. 3; Time, 15 November 1968, pp. 61–62; Elizabeth Elkind to Richard Lamm, 13 September 1968, Lamm Papers. On Michigan, where the Michigan State Medical Society endorsed repeal in September of 1968, see Transcript of Public Hearing, Michigan State Senate Committee on Abortion Law Reform—SR 185, 7 October 1968, Ann Arbor, 152pp., Bursley Papers Box 15; on Minnesota, see MCLTP Newsletter #1 (October 1968), and St. Paul Pioneer Press, 30 October 1968, p. 8; on the TMA poll, see Dallas Times-Herald, 16 September 1968, p. A18, and Houston Post, 17 September 1968. On Myers’s efforts and NARAL, see Lader to Myers, 22 October 1968, Lader Box 15, ICMCA Board Minutes, 13 November 1968, ARAI 7–14, and Lader to Myers et al., 21 January 1969, NARAL Box 1; on Washington, see Seattle Times, 6 August 1968, Peter Raible to Lader, 10 April 1967, Lader Box 4, Byron N. Fujita and Nathaniel N. Wagner, “Referendum 20—Abortion Reform in Washington State,” in Howard J. and Joy D. Osofsky, eds., The Abortion Experience (Hagerstown, MD: Harper & Row, 1973), pp. 232–260, at 234–235, and Robert G. Morrison, “Choice in Washington: The Politics of Liberalized Abortion” (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Virginia, 1982), p. 32.

35. The conference proceedings were subsequently published in two volumes: Robert E. Hall, ed., Abortion In A Changing World (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), vol. 1, pp. xix-xx, 141, 173, vol. 2, pp. 144, 156–159, 169; Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968); New York Times, 24 November 1968, p. 77; Newsweek, 2 December 1968, pp. 82–83; Lader to Myers et al., 21 November 1968, Lader Box 15; Garrow conversations with Hall, Lader, Leavy, Lucas, Ruth Roemer, John Lassoe, and Jimmye Kimmey. Several weeks before the conference, Hall “with great reluctance” turned aside a request from New York NOW that two of its members also be allowed to attend and participate, explaining that “we have tried to limit our invitations to those who are truly expert in abortion in a professional rather than personal sense.” Hall emphasized that he was “acutely conscious of the fact that this is basically a woman’s issue,” but NOW’s Jean Faust tartly replied that “we do not see abortion as ‘a woman’s issue,’ but as a human issue” and observed that “professionals have for too long been dictating moral, theological and legal decisions to women—without consulting women.” Faust to Hall, 28 September 1968, Hall to Faust, 11 October 1968, and Faust to Hall, 16 October 1968, Cusack Papers.

Also see National Catholic Reporter, 27 November 1968; CCTA Newsletter, January 1969, p. 3; Overstreet to Jack Stack, 21 March 1969, Stack Box 1; Lawrence E. Allan, “Constitutional Aspects of Present Criminal Abortion Laws,” Valparaiso Law Review 3 (Fall 1968): 102–121, at 116 (“The Courts may well rely on Griswold in deciding abortion cases; and it seems clear that the Griswold arguments will be advanced with vigor by the advocates of reform”); and Hospital Practice, January 1969, pp. 19, 24–25. One week later Rockefeller told a Chicago audience that “Abortion is a medical question. As such, it should be taken out of the law and out of other disciplines and left to the practicing physician.” Chicago Daily News, 23 November 1968.

36. Hall to Gordon W. Douglas et al., 12 November 1968 and 2 January 1969, Lucas, “Memorandum to Ad Hoc Test Case Committee,” 26 December 1968, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Hall to Drs. Posner et al., 31 December 1968, Lucas Box 17; Hall, “His Birth Without Permission,” Saturday Review, 7 December 1968, pp. 78–79, and Hall in New York Times Magazine, 29 December 1968, pp. 10–11, 17–20 (“repeal will not come from the legislatures but from the courts”); Beatrice Kornbluh to Leichter, 24 November 1968, Cusack Papers; Cusack to Lader, 19–20 December 1971, Lader Box 5; Lader [press release], “Assemblywoman Constance Cook Announces First Abortion Repeal Bill in New York State Legislature,” 16 December 1968, NARAL Box 1; Lader, Abortion II, p. 92; Garrow conversations with Cusack and Lader; Guttmacher to Mrs. Nelson, 23 December 1968, Guttmacher Papers.

37. Warren to Mrs. Roome, 12 December 1968, ARAI 3–24; New York Times, 2 January 1969. On Texas, see Dallas Morning News, 19 January 1969, p. A10, 11 February 1969, p. D1, 13 February 1969, 18 February 1969; Ft. Worth Star-Telegram [editorial], 25 January 1969; Dallas Times-Herald, 12 February 1969; Texas House Journal, 13 February 1969, p. 236 (HB 323); C. Lincoln Williston to Clark, 18 February 1969, Clark Papers; Garrow conversations with James H. Clark, Jr. On Clark, a Yale graduate who also had an MBA from Stanford, see Dallas Times-Herald, 8 July 1969, pp. 15, 20.

38. Lamm, “Unwanted Child Births Forced by Law,” Denver Post, 2 February 1969, pp. G1, G5; Lamm Interview with Garrow; Bonser to Lader, 30 January 1969, Lader Box 5 and NARAL Box 2; Keith Monroe, New York Times Magazine, 29 December 1968, pp. 10–11, 17–20; Washington Post, 10 December 1968, pp. D1, D4. Also see Harvey L. Zipf, “Recent Abortion Law Reforms (or Much Ado About Nothing),” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 60 (March 1969): 3–23, esp. at 23 (“the constitutional right to ‘raise a family’ must also be a constitutional right to limit family size”).

39. Hall to Myers, 13 June 1968, ARAI 10–15; Lassoe to Toba Cohen, 15 November 1968, Nat Lehrman to Cohen, 5 December 1968, Gordon Sherman to Cohen, 13 December 1968 (“the right of a woman to medical abortion is an individual moral choice and should not be subject to legal restrictions by the state”), ARAI 1–7; ICMCA Minutes, 18 December 1968 and 19 February 1969, ARAI 7–14; Cohen to Arnold Maremont, 2 January 1969, ARAI 1–7; Don Shaw to Hall, 24 January 1969, ARAI 13–4, Lassoe to Shaw, 27 January 1969, ARAI 10–5; Hall to Shaw, 27 January 1969, Shaw to Lassoe, 28 January 1969, ARAI 13–4; New York Times, 28 March 1969, p. 76; Cohen to Richard Rosenzweig, 21 May 1969, ARAI 1–7.

40. Kimmey to Toba Cohen, 30 December 1968, ARAI 8–10; Myers, untitled 6pp. account of the conference, March 1969, Schlesinger 223–2–19; Friedan, “Abortion: A Woman’s Civil Right,” 14 February 1969, Lader Box 3 and ARAI 5–5; Breslow, “Abortion: The Case for Repeal,” 15 February 1969, Schlesinger 223–2–11; “Report of the Planning Committee, NARAL,” 16 February 1969 (transcript of recording, paginated as 62 to 140), ARAI 2–20; New York Times, 17 February 1969, p. 32; Washington Post, 17 February 1969, p. D1; Los Angeles Times, 17 February 1969, pp. IV-1, IV-7, 18 February 1969, pp. 1, 6; Ivan Shapiro to Jack Pemberton, 28 February 1969, ACLU 1969 Vol. 4; Lader to Myers and Shaw, 13 March 1969, Ruth Smith to Gidding, 15 March 1969, NARAL Box 1; Lader, Abortion II, p. 95. Also see Nathanson, Aborting America, pp. 34, 47–55.

41. Edgar B. Keemer, “Report of First National Conference …” 20 February 1969, ACLU 1969 Vol. 4; Keemer, Confessions of a Pro-Life Abortionist (Detroit: Vinco Press, 1980), pp. 12, 113, 136, 163–164, 195, 208, 214–215; Keemer, “Looking Back at Luenbach: 296 Non-Hospital Abortions,” Journal of the National Medical Association 62 (July 1970): 291–293; Ruth Barnett [Bush], They Weep On My Doorstep.(Beaverton, OR: Halo Publishers, January 1969), pp. 56, 135.

42. New York Times, 22 January 1969, p. 47, 27 February 1967, pp. 22, 23; Village Voice, 18 August 1966, pp. 1, 18–19; Time, 13 October 1967, pp. 32–33; Spencer, “The Performance of Nonhospital Abortions,” in Hall, ed., Abortion in a Changing World, vol. 1, pp. 218–225, at 218; Brownmiller, “Dr. Spencer, 1889–1969,” Village Voice, 30 January 1969, pp. 1, 53–54; [Carol Kahn], Medical World News, 28 February 1969, pp. 28–29; Newsweek, 17 February 1969, p. 92; Los Angeles Times, 17 March 1969, pp. 1, 20–21; Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 18 December 1969, pp. 1, 14; Ellen Messer and Kathryn E. May, Back Rooms: Voices From the Illegal Abortion Era (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988), pp. 218–224; Michael T. Kaufman, “Abortion Doctor,” Lear’s, July–August 1989, pp. 84–87; Patricia G. Miller, The Worst of Times (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 122–139; Garrow conversations with John Lassoe, Susan Brownmiller and Michael T. Kaufman.

43. Donald W. Ball, “An Abortion Clinic Ethnography,” Social Problems 14 (Winter 1967): 293–301, at 298; Nancy Howell Lee, The Search for An Abortionist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969); R. W. Jesse and Frederick J. Spencer, “Abortion—The Hidden Epidemic,” Virginia Medical Monthly 95 (August 1968): 447–456; Kenneth R. Whittemore, “The Availability of Nonhospital Abortions,” in Hall, ed., Abortion in a Changing World, vol. 1, pp. 212–217, at 212–214. Along with Lee, also see Peter K. Manning, “Fixing What You Feared: Notes on the Campus Abortion Search,” in James M. Henslin, ed., Studies in the Sociology of Sex (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971), pp. 137–166. For a sympathetic profile of a nonmedical provider, Lorraine Florio, who operated in Lawrence, Mass., between 1958 and 1968, see Boston Globe, 16 May 1989, pp. 1, 4–5.

44. Arlene Carmen Interview with Chesler; Carmen and Moody, Abortion Counseling, pp. 50–51; Nathanson, Aborting America, p. 44; New York Times, 3 January 1969, p. 25; Newsday, 26 and 27 March 1969, pp. 10–11.

45. Munger to Joseph Sunnen, and to Garrett Hardin, 20 January 1969, Roger O. Egeberg and Keith P. Russell to “Dear Doctor,” 28 January 1969, Ruth Roemer to Russell, 28 January 1969, Egeberg to Roemer, 4 February 1969, Munger to Burnham Enersen, 5 February 1969, Munger to Fellow Signers of the Lawyers’ Brief, 28 February 1969, CCTA Box 4; Barbara M. Armstrong et al., “Application for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief,” People v. Belous, California Supreme Court, Crim. #12739, January 1969, 32pp., at p. 19; Leavy et al., “Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of Medical School Deans and Others,” People v. Belous, #12739, 14 January 1969, 48pp., esp. pp. 20–24; Trinkhaus et al., “Amicus Curiae Brief,” People v. Belous, #12739, February 1969, 24pp.; Los Angeles Times, 14 February 1969, p. 3, 10 March 1969, pp. 1, 12–13; Lucas, “Memorandum: Report on the Belous v. California Case,” 5 March 1969, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; CCTA Board Minutes, 19 March 1969, CCTA Box 5; CCTA Newsletter, April 1969; Lucas in NARAL News Vol. 1, #1 (Summer 1969), p. 3; Garrow conversations with Charles T. Munger, Zad Leavy, Ruth Roemer, and Keith P. Russell. One member of the California high court, Stanley Mosk, recused himself from Belous because of a family member’s prior acquaintance with the doctor, and Chief Justice Traynor placed the case on his court’s Sacramento docket, thus assuring that senior Sacramento-area appellate judge Fred R. Pierce, rather than another jurist, would take Mosk’s place and become the seventh member of the Belous court. 71 Cal.2d 982, and Munger Interview with Garrow. Also see Open Forum [Southern California ACLU], February 1969, pp. 4–5, and SHA Newsletter Vol. 5, #1 (April 1969). Hostile perspectives also include Luis Kutner, “Due Process of Abortion,” Minnesota Law Review 53 (November 1968): 1–28; Frank J. Ayd, Jr., “Liberal Abortion Laws,” America, 1 February 1969, pp. 130–132; and Eugene Quay, “Constitutionality of Abortion Laws: Rights of the Fetus,” Child and Family 8 (Spring 1969): 169–175.

46. Lucas, “Memorandum: Report on the Belous v. California Case,” 5 March 1969, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Morin v. Garra, 54 N.J. 82 (10 December 1968); Lucas and Balk, “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” Morin v. Garra, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1968, #1289, 25pp., 21 April 1969, at pp. 10, 12 and 17, and Lucas and Balk, “Reply Brief for Petitioner,” Morin v. Garra, #1289, 10pp., Lucas Box 26 and National Archives Box 8961; Leavy to Lucas, 20 March 1969, Pilpel to Lucas, 24 March 1969, Lucas Box 26; Morin v. Garra, 395 U.S. 935 (2 June 1969); Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas.

Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Knight, 180 So.2d 755 (1965), 195 So.2d 375 (1967), 211 So.2d 433 (1968), Knight v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 252 La. 889, 214 So.2d 716 (25 October 1968), Benjamin E. Smith and Douglas A. Allen, “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” Knight v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1968, #1075, 32pp., 20 February 1969, esp. pp. 21–23 (“the private right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child”); Knight v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 395 U.S. 933 (2 June 1969). Several months earlier the Supreme Court had denied certiorari in another New Jersey case where several defendants’ (including one physician) abortion convictions had already been affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. New Jersey v. Moretti, 235 A.2d 226, 244 A.2d 499 (1968); Moretti v. New Jersey, 393 U.S. 952 (18 November 1968). Additionally, the very same day that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Knight, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected a vagueness challenge to that state’s abortion statute by a doctor whose medical license had been revoked after he had pled guilty to two counts of abortion and been sentenced to three years’ probation. Kudish v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 248 N.E.2d 264 (2 June 1969).

47. Minutes, Citizens for Abortion Law Repeal, 7 January 1969, NARAL Box 4; Cusack to Lader, 19–20 December 1971 (“I was dismayed at the lack of enthusiasm for the abortion issue shown by the chapter as a whole”), Lader Box 5; Cusack Interview with Garrow; New York Times, 7 January 1969, p. 40, 15 January 1969, p. 35, 28 January 1969, p. 31, 29 January 1969, p. 40, 30 January 1969, p. 22, 3 February 1969, p. 27, 6 February 1969, p. 38, 7 February 1969, p. 39, 12 February 1969, p. 79, 13 February 1969, p. 28, 14 February 1969, p. 42, 21 February 1969, p. 46, 22 February 1969, p. 35, 23 February 1969, p. E6, 25 February 1969, p. 46, 3 March 1969, p. 40; Voice of the Women’s Liberation Movement Vol. 1, #1 (March 1968), #2 (June 1968), #3 (August 1968), #4 (October 1968), esp. p. 11, #5 (January 1969), #6 (February 1969); Jo Freeman, The Politics of Women’s Liberation (New York: David McKay, 1975), esp. pp. 51, 59, 62, 82; The New Yorker, 22 February 1969, pp. 28–29; The Guardian, 19 April 1969, p. 11; Alice Echols, Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967–1975 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), esp. pp. 139–142; Board Minutes, New Yorkers for Abortion Law Repeal, 23 July and 6 and 13 August 1969, Smith Box 1. Also see Darlene Weide, “The History of New York Abortion Law Repeal: A Case Study” (unpublished B.A. thesis, Barnard College, April 1989), pp. 21–24; Ellen Willis in the Village Voice, 3 March 1980, p. 8; and Ninia Baehr, Abortion Without Apology (Boston: South End Press, 1990), pp. 38–44.

On Ruth Cusack’s point regarding NOW, also see Suzanne Staggenborg, The Pro-Choice Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 20 (“NOW’s participation in the abortion movement was … limited in the early years.… many NOW members and chapters were preoccupied with economic issues”). Even in 1971, one participant-observer emphasized how “the abortion reform effort was already well under way when feminist resurgence began” (Emily C. Moore, “Abortion and Public Policy: What Are the Issues?” New York Law Forum 17 [1971]: 411–436, at 420), and California attorney Herma Hill Kay, whose active involvement dated to the early 1960s, subsequently made much the same point: “The abortion law reform movement in California was led, as it was initially in many other states, not by members of the women’s movement but by physicians, attorneys, and public health experts.” U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Constitutional Amendments Relating to Abortion—Hearings Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 1st sess., 16 November 1981, pp. 766–767. Also see Alice S. Rossi and Bhavani Sitaraman, “Abortion in Context: Historical Trends and Future Changes,” Family Planning Perspectives 20 (November-December 1988): 273–281, 301, at 273 (“American feminists were relative latecomers to the abortion reform movement”).

On the early feminist groupings and the various factional shifts that took place among the New York activists, see especially Celestine Ware, Woman Power: The Movement for Women’s Liberation (New York: Tower Publications, 1970), pp. 16–74, esp. at 29–30 and 38, Roberta Salper, “The Development of the American Women’s Liberation Movement, 1967–1971,” in Salper, ed., Female Liberation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972), pp. 169–184, Maren L. Carden, The New Feminist Movement (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1974), esp. pp. 32, 87, 104–132; see as well Lucinda Cisler, “A Campaign to Repeal Legal Restrictions on Non-Prescription Contraceptives: The Case of New York,” in Myron H. Redford et al., eds., The Condom (San Francisco: San Francisco Press, 1974), pp. 83–108; Leah Fritz, Dreamers and Dealers (Boston: Beacon Press, 1979), esp. p. 26; Barbara S. Deckard, The Women’s Movement, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), pp. 327–336; Winifred D. Wandersee, On the Move (Boston: Twayne, 1988), pp. 1–15; and Faye D. Ginsburg, Contested Lives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 39.

48. Guttmacher to “Dear Friend of Planned Parenthood,” 26 February 1969, 4pp.; Guttmacher, “The Genesis of Liberalized Abortion in New York: A Personal Insight,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 23 (Summer 1972): 756–778, at 775–77; Norman F. Lent, “Report of the Joint Legislative Committee,” 10 March 1969, 9pp., Schlesinger 223–1–10; New York Times, 28 February 1969, p. 35, 5 March 1969, p. 33, 8 March 1969, p. 28, 11 March 1969, p. 36, 13 March 1969, p. 32, 14 March 1969, p. 40, 17 March 1969, p. 13, 21 March 1969, pp. 46, 50, 22 March 1969, p. 19, 15 April 1969, pp. 44, 46, 17 April 1969, p. 46, 18 April 1969, pp. 1, 48, 19 April 1969, p. 26; Liz Elkind to ARA Board, “Memorandum,” n.d. [c.24 March 1969], 3pp., Cusack Papers; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 122–123.

49. Dallas Times-Herald, 5 March 1969, 7 March 1969, 20 March 1969; Dallas Morning News, 6 March 1969, 8 March 1969, p. D1, 20 March 1969, p. A11, 23 March 1969, 24 March 1969, 25 March 1969, pp. C1, C3, 5 April 1969, 9 April 1969, 14 May 1969, p. AA4, 2 August 1969; Houston Post, 6 March 1969, 20 March 1969; Charles O. Galvin to Clark, 5 March 1969, James T. Downs III to Clark, 17 March 1969, Clark to Mrs. Fred R. Brown, 31 March 1969, Clark Papers; Garrow conversations with Jim Clark; Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 13 April 1969, p. A8; Savage, “Report of Committee on Abortion Laws in Texas,” Texas Medical Association Program, May 1969, pp. 96–98, Savage Papers; Houston Chronicle, 3 May 1969; Corpus Christi Caller, 13 July 1969.

50. On New Mexico, see New York Times, 23 February 1969, p. 59, 23 March 1969, p. 44, Jonathan B. Sutin, “New Mexico’s 1969 Criminal Abortion Law,” Natural Resources Journal 10 (July 1970): 591–614, and Robert Shafer, “New Abortion Laws Won’t Change Old Attitudes,” Modern Hospital 118 (February 1972): 96–98. The one New York Times item regarding Arkansas noted simply the bill’s passage in the House: 7 February 1969, p. 18. On Kansas, see Lee Derman to Ernest Angell, 5 March 1969, Derman to Alan Reitman, 26 April 1969, ACLU 1969 Vol. 4, New York Times, 25 April 1969, p. 26, Derman to Lee Gidding, 30 May 1969, NARAL Box 3. On Oregon, see Alan R. Mitchell, “Abortion, Oregon Style,” Oregon Law Review 49 (April 1970): 302–321, Marilyn Weaver to Richard Lamm, 9 and 16 August 1968, Lamm Papers, Jimmye Kimmey to Toba Cohen, 27 May 1969, ARAI 1–11, and Gordon B. Fields, Oregon Law Review 51 (Spring 1972): 494–514, at 504; on Delaware see New York Times, 13 June 1969, p. 14, 22 June 1969, p. 42. Some tallies erroneously counted Mississippi’s 1966 addition of rape as a second exception to its standard antiabortion law as a “reform” enactment; given Mississippi’s racial politics at that time and the symbolic importance of rape, this book does not.

51. Lassoe to Don Shaw, 27 January 1969, ARAI 10–5; New York Times, 26 January 1969, p. 76, 3 June 1969, p. 43; Hartford Times, 13 April 1969; Transcript of Judiciary Committee Hearing, 14 April 1969, Connecticut State Library, esp. p. 85; Roraback to Jack Pemberton, 6 May 1969, ACLU 1969 Vol. 4; Transcript of Proceedings, House of Representatives, 9 May 1969, pp. 25–78, Connecticut State Library; Cantor to Emerson, 21 May 1969, and Emerson to Cantor, 15 July 1969, Emerson Box 49; Stephen Fleck to Lee Gidding, 21 April 1969, Gidding to Fleck, 28 May 1969, and Lucas to Gidding, 29 May 1969, NARAL Box 4; Garrow conversations with Donald J. Cantor and Richard Bowers.

52. On Iowa, see James C. Mohr, “Iowa’s Abortion Battles of the Late 1960s and Early 1970s,” Annals of Iowa 50 (Summer 1989): 63–89, at 71, and especially Robert L. Webber to Lee Gidding, 25 August 1969, NARAL Box 3. On Minnesota, see Robert B. Benjamin, “Abortion or Compulsory Pregnancy?,” Minnesota Medicine 52 (March 1969): 455–457 (“At our own feet must lie some of the responsibility for women who have died following criminal abortions”); Minnesota Tribune, 20 March 1969, pp. 1, 7; and Irene Hoebel to Lader, 19 April 1969, NARAL Box 3. On Nevada, see New York Times, 10 April 1969, p. 38, and James T. Richardson and Sandie W. Fox, “Religious Affiliation as a Predictor of Voting Behavior in Abortion Reform Legislation,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 11 (December 1972): 347–359; on Hawaii, see Patricia G. Steinhoff and Milton Diamond, Abortion Politics: The Hawaii Experience (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1977), pp. 13–23. For another unusual medical statement somewhat similar to Dr. Benjamin’s, see C. V. Cimmino, “Abortions,” Virginia Medical Monthly 96 (April 1969): 236–237 (“the parasite growing within her”).

53. On Illinois see Richard Lamm to John Henry Kleine, 29 April 1969, ARAI 17–4; Toba Cohen to Cyril Means, 14 May 1969, and Cohen to Jimmye Kimmey, 21 May 1969, ARAI 8–10; Paul Handler to Don Shaw, 3 June 1969, ARAI 8–11; and Shaw to Lassoe, 21 August 1969, ARAI 1–7. Also see Lonny Myers, “Testimony Before the Public Welfare Committee,” 18 March 1969, and “Testimony Before Senate Judiciary Committee,” 23 April 1969, NARAL Box 3.

On Michigan, see New York Times, 5 February 1969, p. 20; Jack Stack to Mary Lou Tanton, 4 March 1969, Michigan Women for Medical Control of Abortion Newsletter #6 (April 1969) and #7 (May 1969), Stack Box 1; New York Times, 13 June 1969, p. 14; Minutes, Michigan Coordinating Committee for Abortion Law Reform, 28 June 1969, Stack to Stewart Mott, 3 July 1969, Stack Box 1; and Stack, “Abortion Law Reform Progress in Michigan,” Michigan Medicine 69 (January 1970): 23–27.

On Washington, see William E. Watts, Northwest Medicine, March 1969, p. 270; Samuel Goldenberg to Elizabeth Elkind, 10 March 1969, WCAR I-2; Marilyn Ward to Mrs. E. G. Spencer, 5 May 1969, WCAR I-1; Goldenberg to Elizabeth Bannister et al., 6 and 7 May 1969, WCAR II-17; Goldenberg to Jimmye Kimmey, 20 May, 9 July and 6 and 20 August 1969, Goldenberg to Richard Lamm, 24 June 1969, WCAR I-2; Goldenberg to Anne Gaylor, 18 August 1969, WCAR II-2; WCAR Minutes, 19 August and 9 September 1969, WCAR I-4; and especially Robert G. Morrison, “Choice in Washington: The Politics of Liberalized Abortion” (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Virginia, 1982), pp. 34–47.

54. Lucas to Emerson, 2 April 1969, Emerson to Lucas, 17 April 1969, Lucas to Emerson, 23 April 1969, Emerson to Lucas, 30 April 1969, Emerson Box 13; Lee Gidding to Stephen Fleck, 28 May 1969, NARAL Box 4; Lucas to Clement E. Vose, 2 July and 18 August 1969, Lucas Interview with Vose, 9 July 1969, Lucas Box 25; Brochure, “The James Madison Constitutional Law Institute,” n.d. [July 1969], 12pp., Martha Gantt to Emerson, 6 August 1969, Lucas to Emerson, 4 September 1969, and “Cases Presently on Docket,” 3 September 1969, Emerson Box 13; Lucas to Mel Wulf, 8 September 1969, and 3 September enclosure, ACLU 1969 Vol. 9; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas, Morris Dees, Norman Dorsen, Douglas J. Kramer, and Mel Wulf. Also see Lucas, “The Right to Higher Education,” Journal of Higher Education 41 (January 1970): 55–64.

55. Clark, “Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal,” Loyola University Law Review 2 (April 1969): 1–11, at 8 and 9. Also see Gerald N. Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), p. 182 (“Clark’s position on when the state’s interests become compelling was the standard that the Court adopted” in 1973).

56. Commonwealth v. Baird, 247 N.E.2d 574, 580, 582; Boston Globe, 3 December 1968, 1 May 1969, pp. 1, 13, 19 May 1969, pp. 1, 22, 2 June 1969, pp. 1, 24, 20 June 1969, 9 November 1969; New York Times, 3 December 1968, 20 May 1969, p. 49, 3 June 1969, p. 31; James Clapp and Lucinda Cisler, “The Baird Case: Testing Birth Control Laws,” June 1969, ARAI Box 2; NOW-New York Newsletter Vol. 2, #6 (June 1969): 5; Balliro, “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” Baird v. Massachusetts, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1969, #707, 31 July 1969, 29pp., and Robert H. Quinn et al., “Brief for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Opposition to the Granting of the Petition for Certiorari,” Baird v. Massachusetts, #707, 30 August 1969, p. 6, National Archives RG 267, Box 9840; New England Journal of Medicine 281 (4 September 1969): 546–547. Efforts in 1968 and early 1969 to alter the state’s birth control statute so as to legalize the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried individuals were twice defeated by very wide margins on the floor of the state House.

57. New York Times, 12 May 1969, p. 66; Los Angeles Times, 13 May 1969, pp. IV-1, 9, 14 May 1969, pp. IV-1, 2; Carl Reiterman, ed., Abortion and the Unwanted Child (New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1971), esp. pp. 9–12, 15, 24. Overstreet also (p. 24) restated a comment he earlier had made at Hot Springs: “Increasingly [women] claim the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold … as a manifesto which gives to the individual woman the right to avoid childbearing.”

58. Larry Plagenz, “States Legislate Abortion Reform, But Hospitals Are Reluctant to Comply,” Modern Hospital 113 (July 1969): 82–85, at 84; “Abortion and the Law,” Current Medical Digest, September 1969, pp. 751–775, at 751; Atlanta Journal, 14 May 1969, p. B21; Roger W. Rochat et al., “An Epidemiological Analysis of Abortion in Georgia,” American Journal of Public Health 61 (March 1971): 543–552; on North Carolina, see Arthur C. Christakos, “Experience at Duke Medical Center After Modern Legislation for Therapeutic Abortion,” Southern Medical Journal 63 (June 1970): 655–657, and Eric Pfeiffer, “Psychiatric Indications or Psychiatric Justification of Therapeutic Abortion?,” Archives of General Psychiatry 23 (November 1970): 402–407; on Maryland, see Irvin M. Cushner, “The Aftermath of Abortion Legislation in Maryland,” Advances in Planned Parenthood 6 (1971): 158–163, and Theodore Irwin, “The New Abortion Laws: How Are They Working?” Today’s Health 48 (March 1970): 21–23ff; also see New York Times, 2 March 1969, p. 61, 6 June 1969, p. 87.

Also see New England Journal of Medicine 280 (29 May 1969): 1240–1241; JAMA 209 (14 July 1969): 229–231 and 260–261; Conrad M. Riley to Richard Frank, 22 July 1969, ARAI 1–12; Abraham Heller and H. G. Whittington, “The Colorado Report,” in R. Bruce Sloane, ed., Abortion (New York: Grune & Stratton, 1971), pp. 151–164; Lamm and Steven Davison, “Abortion and Euthanasia: A Reply,” Rocky Mountain Medical Journal, February 1971, pp. 40–42; Heller, “Therapeutic Abortion Trends in the United States,” Current Psychiatric Therapies 12 (1972): 171–184.

59. Leon Marder, “Psychiatric Experience with a Liberalized Therapeutic Abortion Law,” American Journal of Psychiatry 126 (March 1970): 1230–1236, at 1231; Marder et al., “Psychosocial Aspects of Therapeutic Abortion,” Southern Medical Journal 63 (June 1970): 657–661; R. Bruce Sloane, “The Unwanted Pregnancy,” New England Journal of Medicine 280 (29 May 1969): 1206–1213, at 1211; Kummer, “New Trends in Therapeutic Abortion in California,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 34 (December 1969): 883–887, at 885; Russell and Edwin W. Jackson, “Therapeutic Abortions in California: First Year’s Experience Under New Legislation,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 105 (1 November 1969): 757–765, at 760.

60. Hall, “Abortion Laws: A Call For Reform,” DePaul Law Review 18 (Summer 1969): 584–592, at 586, 590; Albert Q. Maisel, “The Growing Battle Over Abortion Reform,” Reader’s Digest, June 1969, pp. 152–158; Time, 6 June 1969, pp. 26–27; Charles F. Westoff et al., “The Structure of Attitudes Toward Abortion,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 47 (January 1969): 11–37, at 12; Elise F. Jones and Westoff, “Attitudes Toward Abortion in the United States and the Trend Since 1965,” in Westoff and Robert Parke, Jr., eds., Demographic and Social Aspects of Population Growth (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), pp. 569–578, at 570; Judith Blake, “Abortion and Public Opinion: the 1960–1970 Decade,” Science 171 (12 February 1971): 540–549.

Also see Frank W. Peyton et al., “Women’s Attitudes Concerning Abortion,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 34 (August 1969): 182–188; Dennis S. Mileti and Larry D. Barnett, “Nine Demographic Factors and Their Relationship to Attitudes Toward Abortion Legalization,” Social Biology 19 (March 1972): 43–50; Pilpel, “The Right of Abortion,” Atlantic Monthly 223 (June 1969): 69–71; Alice S. Rossi, “Abortion and Social Change,” Dissent 16 (July–August 1969): 338–346; Sidney M. Morris, Kentucky Law Journal 57 (Spring 1969): 555–563; Betty Wolf, “Abortion Law Reform at a Crossroad?,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 46 (Spring-Summer 1969): 102–115; John Montjoy, “Abortion and the Law,” Tulane Law Review 43 (June 1969): 834–853; Carl E. Wasmuth and Kenet E. Chareau, “Abortion Laws,” Cleveland State Law Review 18 (September 1969): 503–511; Robert Hoffman, “The Moral Right to Abortion,” Michigan Quarterly Review 8 (October 1969): 273–277. The rather small number of opposition pieces from mid-1969 include America, 3 May 1969, pp. 518–519, and 19 July 1969, pp. 36–39; John T. Noonan, Jr., “Amendment of the Abortion Law: Relevant Data and Judicial Opinion,” Catholic Lawyer 15 (Spring 1969): 124–135; and Charles P. Kindregan, “Abortion, the Law, and Defective Children,” Suffolk University Law Review 3 (Spring 1969): 225–276; also see especially New York Times, 18 April 1969, p. 40.

61. New York Times, 25 May 1969, p. 34, 26 May 1969, p. 17, 30 May 1969, p. 26, 17 October 1969, p. 28; Hare in Ellen Messer and Kathryn E. May, Back Rooms: Voices From the Illegal Abortion Era (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988), pp. 203–214; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 75–76, 96–102; Wall Street Journal, 23 June 1969, pp. 1, 23; Susan Brownmiller, “Abortion Counseling: Service Beyond Sermons,” New York Magazine, 4 August 1969, pp. 26–31; Lader to Ephraim London, 9 August 1969, Lader Box 4; Jesse Lyons to Burton Roberts, 17 September 1969, and Cyril C. Means, Jr., to Roberts, 18 September 1969, Gerald A. Messerman to Lucas, 6 October 1969, Lucas Box 25; San Francisco Chronicle, 4 October 1969, p. 28. Also see Time, 28 November 1969, p. 82; Denver Post Empire Magazine, 25 January 1970, pp. 26–29; and Commonwealth v. Brunelle, 171 N.E.2d 850 (1961).

62. People v. Belous, 458 P.2d 194, 199–200, 202, 206, 71 Cal.2d 954, 80 Cal. Rptr. 354. With regard to Peters’s final point, see particularly Edith Barnett, “The Hospital Abortion Committee as an Administrative Body of the State,” Journal of Family Law 10 (1970): 32–47.

63. Los Angeles Times, 6 September 1969, p. 1, 25 September 1969, pp. IV-1, 12; New York Times, 14 September 1969, p. 66; Time, 19 September 1969, p. 66; Keith P. Russell, “To the Signers of the Physicians’ Brief,” 28 October 1969, CCTA Box 1; Lucas to W. J. Bryan Henrie, 10 September 1969, Lucas Box 21; American Medical News, 22 September 1969, p. 3; Howard Hassard and David E. Willett, “Abortion in California,” California Medicine 111 (December 1969): 491–492; Leavy, “Current Developments in the Law of Abortion,” Los Angeles Bar Bulletin 45 (November 1969): 11–15, 36–37. Also see CCTA Board Minutes, 10 September 1969, and CCTA “Open Meeting” Minutes, Santa Monica, 29 October 1969, CCTA Box 4; Jimmye Kimmey to Samuel Goldenberg, 18 September 1969, WCAR I-1; Kimmey, “The Abortion Argument: What It’s Not About,” Barnard Alumnae, Fall 1969; Leavy in CCTA Newsletter, October 1969, pp. 1, 2; The New Republic, 25 October 1969, p. 12; Scientific American, November 1969, pp. 56–57; Modern Hospital, December 1969, pp. 50–52; Medical Economics, 22 December 1969, pp. 146–147.

Law journal notes on the case, many of which were quite hostile to the Belous majority, include Kathryn L. Powers, “Toward A Judicial Reform of Abortion Laws,” University of Florida Law Review 22 (Summer 1969): 59–72; Laurens H. Silver, Clearinghouse Review 3 (October 1969): 131–133; Washington University Law Quarterly 1969 (Fall): 445–451; Richard D. Holper, Journal of Family Law 9 (1969): 300–308; New York Law Forum 15 (Winter 1969): 941–949; Joseph J. Fabrizio, Journal of Urban Law 47 (1969–70): 901–906; Nelson J. Vogel, Jr., Notre Dame Lawyer 45 (Winter 1970): 329–339; Edward J. Hund, Jr., Washburn Law Journal 9 (Winter 1970): 286–292; R. Eldridge Hicks, Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 5 (January 1970): 133–150; Jane L. McGrew, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 118 (February 1970): 643–659; Fordham Law Review 38 (March 1970): 557–568; Kathryn G. Milman, “Abortion Reform: History, Status, and Prognosis,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 21 (April 1970): 521–548; Stewart M. Weintraub, Temple Law Quarterly 43 (Spring 1970): 302–304; University of Richmond Law Review 4 (Spring 1970): 351–357; William T. Robinson III, Kentucky Law Journal 58 (Spring 1970): 843–850; Hugh Lowe, Texas Law Review 48 (May 1970): 937–946; Gary R. Cassavechia, Duquesne Law Review 8 (Summer 1970): 439–447; Edward C. Hussie, Dickinson Law Review 74 (Summer 1970): 772–781; Patrick L. Baude, “Constitutional Reflections on Abortion Reform,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 4 (Fall 1970): 1–10; Lyle B. Haskin, “The Abortion Controversy: The Law’s Response,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 48 (Fall-Winter 1971): 191–207. Also see note 69 below.

64. Thomas C. Lynch et al., “Petition for Rehearing,” People v. Belous, 19 September 1969, p. 12 (denied 3 October 1969); Lynch et al., “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” California v. Belous, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1969, #971, 15 December 1969, 15pp., National Archives RG 267, Box 9564; Russell, “To the Signers of the Physicians’ Brief,” 28 October 1969, CCTA Box 1; Zarky in Los Angeles Times, 25 September 1969, pp. IV-1, 12; Cyril Means to Lucas et al., 29 December 1969, Lucas Box 1; Lucas to W. J. Bryan Henrie, 10 September 1969, Lucas Box 21; Lucas to Zarky, 18 September 1969, Lucas Box 1; Dees to Drs. Nace Cohen and Hugh McGuire, 18 and 19 September 1969, Lucas Box 25; Lucas, “Notes on the Efforts in 1965–1973”; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas.

65. Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas, Robert E. Hall, and Mel Wulf; ACLU News Release, 30 September 1969, Lucas Box 28; Washington Post, 30 September 1969, pp. B1, B2; New York Times, 1 October 1969, p. 55; Aryeh Neier to Lucas, and Bart Clausen to Lucas, 1 October 1969, and Lucas draft response, n.d., Lucas Box 25; Pilpel to Hall et al., 30 December 1969, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37.

66. Munger to Lucas, 24 October 1969, CCTA Financial Report, July 1968-June 1969, 11 March 1970, Munger to Anwyl, 27 June 1969, Anwyl to Ruth Roemer, 3 July 1969, Elizabeth Canfield to Joseph Sunnen, 21 December 1969, Munger to Dean Bauer, 30 December 1969, CCTA Box 4; Munger to Lader, 28 February 1972, Lader Box 5; Munger Interview with Garrow.

67. Nancy Stearns and Florynce Kennedy, “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief,” Abramowicz v. Lefkowitz, S.D.N.Y. CA#69–4469, 10 October 1969, pp. 11–12; New York Times, 8 October 1969, p. 53, 6 November 1969, p. 28, 7 November 1969, p. 14, 10 November 1969, p. 46, 13 December 1969, p. 37; Hall v. Lefkowitz, 305 F. Supp. 1030 (4 November); Village Voice, 4 December 1969, pp. 34, 37; Diane Schulder and Florynce Kennedy, Abortion Rap (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971); Stearns, “Roe v. Wade: Our Struggle Continues,” Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 4 (1988–89): 1–11, at 1–4; Stearns Interview with Garrow. Also see Darlene Weide, “The History of New York Abortion Law Repeal” (unpublished B.A. thesis, Barnard College, 1989), pp. 27–30; and John D. Gregory, “Complaint,” John and Mary Doe et al. v. Lefkowitz, S.D.N.Y. #CA69–4423, 24 October 1969, 13pp., Lucas Box 16.

68. Dees to Charles Flowers, 4 November 1969, Flowers to Dees, 11 November 1969, Dees to Flowers, 17 November 1969, Lucas Box 25; Lucas to Savage, 23 October 1969, Lucas Box 22; Madison Institute “Meeting of the Board of Trustees,” 25 October 1969, Emerson Box 13; Jane Lollis to Lucas, “Memorandum,” 28 October 1969, 8pp., Lucas Box 23; Lassoe to Don Shaw, 28 October 1969, ARAI 8–11. Also see Patrick E. Treacy to Mel Wulf, 17 October 1969, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; and Lader to NARAL Executive Committee, “Suggested Projects,” 23 October 1969, Lader Box 15. On internal developments within NARAL, also see Conni Finnerty et al. to NARAL Board Members, 30 August 1969, NARAL Executive Committee Minutes, 28 September and 7 November 1969, and Lee Gidding, “Executive Director’s Report,” 7 November 1969, NARAL Box 1.

69. United States v. Vuitch, 305 F. Supp. 1032, 1034, 1035; U.S. v. Vuitch Docket Sheet, #1043–68, Gesell Papers; Washington Post, 11 November 1969, pp. A1, A17, B1, B3, 12 November 1969, pp. A1, A16, C1, C10, 18 November 1969, p. A22; New York Times, 11 November 1969, p. 30, 12 November 1969, pp. 30, 46, 16 November 1969, p. E9; National Observer, 17 November 1969; Washington Star, 18 November 1969, p. A12; Time, 21 November 1969, pp. 65–66; John F. Dienelt, “Memories of a Year With Judge Gesell (1969–1970),” n.d., 4pp., Gesell Papers; Garrow conversation with John F. Dienelt; Fred Rodell to Gesell, 19 November 1969, and Carol Greitzer to Gesell, 26 November 1969, Gesell Papers. Law journal notes on Vuitch—several of which also review Belous—include Robert Ross, Jr., South Texas Law Journal 11 (1969): 426–434; William E. Sherman, North Dakota Law Review 46 (Winter 1970): 249–257; Donald W. Brodie, “Marital Procreation,” Oregon Law Review 49 (April 1970): 245–259; Jay R. Herman, Suffolk University Law Review 4 (Spring 1970): 920–929; Vanderbilt Law Review 23 (May 1970): 821–827. On Dr. Vuitch himself, see Washington Post, 4 October 1969, p. B1, 19 November 1969; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 9–11, 111–113; Medical World News, 16 January 1970, pp. 16–17; Washingtonian, October 1970, p. 37; Baltimore News-American, 24 October 1971, pp. E12-E13; Garrow conversations with Milan Vuitch and Florence Vuitch; and Dr. Vuitch’s obituaries in the Washington Post, 10 April 1993, p. B6, and the New York Times, 11 April 1993, p. 30. On Judge Gesell, a 1935 Yale Law School graduate who had been named to the bench just two years earlier by President Lyndon B. Johnson, see his obituaries in the New York Times, 21 February 1993, p. 39, and the Washington Post, 21 February 1993, p. B6.

70. Stephen M. Nagler to Richard Samuel, 26 September 1969, Samuel to Abortion Suit Committee, 14 November 1969, Lucas Box 15; Newark Evening News, 11 December 1969, pp. 40, 47; [Lucas], “Memorandum Re New Jersey Abortion Case,” n.d. [27 December 1969], Lucas Box 15. Also see State v. Raymond, 257 A.2d 107 (15 September 1969).

71. Des Moines Register, 16 November 1969, pp. 1, 2; ICMCA Journal #7 (Winter 1969); George S. Daly, Jr., to ACLU, 29 December 1969, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Lamm to Lucas, 18 November 1969, Lucas to Lamm, 1 December 1969, Lucas Box 2; New York Times, 8 December 1969, pp. 1, 53; Lamm, “The Reproductive Revolution,” American Bar Association Journal 56 (January 1970): 41–44, at 43; Olga Curtis, “The Paradox of Colorado’s Abortion Law,” Denver Post Empire Magazine, 1 February 1970, pp. 34–35; Lamm Interview with Garrow. To some extent, however, Lucas believed that cases against unreformed statutes should be filed first. “A drive against ALI-type reform laws will follow. If both were considered by the Supreme Court at the same time, there is danger that the resulting decision would represent a compromise.” NARAL News, Winter 1970, p. 5.

72. Byron N. Fujita and Nathaniel N. Wagner, “Referendum 20—Abortion Reform in Washington State,” in Howard J. and Joy D. Osofsky, eds., The Abortion Experience, pp. 232–260, at 235–240; David R. Hood to Goldenberg, 24 November 1969, WCAR I-1; WCAR Executive Committee Minutes, 24 November 1969, WCAR I-5; Robert G. Morrison, “Choice in Washington: The Politics of Liberalized Abortion” (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Virginia, 1982), pp. 61–67; Seattle Times, 28 November 1969, 21 December 1969, p. A15; Goldenberg to Lee Gidding, 1 December 1969, NARAL Box 6; Harold H. Green to Ronald Pion, and to Charles S. Fine, 5 December 1969, WCAR I-1; WCAR Executive Committee Minutes, 8 December 1969, WCAR I-3; New York Times, 12 December 1969, p. 36; William H. Gates, Jr., to Goldenberg, 18 December 1969, WCAR I-1; Goldenberg to Lee Gidding, 20 December 1969, NARAL Box 5; William E. Watts to WCAR Board, n.d., and Gates to WCAR, 16 January 1970, WCAR I-1. Also see Northwest Medicine, November 1969, p. 1068, and Ronald J. Pion et al., “Abortion Request and Post-Operative Response,” Northwest Medicine, September 1970, pp. 693–698. On Dr. Koome, also see National Catholic Reporter, 10 December 1969, and American Medical News, 8 June 1970, p. 9.

73. New York Law Journal, 10 October 1969, pp. 1, 3; New York Times, 12 October 1969, p. 40, 31 October 1969, p. 17, 3 November 1969, p. 37, 18 November 1969, p. 38, 23 November 1969, p. 78, 25 November 1969, p. 51, 30 November 1969, p. 60; Modern Medicine 37 (3 November 1969): 18–25; Washington Post, 14 November 1969; “The Present Status of Abortion Laws” [1 and 17 December 1969], Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 46 (April 1970): 281–286; “Position Statement on Abortion” [12–13 December 1969], American Journal of Psychiatry 126 (April 1970): 1554; Minneapolis Tribune, 19 November 1969, p. 16; Minneapolis Star, 19 November 1969, p. C11; Cook to Lucas, 14 October 1969, Lucas Box 25. Also see Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, The Right to Abortion: A Psychiatric View (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970); and Richard L. Worsnop, “Abortion Law Reform,” Editorial Research Reports, 24 July 1970, pp. 545–562.

74. America, 29 November 1969, p. 515; Noonan, ed., The Morality of Abortion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. ix, 234; Noonan, “The Constitutionality of the Regulation of Abortion,” Hastings Law Journal 21 (November 1969): 51–65, at 62. Also see Rudy J. Gerber, “Abortion: Two Opposing Legal Philosophies,” American Journal of Jurisprudence 15 (1970): 1–24.

75. Rashbaum, “Proposal for Ambulatory Abortion Service,” n.d., 3pp., Hall to Guttmacher, with enclosure, “The New York Abortion Clinic,” 2 December 1969, Guttmacher to Solomon Berson et al., 23 December 1969, Guttmacher Papers; Vuitch to Lader, n.d. [c.mid-November 1969], 10pp., Vuitch Papers; Carmen and Moody, Abortion Counseling, pp. 67–69; Nathanson, Aborting America, pp. 64–66; New York Times, 10 December 1969, p. 110, 11 December 1969, pp. 37, 40, 13 December 1969, p. 37; Washington Post, 12 December 1969, p. B1; Lee Gidding, “Executive Director’s Report,” 12 December 1969, NARAL Box 1; Lader, Abortion II, p. 114.

76. Lucas to Savage, 1 and 8 December 1969, Lucas Box 22; [Gidding], “Phone Conversation with Roy Lucas,” 6 December 1969, NARAL Box 7; Stuart Nelkin to ASA, 1 December 1969, and Jimmye Kimmey to Nelkin, 8 December 1969, Lucas Box 22; Merrill to Mel Wulf, and to ASA, 19 December 1969, Kimmey to Merrill, 22 December 1969, and Wulf to Lucas, 30 December 1969, Lucas Box 22; Merrill to NARAL, 19 December 1969, and Gidding to Merrill, 30 December 1969, NARAL Box 5; Lucas to Merrill, 2 January 1970, Lucas Box 22; Garrow conversations with Roy Merrill, Roy Lucas, and Fred Bruner. Also see Gidding to Samuel Goldenberg, 10 December 1969, NARAL Box 6; C. W. Thompson v. Texas, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1971, #1200, National Archives RG 267, Box 296; Lucas to John F. Davis, 17 December 1969, and Davis to Lucas, 31 December 1969, regarding the likely timetable for argument should the Supreme Court choose to review Belous. National Archives, RG 267, Box 9564. On John R. Brown, see Jack Bass, Unlikely Heroes (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), pp. 101–108; and Harvey C. Couch, A History of the Fifth Circuit, 1891–1981 (New Orleans: U.S. Court of Appeals, 1984), pp. 86–194 passim.

CHAPTER SEVEN

1. Garrow conversations with Judy Smith, Jim Wheelis, Victoria Foe, Bea Vogel, and Barbara Hines; Susan Torian Olan, “Blood Debts,” Dick J. Reavis, “SDS: From Students to Seniors,” Frieda L. Werden, “Adventures of a Texas Feminist,” and Danny N. Schweers, “The Community and The Rag,” in Daryl Janes, ed., No Apologies: Texas Radicals Celebrate the ’60s (Austin: Eakin Press, 1992), pp. 13–48, 102–107, 191–210, and 213–236; “Abortions,” The Rag, 29 April 1969, pp. F and G; Susan Torian Olan, “The Rag: A Study in Underground Journalism” (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1981), esp. pp. 86, 104–105, 119. On the SDS National Council meeting in Austin, also see Kirkpatrick Sale, SDS (New York: Random House, 1973), pp. 537–538. On Victoria Foe, also see New York Times, 15 June 1993, p. B10, 10 August 1993, pp. C1, C12, and Seattle Times, 27 July 1993, pp. E1, E7.

2. Board of Regents v. New Left Education Project, #174, 116, Travis County 167th District Court, 8 July 1969; New Left Education Project v. Board of Regents, U.S.D.C, W.D. Tex., CA# 69–106, 1 August 1969; Garrow conversations with Jim Wheelis, Barbara Hines, Judy Smith, and Ron Weddington. The Austin case was not David Richards’s first effort on behalf of an underground newspaper; also see Stein v. Batchelor, 300 F. Supp. 602 (N.D. Tex.), 9 June 1969, concerning Dallas Notes. On David Richards, also see Ann Richards, Straight From the Heart (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989), pp. 69–76, 79–81, and 134–137.

3. Judy [Smith], “Women’s Psyches,” The Rag, 31 July 1969, p. 6; “Why Women’s Liberation?,” The Rag, Vol. 3, #28 [8 September 1969], p. 4; Garrow conversations with Judy Smith, Bea Vogel, Barbara Hines, and Jim Wheelis.

4. “And Their Bodies,” The Rag, 31 July 1969, p. 6; “Why Women’s Liberation?” The Rag, Vol. 3, #28 [8 September 1969], p. 4; Barbara Wuensch, “Women’s Liberation,” The Rag, 15 September 1969, p. 3; Bea [Vogel], “On Liberation,” The Rag, 29 September 1969, pp. 12–13; “Birth Control,” The Rag, 3 November 1969, p. 17; Austin American-Statesman, 15 October 1969; Beatrice R. Vogel to Lee Gidding, 16 February 1970, NARAL Box 5; Garrow conversations with Judy Smith, Bea Vogel, Victoria Foe, and Barbara Hines.

5. Garrow conversations with Judy Smith, Barbara Hines, Bea Vogel, Victoria Foe, and Bob Breihan.

6. Garrow conversations with Judy Smith, Bea Vogel, Sarah Weddington, Jim Wheelis, Ron Weddington, and Barbara Hines; Sarah Weddington, A Question of Choice (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1992), pp. 24–38; Weddington in Vicki Quade, “Our Bodies, Our Law,” The Barrister 13 (Summer 1986): 14–16ff.; Molly Ivins, “This Right of Privacy,” Texas Observer, 16 February 1973, pp. 1, 3–5. Sarah Weddington has related her memories of the garage sale query on numerous occasions; at least once, in 1973, she erroneously identified it as occurring “in the spring of 1970.” Weddington, “Court Abortion Victory Not Enough,” Daily Texan, 1 February 1973. Also see Dallas Times-Herald, 12 December 1971, p. D10; Weddington Interview with Duke (1973); Weddington in Rachel C. Wahlberg, “Abortion: Landmark Decision,” Dallas Morning News, 22 and 23 April 1973, pp. E1 and C7; Weddington’s 11 April 1975 testimony in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Abortion Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Part IV, 94th Cong., 1st sess., p. 520; Dallas Times-Herald, 14 December 1975, p. D2; Weddington in Warren M. Hern and Bonnie Andrikopoulos, eds., Abortion in the Seventies (New York: National Abortion Federation, 1977), p. 278; Daily Texan, 8 May 1987, 6 March 1990, 12 November 1991; Weddington, “Roe v. Wade Began At Garage Sale,” Fulton County Daily Report, 9 February 1989, pp. 8–9; Austin American-Statesman, 29 June 1989; Weddington, “Roe v. Wade: Past and Future,” Suffolk University Law Review 24 (Fall 1990): 601–620, at 601–603; and Weddington, “Abortion: The New Focus,” in Roy M. Mersky and Gary R. Hartman, eds., A Documentary History of the Legal Aspects of Abortion in the United States: Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman & Co., 1990), vol. 1, pp. 3–16, at 5–6.

7. Weddington, A Question of Choice, pp. 12–14, 18–24. On at least one occasion in later years when Weddington was asked whether she herself had ever had an abortion, she brushed the question aside: “That’s irrelevant,” she claimed. Quade, “Our Bodies, Our Law,” pp. 14–16ff. In an earlier interview, citing her “very strong feeling of self-determination,” Weddington noted that upon finishing law school “I was planning to start a practice and a career. There was no question in my mind that I did not want to have a child at that time. I’m sure I would have had no hesitancy … to choose an abortion had a choice been necessary.” Interview with Cheek, p. 38. On Weddington’s background, also see Weddington et al., Texas Women in Politics (Austin: Foundation for Women’s Resources, 1977), pp. 77–81; and Weddington Interviews with Marcello, Cheek, and Garrow. Worthwhile biographical stories or profiles of Weddington include Daily Texan, 2 December 1971; Austin Sun, 9 September 1977, p. 11; Dallas Times-Herald, 5 September 1978, pp. 1, 6, 22 March 1985, pp. A1, A13; People Magazine, 18 September 1978, pp. 36–37; Towne Hall Notes [University of Texas Law School], Winter 1979, pp. 6–7; Susan Wood, “The Weddington Way,” Washington Post Magazine, 11 February 1979, pp. 6–11; Christian Science Monitor, 4 May 1979, p. B8; Austin American-Statesman, 1 July 1979, pp. E1, E12; New York Times, 15 August 1979, p. D14; Mary Dudley, “The Odyssey of Sarah Weddington,” Texas Woman 1 (November 1979): 24–31; Linda Stern, “Sarah Weddington,” Working Woman, February 1980, pp. 35–37, 62; Ann F. Crawford and Crystal S. Ragsdale, Women in Texas (Burnet, TX: Eakin Press, 1982), pp. 309–318; Dallas Morning News, 25 March 1982, pp. C1, C4, 31 January 1983, 2 October 1983, pp. E1, E4; Austin Business Journal, 26 September/2 October 1988, pp. 1, 14; Leslie Bennetts, “A Woman’s Choice,” Vanity Fair, September 1992, pp. 148–158.

8. Garrow conversations with Sarah Weddington, Judy Smith, Jim Wheelis, Barbara Hines, Ron Weddington, and Bea Vogel; Weddington Interview with Duke; Weddington, A Question of Choice, pp. 44–47. Somewhat oddly, one newspaper story only two years later quotes Weddington as saying that “Through the women’s liberation groups I heard of Linda Coffee and that she was filing a case in Dallas.” Dallas Times-Herald, 12 December 1971, p. D10.

After the November 26 hearing, the substantive and procedural history of New Left Education Project v. Board of Regents became convoluted in the extreme. On December 17 the three-judge panel filed a brief order granting the request that new plaintiffs—including Ron Weddington and Barbara Hines—be allowed to enter the case but declining The Rag’s request that they block the Regents’ ongoing state court suit against the paper. Two months later attorney Richards requested that Travis County District Judge Tom Blackwell hold the state case in abeyance pending further action in the federal matter, but one day after a February 25 hearing Blackwell granted the Regents’ request for a temporary injunction against any distribution of The Rag on the UT campus. Following a June 26, 1970, hearing on the merits, the federal panel nine weeks later found for The Rag, ruling that the Regents’ restrictions “are unconstitutionally overbroad.” The Regents appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, and after oral argument on December 6, 1971, the high court held by a vote of 6 to 1 (Justice Douglas dissenting) that because of the less than statewide authority of the Regents, the suit originally should have been heard by a single district judge rather than a three-judge panel. Hence UT’s appeal was dismissed and referred to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in early 1973 affirmed an unreported interim decision by U.S. District Judge Jack Roberts that the Regents’ drastic alteration of the antidistribution rules in February of 1972 effectively mooted the case. Eight months later the Supreme Court, acting on a further appeal by the Regents, agreed with the conclusion of mootness but instructed that the earlier judgment against the Regents should also be formally vacated. In addition to the case files now located in the National Archives and in the regional records center in Fort Worth (CA#69–106), see New Left Education Project v. Board of Regents, 326 F. Supp. 158, 164 (3 September 1970), Board of Regents v. New Left Education Project (#70–55), 404 U.S. 541 (24 January 1972), New Left Education Project v. Board of Regents, 472 F.2d 218 (19 January 1973), and Board of Regents v. New Left Education Project (#72–1485), 414 U.S. 807 (9 October 1973).

9. Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington; Weddington, A Question of Choice, pp. 23, 48–49. Biographical items on Linda Coffee appear in the Dallas Morning News, 6 February 1960, 2 September 1968, p. C1, and 29 July 1990, p. E4.

10. Hughes Interviews with Frantz, Gantt, and Marcello; Opal H. Allread, “Sarah T. Hughes: A Case Study in Judicial Decision-Making” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1987), esp. pp. 106–107; Dallas Morning News, 13 August 1961, 19 February 1975, p. C1, 5 August 1975, p. D1, 12 November 1975, p. C1, 25 April 1985, pp. A1, A20; Dallas Morning News Magazine, 10 May 1981, pp. 8–11; Dallas Times-Herald, 16 August 1981, pp. 1, 26, 24 April 1985, pp. 1, 16, 25 April 1985, pp. 1, 12; Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee and Barefoot Sanders. Also see Ann F. Crawford and Crystal S. Ragsdale, Women in Texas (Burnet, TX: Eakin Press, 1982), pp. 261–269.

11. Lawrence J. Vilardo and Howard W. Gutman, “With Justice from One: Interview with Hon. Irving L. Goldberg,” Litigation 17 (Spring 1991): 16–22, 56–57; Dallas Morning News, 28 April 1966, 29 June 1966, 26 December 1971, p. A28; Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee, Clarice M. Davis, and Irving L. Goldberg. Also see Frank T. Read and Lucy S. McGough, Let Them Be Judged (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1978), pp. 180–181; Jack Bass, Unlikely Heroes (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), pp. 304–305 and 327–328; and Harvey C. Couch, A History of the Fifth Circuit, 1891–1981 (New Orleans: U.S. Court of Appeals, 1984), p. 134.

12. Buchanan v. Batchelor, 308 F. Supp. 729 (1970); Buchanan v. Texas, 471 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 1971); Dallas Morning News, 17 July 1973, p. A14; Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee. McCluskey filed Buchanan one month before both New York’s “Stonewall Rebellion” of 27 June 1969 and the widely noted vindication of a gay federal employee’s privacy rights by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Norton v. Macy, 417 F.2d 1161 (1 July 1969). For earlier discussions of possible legal challenges to police and prosecutorial pursuit of criminal charges against consensual gay sex participants, see Yale Law Journal 70 (March 1961): 623–635; UCLA Law Review 13 (March 1966): 643–832 and 14 (January 1967): 581–603; Journal of Public Law 16 (1967): 159–192; South Dakota Law Review 13 (Spring 1968): 384–397; California Western Law Review 4 (Spring 1968): 115–131 and 5 (Spring 1969): 232–251; Natural Resources Journal 8 (July 1968): 531–541; Wayne Law Review 14 (1968): 934–969; and Kentucky Law Journal 57 (Spring 1969): 591–598. Particularly valuable commentaries on early gay rights legal efforts include Webster Schott, “A 4-Million Minority Asks for Equal Rights,” New York Times Magazine, 12 November 1967, pp. 44ff.; Gilbert M. Cantor, “The Need for Homosexual Law Reform,” in Ralph W. Weltge, ed., The Same Sex (Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1969), pp. 83–94; Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, The Gay Crusaders (New York: Paperback Library, 1972); Laud Humphreys, Out of the Closets: The Sociology of Homosexual Liberation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972); and especially Donn Teal, The Gay Militants (New York: Stein and Day, 1971), and John D’Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), esp. pp. 211, 231–233, 239. On the definitional history by which sodomy statutes generally came to cover most but not all acts of oral sex, see Lawrence R. Murphy, “Defining the Crime Against Nature: Sodomy in the United States Appeals Courts, 1810–1940,” Journal of Homosexuality 19 (1990): 49–66; also see Mercer Law Review 16 (Fall 1964): 345–347.

13. Coffee to Weddington, 4 December 1969, in Barbara Milbauer, The Law Giveth (New York: Atheneum, 1983), pp. 29–30; Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington; Houston Post, 23 June 1970, p. II-1; Weddington Interviews with Duke and Cheek; Weddington, A Question of Choice, p. 49. Unfortunately neither Weddington, Coffee, nor Milbauer can now locate an actual copy of the December 4 letter.

14. Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee, Sarah Weddington, Judy Smith, Barbara Hines, Bea Vogel, Virginia Whitehill, Patricia [White] Judd, Ellen [Kalina] Lewis, Pat [Cookston] Davidson, Doris Middleton, and Barbara Richardson; Weddington, “Roe v. Wade: Past and Future,” Suffolk University Law Review 24 (Fall 1990): 601–620, at 603; Genevieve Scott, Women’s Alliance Minutes, 30 September 1969, 7 October 1969, 25 November 1969, and 13 January 1970, First Unitarian Church; “Abortion Law to Be Topic,” Dallas Morning News, 12 January 1970, p. C4; Dallas Times-Herald, 14 January 1970. My deepest thanks go to Doris Middleton for providing me with the extremely valuable Women’s Alliance minutes.

15. On Marsha and David King, see their marriage announcements in the 11 July 1968 Atlanta Constitution and Atlanta Journal, as well as Barbara Richardson’s subsequent profile, “Couple Seeks Right Not to Have Child,” Dallas Times-Herald, 15 March 1970, p. E9, and Marsha King’s three-page 5 July 1971 memo to Roy Lucas, “Personal Information on Mary Doe,” Lucas Box 22. Also Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee and Virginia Whitehill; Atlanta Constitution, 21 December 1983, p. A28.

16. Buchanan v. Batchelor, 308 F. Supp. 729, 732, 733, 735 (21 January 1970); Allread, “Sarah T. Hughes,” pp. 141–143; Cotner v. Henry, 394 F.2d 873 (17 April 1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 847 (1968). Also see Charles O. Cotner, “Marital Sodomy Imprisonment,” Playboy, July 1968, p. 45, R. Thomas Farrar, University of Miami Law Review 23 (Fall 1968): 231–236, and especially Jon D. Krahulik, “The Cotner Case: Indiana Witch Hunt,” Indiana Legal Forum 2 (Spring 1969): 336–350. Married in 1953 and the parents of five children, Charles and Jeane Cotner had an argument in May 1965 that led to Jeane’s filing a complaint with local authorities. When she attempted to withdraw it the local judge to their surprise refused, and Charles then and there, without benefit of counsel, decided that the quickest and easiest way to get rid of the matter would be simply to plead guilty to the sodomy charge. Expecting no punishment, Charles was instead sentenced to two to fourteen years in prison. Only when the Seventh Circuit panel by a vote of 2 to 1 reversed an earlier district court dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus was he released. Also note Travers v. Paton, 261 F. Supp. 110 (D.Conn., 1966). Law journal notes on the panel decision in Buchanan include Ty M. Sparks, Texas Tech Law Review 2 (Fall 1970): 115–120; William R. Pakalka, Texas Law Review 49 (January 1971): 400–406; and John F. Simmons, Nebraska Law Review 50 (Spring 1971): 567–575.

17. Garrow conversations with Norma McCorvey, Linda Coffee, and Sarah Weddington; McCorvey Interview with Dreifus; McCorvey in Angela Bonavoglia, ed., The Choices We Made (New York: Random House, 1991), pp. 137–143; Joseph N. Bell, “A Landmark Decision,” Good Housekeeping 176 (June 1973): 77–79ff; Parade Magazine, 8 May 1983; Marian Faux, Roe v. Wade (New York: Macmillan, 1988), pp. 6–10; McCorvey in “Search for Justice: The American Stories,” WUSA-TV, Washington, D.C., 13 September 1987, 6pp.; Dallas Morning News, 9 September 1987, pp. A1, A16, 10 September 1987, pp. A1, A34; Dallas Times-Herald, 22 January 1988, pp. A1, A18, 2 July 1991, pp. A1, A6; Village Voice, 11 April 1989, p. 44; People Magazine, 22 May 1989, pp. 36–41; Los Angeles Times, 25 June 1989, pp. 1, 17–18; Marian Faux, “Roe v. Wade,” Memories 3 (June-July 1990): 94–98. Also see Dallas Times Herald Magazine, 18 October 1981, pp. 37–42; People Magazine, 5 August 1985, p. 72; New York Times, 9 September 1987, p. A23, 9 May 1989, p. A18; Newsweek, 17 April 1989, p. 22; Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 1 May 1989, pp. B1, B5. On Dr. Richard Allen Lane, who was subsequently sentenced to two years in prison, see Dallas Morning News, 28 June 1968, and 8 December 1970, p. 9. On nonmedical abortion providers in Dallas circa 1970, see Dallas Morning News, 14 October 1973, p. A1.

Seventeen months later, in September 1971, Weddington wrote a letter telling a friend that she recently had been in Dallas and that “Meeting Jane Roe was fascinating.” While this statement would seem to suggest that perhaps Weddington had not previously met her, Weddington nonetheless firmly believes that she did indeed first meet Norma McCorvey at the Colombo’s Pizza Parlor on Mockingbird Lane sometime in January or early February 1970. McCorvey has often recalled how in what she remembers as her first joint meeting with Coffee and Weddington, Sarah spoke about them taking her case to the Supreme Court. In one 1984 interview McCorvey stated that she believed she first met Weddington at Marsha and David King’s apartment. That locus, and especially the explicit reference to the Supreme Court, would fit very well into the context of September 1971; such a reference to the Supreme Court would have been extremely unlikely in January or February 1970, for, as Weddington emphasizes, “we weren’t thinking of the Supreme Court” at that time. While such factors would seem to buttress the apparent meaning of Weddington’s September 1971 letter, she reiterates that the implication that she did not first meet McCorvey until September 1971 could not be correct. “It couldn’t. It’s just impossible.” Such an inference would be “absolutely inaccurate,” for it “doesn’t make any sense.” Weddington also noted, however, that “I can tell you what I remember; I can’t tell you what was true or not.” Linda Coffee acknowledges graciously that she does “not really” have any specific recollection of the pizza parlor meeting and is “not absolutely positive” that there was a joint meeting before the case was filed. Asked for her interpretation of Weddington’s September 1971 statement if indeed an early 1970 initial joint meeting took place, Coffee replied frankly, “That doesn’t make any sense.” Norma McCorvey candidly confesses that she is uncertain of where she first met the two lawyers together, or even if she did indeed have one or more initial face-to-face meetings with just Coffee. Garrow conversations with Sarah Weddington, Linda Coffee, Norma McCorvey, and Virginia Whitehill; Weddington to Whitehill, 23 September 1971, Whitehill Papers.

18. Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee, Sarah Weddington, Virginia Whitehill, Patricia [White] Judd, Ellen [Kalina] Lewis, Doris Middleton, and Norma McCorvey; Genevieve Scott, Women’s Alliance Minutes, 27 January and 3 February 1970; Patricia White, Organizational Meeting Minutes, 11 February 1970, Whitehill Papers; Genevieve Scott, Women’s Alliance Minutes, 24 February and 3 March 1970; Beatrice R. Vogel to Lee Gidding, 16 February 1970, and Gidding to Vogel, 19 February 1970, NARAL Box 5; Allread, “Sarah T. Hughes,” pp. 143–146; Doris Middleton, “Alas Roe v. Wade,” unpublished essay, 1992; Donna Gordon, “Roe v. Wade Revisited,” The World [U.U.A.], January-February 1992, p. 56.

19. Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee, Sarah Weddington, and Barbara Richardson; Roe v. Wade, CA# 3–3690, U.S.D.C. N.D. Tex., Doe v. Wade, CA#3–3691, U.S.D.C. N.D. Tex., 3 March 1970; Dallas Times Herald, 3 March 1970, pp. 1, 8, 5 March 1970, 6 March 1970, p. A28, 8 March 1970, pp. 1, 4, 15 March 1970, p. E9; Dallas Morning News, 4 March 1970, p. 1; The Rag, 9 March 1970, p. 17. The Texas abortion statute originally dated from 1854, and had been revised and rephrased in 1907. See Amy Johnson, “Abortion, Personhood, and Privacy in Texas,” Texas Law Review 68 (June 1990): 1521–1544. Also see Houston Law Review 18 (May 1981): 819–848.

20. On NARAL and the D.C. situation, see Lader to Executive Committee Members, 13 January and 17 February 1970, NARAL Box 1, Cyril C. Means, Jr., to Donald Harting, 17 January 1970, and Lee Gidding memo, 11 February 1970, NARAL Box 2; also see New York Times, 7 February 1970, p. 11; Washington Post, 23 February 1970, pp. C1, C2, 24 February 1970, pp. B1, B2, 25 February 1970, pp. C1, C2, 12 March 1970, pp. A1, A14; Washington Star, 24 February 1970, pp. B1, B4; and Medical Annals of the District of Columbia 39 (March 1970): 133–137, 186 and (May 1970): 275–277. On the New York scene, see Newsday, 15 August 1969, p. 7; New Yorkers for Abortion Law Repeal to NARAL Executive Committee, 19 December 1969, NARAL Box 1; Cusack to Cook, 21 December 1969, Cusack to Duryea, 5 January 1970, Citizens for Abortion Law Repeal Minutes, 7 January 1970, Cusack to Clapp, 10 January 1970, and Clapp to Cusack, 19 January 19[70], Cusack Papers; New Yorkers for Abortion Law Repeal Newsletter Vol. 2, #2 (February 1970); Ruth P. Smith and Ruth Frey, “Chronicle of the Activities of the Committee for the Cook-Leichter Bill,” n.d. [c.30 April 1970], 4pp., NARAL Box 4; New York Times, 4 January 1970, p. 48, 26 January 1970, p. 19, 29 January 1970, p. 27, 4 February 1970, p. 42; Lader, Abortion II, p. 130; Darlene Weide, “The History of New York Abortion Law Repeal: A Case Study” (unpublished B.A. thesis, Barnard College, 1989).

Also see particularly Lucinda Cisler, “Unfinished Business: Birth Control and Women’s Liberation,” in Robin Morgan, ed., Sisterhood Is Powerful (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 245–289, at 275–276, and Cisler, “Abortion Law Repeal (Sort of): A Warning to Women” [April 1970], in Anne Koedt, ed., Radical Feminism (New York: Quadrangle, 1973), pp. 151–164, at 154. Cisler in her first essay emphasized that “‘reform’ and repeal are actually fundamentally incompatible ideas,” in part because therapeutic reform proponents basically viewed women as “victims—of rape, or of rubella, or of heart disease or mental illness—never as possible shapers of their own destinies.” In the second, she insisted that “it is the women’s movement whose demand for repeal—rather than ‘reform’—of the abortion laws has spurred the general acceleration in the abortion movement and its influence.”

21. Diane Schulder and Florynce Kennedy, Abortion Rap (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), passim; Claudia Dreifus, “Abortion: This Piece is For Remembrance,” in Dreifus, ed., Seizing Our Bodies (New York: Vintage, 1978), pp. 131–145; New York Times, 27 January 1970, p. 29, 28 January 1970, p. 26; Greenhouse, New York Times Magazine, 25 January 1970, pp. 30–31, 88–91. Also see Science News, 17 January 1970, pp. 75–76, which quoted ASA’s Jimmye Kimmey as saying that “We have stopped pushing for new laws” and instead were looking ahead to a definitive Supreme Court ruling. Subsequent analyses which also highlight the importance of Lucas’s article include Betty Sarvis and Hyman Rodman, The Abortion Controversy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973), p. 57 (“a landmark article”); Raymond Tatalovich and Byron W. Daynes, The Politics of Abortion (New York: Praeger, 1981), p. 26 (“a landmark article”); Eva R. Rubin, “The Abortion Cases: A Study in Law and Social Change,” North Carolina Central Law Journal 5 (Spring 1974): 215–253, at 227; Rubin, Abortion, Politics, and the Courts (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982), pp. 41–42, 49 (The “germinal” article both “supplied the blueprint” and “laid a foundation for much of the later constitutional argument in lower court challenges and indirectly for Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe.” “In many ways, this article supplied a master plan for an extended litigation campaign”); and Elizabeth Mensch and Alan Freeman, The Politics of Virtue (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993), pp. 122–123.

22. Life, 27 February 1970, pp. 20–29; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 20 February 1970, pp. 1, 4; “Alumni Lead Fight to Remove Abortion Law,” The Commentator [NYU Law School], 25 February 1970, p. 9; Lucas to Chris Tietze, 22 January 1970, Lucas Box 17; Hall to Lucas, 2 February 1970, Lucas Box 18; Jane Zuckerman to Lucas, 3 February 1970, Lucas Box 25; Pilpel to File, “PP—Abortion Clinic,” 4 February 1970, Hall to Pilpel, Guttmacher, and Goldmark, 10 February 1970, Guttmacher Papers; Pilpel to Lucas, 10 February 1970, Lucas Box 25; Pilpel to File, “PP—Abortion Facility,” 17 February 1970, Lucas Box 18; Hellman to Guttmacher, 19 February 1970, Guttmacher Papers; New York Times, 19 February 1970, p. 51, 4 March 1970, p. 37, 8 March 1970, p. 38; Goldmark and Guttmacher letter, 4 March 1970, ASA Annual Meeting Minutes, 6 March 1970, Guttmacher Papers; Carmen and Moody, Abortion Counseling, pp. 68–71; Nathanson, Aborting America, pp. 66–69. Also see Jane Ross, “Abortion and the Unwanted Child: An Interview with Alan F. Guttmacher and Harriet F. Pilpel,” Family Planning Perspectives 2 (March 1970): 16–25, at 16, where Guttmacher forcefully reiterated that “Safe abortion must be available as a rational option for any woman who finds herself pregnant and does not wish to be.”

23. Lucas, Norman Dorsen, Harriet F. Pilpel, and Ruth Jane Zuckerman, “Brief of Plaintiffs,” Hall v. Hogan, U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., #69-C-4284, 6 March 1970; Marvin J. Diamond to Mel Wulf, 11 February 1970, Lucas Box 4; [Lee Gidding], “Lucas, the Vuitch Case, and NARAL,” 19 February 1970, NARAL Box 7; Lucas to Diamond, 20 February 1970, ACLU 1972 Vol. 37; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas. Also note Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 19 January 1970, dismissing an appeal of an abortion conviction (254 A.2d 792 [N.J. Sup. Ct.]) by a fugitive nonphysician.

24. Baird v. Massachusetts, 396 U.S. 1029; Baird Case File, O.T. 1969, #707, National Archives, RG 267, Box 9840; Boston Globe, 13 January 1970, 20 February 1970, 1 March 1970, p. A3, 14 March 1970, 28 March 1970, pp. 1, 5; Boston Herald Traveler, 13 January 1970, p. 3; Baird v. Eisenstadt, 310 F. Supp. 951; Baird, “The Prison Diary of Bill Baird,” Boston Globe Magazine, 14 June 1970; Eisenstadt v. Baird, Appendix to Record, pp. 7–14; Garrow conversations with William R. Baird.

25. California v. Belous, 397 U.S. 915; William J. Brennan Docket Book (O.T. 1970, #971) and Conference Lists (20 February 1970), Brennan Papers Boxes 417 and 200–201; Judge Paul Mast, People v. Robert C. Robb, Central Orange County Municipal Court, #149005, 9 January 1970, 9pp.; Los Angeles Times, 10 January 1970, p. II-10, 3 March 1970, pp. IV-1, 6, 19 March 1970, pp. 1, 3, 21 March 1970, p. II-10; Joy Connors, “Legalized Abortion—Only a Matter of Time?” Orange County Illustrated, May 1970, pp. 25–28, 46–47; Lucas to Salle Soladay, 17 December 1969, Lucas Box 25; Leavy, “Approaches to Attacking the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967 by Declaratory Relief Action,” n.d., 4pp., Ruth Roemer to Leavy, 18 January 1970, Zarky, “Proposed Plaintiffs—California Federal Case,” 20 January 1970, CCTA Box 5; Roemer to Jane and Garrett Hardin, 23 January 1970, Roemer to Philip Corfman, 4 February 1970, CCTA Box 4; Jane Hardin to Thomas Hart, 5 February 1970, Cusack Papers; Zarky to Mel Wulf, 28 February 1970, Lucas Box 25; Jimmye Kimmey to Elizabeth Canfield, 22 January 1970, Roemer to Kimmey, 30 January 1970, Kimmey to Roemer, 5 February 1970, CCTA Board Minutes, 16 March 1970, CCTA Box 4; Moses A. Berman, “Complaint,” 15 May 1970, and John Shriver Gwynne, “Declaration,” 20 May 1970, in Gwynne v. Hicks, U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., CA#70–1088; Judge T. L. Foley in People v. Robert W. Barksdale, San Leandro-Hayward Municipal Court, 24 March 1970; Thomas G. Moyers, “Abortion Laws: A Study in Social Change,” San Diego Law Review 7 (May 1970): 237–243, at 241; Garrow conversations with Ruth Roemer, Keith Russell, Zad Leavy, Charles T. Munger, and Anthony C. Beilenson. Also see Cheriel M. Jensen, “A Case Study: The 1970 Abortion Initiative in California,” ZPG National Reporter, August 1970, pp. 10–11, 38–39.

26. Robert G. Morrison, “Choice in Washington: The Politics of Liberalized Abortion” (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Virginia, 1982), pp. 87–101; Hall to Marilyn Ward, 20 January 1970, Richard Lamm to Ward, 22 and 30 January 1970, WCAR I-1; New York Times, 31 January 1970, p. 20; Lee Gidding to Samuel Goldenberg, 3 February 1970, WCAR I-3; WCAR Executive Committee Minutes, 12 February 1970, WCAR I-5; Goldenberg to David Hood, 13 February 1970, WCAR I-2. Also see Randy L. St. Mary and Patrick B. Cerutti, “Washington Abortion Reform,” Gonzaga Law Review 5 (Spring 1970): 270–288.

27. On South Carolina, see Gerald E. Berendt, “Abortion Law in South Carolina,” South Carolina Law Review 24 (1972): 425–438. On Vermont see New York Times, 31 January 1970, p. 20, 19 March 1970, p. 36; on Massachusetts, see New York Times, 24 March 1970, p. 28. On Iowa, see Des Moines Register, 22 February 1970, p. W4; and Robert L. Webber to Lee Gidding, 2 March and 8 April 1970, NARAL Box 3. On Arizona, see William E. Davis, “Therapeutic Abortion,” Arizona Medicine, December 1969, pp. 1060–1061; New York Times, 27 February 1970, p. 72; and [Lee Gidding], “Phone Conversation with Rep. John Roeder,” 23 April 1970, and “Arizona Situation,” 28 July 1970, NARAL Box 2. On Michigan, see Detroit Free Press, 20 January 1970, p. A6 (editorially endorsing repeal), 26 February 1970, p. A6; Transcript of Hearing, Michigan State Senate Committee on Abortion Law Reform, 7 February 1970, Bloomfield Township, 294pp., Beebe Box 2; [Lee Gidding], “Phone Conversation with [Mary Lou] Tanton,” 17 February 1970, NARAL Box 3; Transcript of Hearing, Michigan State Senate Committee on Abortion Law Reform, 27 February 1970, Detroit, 461pp., Bursley Box 15; New York Times, 16 March 1970, p. 31, 17 May 1970, p. 38.

28. Patricia G. Steinhoff and Milton Diamond, Abortion Politics: The Hawaii Experience (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1977), esp. pp. 22–173; Joan Hayes, “Abortion Law: A Case History—or Helping a ‘Hopeless Cause’ Become a Political Possibility” (unpublished manuscript, n.d. [c.January 1970]), 14pp., NARAL Box 3; Roy G. Smith et al., “Physicians’ Attitudes on the Abortion Law,” Hawaii Medical Journal 29 (January-February 1970): 209–211; Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 31 October 1969, p. A12, 5 November 1969, p. A23, 6 March 1970, p. 2; Joan Hayes to Lee Gidding, 10 January 1970, NARAL Box 3; New York Times, 11 February 1970, p. 23, 12 February 1970, p. 74, 25 February 1970, pp. 1, 28; Vincent H. Yano et al. to David C. McClung, Conference Committee Report 3–70, Hawaii Legislature, 19 February 1970, 9pp., WCAR I-1; Honolulu Advertiser, 2 March 1970, p. C2; Tom Coffman, Catch A Wave: A Case Study of Hawaii’s New Politics, 2nd ed. (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1973), pp. 81, 159; Roy G. Smith, “Changing Hawaii’s Abortion Laws,” Pacific Health 3 (1970): 2–4. On Joan Hayes, also see Mary Finch Hoyt, “How One Woman Changed Her State’s Abortion Law,” Ladies’ Home Journal, October 1971. On Vincent Yano, also see National Catholic Reporter, 11 December 1970, pp. 14–15.

29. New York Times, 3 March 1970, p. 40, 12 March 1970, p. 21, 15 March 1970, p. 69; Time, 9 March 1970, p. 34; Newsweek, 9 March 1970, p. 46.

30. Babbitz v. McCann, 306 F. Supp. 400 (E.D. Wis.), 2 December 1969; “Happy Mother Works for Legalized Abortion,” Milwaukee Sentinel, 31 January 1970, pp. 1, 6, and Rein to Lader, 29 June 1970, Lader Box 4. Also see Anne Nicol Gaylor, Abortion Is a Blessing (New York: Psychological Dimensions, 1975), p. 5; and Gaylor to Keith P. Russell, 28 July 1969, CCTA Box 4.

31. Rein to Jimmye Kimmey, 3 January 1970, Lucas Box 24; Rein to Larry Lader, n.d., Lader Box 5; Clifford K. Meldman, “Amicus Curiae Brief of the Wisconsin Committee to Legalize Abortion,” Babbitz v. McCann, U.S.D.C. E.D. Wis., CA#69-C-548, 14 January 1970, 24pp., at pp. 4–5; Pilpel to Lucas and Kimmey, 20 January 1970, Lucas Box 24; Rein to NARAL, 7 February 1970, NARAL Box 6; Babbitz v. McCann, 310 F. Supp. 293, 298, 299, 301 (E.D. Wis.), 5 March 1970. Law review notes on the panel decision in Babbitz include Georgia Law Review 4 (Summer 1970): 907–915; James D. Williams, American University Law Review 20 (August 1970): 136–151; Vanderbilt Law Review 23 (November 1970): 1346–1352; Wisconsin Law Review 1970 (#3): 933–943; and Donald P. Doherty, St. Louis University Law Journal 15 (Summer 1971): 642–650; also see Robert W. Fox, American Bar Association Journal 57 (July 1971): 667–672.

32. Lucas, Samuel, and Richard H. Chused, “Complaint” and “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Court,” YWCA of Princeton v. Kugler, U.S.D.C. D.N.J., CA#264–70, 5 March 1970, Lucas Box 15; Newark Star-Ledger, 18 January 1970, p. 24, 6 March 1970, p. 1; New York Times, 6 March 1970, p. 36, 10 March 1970, p. 27, 13 March 1970, p. 24; Newark Evening News, 6 March 1970, p. 1; Perth Amboy News-Tribune, 6 March 1970, pp. 1, 4; Lucas et al., “Brief of Plaintiffs,” YWCA of Princeton v. Kugler, 24 April 1970, 135pp., Lucas Box 16, esp. p. 55. Lucas’s New Jersey brief closely resembled the one he had filed in Hall seven weeks earlier, and the same characterization of Griswold had first appeared there. Lucas et al., “Brief of Plaintiffs,” Hall v. Hogan, U.S.D.C. S.D. N.Y., #69-C-4284, 6 March 1970, esp. p. 81.

33. Doe v. Scott, 310 F. Supp. 688, N.D. Ill. (27 March 1970); Arnold v. Sendak, U.S.D.C. S.D. Ind., #70-C-217 (29 March 1970); Robert K. McKenzie, Jr., to Lucas, 23 February 1970, Lucas Box 12; Jack M. Stack to Ron Paul, 3 March 1970, Stack Box 1; Paul to Lucas, 9 March 1970, Lucas Box 12; John I. Bain to Stack, 30 March 1970, Stack Box 1; Paul to J. H. Fenwick (Playboy Foundation), 20 April 1970, Lucas Box 12; State v. Jesse Ketchum, Oakland County District Court, 30 March 1970, 4pp., Lucas Box 12; New York Times, 1 April 1970, p. 48; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 76–78; State v. Munson, 7 April 1970, unreported but printed in full in Thomas G. Fritz, “Abortion and the Constitutional Question,” South Dakota Law Review 15 (Spring 1970): 318–334, at 332–334. On Munson, also see Rapid City Journal, 13 August 1969, p. 1; Lucas to Munson, 20 February 1970, Homer Kandaras to Lucas, 4 March 1970, Lucas to Kandaras, 11 March 1970, Kandaras to Lucas, 9 April 1970, Kandaras to Mel Wulf, 13 April 1970, Lucas Box 22.

34. Griswold et al., “Jurisdictional Statement,” U.S. v. Milan Vuitch, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1969, #1155, 8pp., 5 February 1970, pp. 4, 6; Vuitch to Sitnick, 27 February 1970, Lucas Box 4; Sitnick, Nellis, and Lucas, “Motion to Affirm,” U.S. v. Vuitch, #1155, 43pp., 6 March 1970, p. 4; [William T. Lake], U.S. v. Vuitch, 25 March 1970, 2pp., Harlan Box 427; William O. Douglas notation on [Thomas C. Armitage], U.S. v. Vuitch, 26 March 1970, Douglas Box 1507; William J. Brennan Docket Book, United States v. Vuitch, O.T. 1969, #1155, Box 416; Stewart, “Memorandum to the Conference,” 27 March 1970, Harlan Box 427, Black Box 437, Brennan Box 200, and Douglas Box 1507; White to Stewart, 28 March 1970, Black to Stewart, 31 March 1970, and Harlan to Stewart, 2 April 1970, Douglas Box 1507; John F. Davis to Griswold and to Sitnick, 31 March 1970, U.S. v. Vuitch Case File, National Archives, RG 267, Box 10088; Sitnick, Nellis, and Lucas, “Supplemental Memorandum of Appellee,” U.S. v. Vuitch, #1155, 12pp., 14 April 1970; Griswold et al., “Supplemental Memorandum for the United States,” U.S. v. Vuitch, #1155, 9pp., [14] April 1970; [William T. Lake], U.S. v. Vuitch, 19 April 1970, Harlan Box 427; [Thomas C. Armitage], U.S. v. Vuitch, 20 April 1970, Douglas Box 1507; U.S. v. Vuitch, 397 U.S. 1061 (27 April); New York Times, 28 April 1970, pp. 1, 31; Washington Post, 28 April 1970, pp. A1, A12; Nellis to Vuitch, 29 April 1970, Lucas Box 8; Harlan, “Memorandum to the Conference,” 25 June 1970, Harlan Box 427 and Brennan Box 200; E. Robert Seaver to Nellis et al., 29 June 1970, Lucas Box 4; U.S. v. Vuitch, 399 U.S. 923 (29 June 1970); Lucas, “Developments in Federal Jurisdiction,” 3 July 1970, Lucas Box 24; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas, Larry Lader, Milan Vuitch and Joseph Nellis. On Nellis, a Chicago native and Northwestern Law School graduate who had practiced law in Washington since 1947, also see Washington Legal Times, 22 October 1979, p. 5.

35. Cook Interview with Chesler, pp. 28–31, 37–38, 45, 59–63; New York Times, 11 March 1970, pp. 1, 73, 16 March 1970, p. 42, 17 March 1970, p. 31, 18 March 1970, p. 32, 19 March 1970, pp. 1, 39, 20 March 1970, pp. 46, 52, 21 March 1970, p. 59, 22 March 1970, p. E8, 24 March 1970, p. 37, 29 March 1970, p. 35, 31 March 1970, pp. 1, 82, 1 April 1970, pp. 1, 44, 48, 5 April 1970, p. E6, 8 April 1970, p. 88, 9 April 1970, pp. 1, 40, 46, 10 April 1970, pp. 1, 42; Dominick Interview with White; Newsweek, 20 April 1970, p. 77; Time, 20 April 1970, p. 46; Lader to Joseph Sunnen, “Progress Report,” 20 April 1970, CCTA Box 1; Lader to Lonny Myers, 15 July 1970, NARAL Box 3; Ben White, “Abortion Law Repeal in New York State, 1970” (unpublished draft manuscript, n.d.), Lader Box 5; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 132–144; Frank J. Traina, “Diocesan Mobilization Against Abortion Law Reform” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1975); Washington Post, 27 April 1989, pp. B1–B3. For a full articulation of Cisler and Clapp’s stance, see Clapp, “The New York Abortion Situation,” ZPG National Reporter, August 1970, pp. 8–9, 39 (“what happened in New York was a setback for the cause of abortion law repeal”), which also was reprinted in a slightly expanded pamphlet form under the title “Abortion Legislation in New York State.” On George Michaels, also see New York Times, 20 April 1970, p. 63, 21 April 1970, p. 35, 23 April 1970, p. 36, 27 April 1970, p. 34, 5 June 1970, p. 40, 24 June 1970, p. 35, 11 August 1970, p. 23; [Lee Gidding], “Phone Conversation with George Michaels,” 21 April 1970, NARAL Box 4; Michaels to Lader, 6 December 1971, Lader Box 16; Michaels, “Text of Address to be Delivered at Smith College,” 9 December 1971, Lader Box 5, Lader, Abortion II, pp. 144–147; and Michaels’s New York Times obituary, 5 December 1992, p. 27.

36. New York Times, 11 April 1970, pp. 1, 17, 30, 12 April 1970, pp. 47, E10, 13 April 1970, pp. 1, 20, 27 April 1970, p. 28, 30 April 1970, p. 1, 3 May 1970, p. E6, 4 May 1970, p. 1; NARAL Emergency Executive Committee Minutes, 17 April 1970, NARAL Box 1; Carmen and Moody, Abortion Counseling, pp. 72–73; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 149–150.

37. Lucas to Alan Charles, 13 April 1970, Lucas Box 15; “Abortion Laws Workshop,” 28 April 1970, Kansas City, NARAL Box 1; Roberts to Lee Gidding, 18 February 1970, NARAL Box 5; Oregonian, 15 April 1970; Oregon Committee for the Legal Termination of Pregnancy Newsletter, Spring 1970, ARAI Box 1. At least one member of the three-judge New York panel, Circuit Judge Henry J. Friendly, was very happy at not having to decide Hall v. Lefkowitz. See his unpublished 1970 remarks as quoted in Ruth B. Ginsburg, “Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade,” North Carolina Law Review 63 (January 1985): 375–386, at 385–386 (“How much better that the issue was settled by the legislature!”); also see Henry J. Friendly, “The Courts and Social Policy: Substance and Procedure,” University of Miami Law Review 33 (November 1978): 21–42, at 34 (asserting with regard to Roe and Doe that “there was no real precedential support for the abortion decisions, and it was a bit disingenuous to rest them on a recognized ‘right of privacy’”). On the Oregon suit, also see Roberts and Skelton, “Abortion and the Courts,” Environmental Law 1 (Spring 1971): 225–237.

38. New York Times, 24 April 1970, p. 16, 25 April 1970, p. 59, 2 May 1970, p. 26; Drinan, “The State of the Abortion Question,” Commonweal, 17 April 1970, pp. 108–109; San Francisco Chronicle, 30 May 1970, p. 34. Also see Drinan, “The Jurisprudential Options on Abortion,” Theological Studies 31 (March 1970): 149–169, and Drinan, The Fractured Dream (New York: Crossroad, 1991), pp. 34–50. On the bishops’ Conference, see Timothy A. Byrnes, Catholic Bishops in American Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), pp. 51–55. Contemporaneous repeal voices included Harold Rosen, “Abortion in America,” American Journal of Psychiatry 126 (March 1970): 1299–1301; Michael J. Halberstam, “Abortion: A Startling Proposal,” Redbook, April 1970, pp. 78–79, 137–139; William R. Roy, “Abortion: A Physician’s View,” Washburn Law Journal 9 (Spring 1970): 391–411; Patricia E. Kowitz’s very unusual “Isolating the Male Bias Against Reform of Abortion Legislation,” Santa Clara Lawyer 10 (Spring 1970): 301–318; G. Clyde Dodder, “Abortion Laws: An Appeal for Repeal,” Ripon Forum 6 (May 1970): 20–22; Natalie Shainess, “Abortion Is No Man’s Business,” Psychology Today 3 (May 1970): 18–22, 74–76 (“an unwanted child destroys a woman’s mastery of her life”); and Charles Liser, “The Right to Control the Use of One’s Body,” in Norman Dorsen, ed., The Rights of Americans (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 348–364, at 361–362 (“at least until viability the judgment whether to terminate a pregnancy should belong exclusively to the mother”). Antiabortion contributions included Denis Cavanagh, “Reforming the Abortion Laws,” America, 18 April 1970, pp. 406–411; Brendan F. Brown, “Recent Statutes and the Crime of Abortion,” William J. Kenealy, “Abortion: A Human Problem,” and Leon Salzman, “Abortion: A Moral or Medical Problem,” all in Loyola Law Review 16 (1970): 275–287, 289–293, and 295–298. Intermediate or ambivalent views are expressed in three different essays in the Christian Century, 20 May 1970, pp. 624–631.

39. Judith P. Rooks, “Why and How We Legalized Abortion” (unpublished speech, 21 January 1983, Salem, Oregon), 22pp.; Garrow conversations with James L. Waters, W. Newton Long, J. Emmett Herndon, Judith P. [Bourne] Rooks, Peter Bourne, and Robert Hatcher; Atlanta Journal, 21, 22, and 25 July 1969. Also see Judith P. Bourne, “Abortion: Influences on Health Professionals’ Attitudes,” Hospitals 46 (16 July 1972): 80–83. On the Virginia action, see New York Times, 23 March 1970, p. 20, and 12 April 1970, p. 65. On Emmett Herndon, also see Herndon, “Religious Aspects and Theology in Therapeutic Abortion,” Southern Medical Journal 63 (June 1970): 651–654; and John Ard, “Newsmaker Interview with Emmett Herndon,” Presbyterian Survey 60 (6 April 1970): 1–4.

40. Atlanta Constitution, 4 December 1969, p. B4, 19 January 1970, 23 January 1970, 28 January 1970, 2 February 1970, 4 February 1970, p. A1, 5 February 1970; Alan Bonser to Lee Gidding, 4 December 1969, NARAL Box 2; Annis Pratt to “Dear Friend,” n.d. [December 1969], Herndon Papers; Atlanta Journal, 14 January 1970, p. D16, 4 and 5 February 1970; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1 February 1970; Garrow conversations with Judith [Bourne] Rooks and Peter Bourne. On Grace Towns Hamilton, see her New York Times obituary, 20 June 1992, p. 12.

41. Atlanta Journal, 6 February 1970, 12 February 1970, 17 February 1970; Atlanta Constitution, 7 February 1970, 11 February 1970, p. 1, 12 February 1970, 13 February 1970, 14 February 1970, 15 February 1970, pp. G8, G10, 17 February 1970; Dallas Morning News, 8 February 1970, p. A22; Garrow conversations with Judith [Bourne] Rooks and Peter Bourne.

42. Garrow conversations with Judith [Bourne] Rooks, Peter Bourne, Agnes “Ruste” Kitfield, Margie Pitts Hames, Tobiane Schwartz, Elizabeth Roediger Rindskopf, Gale Siegel Messerman, Reber F. Boult, Jr., Charles Morgan, Jr., J. Emmett Herndon, Robert A. Hatcher, James L. Waters and W. Newton Long; Judith Rooks, “Why and How We Legalized Abortion” (unpublished speech, 21 January 1983, Salem, Oregon), 22pp.; [Lee Gidding], “Phone Conversation with Dr. [George] Violin,” 19 February 1970, NARAL Box 2; Atlanta Journal, 23 February 1970; Atlanta Constitution, 24 February 1970; ACLU of Georgia Executive Committee Agenda, 4 March 1970, Georgia ACLU Papers. On Margie Hames, also see Fulton County Daily Report, 12 February 1987, pp. 1, 4–5; Atlanta Constitution, 22 January 1988, p. B3; and Terry Dunham, “How the Abortion Law Was Killed,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution Magazine, 11 March 1973, pp. 22–30. On Robert Hatcher, also see a fifteen-part series of front-page articles on population-related issues which he authored for the Atlanta Constitution between 5 and 19 April 1970, particularly those of 7 and 16 April, the latter of which includes both an estimate of 20,000 illegal abortions each year in Georgia and a report that the state’s cumulative total of reported abortion deaths from 1960 to 1968 was seventy-seven.

43. Kit Young, “Therapeutic Abortion Evaluation Protocol—Sandy Bensing,” 12 March 1970; Sandra Bensing Case Card, Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 14 May 1969; Joseph S. Thorpe and John W. Eppes, “Psychological Evaluation—Sandra Bensing,” 16 March 1970; Sandra Bensing Affidavits, 16 April and 5 May 1970, Hames Papers; [Bensing], “Answers to Interrogatories,” 14 June 1970, Doe v. Bolton Record, pp. 63–65; Atlanta Constitution, 13 December 1988, pp. A1, A6; Ann Woolner, “‘I Am Mary Doe,’” Fulton County Daily Report, 9 February 1989, pp. 1, 3–7; Los Angeles Times, 25 June 1989, pp. 1, 17–18; Garrow conversations with Judith [Bourne] Rooks, Margie Pitts Hames, Sandra Bensing Cano, Tobi Schwartz, and Peter Bourne. Also see Charles W. Butler, “Psychiatric Indications for Therapeutic Abortion,” Southern Medical Journal 63 (June 1970): 647–650, in which Butler volunteers that under the operative standard specified by the 1968 reform language—a “serious” threat to a woman’s health—“a judgment is virtually impossible.” A comprehensive statistical overview of Grady’s abortion service from 1968 through 1970 is provided in Lawrence D. Baker and Malcolm G. Freeman, “Statistical Analysis of Applicants and of the Induced Abortion Work-up,” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 60 (December 1971): 392–396, in which they report a total of 6 therapeutic abortions in calendar 1968, 31 in 1969, and 134 in 1970. In that latter year they report a total of 341 applicants, only 202 of whom were formally considered by Grady’s Therapeutic Abortion Committee. Forty-three were rejected by the committee, and another fifteen or more withdrew or went elsewhere after or just before receiving committee approval. Twenty-seven percent of all applicants were already thirteen or more weeks into their pregnancy at the time of applying; another 29 percent reached or passed the thirteen-week level while waiting for a committee decision. No month-by-month approval statistics for 1970 are reported.

44. Sandra Bensing, “Affidavit,” 16 April 1970, Doe v. Bolton Case File, Federal Records Center, East Point, GA, 74A-2025, Box 16; Hames and Schwartz, “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief,” Doe v. Bolton, U.S.D.C. N.D. Ga., #13676, 16 April 1970, pp. 7 and 12; Hames and Schwartz, “Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,” Doe v. Bolton, 16 April 1970, p. 6; Garrow conversations with Margie Hames, Tobi Schwartz, Judith [Bourne] Rooks, Sandra Bensing Cano, Peter Bourne, Elizabeth Rindskopf, and Gale Siegel Messerman. Like Judith Bourne, Gale Siegel, a 1969 graduate of Southern Methodist law school, would immediately recall more than twenty years later the first article that voiced the central argument: “Lucas is the one who started the whole thing.”

45. Atlanta Constitution, 17 April 1970, pp. A1, A19; Atlanta Journal, 17 April 1970, p. 1; Stewart R. Perry to Madison Institute, 13 April 1970, Lucas Box 12; Perry to Hodgson, 10 March 1971, Lucas Box 13; Perry, “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief,” Doe v. Randall, U.S.D.C. D. Minn., #3–70 Civ.97, 16 April 1970; Hodgson, “Therapeutic Abortion,” 18 November 1969, 5pp., Lader Box 5 and ARAI 12–10, which also subsequently appears as “Therapeutic Abortion in Medical Perspective,” Minnesota Medicine 53 (July 1970): 755–757; Hodgson in Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 2 February 1971, pp. B1, B3; Hodgson in Peter Irons, The Courage of Their Convictions (New York: Free Press, 1988), pp. 253–279, at 269–271; Garrow conversations with Jane E. Hodgson; Minneapolis Tribune, 17 and 21 April 1970, 22 May and 30 June 1970; Minneapolis Star, 17 April and 1 and 12 May 1970; Doe v. Randall Record and Case File (including transcripts of the 20 and 27 April 1970 hearings), U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #728, National Archives RG 267, Box 10269; St. Paul Dispatch, 27 April 1970, 1 and 26 May 1970, 12 June 1970, pp. 17, 20; Pratt to Hodgson, 6 May 1970, Lucas Box 13; Doe v. Randall, 314 F. Supp. 32 (19 May and 1 July 1970); St. Paul Pioneer Press, 22 May and 2 July 1970; Lucas to Perry, 2 June 1970, Lucas Box 12; New York Times, 30 June 1970, p. 24; Hodgson in Minnesota Journal of Education, October 1970, pp. 30–32. Hachey’s formally unreported 29 June opinion appears in the Social Justice Review 63 (November 1970): 228–234.

On Jane Hodgson, also see Minneapolis Tribune, 7 June 1970, pp. 1, 11; St. Paul Dispatch, 24 June 1970, pp. 1, 2, 6; Hodgson, “Abortion: The Law and the Reality, 1970,” Mayo Alumnus 6 (October 1970): 1–4; Boston Globe, 18 October 1970; Edwin Kiester, Jr., “Doctor Hodgson’s Choice,” Family Health 3 (June 1971): 14–17; Hodgson, “Teenage Mothers,” Minnesota Medicine 55 (January 1972): 49; Hodgson’s several contributions in a volume which she edited, Abortion and Sterilization: Medical and Social Aspects (New York: Grune & Stratton, 1981); New York Times, 25 June 1989, p. 20, 11 July 1989, pp. A1, B4; Washington Post, 29 November 1989, pp. B1, B6; U.S. News & World Report, 4 December 1989, p. 26; Laura Fraser, “Hodgson’s Choice,” Vogue, July 1990, pp. 206–209, 228. Also see Jule M. Hannaford, “Abortion: Crime or Privilege,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 45 (July 1970): 510–516. On MCLTP, see Irene Hoebel to MCLTP Board, 18 February 1970, ARC Box 120-2B, Vincent Yano to [Genevieve] Lane, 2 July 1970, WCAR I-3, and [Lee Gidding], “Minnesota Situation,” 28 July 1970, NARAL Box 3; on Robert McCoy, also see Minneapolis Star, 21 and 23 January 1970.

46. Anchorage Daily News, 27 February 1970, 14 June 1970, pp. 1, 2; Anchorage Daily Times, 3 March 1970, 18 April 1970; New York Times, 19 April 1970, p. 42, 1 May 1970, p. 10; Helen D. Nienhueser to Mrs. Joseph McLean, 3 June 1970, Lader Box 5; John L. Rader to Lader, 16 December 1971 and 3 January 1972 (20pp.), Lader Box 16; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 117–120.

47. Washington Post, 25 February 1970, pp. B1, B4, 11 April 1970, p. B1, 14 April 1970, p. C1, 17 April 1970, p. B3, 20 May 1970, p. C1, 27 May 1970, pp. A1, A10; New York Times, 19 March 1970, p. 38, 20 March 1970, p. 46, 1 April 1970, pp. 1, 48, 15 April 1970, p. 38, 27 May 1970, p. 43; [Lee Gidding], “Maryland Repeal Bill,” 1 April 1970, NARAL Box 3; Newsweek, 13 April 1970, pp. 53–61, 8 June 1970, pp. 51–52.

48. George S. Daly, Jr., Michael Katz, and Roy Lucas, “Complaint,” Elizabeth Corkey v. Dan Edwards, U.S.D.C. W.D.N.C., #2665, 12 May 1970; [Raleigh] News & Observer, 18 May 1970; Jones to Lee Gidding, 28 May 1970, NARAL Box 5; Daly, “Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment,” Corkey v. Edwards, #2665, 2 July 1970, 107pp.

49. See Southern Patriot, June 1970, p. 4, and eventually Crossen v. Attorney General, 344 F.Supp. 587 (E.D. Ky.), 19 May 1972.

50. Thayer, Susman, Irving Achtenberg, and Lucas, “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief,” Rodgers v. Danforth, U.S.D.C. W.D. Mo., #18260–2, 15 May 1970, 15pp., Lucas Box 15. On Susman, also see Patricia Donovan, Family Planning/Population Reporter 4 (April 1975): 30–31.

51. Berman, “Complaint,” Gwynne v. Cecil Hicks, U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., CA#70–1088, 15 May 1970, Gwynne, “Declaration,” 20 May 1970, Berman to Lucas, 22 and 29 May and 5 and 26 June 1970, Lucas to Berman, 26 May and 22 June 1970, Zad Leavy to Berman, 1 June 1970, Judge William W. Thomson, People v. Gwynne, Central Orange Municipal Court, #173309, 16 June 1970, Lucas Box 1.

52. On Connecticut, see Sasha Harmon and Mimi Abramovitz to “Dear Sisters,” 20 February 1970, Lader Box 6, and Hartford Courant, 15 May 1970; also see Donald J. Cantor, Escape From Marriage (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1971), pp. 117–118. On Ohio, see Don Breakstone to Lucas, 22 May 1970, and Leslie L. Knowlton to Lucas, 24 July and 17 August 1970, Lucas Box 21; on New Hampshire, see Marianne Dame to Lucas, 20 May 1970, and Lucas to Dame, 25 May 1970, Lucas Box 25. On South Dakota, see Homer Kandaras to Lucas, 26 May and 9 June 1970 and Lucas to Kandaras, 1 June and 7 August 1970, Lucas Box 22; on Louisiana, see Smith to Lucas, 1 and 15 June 1970, Lucas Box 7. On Arizona, see Seymour Sacks, LeRoy L. Miller, and Stanley G. Feldman, “Complaints,” Planned Parenthood Association of Phoenix et al. v. Gary K. Nelson, U.S.D.C. D. Ariz., Civ. #70–334PHX, 9 June 1970, 7pp., Lucas Box 1; Arizona Republic, 11 June 1970; Sacks et al., “Response to Motions to Dismiss,” PPAP v. Nelson, #70–334PHX, 5 August 1970, 44pp., Lucas to Sacks, 13 August 1970, “Judgment,” PPAP v. Nelson, 24 August 1970 (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss), Sacks to Lucas, 26 August 1970, Lucas Box 1; Eileen Hulse, Phoenix, January 1971, pp. 45–46. Also note two highly unappealing criminal cases, both involving physicians who unsuccessfully attempted to challenge convictions involving women’s deaths: State of Missouri v. Richard P. Mucie, 448 S.W.2d 879 (Mo. Sup. Ct.), 12 January 1970, 398 U.S. 938 (cert. denied), 1 June 1970, and U.S. ex rel. Jesse Williams II v. Follette, 313 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y.), 12 May 1970; U.S. ex rel. Williams v. Zelker, 445 F.2d 451 (2d Cir.), 2 July 1971.

53. Garrow conversations with Roy L. Merrill, Jr., Linda Coffee, Fred Bruner, and William R. Fuller; Dallas Morning News, 20 and 28 March 1970; Dallas Times-Herald, 20 and 28 March 1970; Bruner and Merrill, “Application for Intervention,” and “Intervenor and Plaintiff Hallford’s Original Complaint,” Roe v. Wade, #3–3690–B, 19 and 23 March 1970, 10pp., p. 7; State v. Hallford, #69–2524, 5 May 1969, and #69–5307, 3 October 1969. Jane “Wilhite” is a pseudonym chosen by this author, even though the woman’s correct name appears in the public case file. “Francis C. King” is listed as the second witness in addition to Frank Johnson in the October indictment. On Hallford, also see “Affidavit of Plaintiff Hallford in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment,” Roe v. Wade, n.d. [c.20 April 1970], 11pp.; Dallas Morning News, 6 December 1964. On Fred Bruner, also see Dallas Morning News, 22 April 1956 and 19 March 1964; Dallas Times-Herald, 28 January 1973.

54. Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee, Roy Merrill, Fred Bruner, Henry Wade, John B. Tolle, Jay Floyd, and Robert Flowers; Johnston to Crawford C. Martin, 10 March 1970, Alfred Walker to Bob Flowers, 12 March 1970, Texas AG File 70–308; Tolle, “Defendant’s Original Answer,” Roe v. Wade, #3–3690–B, 23 March 1970, 2pp.; Johnston, “Motion to Dismiss,” 1pp., and “Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,” 1pp., Doe v. Wade, #3–3691–C, 24 March 1970, Johnston to Floyd, n.d., Texas AG File 70–308; Tolle, “Defendant’s Answer to Intervenor Hallford’s Original Complaint,” Roe v. Wade, #3–3690–B, 26 March 1970, 4pp. On Henry Wade, also see Richard West, “The Chief,” D Magazine 13 (May 1986): 108–11, 179–183, and Dallas Morning News, 30 December 1986, pp. A1, A5. On John Tolle, also see Dallas Morning News, 31 January 1979. Also see generally Houston Chronicle, 19 and 22 March 1970, Houston Post, 19 March 1970, and San Antonio Light, 1 April 1970.

55. Hughes to Coffee, Bruner, Tolle, and Crawford Martin, 26 March 1970, Floyd notes, n.d., 2pp., Floyd to Alfred Walker, 9 April 1970, Texas AG File 70–308; Dallas Times-Herald, 4 April 1970; Garrow conversations with Linda Coffee, Fred Bruner, John Tolle, and Jay Floyd.

56. On Morehouse, see Dallas Morning News, 2 April 1970, p. AA1, 10 April 1970, p. A14, 12 May 1970, p. A15; and The Rag, 6 April 1970, p. 12. On Austin and Houston developments, also see Austin American-Statesman, 29 March 1970, p. F7; Laura Maggi to NARAL, 7 April 1970, Charlene Torrest to NARAL, 9 April 1970, and Lee Gidding to Maggi and to Torrest, 21 April 1970, NARAL Box 5; Dallas Morning News, 10 April 1970, p. A5; The Rag, 13 April 1970, 27 April 1970, p. 13, 18 May 1970, p. 11; Houston Post, 1 May 1970.

57. Ellen Kalina form letters, 6 April and 4 May 1970, Whitehill Papers; Dallas Times-Herald, 13 April 1970, pp. 1, 6, 14 April 1970, pp. A15, A17, 16 April 1970, 22 April 1970, p. C5, 24 April 1970, p. 1, 2 May 1970, 6 May 1970, 20 May 1970, pp. 27, 30, 21 May 1970, pp. 21, 36, 10 June 1970; Dallas Morning News, 17 April 1970, p. 15, 19 April 1970, p. C37; Kalina and Patricia White to Hugh Savage, 27 April 1970, Savage and Whitehill Papers; Kalina to NARAL, 27 April 1970, Lee Gidding to Kalina, 29 April 1970, NARAL Box 5; Genevieve Scott, Women’s Alliance Minutes, 28 April and 5 May 1970, First Unitarian Church; Garrow conversations with Virginia Whitehill, James H. Clark, Jr., and J. Claude Evans. Also see J. Claude Evans, “Defusing the Abortion Debate,” Christian Century, 31 January 1973, pp. 117–118.

58. Bruner and Merrill, “Brief of Plaintiff James Hubert Hallford,” Roe v. Wade, #3–3690, 13 April 1970; Weddington and Coffee, “Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,” Roe v. Wade, #3–3690, 16 April [filed 22 April] 1970, 4pp.; Coffee and Weddington, “Brief of Plaintiffs Jane Roe, John Doe, and Mary Doe,” Roe et al. v. Wade, #3–3690, 23 April 1970, 14pp.; Floyd, “Motion to Dismiss” and “State of Texas’s Memorandum of Authorities in Support of its Motion to Dismiss,” Roe v. Wade, #3–3690, 30 April 1970, 2pp. and 16pp.; Tolle, “Defendant’s Brief,” Roe et al. v. Wade, #3–3690, 18 May 1970; Sylvia M. Demarest, “Request for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief,” Roe v. Wade, #3–3690, 18 May 1970; Bruner and Merrill, “Reply Brief of Plaintiff James Hubert Hallford,” Roe v. Wade, #3–3690, 20 May 1970; Garrow conversations with Roy Merrill, Linda Coffee, Fred Bruner, Sarah Weddington, Jay Floyd, and John Tolle; Dallas Times-Herald, 22 May 1970, pp. 1, 10, 27, 29.

59. Garrow conversations with Paul C. Trickett, Bob Breihan, Sarah Weddington, Norma McCorvey, and Linda Coffee; “Affidavit of Dr. Paul C. Trickett,” 24 April [filed 21 May] 1970, and “Affidavit of Jane Roe,” Roe v. Wade, #3–3690, 21 May 1970, Roe Record pp. 51 and 56–58. On Trickett’s support for repeal, see Austin American-Statesman, 21 July 1970. With regard to the continuation of McCorvey’s pregnancy, also see Weddington Interview with Cheek, p. 60 (“That’s right. We were afraid that if she went ahead and got the abortion, there might be some chance the court would declare the case moot”) and Weddington in Warren M. Hern and Bonnie Andrikopoulos, eds., Abortion in the Seventies (New York: National Abortion Federation, 1977), p. 279 (“Linda and I explained to her that … the case might be declared moot and later thrown out if she had an abortion. She decided to carry the pregnancy to term to save the case”). Years later, Weddington would become highly dismissive of McCorvey’s role in the case: “‘Her only involvement in this case was that she signed one affidavit,’ Weddington said … ‘It probably took 30 to 40 minutes of her time to become the plaintiff and another 30 to 40 minutes to sign the affidavit.’” New Haven Register, 30 April 1989.

60. Lucas to Shreve, 18 May 1970, Lucas Box 22 (“In response to your request for information”); Hughes Interview with Marcello (1979), pp. 17–18; Goldberg Interview with Garrow; Dallas Morning News, 26 December 1971, p. A28. On “Mac” Taylor, see Dallas Morning News, 29 June 1966, p. D1, 30 December 1967, p. 10, 19 June 1985, pp. A13, A17; Dallas Times-Herald, 14 July 1974, p. B3, 27 July 1975, p. A12, 18 June 1985, pp. 1, 5; and Dallas Times-Herald Magazine, 10 April 1977, pp. 12–14.

61. Transcript of Oral Argument, Roe v. Wade, #3–3690, 22 May 1970, Roe Record, pp. 75–110; Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); Garrow conversations with Irving L. Goldberg, John B. Tolle, Linda Coffee, Sarah Weddington, Fred Bruner, Roy Merrill, Jay Floyd, Clarice Davis, Barbara Richardson, and Virginia Whitehill; Dallas Morning News, 23 May 1970, p. D18; Dallas Times-Herald, 23 May 1970, p. 1. Also see Richard C. Cortner, The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties (Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 33–79, at 41–42. On Stanley, also see State v. Robert E. Stanley, 161 S.E.2d 309, 224 Ga. 259; and Al Katz, “Privacy and Pornography,” Supreme Court Review 1969 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), pp. 203–217; see as well Henley v. Wise, 303 F. Supp. 62, 67 (N.D. Ind.), 4 June 1969, where a three-judge court including Seventh Circuit Judge Otto Kerner voided Indiana’s obscenity statute and observed that “While only the right to marital privacy is covered by Cotner and Griswold, it is clear that this right stems from the greater right to individual privacy. Absent the use of self-destructive force, the state has no interest in prohibiting purely private conduct, i.e. conduct which does not involve another person.”

62. Weddington in Hern and Andrikopoulos, eds., Abortion in the Seventies, p. 279; Weddington, A Question of Choice, pp. 64–67; Coffee in Barbara Milbauer, The Law Giveth, p. 37; Garrow conversations with Virginia Whitehill, Barbara Richardson, Sarah Weddington, Linda Coffee, Roy Merrill, Fred Bruner, John Tolle, and Jay Floyd.

63. Garrow conversations with Margie Pitts Hames, Sidney O. Smith, Jr., Judith [Bourne] Rooks, Peter G. Bourne, Sandra [Bensing] Cano, Tobi Schwartz, and Agnes “Ruste” Kitfield; Atlanta Constitution, 2 May 1970, p. A6, 8 May 1970, 9 May 1970, 15 May 1970, p. A9, 28 May 1970, p. B14, 10 June 1970, p. A16, 11 June 1970; Smith, “Orders,” 25 April and 5 May 1970, Doe v. Bolton Record, pp. 21 and 39–40; “Mary Doe,” “Answers to Interrogatories,” 14 June 1970, Doe Record, pp. 63–65; Hames to “Dear Doe Plaintiffs,” 24 February 1989, Hames Papers; Sandra Race Bensing and Joel Lee Bensing Affidavits, 5 May 1970, and Buckley to Hames, 15 May 1970, Hames Papers; ACLU of Georgia Executive Board Minutes, 18 May 1970; Atlanta Journal, 18 May 1970, 10 June 1970; Hames, “Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 25 May 1970, 6pp.; Affidavits of “Ruth Roe,” 12 June 1970, and “Polly Poe,” 13 June 1970, Hames Papers. As Hames noted in her 24 February 1989 letter, “It was to our advantage in not mooting our case or her standing as a plaintiff, for her to not have the abortion.”

64. Hames, Schwartz, and Rindskopf, “Brief of Plaintiffs,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 8 June 1970, 58pp., pp. 9, 30, 35; Charles, “Brief of the National Legal Program on Health Problems of the Poor,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 6 June 1970, 30pp.; Buckley, “Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Unborn Child of Mary Doe and Other Unborn Children Similarly Situated,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 8 June 1970, 52pp.; Hight, “Brief on the Merits on Behalf of Defendant Lewis R. Slaton,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 8 June 1970, 6pp.; Henry L. Bowden and Ralph H. Witt, “Preliminary Brief of Defendant Herbert T. Jenkins,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 8 June 1970, 6pp.

65. Garrow conversations with Dorothy T. Beasley and Arthur K. Bolton; Beasley, “Brief of the Attorney General in Support of the Constitutionality of the Georgia Abortion Laws,” and “Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 9 and 10 June 1970, 12pp. and 13pp. On Dorothy Beasley, also see Atlanta Constitution, 14 January 1972, p. B5, and Margaret Shannon, “Matters of Life and Death,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution Magazine, 23 April 1972, pp. 7–17.

66. On Lewis R. Morgan, see Atlanta Journal, 17 July 1968, pp. A1, A12, 28 July 1968, 7 October 1971; Atlanta Constitution, 18 July 1968, pp. 1, 19, 3 August 1968, 7 October 1971; also see Read and McGough, Let Them Be Judged, pp. 452–453, and Harvey C. Couch, A History of the Fifth Circuit, 1891–1981, p. 144. On Albert J. Henderson, see Atlanta Constitution, 26 September 1968, 10 October 1968; Atlanta Journal, 3 October 1968 and 27 July 1979. On Sidney Smith, see Atlanta Journal, 24 August 1965, pp. 1, 6, 25 August 1965, 8 and 10 September 1965, 28 November 1973, p. A20, 12 June 1974, pp. A1, A10; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 29 August 1965; Atlanta Journal-Constitution Magazine, 1 September 1974, pp. 10–12; Atlanta Constitution, 28 November 1973, 29 January 1988, p. A16; Garrow conversations with Sidney O. Smith, Jr., Jeffrey R. Nickerson, Elizabeth Rindskopf, and Margie Hames.

67. Transcript of Hearing, Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 15 June 1970, 97pp.; Atlanta Journal, 15 and 16 June 1970; Atlanta Constitution, 16 June 1970; Garrow conversations with Margie Hames, Tobi Schwartz, Elizabeth Rindskopf, Gale Siegel Messerman, Judith [Bourne] Rooks, Sandra [Bensing] Cano, Dorothy T. Beasley, Sidney O. Smith, Jr., Jeffrey R. Nickerson, Agnes “Ruste” Kitfield, Reber Boult, James L. Waters, and W. Newton Long. The hearing transcript which appears in the formal Doe Record (pp. 125–160) is edited and is highly incomplete.

68. Garrow conversations with Tobi Schwartz, Margie Hames, Elizabeth Rindskopf, Judith [Bourne] Rooks, and Gale Siegel Messerman; Rindskopf, “Supplemental Brief of Plaintiffs,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 24 June 1970, 15pp., p. 2; Atlanta Constitution, 25 June 1970; Tony H. Hight, “Supplemental Brief,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 30 June 1970, 15pp.; Ferdinand Buckley, “Supplementary Brief,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 30 June 1970, 17pp.; Henry Bowden and Ralph Witt, “Supplemental Brief,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 2 July 1970, 5pp.; Beasley et al., “Supplemental Brief of Defendant Arthur K. Bolton,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 1 July 1970, 19pp., pp. 2–4, 7.

69. Garrow conversations with Irving L. Goldberg, Clarice M. Davis, and Barefoot Sanders; Hughes Interview with Marcello, pp. 18, 20–21; Hughes in undated clipping from the University Daily [Texas Tech], April 1973, Hughes Papers; Goldberg in Lawrence J. Vilardo and Howard W. Gutman, “With Justice from One: Interview with Hon. Irving L. Goldberg,” Litigation 17 (Spring 1991): 16–22, 56–57, at 22; Allread, “Sarah T. Hughes,” p. 147 (Hughes too in 1976 termed Roe “easy”). No case materials pertaining to Roe appear in any of the surviving papers of either Judge Hughes or Judge Taylor. As Judge Goldberg explained in part, “we didn’t write each other notes.”

70. Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1221–1224 (17 June 1970); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 489–490 (1965). Irving Goldberg would later say that “I am against per curiam opinions.” Litigation 17 (Spring 1991): 16–22ff., at 22. Law journal notes on the panel decision in Roe include Ernest R. Reeves, Texas Tech Law Review 2 (Fall 1970): 99–105; Michael J. Appleton, Texas Law Review 49 (March 1971): 537–542; and James K. Skillern, Baylor Law Review 23 (Fall 1971): 605–615.

71. Dallas Morning News, 18 June 1970, p. A1, 19 June 1970, pp. A1, A14, 20 June 1970, p. AA4; Dallas Times-Herald, 18 June 1970, pp. A1, A14, C2, 21 June 1970, p. A40; New York Times, 18 June 1970, p. 37; Jay Floyd notes, 18 June 1970, and Richard R. Brann to Martin and Wade, 25 June 1970, Texas AG File 70–308; Laura Maggi to NARAL, 18 June 1970, NARAL Box 5; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 19 June 1970, p. A6; Austin American-Statesman, 19 June 1970, 3 July 1970, p. 8; The Rag, 22 June 1970; Houston Post, 23 June 1970, p. II-1; Dallas Committee Minutes, 24 June 1970, Whitehill Papers. On fifty-four-year-old Crawford Martin, a longtime state senator who had first been elected attorney general in November, 1966, see his 1971 LBJ Library interview with David McComb.

72. Price to Paul C. MacDonald, 29 June 1970, and Affidavits of Dr. Paul C. MacDonald (28 July 1971), Dr. Joseph Seitchik (9 August 1971), and Dr. William J. McGanity (13 August 1971), in “Brief for Appellants,” Roe v. Wade, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1971, #70–18, appendices B, C, and D.

73. On the AMA, see New York Times, 23 June 1970, p. 16, 26 June 1970, pp. 1, 24, 40, 27 June 1970, p. 1; and Journal of the American Medical Association 213 (17 August 1970): 1182–1183. With regard to Callahan, see Newsweek, 8 June 1970, pp. 64–65, New York Times, 8 June 1970, pp. 1, 29, Harriet Pilpel’s review in the New York Times Book Review, 14 June 1970, pp. 6, 26, and Callahan, Abortion: Law, Choice and Morality, esp. pp. 19, 409, 448, 492–493. Also see Callahan, “Contraception and Abortion: American Catholic Responses,” The Annals 387 (January 1970): 109–117, and Callahan, “The New Setting of Abortion Decisions,” The Ecumenist 8 (May-June 1970): 65–68. Also see generally, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 24 July 1970, pp. 1913–1916.

74. New York Times, 13 May 1970, p. 37, 21 May 1970, p. 34, 22 May 1970, p. 33, 30 May 1970, pp. 1, 50, 3 June 1970, p. 44, 11 June 1970, p. 18, 19 June 1970, p. 39, 20 June 1970, p. 26, 29 June 1970, pp. 1, 20, 30 June 1970, p. 45, 1 July 1970, p. 36, 2 July 1970, pp. 1, 42–43, 3 July 1970, p. 26, 4 July 1970, p. 18, 5 July 1970, pp. 35, E12, 9 July 1970, p. 75, 11 July 1970, p. 10, 14 July 1970, p. 13, 16 July 1970, p. 24, 17 July 1970, p. 30, 19 July 1970, p. E7, 22 July 1970, p. 38, 26 July 1970, p. 36, 28 July 1970, p. 35, 5 September 1970, p. 19, 17 September 1970, pp. 43, 93, 18 September 1970, pp. 1, 47, 23 September 1970, p. 95; ASA Executive Committee Minutes, 18 May 1970, Pilpel, “Minutes of Ad Hoc Doctors’ Committee on New York Abortion Law Implementation,” 22 May 1970, Guttmacher Papers; Lael Scott, New York Magazine, 25 May 1970, pp. 64–71; “Statement on Implementation” [25 May 1970], Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 46 (September 1970): 674–675; National Observer, 8 June 1970, pp. 1, 9; Linda Greenhouse, New York Times Magazine, 28 June 1970, pp. 7, 26–34; Wall Street Journal, 1 July 1970, pp. 1, 23; Newsweek, 13 July 1970, p. 60, 5 October 1970, p. 52; Time, 7 September 1970, p. 48; Linda Nessel, New York Magazine, 28 September 1970, pp. 58–64; Journal of the American Medical Association 214 (12 October 1970): 252–256, 362; Howard Eisenberg, Medical Economics, 4 January 1971, pp. 35ff.; Susan Edmiston, “A Report on the Abortion Capital of the Country,” New York Times Magazine, 11 April 1971, pp. 10–11, 36–44.

For further coverage of New York’s implementation of repeal, also see New York Times, 17 October 1970, p. 60, 18 October 1970, p. 1, 20 October 1970, pp. 1, 29, 25 October 1970, p. E12, 8 November 1970, p. 75, 7 February 1971, p. 70, 21 February 1971, p. 76, 6 April 1971, p. 78; Buffalo Law Review 20 (Winter 1971): 524–535; Carol Guercia, “The Effects of the Legalization of Abortion in the State of New York” (unpublished paper, Yale University, 1971), 52pp., Lader Box 3; Anne Barry, McCall’s 98 (January 1971): 30–33, 105; Jean Pakter et al., “Surveillance of the Abortion Program in New York City,” which appears identically in both Modern Treatment 8 (February 1971): 169–201 and Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 14 (March 1971): 267–299; Pakter and Frieda Nelson, “Abortion in New York City: The First Nine Months,” Family Planning Perspectives 3 (July 1971): 5–12; Anthony J. LaFache, Albany Law Review 35 (1971): 644–664; Alan F. Guttmacher, “Abortion U.S.A.,” Resident and Staff Physician, September 1971, pp. 114–117; Joseph J. Rovinsky, “Abortion in New York City,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 38 (September 1971): 333–342; Rovinsky, “Abortion in New York City,” Advances in Planned Parenthood 7 (1972): 169–174; Martin L. Stone et al., “The Impact of a Liberalized Abortion Law on the Medical Schools,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 111 (1 November 1971): 728–735; Abner I. Weisman, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 112 (1 January 1972): 138–143; Pakter and Nelson, “Effects of a Liberalized Abortion Law in New York City,” Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine 39 (November-December 1972): 535–543; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller et al., “New York State Physicians and the Social Context of Abortion,” American Journal of Public Health 63 (February 1973): 144–149; David Harris et al., “Legal Abortion 1970–1971—The New York City Experience,” American Journal of Public Health 63 (May 1973): 409–418; Jean Pakter et al., “Two Years Experience in New York City …” American Journal of Public Health 63 (June 1973): 524–535; Pakter et al., “A Review of Two Years’ Experience in New York City …” in Howard J. and Joy D. Osofsky, eds., The Abortion Experience (Hagerstown, MD: Harper & Row, 1973), pp. 47–72; Jean Van der Tak, Abortion, Fertility, and Changing Legislation (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1974), pp. 35–39; Timothy A. Deyak and V. Kerry Smith, “The Economic Value of Statute Reform,” Journal of Political Economy 84 (February 1976): 83–99; and Joanne Miller, “Hospital Response to the Legalization of Abortion in New York State,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 20 (December 1979): 363–375.

75. Hall to Lucas, 16 July 1970, Lucas, “Order to Show Cause,” Hall v. Trustees and Officers of the Presbyterian Hospital, U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., #70–3090, 17 July 1970, and Hall notes, n.d., Lucas Box 18; New York Times, 18 July 1970, p. 10; New York Post, 21 July 1970, pp. 1, 2, 22 July 1970, pp. 1, 31; Lucas, “Hall & Poe v. Columbia Presbyterian,” 5 April 1973, Lucas Box 18; Garrow conversations with Robert E. Hall and Roy Lucas. Also see Hall, “The Abortion Revolution,” Playboy 17 (September 1970): 112ff; Hall, “The Truth About Abortion in New York,” Columbia Forum 13 (Winter 1970): 18–22; Hall, “Abortion: Physician and Hospital Attitudes,” American Journal of Public Health 61 (March 1971): 517–519; Hall, “The Future of Therapeutic Abortions in the United States,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 14 (December 1971): 1149–1153; New York Times, 28 October 1970, p. 55, Los Angeles Times, 25 January 1971, pp. IV-1, 8, and Ob.Gyn. News, 1 April 1971, pp. 1, 48. Hall was dismissed in April 1971 by U.S. District Judge Edward C. McLean on the grounds that both “Sally Poe” and successor plaintiff “Sandy Poe” had indeed already obtained abortions at other hospitals.

76. On Hawaii, see New York Times, 23 March 1970, p. 19; Time, 6 July 1970, p. 34; Roy G. Smith et al., “Abortion in Hawaii: The First 124 Days,” American Journal of Public Health 61 (March 1971): 530–542; Smith et al., “Abortion in Hawaii: 1970–1971,” Hawaii Medical Journal, July–August 1973, pp. 213–220; John F. McDermott and Walter F. Char, “Abortion Repeal in Hawaii,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 41 (July 1971): 620–626; Franklin E. Zimring, University of Chicago Law Review 39 (Summer 1972): 699–721; Milton Diamond et al., “Abortion in Hawaii,” Family Planning Perspectives 5 (Winter 1973): 54–60; and Steinhoff and Diamond, Abortion Politics: The Hawaii Experience, pp. 174–191.

On California, see CCTA Newsletter, May 1970; Los Angeles Times, 26 June 1970, pp. IV-1, 4; SHA Newsletter, Summer 1970; Rhonda Levitt and Shirley Radl, “A Day in Sacramento,” ZPG National Reporter, August 1970, pp. 4–6, 23; San Francisco Chronicle, 16 September 1970; Jerome M. Kummer, Journal of Reproductive Medicine 5 (October 1970): 67–74; Nancy B. Reardan, Pacific Law Journal 2 (January 1971): 186–205; Charles and Bonnie Remsberg, Good Housekeeping 172 (February 1971): 86–87, 146–150; E. W. Jackson et al., “Therapeutic Abortions in California,” California Medicine 115 (July 1971): 28–33; Zad Leavy, “Living with the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 14 (December 1971): 1154–1164; Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), pp. 94, 134; and especially two very similar but highly informative pieces by Michael S. Goldstein: “Creating and Controlling a Medical Market: Abortion in Los Angeles After Liberalization,” Social Problems 31 (June 1984): 514–529, and “Abortion as a Medical Career Choice: Entrepreneurs, Community Physicians, and Others,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 25 (June 1984): 211–229.

77. On New Mexico, see Robert Shafer, Modern Hospital 118 (February 1972): 96–98; on Maryland, see Robert J. Melton et al., “Therapeutic Abortion in Maryland, 1968–1970,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 39 (June 1972): 923–930; on North Carolina, see W. Joseph May, “Therapeutic Abortion Experience in North Carolina …” North Carolina Medical Journal 32 (May 1971): 186–187; Takey Crist, “Abortion,” North Carolina Medical Journal 32 (August 1971): 347–351; and J. F. Hulka, “The Abortion Explosion,” North Carolina Medical Journal 33 (November 1972): 957–959; also see William B. Walker and Hulka, Southern Medical Journal 64 (April 1971): 441–445. With regard to a another reform statute, which took on effect July 1, 1970, also see Robert Bettis and Richard A. Brose, “Physician Attitudes on Abortion and the Kansas Abortion Law,” Journal of the Kansas Medical Society, August 1971, pp. 344–349.

78. On Lamm’s Colorado case, which he had been ready to file for several months, see Lamm to Lucas, 24 February, 28 July and 28 August 1970, Lucas Box 2; New York Times, 4 July 1970, p. 18; Lamm Interview with Garrow; and Doe v. Dunbar, 320 F. Supp. 1297 (D. Colo.), 22 December 1970 (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss). Also see Lamm and Steven G. Davison, “Abortion Reform,” Yale Review of Law and Social Action 1 (Spring 1971): 55–63. On the Pennsylvania decision, Commonwealth v. Barry G. Page, 6 Centre County Legal Journal 127 (Centre County Ct. C.P. #353), 23 July 1970 (and supplemental opinions at 6 CCLJ 147 and 285), also see Mitchell F. Sikora, Jr., “Abortion: An Environmental Convenience or a Constitutional Right?,” Environmental Affairs 1 (November 1971): 469–527, at 486, and especially Patricia G. Miller, The Worst of Times (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 268–283. On other less unusual Pennsylvania developments, see Berman v. Duggan, 119 Pittsburgh Legal Journal 226 and 242 (Allegheny County Ct. C.P.), 6 January 1971; New York Times, 7 January 1971, p. 43; Gerald Malick, “Thoughts on the Legalization of Abortion,” Pennsylvania Medicine 74 (March 1971): 39; Dane S. Wert, “Abortion,” Pennsylvania Medicine 74 (May 1971): 59–62; Commonwealth v. Chester S. Beall, Allegheny County Ct. C.P., #618, 19 October 1971; and Lois G. Forer, “The Case for Abortion on Demand,” Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly 43 (January 1972): 203–211.

Also note two Oklahoma actions. On the pro se declaratory judgment case of W.J. Bryan Henrie v. G. T. Blankenship, U.S.D.C. N.D. Okla., #70-C-211, 6 July 1970, see Tulsa Tribune, 7 July 1970, pp. A1, A4, and 1 August 1970; Lucas to A. F. Ringold, 12 August 1970, and Henrie to Lucas, 17 August 1970, Lucas Box 21; also see Osteopathic Physician, July 1970, pp. 54–57, and SHA Newsletter Vol. 6, #4 (Winter 1970–1971). Less than two years later, Dr. Henrie passed away at the age of seventy-six. See Tulsa Daily World, 13 May 1972. Regarding efforts to reverse a doctor’s criminal abortion conviction in a case involving a woman’s death, see O. A. Cargill, Jr., and Stanley Pierce, “Brief of Plaintiff in Error,” Virgil Ray Jobe v. State of Oklahoma, Okla. Ct. Crim. App., #A15732, August 1970, 89pp., and Lucas to Cargill, 12 August 1970, Lucas Box 25; Oklahoma City Times, 24 November 1970; Tulsa Tribune, 17 December 1970. Also see generally Charles L. Pain, Oklahoma Law Review 24 (May 1971): 243–251.

79. Baird v. Eisenstadt, 429 F.2d 1398, 1401–1402; New York Times, 12 July 1970, p. E14. For a critique of the circuit court panel’s opinion, see “Due Process of Law—Privacy,” Harvard Law Review 84 (April 1971): 1525–1535. Also see Sturgis v. Attorney General, 260 N.E.2d 687, 690, a 5 to 2 29 June 1970 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the very same statute against a declaratory judgment challenge brought by several physicians. The Sturgis majority had asserted that “the Griswold case, as the Attorney General argues, affirmed ‘beyond doubt’ the right of the State of Connecticut to enact statutes regulating the private sexual lives of single persons, stating that the discouraging of extramarital relations is ‘admittedly a legitimate subject of state concern.’” 381 U.S. 479, 498 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Also see Scott M. Lewis, Ohio State Law Journal 32 (1971): 221–226.

80. Doe v. Bolton, 319 F. Supp. 1048, 1054–55, 1056 (N.D. Ga.), 31 July 1970; Garrow conversations with Sidney O. Smith, Jr., and Jeffrey R. Nickerson. Notes on the panel decision in Doe include John L. Moore, Jr., Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 59 (October 1970): 402–404; and Sylvia G. Haywood, Mercer Law Review 22 (Winter 1971): 461–466.

81. Atlanta Journal, 31 July 1970, p. 1, 20 and 25 August 1970; Atlanta Constitution, 1, 20 and 26 August 1970, p. B2; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2 August 1970; Judith Bourne to Anne Treseder, 31 August 1970, NARAL Box 2; Roger W. Rochat et al., “An Epidemiological Analysis of Abortion in Georgia,” American Journal of Public Health 61 (March 1971): 543–552; Malcolm G. Freeman and William L. Graves, “Physician Attitudes Toward Hospital Abortion in Georgia—1970,” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 59 (December 1970): 437–446; Atlanta Journal, 6 January 1971, p. B10; John L. Moore, Jr., “The Abortion Survey,” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 59 (December 1970): 459–460; Garrow conversations with Margie Hames, Judith [Bourne] Rooks, Peter Bourne, Robert A. Hatcher, Tobi Schwartz, Dorothy T. Beasley, and Arthur K. Bolton.

82. Rosen v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 318 F. Supp. 1217, 1223, 1231, 1234–35 (E.D. La.), 7 August 1970; New York Times, 12 August 1970, p. 42; Lucas, “Memorandum of Telephone Call,” 14 August 1970, Lucas Box 7; Lucas to David S. Dolowitz, 2 December 1970, Lucas Box 24 (“For my part, I agree with … Cassibry that Griswold stands for something more than the right to use a Trojan”). Ainsworth’s concluding reference concerning fundamentality is to Justice Cardozo’s opinion for the Court in Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). On Ainsworth, see Read and McGough, Let Them Be Judged, pp. 179–180, and Couch, A History of the Fifth Circuit, 1891–1981, pp. 134–135. Cassibry’s dissent further noted, with regard to the state—and Ainsworth’s—contention that the purpose of an antiabortion statute was to protect fetal life, that if that were true, it was thus incongruous that the Louisiana law also penalized attempted abortions upon women who were not actually pregnant, and where hence no fetal “life” was at risk. Cassibry also rhetorically asked, with regard to the state practice of prosecuting abortion providers, but not abortion recipients: “Suppose, for example, that A hires B to kill C; would the State grant A immunity in exchange for his testimony against B? If abortion is truly regarded as the destruction of human life, the mother is the principal criminal; the ‘abortionist’ is merely her paid executioner. If the State really means to protect the life of the fetus why does it fail to deter the person most directly responsible for taking it?” 318 F. Supp. at 1241–42.

83. On the eventual New Orleans appeal, see Benjamin E. Smith, “Jurisdictional Statement,” Rosen v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #1010, 19 November 1970; New York Times, 28 November 1970, p. 56; and Lucas to Smith, 4 February 1971. On the 10 September dismissal of Rodgers v. Danforth, see Charlotte P. Thayer et al., “Jurisdictional Statement,” Rodgers v. Danforth, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #1402, n.d. [8 February 1971], 23pp., Lucas to Thayer, 23 October 1970, and Frank Susman et al. to “Dear Plaintiff,” 25 November 1970, Lucas Box 15.

On the Utah suit, Doe v. Rampton, filed 8 September 1970 by David S. “Sandy” Dolowitz, see Dolowitz, “Complaint for Three-Judge Court, Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief,” Doe v. Rampton, U.S.D.C. D. Utah, #C-234, 8pp., Chief Judge Willis W. Ritter’s 14 September 1970 temporary restraining order concluding that “the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits,” Dolowitz’s amended complaint of 16 September, Alan Charles to Dolowitz, 18 September 1970, Lucas to Dolowitz, 22 October 1970, and Dolowitz to Lucas, 28 October 1970, Lucas Box 24.

On the Pennsylvania case, filed 14 September 1970, see Phyllis R. Ryan et al. v. Arlen Specter, 321 F. Supp. 1109 (E.D. Pa.), 22 January 1971 (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss), and Ryan v. Specter, 332 F. Supp. 26 (E.D. Pa.), 27 August 1971 (abstaining from any decision until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled upon the appeal of Commonwealth v. Page, discussed at note 78 above). On the Ohio case of A. H. Steinberg, M.D., et al. v. Paul Brown, filed by Toledo attorney Gerald B. Lackey on 10 October, see Lackey, “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief,” Steinberg v. Brown, U.S.D.C. N.D. Ohio, #C–70–289, Leslie L. Knowlton to Lucas, 14 October 1970, and Lucas to Knowlton, 20 October 1970, Lucas Box 21.

On Massachusetts, see Lucas to Laura Rasmussen, 21 October 1970, Lucas Box 25; also see Melvin L. Taylor, “Abortion Law in Massachusetts,” New England Journal of Medicine 283 (10 September 1970): 602, and Taylor, “A Medical Case for Abortion Liberalization,” Archives of Surgery 102 (March 1971): 235.

Also note two nonphysician criminal decisions, State v. Abodeely, 179 N.W.2d 347 (2 September 1970), [appeal dismissed, 402 U.S. 936, 3 May 1971], in which the Iowa Supreme Court volunteered that a doctor would be entitled to a good faith presumption, and Spears v. State of Mississippi, 241 So.2d 148 (9 November 1970) and 257 S.2d 876 (Miss. Sup. Ct.), 24 January 1972, cert. denied 409 U.S. 1106; Spears v. State, 278 So.2d 443 (Miss. Sup. Ct.), 21 May 1973. On Abodeely, also see Bruce W. Foudree, Drake Law Review 20 (June 1971): 666–673.

84. Alfred Walker to Martin F. McKernan (National Right to Life Committee), 29 June 1970, and McKernan to Walker, 2 July 1970, Texas AG File 70–308; Lee Gidding to Laura Maggi, 30 June 1970, NARAL Box 5; Weddington Interview with Cheek, p. 19; Lucas to Counsel Involved in Federal Litigation Against State Abortion Statutes, “Developments in Federal Jurisdiction,” 3 July 1970, 4pp., Lucas Box 24; Tolle, “Notice of Appeal,” 9 July 1970, Bruner, “Notice of Appeal,” 23 July 1970, Coffee, “Notice of Appeal,” 24 July 1970, Roe v. Wade, #3–3690; Dallas Times Herald, 18 July 1970; Robert C. Flowers, “Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court,” 17 August 1970, Coffee and Bruner, “Notice of Appeal,” 17 August 1970, Roe v. Wade, #3–3690; [Lucas], “Memorandum of Telephone Call, August 18, 1970, 4PM, to Linda Coffee,” Lucas Box 22; Tolle to Jay Floyd, 17 September 1970, Texas AG File 70–308; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas, Linda Coffee, Sarah Weddington, Roy Merrill, Fred Bruner, John Tolle, and Jay Floyd. Also see Lucas’s comments in “Abortion: Litigative and Legislative Processes,” Human Rights 1 (July 1971): 23–53, an edited transcript of an August 1970 American Bar Association panel discussion, and Lucas in the Miami Herald, 14 July 1970, p. A16. With regard to the 1970 Supreme Court decisions concerning jurisdiction of direct appeals, see Gunn v. University Committee to End the War, 399 U.S. 383, Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U.S. 427, Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center, 397 U.S. 820, and Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U.S. 471. When she filed the notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, Coffee told reporters “We are appealing to both courts. We are not sure where we belong. Because of recent Supreme Court decisions, it’s a little unclear where the jurisdiction is.” Dallas Morning News, 18 August 1970, p. D1, Dallas Times-Herald and Austin American-Statesman, 18 August 1970.

In another immediate post-Roe development, a black Texas physician in jail because of a criminal abortion charge that led to his parole on a drunken driving conviction being revoked, Dr. W. B. D. Cooper, unsuccessfully filed a habeas corpus petition seeking release on account of the Dallas panel’s declaratory ruling. See Cooper v. State, 447 S.W.2d 179 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App.), 3 December 1969; Cooper, “Application,” 29 June [filed 7 July] 1970, and Charles E. and Barbara S. Benson, “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” Cooper v. Beto, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #893, 23 October 1970, National Archives RG 267, Box 10303; Dallas Morning News, 10 July 1970, p. D4; Charles Benson to Lucas, 5 October 1970, and Lucas to Benson, 9 October 1970, Lucas Box 22; Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 22 October 1970, p. E11; Cooper v. Beto, 400 U.S. 1021 (cert. denied), 25 January 1971.

85. Lucas to Savage, 26 August 1970 (“They now want me to handle the appeal”), Savage to Lucas, 8 September 1970, Lucas Box 22; Dallas Morning News, 12 and 19 July 1970; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 19 July 1970, p. A21, 26 July 1970, pp. F1, F9, 27 August 1970; Patricia White to NARAL, 14 August and n.d. [c.10 September] 1970, NARAL Box 5; Dallas Times-Herald, 23 August 1970, p. A15; AEC-D Minutes, 26 August 1970, Whitehill Papers; Houston Chronicle, 30 August and 16 October 1970; Savage, “Report of Special Committee on Abortion Laws in Texas,” 19 September 1970, 2pp., Whitehill Papers; Miriam Kass, Houston Post, 27, 28, 29, and 30 September and 1 and 2 October 1970, p. A1; Marjorie Clapp, San Antonio Light, 27, 28, 29, and 30 September 1970, p. 1, 1 and 2 October 1970; Pat White to Ginny Whitehill, 2 October 1970, and AEC-D flyer, “Have you ever really studied Abortion?” (“A woman has a fundamental right to decide when to bear a child”), n.d., Whitehill Papers; Dallas Morning News, 8 October 1970, p. C1; Garrow conversations with Norma McCorvey; Marsha King to Roy Lucas, 5 July 1971 (“My reaction was again one of dread, terror and the helpless feeling that my body and my life had been removed from my control and something terrible was wrong. Again, I felt as if I had discovered I had cancer”), Lucas Box 22.

Also note both Roy Merrill’s 31 August 1970 “Form for Appearance of Counsel” for the Fifth Circuit (explicitly listing Lucas as lead counsel), and Merrill to Tolle, Flowers, Weddington and Coffee, 1 September 1970 (giving formal notification that Lucas is now an attorney of record for Dr. Hallford), Lucas Box 22.

86. Lucas et al., “Jurisdictional Statement,” Roe et al. v. Wade, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #808, esp. pp. 10, 13–16; 39 U.S. Law Week 3151; Lucas to Edward W. Wadsworth (CCA5), 8 September 1970, and Wadsworth to Lucas, 11 September 1970, Lucas Box 22 and Texas AG File 70–308; Roy Merrill to Lucas, 5 October 1970, and Lucas to Hugh Savage, 7 October 1970, Lucas Box 22; Lucas, “Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance,” Wade v. Roe, 5th Cir., #30329, 9 October 1970; Tolle, “Appellant’s Motion in Opposition to Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance,” Wade v. Roe, 5th Cir., #30329, 20 October 1970 [motion granted 28 October 1970]; Dallas Morning News, 12 October 1970, p. A10; [Henry Wade to Jim Clark], “Status on Appeal—Jane Roe v. Henry Wade,” n.d. [14 October 1970], Clark Papers; Lucas to Tolle, and to Robert C. Flowers, 23 October 1970, Lucas Box 22 and Texas AG File 70–308; Dallas Times-Herald, 25 October 1970; Floyd to E. Robert Seaver, 2 November 1970, Floyd, “Reply to Jurisdictional Statement,” Roe v. Wade, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #808, 5 November 1970, National Archives RG 267, Box 9.

87. Dallas Morning News, 10 October 1970, p. D5, 15 November 1970, pp. A29, E1, 16 November 1970, p. C8, 17 November 1970, p. C1, 18 November 1970, p. C2, 19 November 1970, p. C3; Dallas Times-Herald, 21 October 1970, pp. 21, 24, 1 April 1971, pp. 25, 29; Patricia White to Savage, 23 October 1970, White to Texas Abortion Coalition Members, “Report on November Conference,” n.d. [c.15 November 1970], “Minutes of Abortion Coalition Steering Committee,” 12 December 1970, Whitehill Papers; The Rag, 14 December 1970, p. 4; AEC-D to Morris Harrell, n.d. [c.December 1970], Whitehill and White to Page Keeton, 15 December 1970, AEC-D Newsletter, 15 December 1970, Debbie Leonard to Weddington and Whitehill, 18 December 1970, Weddington and Whitehill to TAC Steering Committee Members, 19 December 1970, Evelyn Sell to Whitehill, 19 December 1970, Whitehill to TMA Abortion Committee Members, 23 December 1970, Miriam Kass to Whitehill, 24 December 1970, Whitehill Papers; Second Coming Vol. 1, #1 (1 December 1970), pp. 4–5, #2 (11 December 1970), p. 5; Houston Chronicle, 6 and 16 December 1970; Garrow conversations with J. Claude Evans, Virginia Whitehill, Judy Smith, Barbara Hines, and Beatrice Vogel. Also see Carol Joffe, “Portraits of Three ‘Physicians of Conscience’: Abortion Before Legalization in the United States,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 2 (July 1991): 46–67, regarding the Texas provider whom she calls “David Bennett.”

88. Garrow conversations with Margie Hames, Tobi Schwartz, Elizabeth Rindskopf, Gale Siegel Messerman, Reber Boult, Charles Morgan and Roy Lucas; Lucas to Hames, 18 and 28 August 1970, Hames Papers.

89. Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas, Morris Dees, Douglas J. Kramer, Richard G. Singer, Nicholas W. Danforth, Brian L. Sullivan, and Larry Lader; New York Times, 22 March 1970, p. 30; Lucas to Lader, 15 April 1970, Lucas Box 25; Lucas to IRS, 8 September 1970, CCTA Box 1; Lucas to Robert L. Loeb, 14 September 1970, Lucas Box 25; NARAL Annual Meeting Minutes, 27–28 September 1970, Boulder, CO, NARAL I-3; Lucas to Richard Lamm, 29 September 1970, Lucas Box 2; Lucas to Carol Crawford, 8 October 1970, Lucas to Lader, 23 October 1970, “James Madison Constitutional Law Institute Income & Expenses, Fifteen Months Ended Oct. 31, 1970,” David S. Greenspan to Dees, 1 December 1970, Lucas to Nat Lehrman, and to Bob Hall, 6 December 1970, Lucas to Samuel Landfather, 16 December 1970, Lucas to Greenspan et al., 19 December 1970, Lucas to Hall, 28 December 1970, Lucas to Stewart Mott, 29 December 1970, Lucas Box 25; Lucas Interview with Vose. Also see New York Times, 27 May 1970, p. 33.

90. Lucas to Alan Charles, 29 August 1970, Lucas to Allan C. Barnes, 7 September 1970, Lucas Box 25.

91. Atlanta Journal, 19, 28, and 29 September 1970, 5 October 1970, pp. A1, A16, 15 October 1970, 16 November 1970; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 4 October 1970, pp. C1, C12, 11 October 1970; Hames, “Petition of Jane Roe to Intervene” and “Motion of Jane Roe for Temporary Restraining Order,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 15 September 1970, Hames, “Memorandum in Support of the Petition of Jane Roe to Intervene as Plaintiff and to Clarify and Enforce the Court’s Opinion of July 31,” Doe v. Bolton, #13676, 6 October 1970, 13pp., Doe Case File 74A–2025, Box 16; Maureen “Filler,” “Affidavit,” 1 October 1970, Polly Poe v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, U.S.D.C. N.D. Ga., #14223, 7 October 1970, Hames Papers; Supplemental Opinion, Doe v. Bolton, 319 F. Supp. 1048, 1056, 14 October 1970; Atlanta Constitution, 16 October 1970; Trammell Vickery to Judge Sidney O. Smith, 9 October 1970, and Hames to Smith, 20 October 1970, Hames Papers; Atlanta Constitution, 22 December 1970, p. A1, 23 December 1970, p. A2, 30 December 1970, p. A4; Ann Woolner, “‘I am Mary Doe,’” Fulton County Daily Report, 9 February 1989, pp. 1, 3–7; Hames et al., “Jurisdictional Statement,” Doe v. Bolton, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #971, 14 November 1970, 25pp.; Bolton et al., “Motion to Dismiss,” Doe v. Bolton, 28 December 1970, 19pp.; Garrow conversations with Margie Hames, Reber Boult, Elizabeth Rindskopf, Tobi Schwartz, and Sandra [Bensing] Cano.

92. Babbitz v. McCann, 312 F. Supp. 725 (E.D. Wis.), 11 May 1970; New York Times, 23 June 1970, p. 38, 13 October 1970, p. 26, 19 November 1970, p. 58; Lucas to Counsel Involved in Federal Litigation Against State Abortion Statutes, “Developments in Federal Jurisdiction,” 3 July 1970, and Lucas annotation of Clifford K. Meldman to Nathaniel D. Rothstein, 10 July 1970, Lucas Box 24; Lucas to Hugh Savage, 26 August 1970, Lucas Box 22; McCann v. Babbitz, 400 U.S. 1 (12 October 1970); Milwaukee Journal, 28 October 1970, pp. 1, 5, 29 October 1970, pp. 1, 4, 18 November 1970, pp. 1, 10; Babbitz v. McCann, 320 F. Supp. 219 (E.D. Wis.), 18 November 1970; Milwaukee Sentinel, 19 November 1970, p. 8, 1 December 1970, 16 January 1971; McCann v. Kerner, 436 F.2d 1342 (7th Cir.), 14 January 1971; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas and Joseph L. Nellis. Also see Lee Gidding, “Executive Director’s Report,” 30 October 1970, NARAL Box 1; Minneapolis Tribune, 21 December 1970, pp. 1, 7; and Joseph L. Nellis, “The Lesson of Wisconsin” (unpublished paper, 12 May 1972), 5pp., NARAL I-12.

93. Byron N. Fujita and Nathaniel N. Wagner, “Referendum 20—Abortion Reform in Washington State,” in Howard J. and Joy D. Osofsky, eds., The Abortion Experience, pp. 232–260; Robert G. Morrison, “Choice in Washington: The Politics of Liberalized Abortion” (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Virginia, 1982), pp. 101–150, at 130; Archbishop Thomas A Connolly letters to “Reverend and dear Father,” 14 April 1970, 30 April 1970, and 29 September 1970, YWCA/UWash Papers Boxes 2 and 3; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 6 September 1970, p. 8, 4 November 1970, p. 2; Seattle Times, 27 September 1970, p. A20; New York Times, 25 October 1970, p. 79, 4 November 1970, p. 35; Daily Olympian, 27 October 1970. Also see Mike Ferry et al., “Abortion as an Election Issue,” ZPG National Reporter, January 1971, pp. 12–15; Ricky L. Welborn, North Carolina Law Review 49 (June 1971): 487–502, at 502; and Laurie McCutcheon and Nathaniel Wagner, “The People, Religion, and Abortion Reform in Washington State,” ZPG National Reporter, July 1971, pp. 5–6. For other contemporaneous yet more general Roman Catholic expressions of opposition to abortion liberalization, see New York Times, 13 October 1970, p. 2, 14 October 1970, p. 47, 6 December 1970, p. 33, 28 December 1970, p. 63, and 3 January 1971, p. 36.

94. New York Times, 29 November 1970, p. 52. Also see Journal of the American Medical Association 215 (11 January 1971): 286.

95. Lucas to Fred Graham, 22 July 1970, Lucas Box 12; Lucas to Chris Tietze, 14 September 1970, Lucas Box 25; Lucas et al., “Jurisdictional Statement,” Hodgson v. Randall, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #728, 21 [29] September 1970, 40pp., Lucas et al., “Jurisdictional Statement,” Hodgson v. Minnesota, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #729, 21 September [5 October] 1970, 31pp., Lucas, “Application for Partial Stay,” Hodgson v. Randall, #728, 1 [2] October 1970, 13pp., at p. 6, Lucas to Justice Harry A. Blackmun, 2 November 1970, Lucas, “Application for Stay,” Hodgson v. Minnesota, #729, 3 November 1970, National Archives, RG 267, Boxes 10,269 and 10,270; Hodgson to Lucas, 28 September 1970, Lucas Box 13; E. Robert Seaver to Lucas, 19 October and 6 November 1970, Lucas to William Randall, and to John R. Kenefick, 23 October 1970, Lucas Box 12; Transcript of Hearing, 5 November 1970, Lucas Box 13; New York Times, 7 November 1970, p. 14, 15 November 1970, p. 75, 20 November 1970, p. 19, 21 November 1970, p. 15; St. Paul Dispatch, 12 November 1970, pp. 1, 14, 13 November 1970, 17 November 1970; Minneapolis Star, 12, 13, 14, and 17 November 1970, 18 November 1970, p. A23, 19 and 21 November 1970; Minneapolis Tribune, 13, 17, 18, and 20 November 1970; St. Paul Pioneer Press, 13, 14, and 18 November 1970; Irvin M. Cushner to Lucas, 1 December 1970, Stewart R. Perry to Hodgson, 10 March 1971, Lucas Box 13; Peter Irons, The Courage of Their Convictions (New York: Free Press, 1988), pp. 258–261; Garrow conversations with Jane E. Hodgson and Roy Lucas.

96. Lucas to ASA Executive Committee, “Amicus Brief in Vuitch v. Maryland,” n.d. [c.2 April 1970], Guttmacher Papers and Lucas Box 9; Lucas, “To Whom It May Concern, n.d. [c.10 May 1970], Lucas to Clerk’s Office, Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 30 July 1970, Lucas Box 9; Lucas to Bob Hall, 18 August 1980, Lucas Box 8; M. William Adelson et al., “Brief of Appellant,” Vuitch v. State, Md. Ct. Spec. App., September Term 1970, #32, n.d., 25pp.; Lucas et al., “Brief of Amici Curiae Association for the Study of Abortion,” Vuitch v. State, Md. Ct. Spec. App., September Term 1970, #32, 15 August 1970, 44pp.; Lucas to Michael Rodak, 22 July 1970, and Lucas to E. P. Cullinan, 2 September 1970, U.S. v. Vuitch File, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #84, National Archives, RG 267, Box 10088; Washington Star, 9 September 1970; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas and Milan Vuitch.

97. Sitnick, Nellis, and Lucas, “Brief for Milan M. Vuitch, M.D.,” U.S. v. Vuitch, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1970, #84, 29 September 1970, 70pp., pp. 40–41, 43, 51.

Generally unremarkable amicus briefs in Vuitch included a substantive submission by Marilyn Rose and Alan Charles from Los Angeles, and considerably more modest ones (ten to fourteen pages) by the ACLU (Ralph Temple et al., “Brief for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union,” 10 September 1970, 10pp.), Sylvia S. Ellison, and Lola Boswell in support of the Gesell ruling. Amicus submissions urging reversal of Gesell were filed by Alfred L. Scanlan et al. (“Brief of Dr. William F. Colliton, Jr., et al.…” 14 July 1970, 53pp.), Dennis J. Horan (“Brief of Dr. Bart Heffernan …” 14 July 1970, 46pp.), David W. Louisell, and Robert L. Sassone. Also see “DCB” [Dennis C. Brown], U.S. v. Vuitch, 23 September 1970, Douglas Box 1507.

Per Lucas’s Vuitch Supreme Court brief at 11, also see Mindel v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 312 F. Supp. 485 (N.D. Cal.), 30 March 1970, where the termination of a postal worker for “immoral conduct” because he was living with a woman to whom he was not married was found to violate “his right to privacy as guaranteed by the 9th Amendment” and thus overturned.

98. Middletown [Ohio] Journal, 11 November 1970; Vuitch, “Motion for Leave to Argue Pro Hac Vice,” 3 November 1970, Vuitch File, Box 10088; [Lucas A. Powe], U.S. v. Vuitch, #84, 14 November 1970, Douglas Box 1507; Sitnick and Nellis to Lucas, 16 November 1970, 4pp., Hames Papers; Sitnick and Nellis to Seaver, 20 November 1970, Cullinan to Nellis and Sitnick, 20 November 1970, Nellis to Cullinan, 23 November 1970, Sitnick and Nellis, “Response to Appellee’s Motion Pro Hac Vice,” 24 November 1970, 5pp., Vuitch to Clerk, U.S.S.C., 24 November 1970, Nellis to Cullinan, 24 November 1970, Vuitch File, Box 10088; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas, Joseph L. Nellis, Milan Vuitch, and Florence “Lee” Vuitch.

99. Cullinan to Sitnick, Nellis and Lucas, 24 November 1970, Vuitch File, Box 10088; Vuitch to Dorsen, 30 November 1970, Dorsen to Vuitch, 7 and 15 December 1970, Dorsen Papers; Dorsen to Cullinan, 22 December 1970, Nellis to Cullinan, 30 December 1970, Vuitch File, Box 10088; Vuitch v. State, 10 Md. App. 389, 271 A.2d 371, 374, 376 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), 24 November 1970; Garrow conversations with Roy Lucas, Joseph L. Nellis, Milan Vuitch, Florence “Lee” Vuitch, and Norman Dorsen.

100. Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp. 741, 746–747, 748, 752, 759 (N.D. Ohio), 18 December 1970; Gerald B. Lackey to Lucas, 31 December 1970, Lucas Box 21.

101. Newark Star-Ledger, 15 December 1970, pp. 1, 10; Woodbridge News Tribune, 15 December 1970, pp. 1, 9; Trentonian, 15 December 1970, p. 3; Stearns Interview with Garrow; Lucas to Hugh Savage, 2 December 1970, Lucas Box 22; Lucas to Sam Landfather, 16 December 1970, Lucas Box 25.

102. C. Thomas Dienes, Law, Politics, and Birth Control (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972), pp. 189–191; Bush to Mrs. Jim L. Hunter, 23 October 1970, Whitehill Papers; Elliot Silverstein, “From Comstockery Through Population Control: The Inevitability of Balancing,” North Carolina Central Law Journal 6 (Fall 1974): 8–47, at 15; P.L. 91-662, 84 Stat. 1973 (8 January 1971). Also see Bush, “Foreword,” in Phyllis T. Piotrow, World Population Crisis: The United States Response (New York: Praeger, 1973), p. vii.