Press Release

Q&A with Sarah Weddington
Sample Quotes

Images

1. How did you get involved with the abortion rights issue and Roe v. Wade?

In 1969, a group of women students from The University of Texas at Austin approached me asking for help. Essentially they explained that they had collected information about where abortion procedures were available and basically safe, and wanted to know if they could be prosecuted as accomplices to abortion if they made that information available through the press, phone calls, or in other ways.

In Texas abortion was then illegal except to save the life of the woman. It was also illegal in Mexico. Even so, there were illegal settings in those and other places where abortions were performed. However, some of the places were extremely dangerous. Abortion was legal in states like New York and California, but travel and other costs were very high. The students who came to me wanted to provide information so that women could know about the legal places and the better of illegal places and would avoid the worst places and thus the injuries that often followed.

I didn't know the answer to their question, but I offered to go to the law library and try to find the answer for them.

2. Who were "Roe" and "Wade"?

"Jane Roe" was the fictitious name for a woman who was pregnant and wanted an abortion. The case was a class action, however. It was not about one woman but rather was for "all women who were or might become pregnant and want the option of abortion".

"Wade" was Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County. He was responsible for enforcing the laws against abortion in that area.

The suit, filed in federal court in Dallas County, asked that the Texas law against abortion be declared unconstitutional and that Henry Wade be ordered to cease prosecuting doctors who were willing to perform abortions.

3. Did you suspect, when you filed the case, that it would become a United States Supreme Court case?

Definitely not! Roe v. Wade was my first contested case. I had previously handled uncontested divorces, written wills for people with virtually no money, and handled one adoption for my uncle. If those women had asked if I would be willing to try a Supreme Court case, I would have said, "No way!"

I was hoping, however, that the Roe case would help push some other case involving the same issue of whether state anti-abortion laws were constitutional up to the Supreme Court.

One reason the Supreme Court will sometimes accept a case is if there are a variety of similar cases pending around the country. There were then cases involving abortion statutes pending in a variety of states. However, as fate would have it, the Texas case and one from Georgia were accepted by the Supreme Court for consideration. The Georgia case involved a statute against abortion except for reasons of the life or health of the woman or rape or incest; it also included a number of regulations about prerequisites for abortion services.

In fact, I later asked those students why they came to me. Essentially they wanted a woman attorney and they needed to find one who would do the case for free. I was the only woman attorney they knew, and I was willing to do the work for free.

Also, when I graduated from law school in l967, I was unable to get a job with a law firm, as law firms generally were not yet ready to accept women lawyers.

I ended up working for a law professor doing research and drafting, but since I had worked several jobs to pay my way through law school, I felt I had extra time to donate while my husband was going through law school. I was interested in a wide variety of women's issues and was eager to work on a case that might be part of a process of giving women expanded reproductive decisions.

4. What was it like being a young lawyer and arguing your first contested case before the U.S. Supreme Court?

Scary! The courtroom of the Supreme Court is an awesome place. I was extremely nervous, although I had spent several years preparing for that moment. On my shoulders I felt the weight of the need to win for women.

A case before the Supreme Court is normally allocated one hour, half an hour per side. The Justices have already read the pages of written materials submitted by both sides and have the issues summarized by their legal clerks. Oral argument is essentially an opportunity for the attorneys to answer questions that the Justices might have.

5. What was it like winning Roe v. Wade?

January 22, 1973 was the most exciting day of my life. A reporter from The New York Times called that morning asking whether I had a quote about Roe v. Wade. It was from that reporter that I learned that the Supreme Court that morning had issued an opinion—decided by a vote of 7 to 2—that declared there was a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, that pregnancy was a "fundamental interest" (or one worthy of being given great weight), and that the state had not proven a compelling reason to regulate about abortion. In fact, the opinion pointed out that there were many varied approaches to answering the question about "when does life begin" and that government had never treated the fetus as a person.

A few minutes after the reporter's call, I received a telegram from the Supreme Court—sent collect. I don't remember what I had to pay for it.

My office was abuzz with the news. As others heard about the decision, my office swelled with people coming by to offer congratulations and to ask questions about what the opinion said. The phone was "ringing off the hook" with calls from reporters and people who had been involved in the pro-choice cause. My staff was trying to reach friends, supporters and other people involved with the case. It was a scene of pandemonium and celebration.

Later that night, my husband Ron and I had some quiet time together. We could hardly believe the news.

The next task was being sure that medical services because generally available. We wanted the principle of choice to be a reality for women, not just words in a court opinion.

We certainly never, ever envisioned that thirty years later the issue would be so "hot," that abortion providers would be the target of so much harassment and illegal activity, or that the decision itself would be in such danger of being overturned.

6. After thirty years, how would you summarize what the decision represents to you?

First, it was part of dramatically expanding the area within which women could make decisions for themselves. We started the case at a time when women generally could not get credit in their own names, when women who played high school basketball were only allowed to run half court and could not exceed two dribbles at a time, when women public school teachers who became pregnant were generally fired if they didn't resign first, and when rape trials focused more on the woman's prior sexual conduct than it did whether sex had occurred without consent.

We were not championing abortion. We were championing the principle that women—not the government—were the appropriate ones to make decisions about reproduction. Our focus was that women should have the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy and keep the child, whether to continue a pregnancy even if she planned to put the child up for adoption, or whether to terminate a pregnancy. I thought of abortion as the hub of a wheel and that women could not make key decisions about the "spoke" issues: family size, education, employment, health concerns, and much more without the ability to make reproductive decisions.

Second, over these thirty years I have had countless women and some men approach me to tell me how grateful they have been for the Roe principles and often to add a personal story.

Of course, I've also been approached by some who totally disagree with the decision. I'm still puzzled about by why those leading protests outside abortion clinics and yelling at the women entering there are so often men. Some have suggested it is the only circumstance where men can be so uncivil and awful toward women and then feel somehow religiously virtuous for having done so.

7. Is it true that the woman known as "Jane Roe" is now opposed to abortion?

Yes. She supported the decision from l970 until 1995. Since then, she has said she is opposed to abortion and would like to see Roe overturned.

While her change of mind is certainly a public relations advantage for those opposed to abortion, it does not have any bearing on the case.

After the case was decided, she talked publicly about a rape that turned into a gang rape. Subsequently, she told Carl Rowan, a Washington columnist, that her rape story was a lie. That, too, has no effect on the case, as there is no mention anywhere in any aspect of the case about how she got pregnant. Texas had no exception for rape. It was after the decision that she talked about such things, primarily in giving press interviews.

8. What kind of impact do you believe the success of Roe v. Wade has had on women over the years?

It has given them thirty years of knowing what it is like to be autonomous in making the decisions most vital to their lives. I am incredulous that women or those who care about them would ever give up the reproductive freedom they have known and have come to expect.

So many people have had a mastery of their own lives because of that right of privacy.

9. How much danger is the decision in now?

There are two aspects to the danger. First, there is the danger that the decision will be undermined and services will be less and less available. Second, there is the danger that the decision will be overturned.

Whether Roe continues to be the "law of the land" depends primarily on the people who sit as members of the U.S. Supreme Court. There are many rumors that I believe are credible that one or more of the Justices may resign soon. Fairly recent votes of the nine Justices on abortion-related cases have been three saying overturn Roe, three saying to sustain but weaken it, and three saying to leave it alone. In a recent case the vote was 5-4 with one of the middle three moving over to vote with those against Roe but on an issue of state regulation of abortion. The vote alignment is close already.

Nominations for any vacancies will be made by President George W. Bush. During his campaign for President, he said that he was against abortion—that he personally favored a constitutional amendment against abortion but that the American people weren't ready for such. But anti-abortion forces who supported him and his candidates for recent elections will be pushing hard to overturn Roe and, until they can accomplish that, to limit Roe in every way possible.

President Bush, no doubt, will be advised in that nominating process by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who I believe was quoted several years ago as saying if he could accomplish only one thing in public service, it would be to end abortions. Now the Republicans control the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee that considers Supreme Court nominations. Many Republican voters believe that Roe should be continued, but the Republicans who hold key positions in Congress and the Bush Administration are aggressively anti-Roe.

I don't envy the position that President Bush is in. My hunch is that he wants to please the anti-abortion folks and to ensure their support for his next election. On the other hand, he knows the majority of Americans—both Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—want Roe maintained. A recent article talked about his top political advisor, Karl Rove, having told him to emphasize national security and not talk about the abortion issue while he was campaigning for candidates in 2002.

But the public should not be lulled into thinking the right of privacy declared by Roe is not headed for the critical care unit.

Even if anti-Roe Justices replace middle or pro-Roe Justices, overturning Roe would not happen "instantly." A case would start from a state that passed a broad statute against abortion and would wind its way to the Supreme Court. That process would likely take several years, and I'd guess the White House would like to see that confrontation in the Supreme Court postponed until after the 2004 election cycle.

There was a rumor in 1972 that then-President Richard Nixon, who was running for re-election and was anti-abortion, did not want the decision in Roe v. Wade announced before that election. It was in fact announced the first Monday after Nixon was inaugurated for his second term.

However, in the meantime, those against abortion inside and outside the administration are working to undermine abortion availability and to try to establish a doctrine that a "person" begins from the moment of conception. That is a dramatic difference from past understandings. The Constitution refers to citizens as those born in the U.S. or naturalized. Income tax deductions are available only for the year of a child's birth and after. Pregnant women get one passport, not two, when they leave the country. Murder in Texas at the time of Roe was defined as the killing of one who has been born. Rights of inheritance were contingent on being born alive.

10. What do you think the decision means to young women today?

I think it has become something that most of them simply take for granted. But I'm observing an increasing number of young women taking leadership roles or working with others to support the right that they have had since the time of Roe.

We certainly need more of them to be active in this regard. I'm part of the generation that worked hard to expand opportunities for women. But my generation is also beginning the "exit tango." We still care very much about the issues and will continue to be involved, but our energy is not what it used to be. I once said that basic change is often accomplished by those who can stay up past midnight—and I used to!

11. What should women and others who care about maintaining this basic right be doing now?

First, hook up with a pro-choice organization. There are many good ones, such as Planned Parenthood. That's the best way to get updated information about the challenges and the specifics of what to do.

12. If this case were threatened, would you go back to the table to take the case on?

I'd certainly be involved, but more likely as a volunteer advisor. The primary lawyers involved in such a case tend to be people from the state where the law is being challenged. There are now some lawyers who have full-time employment to work pro-choice, and I'm grateful for their legal leadership.

13. What would you like to say in conclusion?

When I was in Washington, D.C. for the 25th anniversary of Roe, I went to the Korean Veterans' Memorial. There in granite are carved the words "Freedom is not Free."

And reproductive freedom is not free. Those who believe in it and believe it should be the law of the land must rise in its defense politically, in public debate, and in support of pro-choice organizations.

One final note:

A couple of years ago, a young woman lawyer at a Planned Parenthood event introduced me by saying, "This is Sarah Weddington. I never met her until today. But I am her daughter…in law." I was deeply touched by her comments. To see younger women lawyers going through the door we opened and to see their successes is a thrilling experience. Now is a time we need daughters-in-law and sons-in-law to use their skills to save what we won in l973.