Dahlberg 1
The Abortion Controversy
The Abortion Controversy
Brooke Dahlberg
Weber State University
Dahlberg 2
The Abortion Controversy
The Abortion Controversy
Abortion is a highly controversial topic, especially now-a days. Is abortion a privacy right
to women to decide what they do with their own body? Or is abortion completely wrong? Is
abortion the killing of an innocent life? The abortion controversy has been a controversy for a
long time and is currently an on-going argument regarding a women’s rights and freedoms. In
this paper I will discuss many elements that accompany abortion and some of the cases in which
abortion has been involved with. I will also discuss some of the current controversies going on in
California about abortion related topics that are in process with the Supreme Court currently.
And lastly I will give my opinion on this subject.
According to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, “Abortion is when a pregnancy is
ended so that it doesn’t result in the birth of a child. Sometimes it is called a, termination of
pregnancy” (Bpas, 2015, 1). Some women have unwanted pregnancies.
There is a law in the United States regarding abortion. Currently in the United States,
abortion is legal, but may be restrained or prevented by the state of varying degree (Wikipedia,
2018). Legislation, regulation and judicial action, has state policy developments on abortion
rights and access (Guttmacher Institute, 2018). According to Guttmacher Institute, one in four
women in the United States will have an abortion by the age of 45(Guttmacher Institute, 2018).
Regarding abortion, “Each year, a broad cross section of U.S. women obtain abortions.
As of 2014, some 60% of women having abortions were in their 20’s; 59% had one or more
children; 86% were unmarried; 75% were economically disadvantaged; and 62% reported a
religious affiliation. No racial or ethnic group made up a majority: Some 39% of women
Dahlberg 3
The Abortion Controversy
obtaining abortions were white, 28% were black, 25% were Hispanic and 9% were of other
racial or ethnic backgrounds” (Guttmacher Institute, 2018).
The Supreme Court Case, Roe v. Wade was an appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas. Some further background on this abortion case, Jane
Roe, was a single woman living in Texas. Roe in 1970 instituted federal action against the
District Attorney of the county. She declared that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were
unconstitutional and that it was an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the
statutes. Roe declared that she was pregnant and unmarried and she wished to abort her
pregnancy by abortion by a competent and licensed physician under safe conditions. Roe was not
able to get a legal abortion in her home state of Texas because her life was not threatened by her
pregnancy (Roe v. Wade, 1973).
This was against Roe’s beliefs for herself and her pregnancy. “She claimed that the Texas
statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy,
protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments” (Roe v. Wade, 1973).
Roe proclaimed to sue “on behalf of herself and all other women” similarly situated (Roe v.
Wade, 1973).
In the document, Roe Et Al v. Wade District Attorney of Dallas County, which was an
appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It stated that, a
licensed physician, James Hubert Hallford, wanted to leave and was admitted to leave the
intervene in Roe’s action. In his complaint to do so, he had been arrested previously for
violations of the Texas abortion statutes and he had two prosecutions against him. He explained,
“conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases
he, as a physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception
Dahlberg 4
The Abortion Controversy
recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, “as a consequence, the statues were vague and
uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and that they violated his own and his
patient’s rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice
medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments” (Roe v. Wade, 1973).
To further give background to this abortion case, John and Mary Doe who were married,
“filled a companion complaint to that of Roe. They also named the District Attorney as
defendant, claimed like constitutional deprivations, and sought declaratory and injunction relief”
(Roe v. Wade, 1973). Mary Doe was suffering from a disorder and was advised not to get
pregnant, yet she stopped taking her birth control pills and she became pregnant. Later she
aborted the baby by a licensed physician. “By an amendment to their complaint, the Does
purported to sue “on behalf of themselves and all couples similarly situated” (Roe v. Wade,
1973).
Many elements were in this situation and case that was presented to the Supreme Court.
“From their respective positions of married couple, single woman, and practicing physician,
plaintiffs attack Articles 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, and 1996 of the Texas Penal Code, hereinafter
referred to as the Texas Abortion Laws. Plaintiffs allege that the Texas Abortion laws deprive
married couples and single women of the right to choose whether to have children, a right
secured by the Ninth Amendment” (Roe v. Wade, 1970). The Ninth Amendment is there to
secure that nothing that is in the Constitution can be used to cancel amendments to it.
The Supreme Court made a decision regarding abortion, “On January 22, 1973, the U.S.
Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which stated that
the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical
Dahlberg 5
The Abortion Controversy
decisions- including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians. Over
40 years later, Americans are still standing by the decision: 7 in 10 Americans believe that Roe v.
Wade should remain the law of the land” (Planned Parenthood, 2018). Some would argue that
the Supreme Court’s decision, the Roe v. Wade case, was one of the most important decisions
affecting abortion in the United States.
Roe made it achievable and available for women to discontinue their pregnancies for
almost any reason (FineLaw, 2018). The Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case changed the future
of abortion for women in the United States. It also changed for future for American women in
the United States because before this Supreme Court decision, “abortion was considered to be a
crime, except when it was necessary “to preserve a life” of the pregnant woman as stated in the
Supreme Court case, Doe ET AL v. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, ET AL (Doe v. Balton,
1973).
Another Supreme Court case involving abortion is Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. “This
Pennsylvania law required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under
the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an
abortion” (Wikipedia, 2018). There are many interesting things regarding the Planned
Parenthood v. Casey case.
The history of abortion regulation in Pennsylvania was stated to be a landmark decision
when the Roe v. Wade came to be. “The Supreme Court invalidated statutes unconstitutionally
that violated a woman’s fundamental right to privacy. In the year following Roe v. Wade, over
the Governor’s veto, the state legislature enacted Pennsylvania’s first comprehensive “Abortion
Control Act.” After extensive and substantial ligation, various provisions of the 1974 Act,
Dahlberg 6
The Abortion Controversy
including sections relating to spousal and parental consent to abortion procedures” (Planned
Parenthood, 1992).
Planned Parenthood of the Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey, governor of
Pennsylvania, et al, stated that,
“The Act requires that a woman seeking an abortion gives her informed
consent prior to the abortion procedure, and specified that she be provided with
certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed. For a minor
to obtain an abortion, the Act requires the informed consent of one of her parents,
but provides a judicial bypass option if the minor does not wish to or cannot
obtain a parent’s consent. Another provision of the Act requires that, unless
certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a
statement indicating that she has notified her husband of her intended abortion”
(Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey, 1992). The Planned Parenthood v.
Casey also changed the future of abortion in the United States.
Both Supreme Court Cases, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey had a major
effect on abortion in the United States, regardless if you are an anti-abortion person or in favor of
abortion. Still many people are skeptical of the decisions that the Supreme Court has made or
makes in favor of abortion or against abortion. Abortion still stands as a highly sensitive matter.
To discuss another Supreme Court case regarding abortion, it would be important to be
informative about the Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al v. Baird ET AT case.
This was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. “On
August 2, 1974 the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed, over the
Dahlberg 7
The Abortion Controversy
Governor’s veto an Act pertaining to its title, the statue was intended to regulate abortions
“within present constitutional limits” (Bellotti v. Baird, 1979). It was stated that if a woman
pregnant with an infant is less than 18 years old and is not married, it is required that she receive
consent from her parents in order for a request of an abortion be performed. If the woman who is
pregnant has both parents refuse the consent, it is possible for consent to be obtained by a judge
of a superior court, after a hearing deems necessary. This Supreme Court case also states that, if
physicians perform abortions without the required consent, they could be accountable to criminal
penalties (Bellotti v. Baird, 1979). I must add that I do agree with this. Minors should have to
seek consent and approval from parents or other trusted adults to make a wise decision about
aborting a pregnancy or not.
Justice Breyer in the opinion of the Court regarding another United States
Supreme Court case, Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, ET AL. v, Carhart, stated
something significant. He said, “We understand the controversial nature of the problem. Millions
of Americans believe that life begins at conception and consequently that an abortion is akin to
causing the death of an innocent child…. (Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000). Pro-Life advocates would
agree with his statement, yet pro-choice advocates would contradict or disagree.
Another Supreme Court case involving abortion is the, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney
General, Petitioners v. Leroy Carhart et al. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Petitioner, v.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc, et al. case. It stated that, “The Casey Court
reaffirmed what it termed Roe’s three-part essential holding: First: a women has a right to choose
to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without the right to choose to have an
abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Second,
Dahlberg 8
The Abortion Controversy
the State has the power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exemptions for
pregnancies endangering the woman’s life or health. And third, the State has legitimate interest
from the pregnancy outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may
become a child” (Gonzales v. Leroy Carhart, 2007).
As stated from another Supreme Court case regarding abortion, Maher v. Roe, it is stated
that, “In order to obtain authorization for a first timers abortion, the hospital or clinic where the
abortion is to be performed must submit, among other things, a certificate from the patient’s
attending physician stating that the abortion is medically necessary…” (Maher v. Roe, 1977). It
is informative and interesting that a woman cannot just obtain an abortion without any
restrictions or rules, but there are many rules and regulations a woman must follow if she desires
to abort a baby that she is carrying inside of her body. I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision
regarding Maher v Roe. I believe that it is right if a woman wants to obtain an abortion, she must
have a medical reason to do so.
I will also be informative on the current controversies going on in California about
abortion related topics. All around the United States there are crisis pregnancy centers. “A crisis
pregnancy center, it is a type of nonprofit organization established to counsel pregnant women
against having an abortion. A crisis pregnancy center that qualify as medical clinic may also
provide pregnancy testing, sonograms, and other services” (Wikipedia, 2018). Crisis pregnancy
centers can also be called, pregnancy resource centers or a pregnancy help centers. Just in the
recent month of March, Justices appear skeptical of California’s law challenged by anti-abortion
centers.
Dahlberg 9
The Abortion Controversy
The Supreme Court justices have become doubtful about California’s “truth in
advertising” at the crisis pregnancy centers. The Supreme Court believes that these clinics by law,
need to more fully reveal what they really are (Totenberg, 2018). As a result, many anti-abortion
individuals recently protested in front of the Supreme Court. The court will hear the arguments at
the state of crisis pregnancy centers. “The anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” objected to
the law on free-speech grounds” (Totenberg, 2018).
From the Supreme Court of the United States and the National Institute of Family and
Life Advocated, dba NIFLA, et al, Petitioners v. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California,
et al, Respondents, Amicus Curiae Charlotte Lozier Institute is the education and research arm of
the Susan B. Anthony List, who was named after a 19th century feminist, who like Susan B.
Anthony, championed women’s rights without sacrificing either equal opportunity or the lives of
the unborn. Lozier institute created a mission and had undertaken multiple initiatives focused on
pregnancy help centers. It is in part a Lozier Institute vision to create a better America as they
work with and serve mothers and their children (NIFLA v. Becerra, 2018).
Lozier Institute makes two arguments regarding this topic that support the writ for
petition of certiorari. The first argument is that, they argue that more than 2,300 pregnancy help
centers nationwide provide, “vital, highly valued services to vulnerable mothers and children on
a free or low cost basis (Foster, NIFLA v. Becerra, 2018).
It is stated also in Lozier’s first argument that, “In 2010, pregnancy help centers served
over 2.3 million people with pregnancy assistance, abstinence counseling and educational,
community outreach programs and referrals, and public health linkages” (Foster, NIFLA v.
Becerra, 2018). The services provided by pregnancy help centers often include many different
Dahlberg 10
The Abortion Controversy
services, some include; education, prenatal care, ultrasounds, medical care, and many more
services to patients and clients for little or no cost (Foster, NIFLA v. Becerra, 2018).
The second argument that Lozier Institute argues is that, “forcing pregnancy help centers
to refer for abortion undermines their mission and the principles that inspire them to serve
vulnerable mothers and children.” It is a labor of love by volunteers, employees and donors. By
devotion to mothers and children through “practical action.” The devotion comes from religious
or moral commitments about the value of all human life. So therefore, forcing pregnancy help
centers to refer for abortion “undermines their mission and burdens the principles that inspire
them to serve mothers and children” (Foster, 2018).
An introduction and summary of this argument regarding the NIFLA v. Becerra states,
“The mission of Petitioners is advocacy-not commerce or the practice of a profession. Their
message is religious expression on a matter of intense public concern. Their method is to offer
free information and other resources. The State’s alleged mission is to prevent deception and
ensure that women are informed about their full range of reproductive choices. But that mission
is betrayed by its method. Than using its own voice to disseminate its own message-which
advocated only one choice (abortion)-California hijacks the Centers as its couriers” (Dewart,
NIFLA v. Becerra, 2018).
The question is, “Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment prohibit California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on
how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to
disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising” (Bursch,
NIFLA v. Becerra). Some anti-abortion, pro-life advocates may say that Free Speech supports
the pregnancy help centers to continue doing what they are doing because they are making
Dahlberg 11
The Abortion Controversy
America a better place to protect mothers and their children by their services they are providing.
Some people who support abortion may argue that the pregnancy help centers need to refer to
abortion options because the pregnancy help centers are being skeptical about their purpose and
mission in helping the motherly clients.
To add more to this matter, subject, and Supreme Court case, it would be important to
discuss also the oral argument given on March 20, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the United
States regarding, The NIFLA. v. Becerra. Mr. Farris: Mr. Chief Justice said, “California took aim
at pro-life pregnancy centers by compelling licensed centers to point the way to an abortion and
imposing onerous advertising rules on unlicensed centers that do not provide ultrasounds or any
other medical services. The state then provided exemptions for all other medical providers who
serve pregnant women. This new targets a particular topic of discussion, employs compelled
speech, and is directed at disfavored speakers with disfavored viewpoints” (Heritage Corporation,
2018).
Justice Ginsburg then responded in the oral argument, “What would be the situation,
taking the other side, if the state law that all women’s health providers that perform abortions
would have to tell the patients, if you would like to carry the pregnancy full term, you will have
access to a clinic that will assist them, provide adoption facilities they might contact, or provide
instruction on how to care for infants? Suppose that were statute. Would that be
unconstitutional?”(Heritage Corporation, NIFLA v. Beccera, 2018). I agree with the statement
and the question Justice Ginsburg proposed. I personally do not believe that assistance to a
woman who desires to carry her baby full term is unconstitutional nor is providing contact
Dahlberg 12
The Abortion Controversy
information to adoption facilities unconstitutional. It is also not unconstitutional in my mind to
provide instructions to how to care for infants. All of these things are constitutional.
Just to be brief, I will not discuss all of the oral argument, but it would be important to
add how Mr. Farris responded, he said, “No, Your Honor. This Court decided a very similar case
in the Casey decision from Pennsylvanian. Pennsylvania imposed consent discussion. Informed
consent is triggered by a doctor proposing to perform a particular medical intervention. Medical
interventions are surgeries. Abortion is a medical intervention. And in that case, medical
interventions require the discussion of the benefits of the procedure, the risk of the procedure”
(Heritage Corporation, NIFLA v. Beccera, 2018). I agree with this. There are risks to abortion
and there should be required discussion of the medial intervention.
In the Brief Amicus Curiae of the United States Justice Foundation, Family PCA Federal,
Eberle Associates, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of
Petitioners summary of the argument states that, California Reproduction FACT ACT requires
200 pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in the state of California to inform pregnant women about
the availability of state-sponsored abortion on-demand centers. “As the Ninth Circuit describes it,
the California Fact Act requires licensed pregnancy-related clinics to disseminate a notice stating
the existence of publicly-funded family-planning services, including contraception and abortion,
unlicensed clinics disseminate a notice stating that they are not licensed by the State of
California” (Miller & Morgan, 2017). Many pro-life individuals do not agree with this, so as a
Dahlberg 13
The Abortion Controversy
result the pro-life advocates protested in front of the Supreme Court and as was mentioned, the
Supreme Court will soon hear the arguments at the pregnancy help centers.
Regarding the same case, the Supreme Court of the United States, NIFA v. Becerra,
Attorney General of California, et al, Respondents, in the Brief of Amicus Curiae Care Net in
support of petitioners, the question presented is, “Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibit California from compelling licensed pro-life
centers to post information on how to obtain a state funded abortion and form compelling
unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and
digital advertising” (NIFLA v. Becerra, 2018).
Regarding a Woman’s Friend pregnancy Recourse Clinic and Alternative Women’s
Center, Petitioners v. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of the State of California, Respondent
and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocated, Petitioners v. Xavier Beccerra,
Attorney General, Respondents and Livingwell Medical Clinic INC, petitioners, v. Xavier
Becerra, Attorney General of the State of California, in his official capacity, Respondents on the
Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
regarding the brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, Christian Legal Society,
and the National Legal Foundation in support of Petitioners presents the question, “The Ninth
Circuit sustained legislation compelling anti-abortion pregnancy centers to distribute pro-
abortion messages because it allegedly dealt with “professional speech” (A Woman’s Friend
Pregnancy Resource Clinic And Alternative Women’s Center v. Becerra. 2018).
Dahlberg 14
The Abortion Controversy
In summary and conclusion about this case, The National Institute of Family Life
Advocated and two other religiously-affiliated pro-life entities engages in providing pregnancy-
related services in the state of California regardless of a women’s income. NIFLA argued that the
Act’s requirement that licensed clinics provide information to patients about free and low-cost
publicly funded family planning services, including contraception and abortion and that
unlicensed clinics inform patients of their unlicensed status violated their free speech and free
exercise rights under the First Amendment. (Oyez, 2018). The U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied NIFLA’s motion for preliminary injunction. The Ninth
Circuit affirmed, ruling that the district court had not abused its discretion by refusing the
injunction. The Court affirmed also that the requirement that unlicensed facilities disclose their
unlicensed status survived any level of scrutiny (Oyez, 2018). And finally, “the Court agreed
with the decision that NIFLA was not entitled to preliminary injection on free exercise grounds,
finding that the Act to the facially neutral law of general applicability that survived rational basis
review. The Supreme Court grant of certiorari did not include this issue” (Oyez, 2018). The
summary of the question of this case is, “do disclosures required by a California reproductive
rights law violate protections arising from the free speech clause of the First Amendment,
applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment” (Oyez, 2018))?
Although this California case is not decided yet, I support the pregnancy help centers in
what they are doing for women. They should be able to advertise how they want. To me, it is
supported by First Amendment speech and they should be able to help woman in any way that
they can. Pregnancy help centers are constitutional in my mind and I don’t think that the
Dahlberg 15
The Abortion Controversy
pregnancy help centers should have to advice, post, or suggest to women about abortion options.
It is a woman’s choice to abort a baby, I would also agree it is a woman’s choice to go get help at
pregnancy help centers. After all, it is all about choice.
Dahlberg 16
The Abortion Controversy
References
A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic and Alternative Women’s Center v. Becerra v.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Brief Amici Curiae of National
Association of Evangelicals, Christian, legal Society, And the National Legal Foundation
in Support of Petitioners, (2018).
(http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/16-1146-16-1140-16-1153-cert-
amicus-NAE-CLS-et-al.pdf )
Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 99 S. Ct. 3035, 61 L. Ed. 2d 797 (1979).
Bpas. (2015). What is abortion? Retrieved April 05, 2018, from https://www.bpas.org/abortion-
care/considering-abortion/what-is-abortion/
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S. Ct. 739, 35 L. Ed. 2d 201 (1973)
FindLaw. (2018). Abortion Laws. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from
http://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/abortion-laws.html
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 127 S. Ct. 1610, 167 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2007)
Guttmacher. (2018, April 01). Abortion. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from
https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion
Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 97 S. Ct. 2376, 53 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1977).
Dahlberg 17
The Abortion Controversy
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Beccera, Heritage Corporation, No. 16-1140.
Oral Argument (2018).
(http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1140_lkgn.pdf)
National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Beccera, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeal. (2018).
(http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/16-1140-cert-amicus-LLLF.pdf )
National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Beccera (2018)
( http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/16-1140-cert-amicus-charlotte-lozier-
institute.pdf )
National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Beccera. Brief of Amicus, (2018).
(http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/16-1140-cert-amicus-Care-Net.pdf )
National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Beccera. Brief Amicus Curiae of United States
Foundation (2018).
(http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/16-1140-cert-amicus-USJF.pdf )
National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Beccera. Brief of Amicus Curiae Net In Support
of Petitioners. (2018).
(http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/16-1140-cert-amicus-Care-Net.pdf )
Dahlberg 18
The Abortion Controversy
Oyez. (2018). {{meta.pageTitle}}. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1140
Planned Parenthood. (2018). Roe v. Wade. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/roe-v-wade
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d
674 (1992).
Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973).
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S. Ct. 2597, 147 L. Ed. 2d 743 (2000).
Totenberg, N. (2018, March 20). Justices Appear Skeptical Of Calif. Law Challenged By Anti-
Abortion Centers. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593675135/abortion-and-freedom-of-speech-a-volatile-
mix-heads-to-the-supreme-court
Wikipedia. (2018, April 03). Abortion in the United States by state. Retrieved April 05, 2018,
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state
Wikipedia. (2018, April 04). Crisis pregnancy center. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center
Dahlberg 19
The Abortion Controversy
Wikipedia. (2018, April 02). Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Retrieved April 05, 2018, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
