Video: 'Roe v. Wade Oral Arguments'

(Wednesday, October 11, 1972) — The landmark Roe v. Wade abortion case was re-argued today before nine presiding justices of the United States Supreme Court.

Lawyers for the states of Texas and Georgia defended their abortion laws, saying a fetus had constitutional rights that must be protected.

Opposition lawyers argued that a fetus was not a person within the meaning of the Constitution and that the states’ statutes invaded the personal freedom of pregnant women and their doctors.

From the tone of the questions put to the lawyers, it appeared that most of the nine justices were prepared to take on the broad issue of whether anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional (the court’s ruling would be handed down on Jan. 22, 1973).

A seven-man court heard the cases last term, on Dec. 13, 1971, before Justices Lewis F. Powell Jr. and William H. Rehnquist were seated.

The cases were then ordered carried over for another argument before a full nine-member bench.

Texas law makes abortion a crime for a doctor unless necessary to save the mother’s life.

Georgia is among 16 states that allow abortions for reasons such as rape or the possibility of a physical or mental defect in the child.

Justice Potter Stewart summed up the difficulties besetting the court when he asked Assistant Attorney General Robert. C. Flowers of Texas whether the question was a medical, philosophical, religious, social, or constitutional one. Stewart pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution refers to a person as someone who is “born.”

Justice Byron R. White repeatedly asked at what point did an unborn child become a person, protected by the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. Flowers answered: “Upon conception, we have a human being . . . within the definition of the U.S. Constitution.

When Flowers argued that a fetus was a person and not “a mass of protoplasm similar to a tumor,” Stewart interjected: “If you’re right about that, you sit down. You’ve won your case.”

Presenting the other side of the case was Sarah R. Weddington of Austin, Texas, who represented  Norma McCorvey — known by the legal pseudonym “Jane Roe.” She said the state could not show that the law had been adopted to protect the unborn. On the other hand, a woman does have individual rights, she argued.

Similar views were advanced by Margie Pitta Hames of Atlanta. She said further that the Georgia law directly contradicted the state’s policy on birth control because anyone who wants birth control information or devices can get them from state agencies.

While on one hand the state severely limits women’s right to abortion, she said, it encourages them to decide to prevent conception by using state-supported birth control.