Legal History of Abortion in America

Were there laws against abortion in the early American colonies?

The colonies inherited English Common Law and largely operated under it until well into the 19th century. English Common Law forbade abortion. Abortion prior to quickening was a misdemeanor. Abortion after quickening (feeling life) was a felony. This bifid punishment, inherited from earlier ecclesiastic law, stemmed from earlier "knowledge" regarding human reproduction.

When did this change?

In the early 1800s it was discovered that human life did not begin when she "felt life," but rather at fertilization. As a direct result of this, the British Parliament in 1869 passed the "Offenses Against the Persons Act," eliminating the above bifid punishment and dropping the felony punishment back to fertilization. One by one, across the middle years of the 19th century, every then-present state passed its own law against abortion. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had prohibited abortion with new laws. These laws, preceding and following the British example, moved the felony punishment from quickening back to conception. J. Dellapenna, The History of Abortion: Technology, Morality, and Law, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1979 Quay, Justifiable Abortion-Medical and Legal Foundations, Georgetown Univ., Law Review, 1960-1961

Who was punished?

Abortionists, if convicted, were sent to jail for varying lengths of time. There is no record of any having been executed.

Were women punished?

The definitive study on this gives the lie to Planned Parenthood’s ads which claimed: "If you had a miscarriage you could be prosecuted for murder." Washington Post April 27, 1981

Studying two hundred years of legal history, the American Center for Bioethics concluded: "No evidence was found to support the proposition that women were prosecuted for undergoing or soliciting abortions. The charge that spontaneous miscarriages could result in criminal prosecution is similarly insupportable. There are no documented instances of prosecution of such women for murder or for any other species of homicide; nor is there evidence that states that had provisions enabling them to prosecute women for procuring abortions ever applied those laws. The vast majority of the courts were reluctant to implicate women, even in a secondary fashion, through complicity and conspiracy charges. Even in those rare instances where an abortionist persuaded the court to recognize the woman as his accomplice, charges were not filed against her. In short, women were not prosecuted for abortions. Abortionists were. The charges of Planned Parenthood and other "pro-choice" proponents are without factual basis. Given the American legal system’s reliance on precedent, it is unlikely that enforcement of future criminal sanctions on abortion would deviate substantially from past enforcement patterns." Women and Abortion, Prospects of Criminal Charges Monograph, American Center for Bioethics, 422 C St., NE, Washington, DC 20002, Spring 1983

But why were so few abortionists prosecuted?

Because there were no scientifically accurate methods in those days to diagnose early pregnancy. The only absolute diagnosis of pregnancy, medically and legally binding, was for the doctor to hear the fetal heart, and that was only possible after four and five months. Prior to that, the abortionist could claim that her menstrual period was late or that she had some other malady, and that all he did was to bring on her period. It is all but impossible to convict a person of murder unless the body can be produced the corpus delicti. Since they were almost never able to obtain and examine the tissue removed from the woman’s body, in a court of law it was almost impossible to prove (a) that she had been pregnant and (b) that the actions of the abortionist had terminated the pregnancy. In practice, abortionists, therefore, were typically only prosecuted when the woman had been injured or killed. It was not until the advent of x-rays in the early 1900s (fetal bones visible at three months) and later hormone tests for pregnancy in the 1940s that pregnancy could be legally confirmed in its earlier weeks.

When did the first state legalize abortion?

In 1967 Colorado and California legalized abortion. By June, 1970, when the State of New York passed the first Abortion on Demand Law (24-week limit), it be-came the 16th state to allow abortion. Due to an extremely loose interpretation of "mental health," California also had defacto abortion-on-demand. Alaska and Hawaii had liberal laws. Laws in the other 12 states, which included Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia, were very restrictive, typically allowing abortion only for pregnancies due to assault rape, incest and life of the mother as well as for severe fetal handicap.

No more laws passed after that?

Between the passage of New York’s law in 1970 and the Supreme Court’s decision of January ’73, no more state legislatures voluntarily passed permissive abortion laws. Florida did because of a court order. The other states debated the issue in their legislatures, and all 33 voted against permitting abortion for any reason except to save the mother’s life. In April of ’72, New York State repealed its most permissive law. Governor Nelson Rockefeller vetoed the repeal, and the law remained in force. In the November ’72 elections, however, so many pro-abortion legislators were swept out of office that the New York General Assembly had enough votes to override the governor’s veto. Plans were made to again repeal the law when that legislature reconvened in 1973. Before it could act, however, the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision and nothing was done.

The old state laws were challenged?

Yes. Having been stopped cold in their attempts to legalize abortion in any additional states, after 1970 pro-abortion forces challenged the legality of laws in many of the other states. These challenges to the constitutionality of the laws forbidding abortion in these states met with rather consistent results. In about one-third of the states, most of which had already legalized abortion by statute, these laws were declared unconstitutional in varying degrees. Two-thirds of the federal courts in the states, however, declared existing laws to be constitutional. In general, the states on the east and west coasts were permissive, whereas the broad sweep between the Alleghenies and Rockies remained pro-life.

There were referenda?

Yes. After the pro-abortionists were stopped in the legislatures and in the courts, they tried referenda in two states, to allow abortion-on-demand until 20 weeks in the November 1972 election.

North Dakota, only 12% Catholic, voted 78% against abortion.

Michigan, an industrial state (pre-polled at 60% pro-abortion), voted 63% against abortion.

The tide had turned?

Yes. It seemed obvious that most people did not want abortion. But, on January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled and abortion was imposed from the top down. Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court 410 U.S. 113, 1973 Doe vs. Bolton, U.S. Supreme Court 410 U.S. 179, 1973

 

What is viability?

It is that stage of fetal development when the baby is "potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb [that is, can survive], albeit with artificial help." Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, 1973, p. 45

Can you use viability as a measure of when the baby is human and therefore has the right to live?

No! To do so is completely illogical. 50 years ago viability was at 30 weeks. 25 years ago it had dropped to 25 weeks. Today we have a survivor at 20 weeks and several at 21 weeks.

But the babies haven’t changed. Mothers are making the same kind of babies they always did. But they are surviving earlier.

Why?

Because of a vast increase in the sophistication of the external life support systems around the baby. Because of neonatal intensive care units. Because of greater knowledge and skill of the doctors and nurses.

So what is viability?

It is a measure of the sophistication of the external life support systems around the baby. It is not a measure of his humanness or of his right to live.

But where did this idea come from?

From ancient times. Until the 19th century, it was assumed that the baby was not alive in the first half of pregnancy. It was also "known" that when the mother "felt life," when "the babe doth stir," that at that time the baby "came alive." Two examples show this: Abortion was always a sin in the Christian Church. A penitent confessing this sin was given a penance to perform. The penance for the sin of a late abortion was always more severe than one for an early abortion. Why? Because in the late abortion she had killed a baby who was alive. English Common Law succeeded ecclesiastic law and followed the same pattern. Abortion in the first half of pregnancy was a minor crime, a misdemeanor. Abortion after she felt life, after "quickening," was a felony, a serious crime.

Has that law changed?

Yes. In the early 1900s it was discovered that the baby’s life began at conception, not at quickening (Karl Ernst Van Boar, 1827). Accordingly, in 1869 the British changed their law, dropped the felony punishment back to conception, and the two-tier punishment policy was eliminated.

But the old idea still lives on?

Amazingly, yes. Any lawmaker today who supports protecting babies’ lives only after viability is still living in the middle ages, in prescientific times.

How do you measure age of survival?

The age of a premature baby at birth is measured by age from first day of last menstrual period (LMP). Weight is also a measure when the dates are uncertain, a 20-to 22-week-old baby has an average weight of 500-600 gm (1 lb., 2 oz. to 1 lb., 5 oz.) with "normals" varying from 400 to 700 gm (14 oz. to 1 lb., 9 oz.). There are also other maturation factors that are used, such as various measurements made on ultrasound examination.

The age and weight don’t always track together?

There is a variance, just as with children and adults, but a much narrower one. Dr. L. Lubchenco, University of Colorado, has been the recognized authority in preparing most of the charts used. Babies can be small for stated age or "runts," if malnourished. They can also be large for stated age, but still fall within the 90 percentile range on the charts.

Will the survival age ever drop under 20 weeks?

It seems that we have probably reached the youngest age at which the baby’s lungs are well enough developed to exchange oxygen. One happy advance has been the use of surfactant in their lungs. This has meant babies under 1500 gm at birth are 30% less likely to die. Effect of Surfactant . . . in newborn infants weighing 500-1500 gm, Schwartz et al., N. Eng. J. Med., 1994; 330 (21): 1476-80 Decreasing Mortality with Surfactant . . . J.Horbar et al., Pediatrics, Vol.92, No.2, Aug ’93, Pg. 191

A further advance may be using oxygen saturated liquid instead of air. J.Greenspan et al., Liquid Ventilation of Preterm Baby, Lancet, Nov 4, ’89, No. 8671,1095 C. Leach, Partial Liquid Ventilation, N. Eng. J. Med., Sept. 12, ’96

Beyond this it is probably only a question of time and technology. Some day there will be artificial placentas, and then who knows how early a preemie will be able to survive?

How young can a premature baby survive?

t depends first upon the existence of a high-tech neonatal intensive care nursery. Almost all medical centers in the developed world have these. The other factor is the baby. Some top notch medical centers just haven’t yet been blessed with the birth of a child so well developed at an unusually young age that he (or she) can survive at, say, 20 to 22 weeks.

For instance?

One example is Baby Kenya King. Baby Kenya King born in Plantation, Florida, 21 weeks (4 1/2 months) from the first day of her mother’s last menstrual period; weighing 510 gm (18 oz) she was 10.5 inches (26.5 cm). She dropped to 370 gm (13 oz).

But a major center such as Johns Hopkins reported the following survivors:

- at 22 weeks = none

- at 23 weeks = 15%

- at 24 weeks = 56%

- at 25 weeks = 79%

The Limit of Viability, M. Allen et al., N. Eng. J. Med. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No.22, pg. 1597

Aren’t a lot of preemies retarded later?

Many assume this, and there was a problem with those saved 20 years ago, but "Preterm infants of less than 1,000 gm (2 lbs.,2 oz.) do not appear to have significantly higher incidence of severe developmental abnormalities in the first 18 months of life than do 1,000 to 1,750 gm babies."

In a study of 68 babies weighing 500-750 gms at Stanford University, the overall survival rate was 35%. Of these very tiny infants, 9% had severe handicaps, 36% remedial problems, and the rest were normal. Limiting Treatment for Preme, low wt. Infants, E.W.Young et al., Am. J. Dis. Ch, Vol. 144, May ’90, Pg 549

How early can preemies survive?

In your author’s files are 6 cases of 23 week (after LMP) survivors. Their weights ranged from 16 oz. (540 gm) to 24 oz. (810 gm). We have 11 cases of survivors at 22 weeks (after LMP). These weights varied from 12 oz. (339 gm) to 22 oz. (663 gm).

We have 2 cases at 21 weeks (after LMP), including baby Kenya King above.

And 2 cases at 20 weeks (after LMP)

 

And how small can a baby be born and survive?

We have records of infants born at 10 oz. (280 gm) born at 25-26 weeks (after LMP), of an 11.5 oz. (280 gm) born at 27 weeks, and of a 12 oz. (405 gm) baby born at 23 weeks.

What of their quality of life as adults?

The earliest low-birth-weight babies born in the years of improved survival are now in their teens. In interviews conducted by a panel of physicians, these teens "view their health-related quality of life as quite satisfactory." Self-perceived Health Status & Health-related Quality of Life of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants at Adolescence, JAMA, 8/14/96, p. 453

IMPOSE MORALITY?

"The old law permitted abortion to save one life when two would otherwise die. The new law permits abortion to take one life when two would otherwise live." Herbert Ratner, M.D.

Abortion was known and practiced in the world of Greece and Rome into which Christianity came. Judaism, having developed a high respect for the family, for women, and for individual life, had condemned abortion but found certain exceptions to it. The Christian message brought a further dignity to the concept of the individual person and the value of life. The idea of an individual, animate, immortal soul given by God to every human person, and hopefully, returning to him for eternity, was a powerful concept which transformed the Roman Empire within two centuries. The value of the unborn person became associated closely with a similar value granted to the born person, and as Christian beliefs crystallized in writing and tradition, condemnation of abortion came to be "an almost absolute value," as Professor John T. Noonan of the University of California at Berkley says in his book. J. Noonan, The Morality of Abortion, Harvard University Press, 1970, ch.1 247

By the time the curtain of the barbarian invasions rang down on the glory of Rome, the Christian teaching had codified itself into an extremely firm and certain moral opinion. Abortion was condemned. There was no question about Christian belief.

Does the New Testament oppose abortion? How and where?

The most cogent look at this is through the clinical history of "Mary’s Pregnancy" and the Gospel’s story. "Mary’s Pregnancy," Hayes Pub. Co., pamphlet, 1989, $20.00/100

What was Thomas Aquinas’ opinion 700 years later?

Thomas totally condemned abortion for any and all reasons. Aquinas did question when the soul was created. He spoke of the then-current scientific conviction that a male child was not fully enough developed to be judged human (and therefore to have a soul) until forty days, and that the female fetus could not be judged fully human until eighty days. This obviously says something about scientific knowledge of that age.

Aquinas was reflecting a theological and scientific judgment that mirrored the most accurate scientific information of his time. When, to the most exact instrument available, the unaided human eye, the unborn child looked like a child and the individual’s sex could be determined, he or she was deemed dignified and developed enough to be the possessor of an immortal soul, and so Aquinas made his conclusions. Since that time we have progressed to electron microscopes, ultrasonic stethoscopes, and Realtime ultrasonic movies, and increasingly sophisticated knowledge of chromosomes and genes. We now must make judgments in the light of our new and more accurate biological knowledge. Aquinas’ conclusions were the best that could be expected in his day. While not applicable today, they are of historical significance. Had men of his time had today’s knowledge of embryonic and fetal development, their conclusions would have been different.

How does religious belief influence the abortion issue then?

Belief in God, in our creation by Him, in His authorship of life, of His Commandments and His justice, and in our brotherhood and sisterhood with the unborn is a powerful motivation leading believers to work for the protection of the unborn. The bottom line is that our religious faith motivates us. It can never be the sole legal justification for seeking laws to protect the unborn, the handicapped, and the elderly.

What right has any religious body to impose its morality upon a woman?

If this were a sectarian religious belief, there would be justice to such a complaint. In fact, this is not a religious question except in the broad sense of equal rights, dignity, and justice for all.

If any religious philosophy has been imposed upon a nation, it is Secular Humanism. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined Humanism as a religion. The officer corps of the pro-abortion movement is almost entirely made up of secular humanists who have imposed their beliefs upon our nation.

I have the right to swing my fist, but that right stops at your nose. A woman has certain (not total) rights to her own body, but not over another living human’s body just because he or she still happens to live inside her.

The Ten Commandments forbad murder and stealing. So do the laws of every civilized nation. Do those laws impose religious morality? Hardly!

This is a civil rights issue. It is a question of whether an entire class of living humans shall be deprived of their basic right to life on the basis of age and place of residence.

Perhaps the question should be turned around :

What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist Have to Impose Their Morality Upon Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?