If, as Roe teaches, the 14th Amendment protects a woman's right to
decide whether she will terminate her pregnancy, it must also, we
believe, protect her right to take measures to guard against pregnancy
... We believe that, in appropriate cases, the state's interest in
enforcing parental prerogatives must yield to the fundamental rights
of minors ... these youths will be aided by the mature judgment of
trained [Planned Parenthood] adults before making important decisions
regarding sexual conduct.
Judges Ritter and Lewis, writing for the
majority, T__H__ v. Jones, July 23, 1975.
Planned Parenthood is the largest pro-life, pro-family organization
in the world, and uses its vast resources to work for the best interests
of both parents and children. To this end, we must continually fight in
the courts against the rising tide of reactionary legislation whose only
purpose is to deny women the most fundamental right of all: The right to
decide when and if to bear children.
Planned Parenthood opposes even the most trivial limits on any
aspect of abortion. It has opposed any restrictions on
third-trimester abortions, it has opposed burial for the aborted
infants, and it has fought against any type of communication between
parent and child regarding abortion. It even fights those who want to
tell women the facts about abortion primarily its dangers and
information on fetal development.
The part of its budget that Planned Parenthood sets aside for
pro-abortion lobbying alone each year is far greater than the total
annual budgets of almost every pro-life organization. For example, the
total amount of money spent by Planned Parenthood on lobbying during the
four-year period 1983 to 1986 was $1,267,904.
The following description of United States Supreme Court cases shows
that Planned Parenthood is the most virulently anti-life and anti-family
organization on earth. It is very significant that Planned Parenthood
either initiated each of these actions, or was a major 'player' on the
Note that the first name in the litigation title is the sole or
primary plaintiff (the person or entity who initiates the lawsuit).
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965.
This case demonstrated that Planned Parenthood has been deeply
involved in the judicial re-engineering of our country's sexual ethics
right from the very beginning.
Estelle T. Griswold, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood
League of Connecticut, and her medical director, were convicted under an
1879 Connecticut statute that forbade counseling and advising on or
prescribing birth control devices for married persons.
Griswold challenged the law, arguing that the Connecticut law was in
violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
an appellate court and the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed with her.
The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Connecticut courts.
Griswold v. Connecticut is the most important Supreme Court
decision ever made (surpassing in significance even Roe v. Wade),
because it established the "right of privacy" which would be
used later by numerous courts to justify both abortion and euthanasia.
In one sweeping motion, the court had transformed the concept of
privacy from an aspect of the common-law right of private property the
"general right of the individual to be let alone" to the new
legal concept of an individual's "inviolate personality."
An excerpt from the majority opinion read "But, as we have
stated, neither the 14th Amendment nor any other provision of the
Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states any
restrictions about 'freedom of speech' or the 'liberty of silence,' nor,
we may add, does it confer any right to privacy upon either persons or
In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart reached the heart of the
pro-life argument when he wrote that; "In the course of its
opinion, the Court refers to no less than six amendments to the
Constitution: The First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Ninth and
the 14th. But the Court does not say which of these amendments, if any,
it thinks is infringed by this Connecticut law.
What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this law
invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy 'created by several
fundamental constitutional guarantees.' With all due deference, I can
find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any
other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by
At the oral argument in this case we were told that the Connecticut
law does not 'conform to current community standards.' But it is not
the function of this Court to decide cases on the basis of community
standards. We are here to decide cases 'agreeable to the Constitution
and laws of the United States.
T__H__ v. Jones, July 23, 1975.
Utah law forbade the distribution of contraceptives to minors and the
provision of information and advice on contraceptives to minors, without
This regulation was challenged by an anonymous teenaged girl who had
requested birth control devices from the Utah Planned Parenthood
Association. She was a member of a family receiving Medicaid and Aid to
Families With Dependent Children (AFDC).
The three-judge panel of the District Court of Utah decided that the
Utah parental consent requirement violated the 'right to privacy' of the
minor as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States
Among his other arguments, the Utah State Attorney General held that
it was absurd for the State to expect parents to have a legal
responsibility for their children, and then ban the parents from
involvement in such a sensitive issue.
Judges Ritter and Lewis, writing for the majority, stated that
"If, as Roe teaches, the 14th Amendment protects a woman's right to
decide whether she will terminate her pregnancy, it must also, we
believe, protect her right to take measures to guard against pregnancy
... We believe that, in appropriate cases, the state's interest in
enforcing parental prerogatives must yield to the fundamental rights of
minors ... these youths will be aided by the mature judgment of trained
[Planned Parenthood] adults before making important decisions regarding
On May 24, 1976, the United States Supreme Court let stand the lower
Federal court ruling.
Once again, the mythical "right to privacy" had been
extended this time, to fornicating teenagers, to the delight of Planned
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, July 7, 1976.
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri challenged a set of
humanitarian regulations of abortion that were passed by the Missouri
These regulations, which would seem minimal to anyone but a true
extremist, held that a husband or parent should be informed about a
wife's or minor's abortion, and that the salt poisoning method of
abortion should not be used so as to increase the preborn baby's chances
of survival and to decrease its suffering.
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri, driven by its no-compromise
mentality, challenged the regulations, and were eventually vindicated by
the Supreme Court.
This decision stripped fathers of any legal right whatever to protect
their own preborn children. The father therefore has less of a right to
protect his own child than abortion referral agents have to
arrange its death, the abortionists to kill it, or the State to declare
his slightest opposition unconstitutional and punishable. His
relationship to his own child is deemed much less important than his
relationship to a piece of property say a car stereo.
According to a national poll, more than half of all fathers including
married men are not even told that their child has been
aborted. In one case, one father desperate to save his child filed
suit to stop an abortion, and found that the only reason his wife wanted
to kill their child was so that she would look good in a bikini when
they went on summer vacation!
On the other hand, the Danforth decision enforced
"mandatory fatherhood" for those men who did not want a
child. In summary, a father has literally no voice whatever in the
decision to have or not have a child. And this glaring and hurtful
inequality is ignored by the same Neofeminists who are demanding
In his dissent, Justice Byron White stated that "It is truly
surprising that the majority finds in the United States Constitution, as
it must in order to justify the result it reaches, a rule that the State
must assign a greater value to a mother's decision to cut off a
potential human life by abortion than to a father's decision to let it
mature into a live child."
Of course, Planned Parenthood has never cared about the rights of the
father in any case. When interviewed about the rights of husbands to
protect their own preborn children, Louise Tyrer, vice-president of
medical affairs at Planned Parenthood, reacted in a manner typical of
the utter callousness that pro-abortionists show towards any rights
other than their own; "But it doesn't matter how much men scream
and holler that they are being left out [of the abortion decision].
There are some things that they are never going to be able to experience
fully. I say, 'tough luck.'"
Planned Parenthood of Kansas City, Missouri v. Ashcroft, June 15,
A Missouri statute required that abortions after the 12th week of
pregnancy be performed in a hospital; parental notification or judicial
bypass for minors seeking an abortion; the presence of a second doctor
at abortions performed after viability in order to preserve the life of
the baby; and pathology reports for each abortion.
Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City, Missouri, challenged
these rules in court. The Supreme Court ruled that all of the
requirements were constitutional except the one that stated that
second-trimester abortions be performed in hospitals, because, as the
Court held, such a restriction would "unreasonably infringes upon a
woman's constitutional right to obtain an abortion."
Rust v. Sullivan, May 23, 1991.
This decision upheld the constitutionality of the government's
decision to cut off Title X family planning funds to those organizations
that promote or perform abortions. Planned Parenthood lost tens of
millions of annual tax dollars due to this decision because it stated
that it would rather give up this money that stop providing the
"complete range of family planning services."
Planned Parenthood officials also whined that the decision would
"hurt poor women." However, PP apparently loves abortion so
much that it is willing to give up millions just to be able to continue
killing preborn babies.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, June 29, 1992.
Previous Abortion Control Acts.
The Pennsylvania legislature had been trying since shortly after Roe
v. Wade to enact protective statutes for preborn children.
The original Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act took effect on October
10, 1974. This statute required;
• Written consent of the husband prior to an abortion;
• Parental consent for a minor's abortion;
• Reporting of the above information by abortion clinics;
• Required licensing of all abortion facilities by the State of
• The definition of "viability" would mean the ability of
the preborn baby to
live outside the mother's womb, even with
• No abortions after viability except to preserve the life or health
• Disposal of aborted preborn babies in a dignified and humane
• Abortion advertising prohibited, except in the Yellow Pages; and
• No funding for abortions except to save the life of the mother.
The law was immediately challenged by Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania and most of its meaningful controls were held
unconstitutional by a three-judge federal district court in the case
known as Planned Parenthood v. Fitzpatrick (401 Fed. Suppl. 554,
Civil Action No. 74-2440, U.S. District Court, Eastern District,
Pennsylvania, decided September 4, 1975).
The elements of the Abortion Control Act that were held
unconstitutional by the federal court were the spousal and parental
consent and reporting provisions, the definition of
"viability," and the restriction on funding.
Significantly, Planned Parenthood argued that "menstrual
extraction" is a true abortion procedure, asserting that
"Under certain circumstances, the procedure known as menstrual
extraction can be, and desirably is performed prior to the time when an
average facility can determine with absolute certainty whether or not
the patient is pregnant."
The Case At Bar.
In 1988, the Pennsylvania state legislature amended the state's 1982
Abortion Control Act. After the Supreme Court's July 1989 Webster
decision, it amended the Act a second time to include several portions
that had been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its June 6,
1986 Thornberg v. ACOG ruling (described above).
After the modified Abortion Control Act was passed, five abortion
clinics (including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania) and
an abortionist obtained an injunction preventing implementation of some
of its provisions.
The Pennsylvania legislature amended the Abortion Control Act once
again in 1989, and the plaintiffs asked the court to extend the 1988
injunction to cover the new aspects of the law. This request was
Elements of the Abortion Control Act.
At issue in this case were four central components of the
Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. These are listed below.
Informed Consent and Waiting Period.
At least 24 hours prior to aborting, a woman must be given certain
information by the abortionist or the doctor referring for the abortion.
These facts include information on the development of her child, on the
risks of the particular abortion procedure she would be undergoing, and
the medical risks of carrying the child to term. The woman must also be
told that alternatives to abortion are available. After this counseling
is finished, the woman must sign a form stating that she has received
These articles are not applicable if a "medical emergency"
exists, or if the abortionist can show that the provision of such
information would have a "severely adverse effect on the physical
or mental health of the patient."
It was not surprising that Planned Parenthood opposed this section of
the Pennsylvania bill, because it strives to keep women as ignorant as
possible about the various aspects of the abortion procedure,
particularly in the area of fetal development. The only known instance
where PP has officially supported informed consent is to warn against
exaggerated 'dangers' of continuing pregnancy!
Unemancipated minors must obtain the consent of one of their parents.
In seeking this consent, the information that is required under the
informed consent portion of the statute must be provided to the parent(s).
A judicial bypass provision is available. As with informed consent,
parental consent is not required in a "medical emergency."
A married woman must present to the abortionist a signed statement
that she has notified her husband of her decision to abort. This article
is not necessary if she is pregnant by another man, if her husband could
not be located after "diligent effort," if the pregnancy was
the result of spousal rape that has been reported to law enforcement
agencies, or if the woman believes that spousal notification will result
in bodily injury to her. Once again, notification is not required in
Abortion mills must file quarterly reports with the state detailing
how many abortions they performed. If the mills receive public funds,
this information will be made public. For each abortion performed, the
abortionist must file with the state public health department, among
other items, the basis for determining the gestational age of the child,
the basis of any judgment declaring a "medical emergency," and
the justification for third-trimester abortions.
Higher Court Decisions.
The Federal district court judge ruled all of these articles
unconstitutional, but was partially reversed by the 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals on October 21, 1991. The Circuit Court found all articles of the
Abortion Control Act except spousal notification to be constitutional.
On June 29, 1992, the Supreme Court handed down its decision. It
agreed with the Circuit Court in finding all portions of the
Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act constitutional except for the spousal
However, the Court adopted Justice O'Connor's "undue
burden" criteria, which means that states may not pass a law that
creates "absolute obstacles or severe limitations on the abortion
Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the genocidal Roe v. Wade
decision, simpered that "Now, just when so many expected the
darkness to fall, the flame has grown bright." Perhaps Blackmun was
referring to the flames of the miniature abortion clinic ovens used to
incinerate the sad little bodies of their victims.
Justices Sandra O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter wrote
that "The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability
is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a
component of liberty we cannot renounce."
Justice Souter spoke from the bench, taking the strictly utilitarian
viewpoint and claiming that to overrule Roe v. Wade "would
subvert the court's legitimacy beyond any reasonable question. If the
court were undermined, the country would also be so ... Roe has
not proven unworkable in practice."
References: Planned Parenthood Litigation.
 Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 1986 Federal Tax
Return, Part VI, filed as Exhibit E in Planned Parenthood v. Horner,
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Docket No. 88-1751.
 Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. "The Right to
Privacy." Harvard Law Review, December 1890.
 Marie Shelton. "Abortion Often Causes Guilt, Regret, Poll
Finds." Sacramento Bee, March 19, 1989, page A7.
 In re Unborn Baby H., No. 84C01 8804JP185, slip opinion at
1-2 (Vigo County, Indiana Circuit Court, April 8, 1988).
 Louise Tyrer, vice-president of medical affairs at Planned
Parenthood, quoted in John Leo. "Sharing the Pain of
Abortion." Time Magazine, September 26, 1983, page 78.
 "Planned Parenthood Intensifies Attack on Motherhood." National
Right to Life News, December 22, 1980, pages 1 and 3.
Further Reading: Planned Parenthood and Other Pro-Abortion
American Civil Liberties Union. Defending the Right to Choose.
This 65-page booklet, published by the fanatically pro-abortion
ACLU, is essential for any pro-life organizer's library. It describes in
detail the tactics that pro-aborts and clinics may use to defend against
picketing and rescue missions, and also describes the limits of the
rights of protesters. It is, in fact, a blueprint for pro-abortion
defensive strategy. If you obtain only one book on street activism, this
must be the one, because by knowing your enemy's tactics and strategy,
you can avoid being taken by surprise, and you can better plan your own
activities. You can pick up a copy from your local ACLU office.
Dave Andrusko (editor). A Passion for Justice.
National Right to Life Committee, 419 7th Street NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20004. 1988, 160 pages. This is one of an excellent
continuing series of National Right to Life Committee books that
summarize the preceding year in the courts and legislatures, and looks
ahead to future years.
Judge Robert H. Bork. The Tempting of America: The Political
Seduction of the Law.
Free Press, 448 pages, 1989. Reviewed by United States Senator Orrin
G. Hatch on pages 39 and 40 of the December 22, 1989 issue of National
Review. Judge Bork touches briefly on his bitter United States
Supreme Court confirmation fight and then goes on to cogently examine
the basic problems involving law at the highest level in our land today.
The problem he deals with most is the tendency of the Supreme Court to
make law, not interpret it, depending upon prevailing social mores or
the justices' desire to create these mores.
Stephen Freind. God's Children.
New York: Morrow, 1987. 538 pages. A fictional story of Kevin
Murray, a Pennsylvania legislator who is the statewide leader of the
Judge Randall J. Hekman. Justice for the Unborn.
Servant Books: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984. This is the personal story
of a rare judge who stood up to the system by denying a 13-year old girl
an abortion petition, and by doing so, stirred up a firestorm of protest
from radical far-left groups and the press. Judge Hekman also reviews
the inherent illegality of so-called 'legal' abortion, and examines its
consequences for society.
P. McGuigan and R. Rader (editors). A Blueprint for Judicial
Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, 1981. Reviewed by
Lynn D. Wardle, Esq., on page 5 of the May 20, 1982 issue of National
Right to Life News.
Father Edwin J. Melvin. A Nation Built On God.
Our Sunday Visitor, Noll Plaza, Huntington, Indiana 46750. 1975, 223
pages. An analysis of the role of the United States Supreme Court in
turning our country's path away from our Founding Father's theistic
principles. A very readable and enjoyable analysis of a critically
Barbara Milbauer and Bert O. Obretz. The Law Giveth.
Atheneum Press, 1983. 307 pages. Reviewed by Patrick B. McGuigan and
Teresa L. Donovan on pages 7 and 9 of the November 24, 1983 issue of National
Right to Life News. This book is similar to an extensive law review
article on the series of Supreme Court decisions dealing with abortion
until the year 1982. Unfortunately, the author's obvious pro-abortion
bias causes her to sink into slogans frequently, and causes her to have
a skewed theory of the law.
Richard Neely. How Courts Govern America.
Yale University Press, 1981. 226 pages. Reviewed by Rita Radich,
Esq., on page 5 of the May 20, 1982 issue of National Right to Life
Laurence H. Tribe. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes.
W.W. Norton & Company Publishers, 270 pages, 1990. Reviewed by
Brian Robertson on page 48 of the July 9, 1990 issue of National
Review. Laurence Tribe, the man who asserts that women "speak
with their bodies" when they abort, here attempts to shore up the
crumbling foundation of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.
If you are a Neoliberal abortophile, then he will appear to have done a
fine job. If you are any kind of Constitutional scholar, you will be
fascinated at the depth of self-deception that even lawyers (especially
pro-abortion lawyers) are capable of. This book provides fine insight
into the 'logic' of the Neoliberal mind.
Lynn Wardle. The Abortion Privacy Doctrine.
Buffalo, New York: William S. Hein and Company, 1981. 311 pages.
Reviewed by Rita Radich on page 7 of the January 11, 1982 issue of National
Right to Life News. The definitive study of abortion case law.
Lynn D. Wardle and Mary Anne Wood. A Lawyer Looks At Abortion.
Brigham Young University Press, 1981. 209 pages. Reviewed by Gorver
Rees III on pages 9 and 11 of the June 10, 1982 issue of National
Right to Life News. All aspects of the abortion controversy
thoroughly and lucidly explained.
Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. The Brethren: Inside the
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979. A gold mine of information on
the inner workings of the Supreme Court, including much revealing
background on the Abortion Decisions.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published
by American Life League.