1. A pediatrician‟s response
to
Roe v Wade

2. My dad‟s last written words to
me, though he probably did not
realize it at the time, were in
reference to statistics of cases of
abortion taking place at a local
hospital:
“ I do not understand how
they permit them to do it
and how there could be
physicians willing to do this!!!”

3. Roe v. Wade
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/

5. Roe v. Wade
Document from CQ Press's
Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History
“By 1970, the question of
whether and how to change
abortion laws had emerged as
one of the most divisive
political issues in American
history.”

6. “Throughout most of U.S. history, abortion was
both a taboo topic and rare in reality. It was
never considered to be a political issue. Even
the nineteenth-century feminists were
unanimous in denouncing abortion as „child
murder‟ and demanding increasingly strong
measures against it.”
Document from CQ Press's Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History

7. U.S. Supreme Court
ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
410 U.S. 113
ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS
COUNTY APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
No. 70-18. Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October
11, 1972 Decided January 22, 1973
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action
challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal
abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting
an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose
of saving the mother's life.

8. 1973 US Supreme Court
“The majority took as a basis for its analysis the
history of abortion and concluded that the
existing abortion statutes violated the
constitutional rights of pregnant women and
physicians.
from CQ Press's Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History

9. The Court concluded
existing abortion statutes
violated the constitutional
rights of pregnant women
based on
the 14 th Amendment.

10. US Constitution
14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

11. Born – Person
• 14th Amendment defined a “citizen” to be a
person born in the United States or a naturalized
person -- using the term born to distinguish from
those not born in the US.
• 14th Amendment also deliniated the rights of
a person who is a citizen of the United States.
• 14th Amendment did not define
“person”, specifically; it did not specify being
born as necessary prerequisite to be considered a
person.

12. Merriam-Webster Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Origin of PERSON:
Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from
Latin persona actor's mask, character in a
play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu
mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon
face, mask.
First Known Use: 13th Century.

13. Face of an unborn
child
http://www.sandcastlefetalpics.com/images/LROWELL10.JPG

14. Constitutional Rights of the Unborn –
Inheritance laws
Regarding inheritance the U.S. Supreme Court in
1884 McArthur v. Scottruled in favor of "The plaintiffs
in the present case, being as yet unborn," regarding
"the will of their grandfather..." Similarly, in their 1972
Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. case, in which
the youngest "child was born posthumously," that is
after the father's death, the court ruled that the case
"requires equality of treatment between two classes of
persons," in this case, between legitimate and
illegitimate offspring, and for both born and unborn,
as late as a year before Roe, the court recognized the
inheritance rights of the unborn child.

15. Constitutional Rights of the Unborn –
Homicide laws
• in 1891 the U.S. Supreme Court in Union Pacific Railway Co. v.
Botsford, … a woman convicted of a capital crime would be examined
for pregnancy, "in order to guard against the taking of the life of an
unborn child for the crime of the mother.”
• As of April 2012, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The
states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws
that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation,"
"conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization”) .
-The National Conference of State Legislatures

16. “The Court drew on two articles by law
professor Cyril Means Jr., then the general counsel
of the National Association for the Reform of Abortion
Laws (now NARAL Pro-Choice America). Means
argued that abortion only became a crime because
moving abortion from midwives to physicians had made
the procedure highly dangerous. Curiously, Means did
not present evidence regarding the methods midwives
were using at the time, and the only evidence he
presented regarding the dangerousness of abortions
performed by physicians was evidence regarding the
dangerousness of surgery generally in the early
nineteenth century. The Court relied uncritically
on Means's work, citing him seven times and no other
historian more than once.”
from CQ Press's Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History

17. The 1973 Court claimed:
Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by
constitutional measurement, free of emotion
and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do
this, and, because we do, we [410 U.S.
113, 117] have inquired into, and in this
opinion place some emphasis upon, medical
and medical-legal history and what that history
reveals about man's attitudes toward the
abortion procedure over the centuries.

18. Case Name: ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113
VI
2. THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH. WHAT THEN OF THE FAMOUS OATH
THAT HAS STOOD SO LONG AS THE ETHICAL GUIDE OF THE
MEDICAL PROFESSION AND THAT BEARS THE NAME OF THE GREAT
GREEK (460 (?)-377 (?) B.C.), WHO HAD BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE
FATHER OF MEDICINE, THE "WISEST AND THE GREATEST
PRACTITIONER OF HIS ART," AND THE "MOST IMPORTANT AND
MOST COMPLETE MEDICAL PERSONALITY OF ANTIQUITY," WHO
DOMINATED THE MEDICAL SCHOOLS OF HIS TIME, AND WHO
TYPIFIED THE SUM OF THE MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST?
/13/ THE OATH VARIES SOMEWHAT ACCORDING TO THE
PARTICULAR TRANSLATION, BUT IN ANY TRANSLATION THE
CONTENT IS CLEAR: "I WILL GIVE NO DEADLY MEDICINE TO
ANYONE IF ASKED, NOR SUGGEST ANY SUCH COUNSEL; AND IN LIKE
MANNERI WILL NOT GIVE TO A WOMAN A PESSARY TO
PRODUCE ABORTION," /14/ OR "I WILL NEITHER GIVE A DEADLY
DRUG TO ANYBODY IF ASKED FOR IT, NOR WILL I MAKE A
SUGGESTION TO THIS EFFECT. SIMILARLY, I WILL NOT GIVE TO A
WOMAN AN ABORTIVE REMEDY." /15/

19. Court dismisses Hippocratic Oath
“THE LATE DR. EDELSTEIN PROVIDES US
WITH A THEORY…DR. EDELSTEIN THEN
CONCLUDES THAT THE OATH ORIGINATED
IN A GROUP REPRESENTING ONLY A SMALL
SEGMENT OF GREEK OPINION AND THAT IT
CERTAINLY WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ALL
ANCIENT PHYSICIANS... THIS, IT SEEMS TO US
[The Court], IS A SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION OF THE
HIPPOCRATIC OATH'S APPARENT RIGIDITY.”

20. So it appears the 1973 Court dismissed “THE
OATH THAT STOOD SO LONG [Over
2000 years] AS THE ETHICAL GUIDE
OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION,”
based on the “theory,” and opinion of one
single medical historian - Professor Ludwig
Edelstein (1902-1965), classical scholar and
historian of medicine.

21. BRIEFS OF AMICI CURIAE
WERE FILED BY GARY K. NELSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ROBERT K.
KILLIAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT, ED W. HANCOCK, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF KENTUCKY, CLARENCE A. H. MEYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
NEBRASKA, AND VERNON B. ROMNEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UTAH; BY JOSEPH
P. WITHERSPOON, JR., FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS DIOCESAN ATTORNEYS;
BY CHARLES E. RICE FOR AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE; BY EUGENE J. MCMAHON
FOR WOMEN FOR THE UNBORN ET AL.;
BY CAROL RYAN FOR THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND
GYNECOLOGISTS ET AL.; BY DENNIS J. HORAN, JEROME A. FRAZEL, JR., THOMAS M.
CRISHAM, AND DOLORES V. HORAN FOR CERTAIN PHYSICIANS, PROFESSORS AND
FELLOWS OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY;
BY HARRIET F. PILPEL, NANCY F.WECHSLER, AND FREDERIC S. NATHAN FOR
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.; BY ALAN F.
CHARLES FOR THE NATIONAL LEGAL PROGRAM ON HEALTH PROBLEMS OF THE
POOR ET AL.; BY MARTTIE L. THOMPSON FOR STATE COMMUNITIES AID ASSN.;
BY ALFRED L. SCANLAN, MARTIN J. FLYNN, AND ROBERT M. BYRN FOR THE
NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE; BY HELEN L. BUTTENWIESER FOR THE
AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION ET AL.; BY NORMA G. ZARKY FOR THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN ET AL.; BY NANCY STEARNS FOR NEW
WOMEN LAWYERS ET AL.; BY THE CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE TO LEGALIZE
ABORTION ET AL.; AND BY ROBERT E. DUNNE FOR ROBERT L. SASSONE.

22. • by Carol Ryan for the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al.; by
Dennis J. Horan, Jerome A. Frazel, Jr., Thomas
M. Crisham, and Dolores V. Horan for Certain
Physicians, Professors and Fellows of the
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology;
• by Harriet F. Pilpel, Nancy F. Wechsler, and
Frederic S. Nathan for Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc., et al.

26. Apparently this 2001 publication
suggests the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists was
rushed into contributing to an amicus
curiae and it did not necessarily
reflect the true position of this
organization.

27. There was no Brief of amici curiae by
the American Academy of Pediatrics
• Did the only American medical organization
committed to advocate for the rights of all
children not have any opinion on Roe v.
Wade?
• Was Roe v. Wade beyond the purview of the
American Academy of Pediatrics?
• Was there no organization committed to
protect the rights of the unborn in the United
States in 1973?

30. “WE
DID NOT
SAY ANYTHING!”
John Zwicky, PhD
AAP Founding Archivist (1994-2009)
Pediatric History Center

31. John Zwicky, Ph.D., AAP
The founding archivist of the AAP Pediatric History Center
Died of cancer March 10, 2009. He was 62. AAP archivist since 1994, John
was well-known to AAP staff and Fellows during his tenure, a familiar sight
in his blue lab coat in the Bakwin Library. Active in local and national
archival organizations, John held leadership positions in the Society of
American Archivists Science, Technology & Healthcare Roundtable and
the Chicago Area Medical Archivists.
“He was passionate about history and always relished the
opportunity to dig deeper into the archives of the Academy or
pediatrics.”
His work is reflected in the center‟s collection at: www.aap.org/ research/
history.htm.

32. As stated, the 1973 Court
asserted:
“The unborn have never
been recognized in the law as
persons in the whole sense.”

33. And the 1973 Court‟s decision states:
“We need not resolve the difficult
question of when life begins. When those
trained in the respective disciplines of
medicine, philosophy, and theology are
unable to arrive at any consensus, the
judiciary, at this point in the development
of man's knowledge, is not in a position to
speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S.
113, 160]”

34. Did the Court not consider there
was a medical organization with
specific interest for the rights of
all children, including the
unborn?

35. The American Academy of Pediatrics was founded
on June 24, 1930 by 35 pediatricians who met in
Detroit at Harper Hospital in response to the need
for an independent pediatric forum to address
children‟s needs.
The Academy has always had as its primary purpose
“The attainment by all children of the Americas of
their full potential for physical, emotional and
social health.”
“The Academy did not want to be another
scientific society, but an advocacy group.”

36. Did the Court not realize the AAP had a Policy on the unborn ?

37. AGE LIMITS OF PEDIATRICS
... The purview of pediatrics includes the
growth, development, and health of the child and
therefore begins in the period prior to birth when
conception is apparent.
COUNCIL ON CHILD HEALTH
PEDIATRICS, Vol. 49, No.3, March 1972

38. Recall the Court‟s stated task:
“Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by
constitutional measurement, free of emotion
and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do
this,and, because we do, we [410 U.S.
113, 117] have inquired into, and in this
opinion place some emphasis
upon, medical and medical-legal
historyand what that history reveals about
man's attitudes toward the abortion procedure
over the centuries.”

39. The argument could be made the purview of
the unborn lies in the realm of obstetricians and
not pediatricians.
This concern was addressed in 1970 by the
American Academy of Pediatrics.
The letter that follows reflects the response of
obstetricians to the question.

40. Pediatric History Center

42. Pediatric History Center

43. Having obtained support of the
American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the American Academy
of Pediatrics, published on December
of 1971 its position on the unborn.

44. Pediatric History Center

45. AAP – the established leader and
authority…of health care to
children (1981)

46. Chief Justice Burger:
What right, if
any, does the
unborn fetus have?

47. AAP 1981
“Preferred Images of the Future”

48. Shouldn‟t the Court have asked
the AAP for its position?
Should the AAP not have
spoken out about the “rights
of the child” including to
conception?

49. Innocenti: the unwanted children
US Abortion annual rates
1974: 898,570
1990: 1,610,000
2004: 1,222,100
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23
/TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.pdf

50. Conclusions:
• The stated American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists support for Roe v Wade was apparently
rushed and not necessarily representative of its
membership opinion.
• Either the Court failed to discover available information
from the American Academy of Pediatrics or the
Academy did not speak out/did not advocate for the
unborn it claims to have purview over.
• The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists should have spoken out about the
American Academy of Pediatrics joint responsibility for
the fetus, to which it had agreed upon in 1970.
• Courts should only rule on ending life when no other
recourse remains in order to protect other human life.
• Courts cannot justly or morally grant the “choice” to end
innocent life.

51. Professor David W. Louisell
was right.

53. Report and Recommendations Research on the Fetus
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
1975
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
DHEW Publication No. (OS) 76-127
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER DAVID W. LOUISELL
“the harsh and pervasive reality that American society is itself at
risk--the risk of losing its dedication "to the proposition that all
men are created equal." We may have to learn once again that
when the bell tolls for the lost rights of any human being, even
the politically weakest, it tolls for all.”
David W. Louisell
Elizabeth Josselyn Boalt Professor of Law
University of California, Berkeley

54. Baring Gould
The Seven Last Words
1890
“There is nothing more disgraceful, there is no
greater evidence of a demoralised heart, than to
look upon suffering without sympathy and with
mockery. It gives proof of the deadening of the
humanity in man if he can see a fellow-creature
endure agony without emotion.”
Chapter 1, page 5.

55. “Woman‟s Choice”
She might choose not to get pregnant.
Or she might choose to complete the pregnancy
and keep the baby.
Or she might make the choice to adopt the baby
to couple unable to conceive.
She should not have the “choice” to end the life
of her innocent unborn child, on the basis of
being unwanted.

56. “How can one morally accept laws that
permit the killing of a human being not
yet born, but already alive in the
mother‟s womb?”
Blessed John Paul II

58. The outcome
is 2 victims -
The Aborted Child
His Mother

59. Roe v. Wade
The Justices asked the question:
Has anyone in the Medical field
defined when life begins?
YES!
The American Academy of
Pediatrics did in December 1971

60. The Court also asked if it would ever be right to
take the life of the unborn, at any stage of
A
gestation, if it were granted personhood.
The moral, ethical response is:
h
“Operations, treatments, and medications that
have as their direct purpose the cure of a
o
proportionately serious pathological condition of
a pregnant woman are permitted when they
u
cannot be safely postponed until the unborn
child is viable, even if they will result in the
s
death of the unborn child.”
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.
Number 47. 2009 edition.

61. “The end result of this is tragic: not only is
the fact of the destruction of so many
human lives still to be born or in their final
stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no
less grave and disturbing is the fact that
conscience itself, darkened as it were by
such widespread conditioning, is finding it
increasingly difficult to distinguish between
good and evil in what concerns the basic
value of human life.”
Excerpt from Evangelium Vitae by Blessed Pope John Paul II, 1995

62. As a pediatrician, I am making a plea to
Honorable John G Roberts,
Chief Justice of the United States and to
the Court:
When an inmate in prison is found to have been
incarcerated based on wrongful evidence, he is
granted his due freedom.
Based on presented evidence, the unborn
child‟s right to be born should be granted
protection under the 14th Amendment.