Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Cases Preceding & Following Roe v.

Wade (1973)


What is the “right to privacy” and where did it come from?
Read and summarize each of the following cases, explaining the “story” behind the
case, the constitutional issues involved (from both sides), the Court’s decision and
rationale, and the precedent resulting from the case.
o Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
o Roe v. Wade (1973)
o Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
o Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
o Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
Read the commentary following the cases:
o Cass Sunstein, “The Fate of Roe v. Wade and Choice”
o “35 Years after Roe: A Legacy of Law and Morality”
Do you agree or disagree with Sunstein’s notion that opposition to Roe code for
other constitutional changes conservatives want to implement?

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Facts of the Case:
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both
she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical
advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted
under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical
treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question:
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's
ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Conclusion:
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various
guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy.
Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the
right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this
right and is therefore null and void.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
“Roe v. Wade, case decided in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Along with Doe v. Bolton, this
decision legalized abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. The decision, written by Justice
Harry Blackmun and based on the residual right of privacy, struck down dozens of state
antiabortion statutes. The decision was based on two cases, that of an unmarried woman from
Texas, where abortion was illegal unless the mother's life was at risk, and that of a poor, married
mother of three from Georgia, where state law required permission for an abortion from a panel
1

Casey. and 14 versus the police power of the States. limited its scope. The case pitted two accepted doctrines against one another—the individual's “right to privacy” and the “compelling and overriding interest” of a State. reflect not only conflicting social and moral views. the fetus cannot be said to have any legal “right to life. State law prohibited the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means (surgery) except when the life of the mother was in danger. The Texas law is a valid exercise of police powers reserved to the States in order to protect the health and safety of citizens. the legal. were the first cases to test.com) Historical Background Since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. claiming privacy as a “fundamental right. The deep political divisions that the case created. While establishing the right to an abortion. 4th. Did States have a compelling and overriding interest in regulating the health. 5th. Constitutional Issues This case involved the right of privacy as implied by Amendments 1. Moreover. Connecticut. in Planned Parenthood v. For Wade: The State has a duty to protect prenatal life. 5. the court.” Because it is unduly intrusive.of doctors and hospital officials. marital. and sexual right to privacy. and 14th Amendments together create a right of “marital privacy. Two camps—one hailing Roe as a victory for “choice. familial. familial. but conflicting views of the law as well. while not striking down Roe. Bolton. in no case in its history has the Court declared that a fetus—a developing infant in the womb—is a person. family counselors in Connecticut challenged a State law forbidding the use of “any drug. Wade sought an extension of the “right to privacy. medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. 1965.” the other arguing that the decision deprives the unborn child of its “right to life”—squared off in the wake of the Court's decision. 3. and political controversy surrounding the abortion issue has polarized the American public. the Texas law is unconstitutional and should be overturned. marital. The unborn are people. the court reaffirmed the abortion rights granted in Roe v. 2 . permitting states greater latitude in regulating and restricting abortions. The statute was construed as a “nearly complete ban on abortion.” which the Court explicitly recognized for the first time in the case Griswold v. Roe and a companion case from Georgia. In 1971 the case was argued before the Supreme Court. 9th. Then in 1992. in the Court. The law is constitutional and should be upheld. moral. In a 1989 case. It ruled that the 1st. In 1972 it was argued again.” A Texas woman. Roe v. a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. In that case. It is improper for a State to deny individuals the personal. Doe v. the newly recognized “right of privacy” against the “compelling interest” of the States to regulate abortions. Reproductive Health Services. the Court decided that there was a “right of privacy” implied by the Bill of Rights. and sexual privacy protected by the Bill of Rights? Was the Texas law an unreasonable invasion of privacy. while permitting further restrictions.” or were fetuses “persons” with rights to be protected by the State? Arguments For Roe: Under the Bill of Rights. and as such are entitled to protection under the Constitution. or revealed. Wade. or was it a reasonable exercise of the police power? Were women permitted to terminate pregnancies “at will.” Circumstances of the Case In Texas. Denounced by the National Council of Bishops. including the unborn. 9. Webster v. Life is present at the moment of conception. the decision gave rise to a vocal antiabortion movement that put pressure on the courts and created an anti-Roe litmus test for the judicial appointments of the Reagan and Bush administrations (1981–93).” (Infoplease.” In Griswold. 4. this decision gave states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy to protect the woman and the “potential” life of the unborn child. 3rd. Their protracted political battle continues today. Wade. safety.” challenged the Texas statute. Therefore. and morals of the community? Was there an area of personal.

the Court agreed with Roe and upheld her right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester (90 days). a 24-hour waiting period. Blackmun was clearly hesitant to commit the Court to any position. Justice Blackmun noted that. and/or parental notification. the Court held that the preamble had not been applied in any concrete manner for the purposes of restricting abortions. the Court reaffirmed Roe's central holding but abandoned its trimester structure. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. the Court upheld the viability testing requirements. of a pregnancy. He held that during the first trimester. “use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. Finally." and the law codified the following restrictions: public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother's life. with any assurance. Reproductive Health Services (1989) Facts of the Case: In 1986. and thus did not present a constitutional question. the State's interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus was sufficient to justify severe restrictions. that it has any possible prenatal application. encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited. On the first point. the Court held that the Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the business of abortion.” Blackmun's opinion carefully steered between the right to privacy and the question of compelling State interest. the State does have an “important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life” and in protecting the mother's health. and did not create an affirmative right to governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights. and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy.” In his majority opinion. the Court found that no case or controversy existed in relation to the counseling provisions of the law. he wrote. 1992. Question: Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion: In a controversial and highly fractured decision. arguing that the State's interest in protecting 3 . the Roe decision remains at the center of the legal controversy over the right to privacy versus the rights of the unborn. The statute's preamble indicated that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception. The Court permitted States to require informed consent. Casey. the woman in consultation with her physician had an unrestricted right to an abortion. with Justices White and Rehnquist in dissent. but held that States may not place an “undue burden”on a woman's right to an abortion.Decision and Rationale By a vote of 7-2. Finally. Second. during the third trimester. or three months. During the second trimester. States could regulate abortion to protect a woman's health. Webster v. Controversial when announced. None indicates. Third. Lower courts struck down the restrictions. the majority of the justices “do not agree” with Texas that the State “may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. The Court observed that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment contained three references to “person. Approaching the matter of when life begins.” On the other hand. First. Blackmun's decision revolved around the development of the fetus during pregnancy. the Court held that none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation were unconstitutional. the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions. for nearly all such references in the Constitution.

but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions.] or [. and. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. The plaintiffs argued that the Act could apply to a more common abortion procedure known as "D&E" ("dilation and evacuation")." Under this standard.. Congress passed and the President signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. the Court again reaffirmed Roe. as well as to the less common "intact D&E. The opinion for the Court was unique: It was crafted and authored by three justices. The Court emphasized that it was not revisiting the essential portions of the holding in Roe v. Leroy Carhart and other physicians who perform late-term abortions sued to stop the Act from going into effect. Carhart. Wade? Conclusion: In a bitter. obtain parental consent. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden. The plaintiffs also argued that the Act's lack of an exception for abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother rendered it unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. With this application the Act would ban most late-term abortions and thus be an unconstitutional "undue burden" on the right to an abortion. wait 24 hours.. the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. Casey." which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. as defined by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Question: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent. Gonzalez v. 5-to-4 decision. The government argued 4 .. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure)." sometimes called D&X ("dilation and extraction"). without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. if minors. A federal District Court agreed and ruled the Act unconstitutional on both grounds. Wade. Carhart (2007) Facts of the Case: In 2003. For the first time. regardless of Congress's finding in the Act that partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary." Dr. the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement.potential life could come into existence before the point of viability. the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. Among the new provisions. Casey (1992) Facts of the Case: The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Planned Parenthood v..] any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother. The controversial concept of partial-birth abortion is defined in the Act as any abortion in which the death of the fetus occurs when "the entire fetal head [. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. The government appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The Act's application was limited by provisions that restrict enforcement to cases where the physician intends to perform an intact D&E and delivers the still-living fetus past specific "anatomical landmarks. under the most reasonable interpretation. The Circuit Court ruled that the ongoing disagreement among medical experts over the necessity of intact D&E abortions was sufficient to establish that the Act was unconstitutional without a health exception." Because the majority found that the Act applies only to a specific method of abortion. ruling that a health exception is required for all bans on abortion procedures when "substantial medical authority" supports the necessity of the procedure. it held that the ban was not unconstitutionally vague." The new president will probably be in a position to appoint at least one and perhaps as many as three new justices. Wade and choice By Cass Sunstein | September 14. or an undue burden on the decision to obtain an abortion.] to regulate the medical profession. the Act applies only to the intact D&E method (also known as "partialbirth abortion") and not to the more common D&E procedure. 2008 THE RIGHT to reproductive freedom has played an occasional role in many presidential campaigns. The Court also held that Congress. To require the exception whenever "medical uncertainty" exists would be "too exacting a standard to impose on the legislative power [. could validly omit a health exception from the ban." Question: Is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 an unconstitutional violation of personal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment because the Act lacks an exception for partial-birth abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother? Conclusion: No. Republican presidential candidate John McCain vows to "return the abortion question to the individual states" and then "to end abortion at the state level. but its fate is likely to turn on the 2008 election. The Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that Congress's ban on partial-birth abortion was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion.. overbroad.that the Act only bans a narrow category of abortion procedures. even when "some part of the medical community" considers the procedure necessary. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority. With an excellent chance to reconfigure the 5 .." The Court left open the possibility that an asapplied challenge could be brought against the Act if it were ever applied in a situation in which an intact D&E was necessary to preserve a woman's health. The Circuit Court did not reach the question of whether the Act was so broad as to qualify as an unconstitutional "undue burden. The Eighth Circuit disagreed and upheld the District Court." The fate of Roe v. Justice Ginsburg's dissent disputed the majority's claim that the opinion was consistent with the Casey and Stenberg precedents and said "The Court's hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed. after finding intact D&E never to be medically necessary. The Court held that. and that a health exception is not required when Congress determines that a banned abortion procedure is never necessary for the health of the mother.

but also a judicial "minimalist" . Instead. to increase presidential power. The court failed to root the abortion right in either the text of the Constitution or its own precedents. if elected. For example. 6 . including McCain running mate Sarah Palin. Nor is it surprising that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg . Of course the Supreme Court tends to move slowly. but also as involving sex equality. and pregnant women and girls.Supreme Court. But it is one thing to object to Roe as written in 1973. the Court should respect its own precedents. is now hanging in the balance. but dozens of other past decisions. not only as a case about privacy. and conservatives have been correct to criticize it. the Supreme Court is simply too abstract. there is a broader point. As Ginsburg has also urged. But after more than three decades. would be anything but conservative. Those who seek to preserve the right to choose ought to be prepared to make some distinctions. a decision to overrule Roe v. Wade was far from a model of legal reasoning." have something quite radical in mind. might well be able to get what the antiabortion movement wants . it ruled far too broadly. the right to choose is now a part of our culture. American constitutional law is stable only because of the principle of stare decisis. Does all this sound like "strict construction"? Actually there is an uncomfortably close overlap between the constitutional views of some recent Republican appointees to the federal judiciary and the political views of those on the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. Roe v. As it was written in 1973.and more fundamentally. It is another to suggest that it should be overruled in 2008. There is a good chance that a newly constituted Supreme Court would entrench some of those views into constitutional law. it would also threaten countless doctors. Wade.the most important women's rights lawyer in the history of American law. these are code words. For most voters. Wade.has sharply criticized Roe for doing so much so fast. and continue to feel. and to throw an established domain of human liberty into turmoil. but some conservatives who speak of "strict construction. and there is little doubt that if Roe is overruled. which involves the fragility of many constitutional principles. with jail sentences and criminal fines. to invalidate environmental regulations. McCain. and to reduce the separation of church and state. No one should disparage the convictions of those who believe that abortion is an immoral act. that the court refused to treat their moral convictions with respect. In its first encounter with the abortion question. It is inevitable that the principal debates between McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama will involve the economy and foreign policy. Roe v. A decision to overrule it would not only disrupt and polarize the nation. But we should not overlook a crucial point: The fate of Roe v. Some Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have already called for significant changes in constitutional law in these domains. which means that in general. Wade has been established law for 35 years. the court took the highly unusual step of a setting out a series of rules for legislatures to follow. forbidding abortion even in cases of rape. numerous changes in other areas of constitutional law as well. It is no wonder that millions of Americans felt. and of countless principles in constitutional law. some of which were unusually draconian. They seek to appoint judges who will overturn not merely Roe. Roe v. It is relevant here that many people. the court failed to focus on the particular abortion restrictions at issue. they want judges to impose flat bans on affirmative action. Wade is now best seen. believe that abortion is unacceptable even in cases of rape and incest." and of "legislating from the bench. For them. Moreover. some states will enact that belief into law. For the future of constitutional rights.

down 25 percent since the all-time high in 1990. religious and family values. and that fact has been used by them in their efforts to narrow the scope of other abortion provisions." said David Garrow. "Much of the controversy about abortion is really stimulated by the interest groups on both sides of the political question. and the total number is also in decline. Blackmun noted the state's "important interests in safeguarding health. maintaining 7 . is "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Nor have various legislatures or court rulings restricted access as much as some supporters claim. 40 percent believe it should be available in a few circumstances." said Garrow. has changed.Thirty-five years since Roe v. © Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company 35 years after Roe: A legacy of law and morality  Story Highlights:  35th anniversary of January 22. and passions remain high on both sides of the issue. The Roe decision did not prompt "abortion on demand." wrote Justice Harry Blackmun in the main opinion for the court. a law professor at Cambridge University. Roe reflected earlier cases involving the right to privacy. it seems. as well as finances and politics. it's been a constitutionally guaranteed right. with annual protests on the anniversary." But the ruling was a qualified one. 1973. Social. still play a role in shaping the abortion issue. and 22 percent say abortion should never be legal. but many legal and medical experts say the debate has become predictable. For 30 years now. New research from the Alan Guttmacher Institute found the rate of abortions is at its lowest level since Roe. Wade  36 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances  40 percent believe it should be available in a few circumstances. as many anti-abortion supporters have noted over the years.Cass Sunstein is a professor of law at Harvard Law School and an informal adviser to the Obama campaign. That "right. "whether one could obtain a legal abortion in the face of an unwanted pregnancy was a crapshoot. about 1. then and now. Wade. For the Supreme Court justices. Access to abortion. 1973. poll says  22 percent say abortion should never be legal." "Prior to Roe. and little. "The American people and many political leaders have already made up their minds about legal abortion. rather than by ordinary Americans. The January 22." Public opinion on abortion has remained remarkably stable over the years." as many opponents of the procedure predicted it would.2 million in the year 2005. That is almost unchanged in the past 15 years. A CNN/Opinion Research survey in October found 36 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances. and a longtime Supreme Court scholar. Supreme Court decision Roe v. such as to save the mother's life. poll says From CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears WASHINGTON (CNN) -. is more than just about simple legalities. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion remains the law of the land.

Another legacy of Roe that remains: The head-counting of justices on the court. Then came the Planned Parenthood ruling. and required doctors to test the viability of a fetus before performing an abortion. "the right to reproductive choice" was in danger of being overturned. After Roe. In the meantime. rejecting concerns the law didn't take into account the physical safety of the mother. That was a blow for anti-abortion forces. as is widely expected. Blackmun wrote. The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious 8 ." The ruling left supporters on both sides of the issue dissatisfied. Byron White and Anthony Kennedy said they would allow restrictions on abortion. but only if the restrictions had a rational basis. and granting government the power to ban abortions during the third trimester -.in which medical consensus has concluded the fetus is capable of living on its own. Nevertheless. striking down a 24-hour waiting period. But there was one notable victory for anti-abortionist activists: banning use of taxpayer funds to finance abortions for poor women. the high court affirmed the right to abortion in subsequent cases: striking down a provision requiring a husband's consent for a first-trimester abortion and a provision requiring parental consent for an unmarried woman under 18. most famously in two cases: Webster v. More important. The abortion issue has been revisited several times since Roe. Webster (a 5-4 decision) upheld major parts of a Missouri abortion law that prohibited use of public facilities or the participation of public employees in abortions. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and Planned Parenthood v. feeling it was ambiguous. the three conservative justices said a compelling government interest need not be required to justify restrictions on abortion. striking down efforts to expand on laws requiring women to give informed consent before having an abortion. and striking down a law requiring doctors to inform women of the risks and of assistance available if she completed pregnancy. The procedure is typically performed by doctors in the middle to late second trimester. conservatives in Congress have promised to push for tougher restrictions on the access to abortion. allowing limited regulation in the second trimester to protect women's health and safety. though many political experts say the goal is not necessarily aimed at overturning Roe. in which the justices clearly outlined their views on Roe. Justices William Rehnquist. saying there was nothing in it to justify reconsidering Roe. The decision (also 5-4) reaffirmed the heart of Roe while giving states the power to regulate procedures so long as they did not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to abortion. The standard: Undue burden exists if "the purpose and effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. They found success last year when the justices in a sharply divided 5-4 ruling upheld a federal ban on a controversial a late-term procedure. a what-if scenario that could lead to the overturning of Roe. The current 5-4 conservative majority could shift significantly in either direction if two or more justices leave the bench in the next few years. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did not join either opinion." That "qualified right" found its form in the controversial "trimester analysis" laid out by the justices in Roe: permitting no government regulation during the first three months. and protecting potential life" are compelling enough to justify regulation "at some point in pregnancy.medical standards. Casey (1992).

On the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision. In angry dissent." said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council." "President Obama has demonstrated that he's a strong supporter of reproductive rights and that he understands that the mere recognition of those rights isn't enough -. "If this is an olive branch. something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions. and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. health care. called the majority's conclusions "alarming" and said they "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court. ___________________________________________________________________________ Abortion foes find new climate.Andrea Stone." If there is one last legacy of the Roe decision. they found themselves out of step with both the president and the party controlling Congress. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.(NEWS). but advance policies that promote access to reproductive health care and nominate federal judges who will guarantee protection of that access.S.03A. and medical decisions. The swing vote." 9 . He did not act on it Thursday. stem cells. (723 words) From Student Resource Center . we'd like to see the olive tree. sexuality. the lone woman on the high court since O'Connor stepped down. as in previous cases. it may be that it opened up and expanded the entire debate on the rights of women. That has given hope to abortion rights activists that restrictions enacted by President Bush and his Republican allies will be reversed. Democrats control the White House and Congress for the first time since 1995. Wade.we must also ensure access in order to improve the lives and health of women. Roe v. "Some may see this brief delay as an 'olive branch' to the hundreds of thousands attending today's March for Life." said Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights." Obama promised during his campaign to sign an executive order overturning a rule that denies U. President Obama issued a statement saying he was "committed to protecting a woman's right to choose. Issues like cloning. an advocacy group for conservative positions. Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2009 USA Today Byline: Andrea Stone WASHINGTON -. 2009): p.Gold.medical complications. "We are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom. funding to international family-planning groups that provide abortion-related services or information. a legal advocacy group. USA Today (Jan 23. but for the first time in 14 years.Thousands of abortion opponents marched here Thursday on the anniversary of Roe v. and fetal research have become part of the national lexicon. came from Kennedy. "The new administration and Congress can take action to not only reverse Bush's damaging policies. Wade was only the beginning of the battle. As significant as it was." Obama said. but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. Bush routinely sent words of encouragement to the March for Life.

" A display of photos along the marchers' route included one of Obama surrounded by photos of aborted fetuses.do?prodId=IPS>. "He's claiming to be a devout Christian. when he said he would not want his daughters "punished with a baby" if they were to make the "mistake" of becoming pregnant as teenagers. as he led a group of high school students along the exhibit.. "Abortion foes find new climate. "We can be community activists for pro-life candidates. we pro-lifers have had it easy. they chanted a riff on Obama's campaign slogan: "Save a life! Yes we can!" One carried a sign showing the new president with a Hitler mustache.com/ips/start. a retired postal worker from Levittown. which also included a photo of a lynched black man. N. of Loysville." The former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee urged activists to work at the grass roots." he told marchers on the National Mall. he said. 58." Another sign implored. We don't know what (Obama's) going to do. 67. Richard Hennessey. said they would pray for Obama to have a change of heart. 60." Hennessey said. "It's not going to happen inside the Capital Beltway." he said. Gale. Pa. was to follow the example of Obama's career." McCabe said. President: Reconsider. "I'm concerned more women will wind up having abortions because of the law that he's willing to change. Student Resource Center . of Quakertown. 13 May 2009 <http://find.Republican Rep. He later said he meant he wanted to prevent teen pregnancies.." As the protesters marched up Capitol Hill." said O'Donnell.Y. recalled a remark Obama made last year. Andrea. Patrick O'Donnell. "For the past few years. Etiwanda High School Library. "There are probably more of us down here this year because of the fact that the president is who he is. "That's all changed. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin rallied the marchers.. religious schools and Catholic clergy in nuns' habits and monks' robes. It said. (NEWS). After 20 anti-abortion marches. "We're all in a quandary. of Pittsburgh. Joan McCabe. "Please Mr. which included church groups. says he still has faith." Many in the crowd. The solution. "Impeach Adolf Obama." USA Today (Jan 23. "It probably has energized those who are standing up for protection of human life. 72. voicing fears that late-term abortion restrictions and parental-notification laws would be reversed.galegroup. but how can he be when he is all for killing babies?" asked Jim Brown.' Those were his words. "We can be just like him. " 'They shouldn't be punished with a baby." Source Citation: Stone. 2009): 03A. agreed. Pa.Gold. 10 ." he said.