Search This Blog

Monday, March 31, 2025

United States anti-abortion movement


Demonstrators at the 2004 March for Life

The United States anti-abortion movement, also called the pro-life movement or right-to-life movement, is a movement in the United States that opposes induced abortion and advocates for the protection of fetuses. Advocates support legal prohibition or restriction on ethical, moral, or religious grounds, arguing that human life begins at conception and that the human zygote, embryo, or fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. The anti-abortion movement includes a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body. There are diverse arguments and rationales for the anti-abortion stance. Some allow for some permissible abortions, including therapeutic abortions, in exceptional circumstances such as incest, rape, severe fetal defects, or when the woman's health is at risk.

Before the Supreme Court 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, anti-abortion views predominated and found expression in state laws which prohibited or restricted abortions in a variety of ways. (See Abortion in the United States.) The anti-abortion movement became politically active and dedicated to the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down most state laws restricting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. In the United States, the movement is associated with several Christian religious groups, especially the Catholic Church and Evangelical churches, and is frequently, but not exclusively, allied with the Republican Party. The movement is also supported by secular organizations (such as Secular Pro-Life) and non-mainstream anti-abortion feminists. The movement has campaigned to reverse Roe v. Wade and to promote legislative changes or constitutional amendments, such as the Human Life Amendment, that prohibit or at least broadly restrict abortion.

On the other side of the abortion debate in the United States is the abortion-rights movement (also called the pro-choice movement), which argues that pregnant women should have the right to choose whether to have an abortion.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending federal abortion rights and allowing individual states to regulate their own abortion laws.

History

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, a movement to liberalize abortion laws gained momentum due in part to the second-wave feminist movement and to a number of high-profile therapeutic abortion cases, such as that of Sherri Finkbine. In 1965, a Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut set a precedent for an expansive right to privacy in the area of reproductive healthcare. In the late 1960s, in response to nationwide abortion-rights efforts, a number of organizations were formed to mobilize opinion against the legalization of abortion. Most of these were led by Catholic institutions and communities; most evangelical Christian groups did not see abortion as a clear-cut or priority issue at the time. The first major U.S. organization in the modern anti-abortion movement, the National Right to Life Committee, was formed out of the United States Catholic Conference in 1967.

The description "pro-life" was adopted by the right-to-life (anti-abortion) movement in the United States following the Supreme Court 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, which held that a woman may terminate her pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus outside of the womb and may also terminate her pregnancy "subsequent to viability ... for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." The term pro-life was adopted instead of anti-abortion to highlight their proponents' belief that abortion is the taking of a human life, rather than an issue concerning the restriction of women's reproductive rights, as the pro-choice movement would say. The first organized action was initiated by U.S. Catholic bishops who recommended in 1973 that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to ban abortion.

Roe v. Wade was considered a major setback by anti-abortion campaigners. The case and the overturning of most anti-abortion laws spurred the growth of a largely religious-based anti-abortion political and social movement, even as Americans were becoming, in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly pro-choice. The first major anti-abortion success since Roe's case came in 1976 with the passing of the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of certain federal funds for abortions. In Harris v. McRae, anti-abortion advocates won a 1980 challenge to the Hyde Amendment. That same year, anti-abortion politicians gained control of the Republican Party's platform committee, adding anti-abortion planks to the Republican position, and calling for a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning abortion. Four anti-abortion U.S. Presidents – Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump – have been elected.

Lisa Miller of The Washington Post wrote about the younger, more feminine face of the anti-abortion movement with the rise of leaders such as Lila Rose of Live Action, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life, Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America, and Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life, all "youngish Christian working mothers with children at home" who seek to combat the image of the anti-abortion movement as made up of "old white men" who cannot relate to the experience of pregnant women.

The anti-abortion movement has been successful in recent years in promoting new laws against abortion within the states. The Guttmacher Institute said eighty laws restricting abortion were passed in the first six months of 2011, "more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005—and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010".

In 2019, six U.S. states (Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Ohio) enacted fetal heartbeat abortion bills. These heartbeat bills generally restrict abortion to the time period in pregnancy before a fetal heartbeat can be detected (which can be as early as six weeks of gestation or as late as twelve weeks). The bills face legal challenges, with their supporters stating they hope the legislation will allow the United States Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v Wade. Other abortion-related laws passed in several US states during this time period, which were upheld by the judicial system, include laws requiring an ultrasound before an abortion and laws that mandate fetal burial or cremation after an abortion.

In June 2022, by its 6–3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court upheld Mississippi's abortion law at issue in the case. In a 5–4 ruling, the court found there is no constitutional right to abortion and overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ending a constitutionally protected nationwide right to abortion and allowing states to make their own separate abortion laws.

Overview

The anti-abortion movement includes a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body. There are diverse arguments and rationales for the anti-abortion stance.

Many socially conservative organizations are involved in the anti-abortion movement. Some groups focus solely on promoting the anti-abortion cause, such as American Life League, the Susan B. Anthony List, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and Live Action, among many others. Other groups support not only the anti-abortion cause but the broader family values cause, such as Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, and Concerned Women for America, among many others.

Abortion opponents generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary anti-abortion movement is typically, but not exclusively, influenced by conservative Christian beliefs and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others, as such benefits are coming at the expense of the life of what they believe to be a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly expire within a short time after birth, such as anencephalic fetuses.

Some abortion opponents also oppose certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as emergency contraception (ECPs), and copper IUDs which may prevent the implantation of a zygote. Because they believe that the term pregnancy should be defined so as to begin at fertilization, they refer to these contraceptives as abortifacients because they cause the fertilized egg to be flushed out during menses. The Catholic Church endorses this view. There are, however, anti-abortion physicians who concur with the view that hormonal contraception does not block implantation.

Attachment to an anti-abortion position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also culture of life). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among anti-abortion advocates; these groups say that their position is based on human rights and biology, rather than religion. Some holding the anti-abortion position also hold a complementarian view of gender roles, though there is also a self-described feminist element inside the movement.

Views in opposition to abortion

The variety in opinion on the issue of abortion is reflected in the diverse views of religious groups. For example, the Catholic Church considers all procured abortions morally evil, while traditional Jewish teaching sanctions abortion if necessary to safeguard the life and well-being of the pregnant woman.

Christian groups

Anti-abortion monument of a parish church in Brooklyn, New York

The only coordinated opposition to abortion in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s before the Roe v. Wade decision was from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its Family Life Bureau. Mobilization of a wide-scale anti-abortion movement began immediately after 1973 with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention officially advocated for loosening of abortion restrictions. During the 1971 and 1974 Southern Baptist Conventions, Southern Baptists were called upon "to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court abortion decision." By 1980, conservative Protestant leaders became vocal in their opposition to legalized abortion, and by the early 1990s Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition of America became a significant anti-abortion organization. In 2005, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said that making abortion illegal is more important than any other issue.

Much of the anti-abortion movement in the United States and around the world finds support in the Roman Catholic Church, the Christian right, the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of England, the Anglican Church in North America, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). However, the anti-abortion teachings of these denominations vary considerably. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church consider abortion to be immoral in all cases, but may in some cases permit an act which indirectly and without intent results in the death of the fetus in a case where the mother's life is threatened. In Pope John Paul II's Letter to Families, he simply stated the Roman Catholic Church's view on abortion and euthanasia: "Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law."

The National Association of Evangelicals has adopted a number of resolutions stating its opposition to abortion, but "recognizes that there might be situations in which terminating a pregnancy is warranted – such as protecting the life of a mother or in cases of rape or incest." The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is that "elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God" but that abortion may be justified where the pregnancy endangers life of the mother, or where the pregnancy is the outcome of rape or incest. The Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality (TUMAS) was formed in 1987 to further the anti-abortion ministry in The United Methodist Church. The Southern Baptist Convention believes that abortion is allowable only in cases where there is a direct threat to the life of the woman.

Among Mainline Protestant denominations, the Episcopal Church recognizes a right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy, but opposes "abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience." The United Church of Christ supports abortion rights, viewing it as a matter of reproductive health and justice. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) adopts the view that abortion is a personal choice, but acknowledges "diverse conclusions and actions" within the church on the issue. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's position is that abortion prior to the point of viability "should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding" but that "abortion after the point of fetal viability should be prohibited except when the life of a mother is threatened or when fetal abnormalities pose a fatal threat to a newborn."

Consistent life ethic

Supporters of the consistent life ethic also oppose abortions as one of the acts that end human life. In 1979, Juli Loesch linked anti-abortion and anti-nuclear weapons arguments to form the group Pro Lifers for Survival. In 1987 this group defined an ethic of the sanctity of all life, and formed the group Seamless Garment Network. This group was against abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, militarism, poverty and racism. Beginning in 1983, American Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin argued that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all related, and all wrong. He said that "to be truly 'pro-life,' you have to take all of those issues into account." Paul M. Perl studied 1996 voter statistics and found that the consistent life ethic is difficult for religious leaders to promote because it combines the generally conservative anti-abortion stance with a liberal social attitude.

Abolitionist groups

Abortion abolitionism is an absolutist position, often opposed to mainstream anti-abortion positions, which is largely incrementalist. Abortion abolitionism advocates for a complete ban on abortion of all kinds, including exceptional cases (such as for rape, incest, or preventing the likely death of the woman). Those who adhere to this view often differentiate themselves from the label "pro-life", saying that if abortion is murder then it is unjustifiable in all cases, and that the "pro-life" position is reformist.

Anti-abortion campaigners have made comparisons between abortion and slavery since the 1970s following the Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Many abortion abolitionists are conservative Christians and say that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution entitles embryos and fetuses to equal protection from murder, which they believe abortion to be. In calling themselves "abolitionists", those in this movement intend to compare the rights of embryos and fetuses to the rights of chattel slaves, and say that their humanity is not counted as fully human by their contemporaries. Some abortion rights campaigners have criticized this comparison, saying that abortion abolitionists co-opt the imagery of the civil rights movement. Abolitionists say that the historic abolitionist position on slavery was once also seen as radical and unpopular.

Groups calling themselves abolitionist include the Mid-Atlantic Reformation Society, the Oklahoma-based organization Abolitionists Rising, End Abortion Now in Arizona, and Operation Save America, which have gained political support following overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Some abolitionist groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the overturning of the decision. As of 2023 state legislators in almost 20 U.S. states had introduced abortion abolitionist bills, with some bills advocating capital punishment for anyone involved in an abortion. There are abolitionist campaign groups in 21 states, and abolition of abortion is included in the platform of the Republican Party of Texas.

Democrats for Life of America demonstrates at the 2006 March for Life.

The Republican Party platform officially advocates an anti-abortion position, which developed alongside the modern pro-life movement. Before Roe v. Wade, the majority of Republicans were not anti-abortion, including most of the party's leadership, which typically cited abortion rights as included within an ideology of limited government and personal freedom. At the 1976 Republican National Convention, the party adopted an anti-abortion amendment as part of their platform, for strategic reasons. The party's leadership hoped to appeal to Catholics, a demographic which had traditionally voted Democratic, a party at the time containing fairly liberal economic views with mixed opinions on social ones, but who might be put off by growing cultural liberalism and who made up the core of the anti-abortion movement. Over time, the anti-abortion plank of the Republican platform became one rallying point for a growing conservative religious coalition in the party, which drove out many pro-choice Republicans and led to a long-term shift in the party's public image and identity.

However, there are some pro-choice Republicans. The Republican group The Wish List supports pro-choice Republican women just as EMILY's List supports pro-choice Democratic women. The Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) is dedicated to "increasing the percentage of anti-abortion women in Congress and high public office," and seeks to eliminate abortion in the U.S. The Democrats for Life of America are a group of anti-abortion Democrats on the political left who advocate for an anti-abortion plank in the Democratic Party's platform and for anti-abortion Democratic candidates. Former vice-presidential candidate Sargent Shriver, the late Robert Casey, a former two-term governor of Pennsylvania, and former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), a former leader of the bipartisan anti-abortion caucus in the United States House of Representatives, have been among the most well-known anti-abortion Democrats. However, following his vote in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the SBA List reported that her organization was revoking an anti-abortion award it had been planning to give to Stupak, and anti-abortion organizations accused Stupak of having betrayed the anti-abortion movement.

The New York Times reported in 2011 that the anti-abortion movement in the United States had been undergoing a disagreement over tactics. Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the movement had usually focused on chipping away at Roe through incremental restrictions such as laws requiring parental consent or women to see sonograms, restricting late-term abortions, etc., with the goal of limiting abortions and changing "hearts and minds" until there is a majority on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. However, some activists were calling for "an all-out legal assault on Roe. v. Wade", seeking the enactment of laws defining legal personhood as beginning at fertilization or prohibiting abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable at six to eight weeks in the hope that court challenges to such laws would lead the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Such activists believed that then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, who nearly decided to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, was open to rethinking Roe. Others feared that such a legal challenge would result in the solidification of the 1973 decision in Roe. Evangelical Christian groups tended to be in the former camp and Catholic groups in the latter.

Death penalty

Among those who believe that abortion is murder, some believe it may be appropriate to punish it with death. While attempts to criminalize abortion generally focus on the doctor, Texas state Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R) introduced a bill in 2017 and 2019 that may enable the death penalty in Texas for women who have abortions, and the Ohio legislature considered a similar bill in 2018.

In March 2021, Texas state Rep. Bryan Slaton introduced a bill that would abolish abortion and make it a criminal act, whereby women and physicians who received and performed abortions, respectively, could receive the death penalty.

In 2023, South Carolinan Republican Representative Rob Harris authored the South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act of 2023, which would make women who had abortions eligible for the death penalty. The bill attracted 21 Republican co-sponsors.

Demographics

Within the movement

Studies indicate that activists within the American anti-abortion movement are predominantly white and religious. Scholars continue to dispute the primary factors that cause individuals to become anti-abortion activists. While some have suggested that a particular moral stance or worldview leads to activism, others have suggested that activism leads individuals to develop particular moral positions and worldviews.

A 1981 survey of dues paying members of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) by sociologist Donald O. Granberg found that survey respondents held conservative views on sex, sex education, and contraception. Additionally, Granberg's survey provided basic demographic characteristics of his sample: 98% of survey respondents were white, 63% were female, 58% had a college degree, and 70% were Catholic. Granberg concluded that conservative personal morality was the primary mechanism for explaining an individual's involvement in the anti-abortion movement.

A 2002 study by Carol J.C. Maxwell drawing on decades of survey and interview data of direct-action activists within the anti-abortion movement found that 99% of the sample was white, 60% was female, 51% had a college degree, and 29% were Catholic. Like Granberg's 1981 study, Maxwell concluded that anti-abortion and abortion-rights activists held two different worldviews which in turn are formed by two different moral centers.

In 2008, sociologist Ziad Munson studied the characteristics of both activists and non-activists who considered themselves anti-abortion. The anti-abortion activists of Munson's sample were 93% white, 57% female, 66% Catholic, and 71% had a college degree. Of non-activists who considered themselves anti-abortion, Munson found that 83% were white, 52% were female, 45% were Catholic, and 76% had a college degree. In Munson's analysis personal moralities and worldviews are formed as a consequence of participation in anti-abortion activism. Munson's analysis differs from previous scholarly work in its assertion that beliefs result from activism rather than causing activism. For Munson, life course factors make an individual more or less likely to become an activist.

A 2019 Gallup poll found that men and women in the United States generally hold similar abortion views: "19% of both men and women say abortion should be totally illegal; 31% of women and 26% of men want abortion to be totally legal." In addition, 53% of men and 48% of women favored abortion being legal, but only under certain circumstances.

Gallup polling in 2019 found that 25% of Americans believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances; 13%, under most circumstances; 39%, under only a few circumstances; and 21%, under no circumstances. A 2020 poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research similarly found that 37% of Americans believed abortion should be legal under only a few circumstances. This answer was provided by 45% of Catholics and 67% of white evangelical Protestants.

In the Gallup poll, when respondents were first asked about the legality of abortion, 49% described themselves as "pro-life" and 46% as "pro-choice". However, among people who were not asked about legality first, 43% described themselves as "pro-life" and 52% as "pro-choice". Gallup's 2019 polling also found that 50% of Americans believe abortion to be morally wrong, while 42% believe it to be morally acceptable, and 6% believe that it depends on the situation. When asked whether the Supreme Court should reverse their 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, 60% opined that the Court should not, while only 33% said that it should. Polling in 2020 revealed that 32% of Americans are either very or somewhat satisfied about abortion policies as they currently stand, while 24% report being dissatisfied and desire stricter policies and another 22% also express dissatisfaction but desire less strict policies.

According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 15% of Americans with no religious identity are anti-abortion and slight majorities of Catholics, Protestants, Southerners, seniors and nonwhites reported as anti-abortion. A 2019 Gallup poll found that Mormons, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Jehovah's Witnesses have the highest majorities who believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while atheists, agnostics, and Jews have the highest majorities who think the reverse.

Controversies over terminology

Anti-abortion advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby", "unborn child", or "pre-born child", and see the medical terms "embryo", "zygote", and "fetus" as dehumanizing.

Protest outside clinic in the Bay Area, 1986.

Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. "Pro-choice" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life". In part due to this viewpoint, the Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".

In a 2009 Gallup Poll, a majority of U.S. adults (51%) called themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion—for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1995—while 42% identified themselves as "pro-choice", although pro-choice groups noted that acceptance of the "pro-life" label did not in all cases indicate opposition to legalized abortion, and that another recent poll had indicated that an equal number were pro-choice.

A March 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll concluded that Americans are "closely divided between those who call themselves pro-life" and those who consider themselves as "pro-choice". In a February 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll of "Likely U.S. Voters", fifty percent view themselves as "pro-choice" and forty percent "say they are pro-life". In a July 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll of "Likely U.S. Voters", 46 percent view themselves as "pro-choice" and 43 percent "say they are pro-life".

Methods and activities

Demonstrations and protests

  • Mass demonstrations: every year, American anti-abortion advocates hold a March for Life in Washington, D.C., on January 22, the anniversary date of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States. The event typically draws tens of thousands of attendees and, since 2003, frequently features notable politicians as speakers. Similar events take place on a smaller scale in other U.S. cities, such as the Walk for Life in San Francisco, California.
  • The life chain: The "Life Chain" is a public demonstration technique that involves standing in a row on sidewalks holding signs bearing anti-abortion messages. Messages include "Abortion Kills Children", "Abortion stops a beating heart" or "Abortion Hurts Women". Participants, as an official policy, do not yell or chant slogans and do not block pedestrians or roadways. Many Right to Life chapters hold Life Chain events yearly and the annual worldwide 40 Days for Life campaigns also use this technique.
  • The rescue: A "rescue operation" involves anti-abortion activists blocking the entrances to an abortion clinic in order to prevent anyone from entering. The stated goal of this practice is to force the clinic to shut down for the day. Often, the protesters are removed by law enforcement. Some clinics were protested so heavily in this fashion that they closed down permanently. "The rescue" was first attempted by Operation Rescue. Ever since President Bill Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act into law, the rescue has become prohibitively expensive, and has rarely been attempted.
  • The truth display: Involves publicly displaying large pictures of aborted fetuses. Some anti-abortion groups believe that showing the graphic results of abortion is an effective way to dissuade and prevent others from choosing abortion. The Pro-Life Action League has used this form of activism in its Face the Truth displays. Members of one group, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, are known for setting up truth displays on university campuses. This group has faced legal battles over the use of such graphic imagery, and they have generated debate regarding the protection of such displays, by freedom of speech. "Truth displays" are controversial, even within the anti-abortion movement.
  • Picketing: The majority of the facilities that perform abortions in the United States experience some form of protest from anti-abortion demonstrators every year, of which the most common form is picketing. In 2007, 11,113 instances of picketing were either reported to, or obtained by, the National Abortion Federation.

Counseling

  • Sidewalk counseling: "Sidewalk counseling" is a form of anti-abortion advocacy which is conducted outside of abortion clinics. Activists seek to communicate with those entering the building, or with passersby in general, in an effort to persuade them not to have an abortion or to reconsider their position on the morality of abortion. They do so by trying to engage in conversation, displaying signs, distributing literature, or giving directions to a nearby crisis pregnancy center.
    • The "Chicago Method" is an approach to sidewalk counseling that involves giving those about to enter an abortion facility copies of lawsuits filed against the facility or its physicians. The name comes from the fact that it was first used by Pro-Life Action League in Chicago. The intent of the Chicago Method is to turn the woman away from a facility that the protesters deem "unsafe", thus giving her time to reconsider her choice to abort.
  • Crisis pregnancy centers: "Crisis pregnancy centers" are non-profit organizations, mainly in the United States, established to persuade pregnant women against having an abortion. These centers are typically run by anti-abortion Christians according to a conservative Christian philosophy, and they often disseminate false medical information, usually but not exclusively about the supposed health risks and mental health risks of abortion. The centers usually provide peer counseling against abortion, and sometimes also offer adoption referrals or baby supplies. Most are not licensed and do not provide medical services, though some offer sonograms, claiming that women who see such sonograms decide not to have an abortion. Legal and legislative action regarding CPCs has generally attempted to curb false or deceptive advertising undertaken in pursuit of the anti-abortion cause. Several thousand CPCs exist in the United States, often operating in affiliation with one of three umbrella organizations (Care Net, Heartbeat International, and Birthright International), with hundreds in other countries. By 2006, U.S. CPCs had received more than $60 million of federal funding, including some funding earmarked for abstinence-only programs, as well as state funding from many states.

Specialty license plates

In the United States, some states issue specialty license plates that have an anti-abortion theme. Choose Life, an advocacy group founded in 1997, was successful in securing an anti-abortion automobile tag in Florida. Subsequently, the organization has been actively helping groups in other states pursue "Choose Life" license plates.

Abortion health risk claims

Some anti-abortion organizations and individuals disseminate false medical information and unsupported pseudoscientific claims about alleged physical and mental health risks of abortion. Many right-to-life organizations claim that abortion damages future fertility, or causes breast cancer, which is contradicted by the medical professional organizations. Some states, such as Alaska, Mississippi, West Virginia, Texas, and Kansas, have passed laws requiring abortion providers to warn patients of a link between abortion and breast cancer, and to issue other scientifically unsupported warnings.

Some right-to-life advocacy groups allege a link between abortion and subsequent mental-health problems. Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks are not supported by the bulk of the scientific literature, and are contradicted by mainstream organizations of mental-health professionals such as the American Psychological Association.

Violence

Violent incidents directed against abortion providers have included arson and bombings of abortion clinics, and murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, especially the doctors that provide abortions. Acts of violence against abortion providers and facilities in North America have largely subsided following a peak in the mid-1990s which included the murders of Drs. David Gunn, John Britton, and Barnett Slepian and the attempted murder of Dr. George Tiller. Tiller was later murdered in his church in 2009.

As of 1995, nearly all anti-abortion leaders said that they condemned the use of violence in the movement, describing it as an aberration and saying that no one in their organizations was associated with acts of violence. A small extremist element of the movement in the US supports, raises money for, and attempts to justify anti-abortion violence, including murders of abortion workers, which this fringe element calls "justifiable homicides". An example of such an organization is the Army of God.

Sterilization law in the United States

Sterilization law is the area of law, that concerns a person's purported right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and when a given government may limit it. In the United States, it is typically understood to touch on federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated, i.e. are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

Federal law

U.S. Supreme Court

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. [...] Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in his infamous 1927 court opinion.

In Buck v. Bell, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that a state statute that authorized compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an Oklahoma compulsory sterilization law that applied to "habitual criminals" but exempted those convicted of white-collar crimes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Stump v. Sparkman (1978) is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.

U.S. District and Appellate Courts

In 2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia. The Court upheld a 2003 District of Columbia statute that stated the conditions for authorizing a non-emergency surgical procedure on a mentally incompetent person. Under the Appellate Court's interpretation of the statute, a court located in the District of Columbia, must apply the "best interest of the patient" standard to a person who was never competent, and the court must apply the "known wishes of the patient" standard to a person who was once competent.

In the 2001 case of Vaughn v. Ruoff, a husband and wife sued three social workers for coercing his wife, "diagnosed as mildly retarded", into getting a sterilization as a condition for getting their children back from state custody. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the social workers did not have sovereign immunity and could be sued for violating the couple's Fourteenth Amendment right because the procedural due process requirements for performing a sterilization are clearly established by Buck v. Bell and were not met in this case.

In 1975, in Cox v. Stanton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided the statute of limitations for a lawsuit challenging the legality of a sterilization begins to accrue when the plaintiff discovers the sterilization.

Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital concerned whether or not patients who had been involuntarily sterilized in Lynchburg Training School and Hospital, a state mental institution in Virginia, as part of a program of eugenics in the early and mid-20th century had their constitutional rights violated.

United States Code

Under 22 United States Code section 2151b, foreign aid used for population planning and the combat of HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria may not be used to fund "a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Federal programs

Department of Veterans Affairs

The Veterans Health Administration or V.A. permits the sterilization of a patient, who is unable to give informed consent, if the guardian of the patient gives consent to the procedure; a witness, not associated with the V.A., witnesses the guardian signing the consent form; a healthcare committee completes a finding on the need for the procedure; and the Director of the facility approves of the procedure.

Federally Assisted Family Planning Projects

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Health Resources and Services Administration, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration and all of their constituent agencies are only authorized to perform a sterilization on a patient if the individual is at least 21 years old, mentally competent, gave informed consent to the procedure, and at least 30 days but not more than 180 days passed since the individual gave consent to the procedure. "Programs or projects to which this subpart applies shall not perform or arrange for the performance of a sterilization of any mentally incompetent individual or institutionalized individual."

Indian Health Service

Indian Health Service (IHS) is an operating division within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The IHS offers sterilization as a method of family planning. Tubal ligation and vasectomy are the only procedures which may be performed for the primary purpose of sterilization. The IHS requires for the patient to give informed consent to the operation, be at least 21 years of age, and not be institutionalized in a correctional or mental health facility.

Medicaid Services

A state plan must provide that a Medicaid agency will pay for the sterilization procedure if the individual is at least 21 years old, mentally competent, voluntarily gave informed consent to the procedure, and must be done for a purpose other than for "rendering the individual permanently incapable of reproducing." Medicaid will not pay "for the sterilization of a mentally incompetent or institutionalized individual."

State law

State sterilization laws are required to be in compliance with the United States Constitution.

Alabama

In 1935 Dr W. D. Partlow proposed a bill to sterilize those with hereditary "mental disease".

Alaska

In 1981 the Alaska Supreme Court held that an Alaskan Superior Court has the authority to order the sterilization of a "mental incompetent" person upon petition by their legal guardian if it is proven with clear and convincing evidence that sterilization is in the intellectually disabled person's best interest.

Arkansas

Arkansas Code section 20-49-101 to -207 provides the guidelines for sterilizing an incompetent patient.

In 1991, the Arkansas Supreme Court held the part of the Arkansas sterilization statute that allowed sterilization of an incompetent through direct medical channels, rather than approval from a court, to be unconstitutional because it denied the patient procedural due process. 

California

In 2013, the 4th District Court of Appeal held that a developmentally disabled adult with "mild mental retardation" may be reproductively sterilized if the court determines there is clear and convincing evidence that the procedure is medically necessary for the patient. The court held that Probate Code section 2357 regulated the patients court order for medical treatment because the sterilization was incidental to acquiring medical care and not the purpose of the medical treatment; alternatively, Probate Code section 1950 et seq. applies when the objective is to prevent the patient from bearing children.

In 1978, a federal class action lawsuit was brought from Los Angeles County, California, involving the sterilization of Mexican American women. Most of the women were monolingual Spanish speakers and testified that they did not understand that the procedures they were undergoing would affect their ability to become pregnant or sustain a pregnancy.

In 1985, the Supreme Court of California held that a California statute that completely prohibits the sterilization of the developmentally disabled is overbroad and unconstitutional because a mentally incompetent person has a constitutional right to sterilization if a less intrusive method of birth control is not available.

The California Penal Code prohibits inmates from being sterilized unless the procedure is required to protect the life of the inmate or the procedure is necessary for treating a diagnosed condition and the patient gave consent to the procedure.

Colorado

Colorado Revised Statutes section 25.5-10-233 governs court-ordered sterilizations.

In 1981, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a district court may authorize the sterilization of a "mentally retarded person" if the court finds with clear and convincing evidence the procedure is medically essential. The Court defined "medically essential" as a procedure that is "clearly necessary, in the opinion of experts, to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the mentally retarded person.

In 1990, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a person "mentally incompetent to make some decisions is not necessarily incompetent . . . to grant or withhold consent to sterilization." Three members of the Court dissented from the majority opinion and stated that the "individual’s capacity to understand the risks of pregnancy and childbirth [should also be part of] the test for determining one’s competence to make a decision regarding sterilization."

Connecticut

A person unable to give informed consent may only be sterilized if a Connecticut Probate Court determines it is in the patient's best interest.

Delaware

Throughout its history, Delaware forcibly sterilized over 1,500 people. In October 2023, Delaware fully banned any form of forced sterilization. The repeal did not include an apology to the past victims.

Florida

A person unable to give informed consent may only be sterilized or given an abortion with specific authority from the court. The court must find clear and convincing evidence the person is unable to give consent and the procedure is in the best interest of the individual. The statute expressly states that these requirements "are procedural and do not establish any new or independent right to or authority" over the individual regarding abortion or sterilization.

A court may authorize for a surrogate to provide consent to the sterilization or abortion of another person, after the surrogate petitions the court, provides supporting documents on the intent of the patient, gives notice to all relevant parties, and a hearing is conducted to review the matter.

Under Florida statute § 985.18, delinquent children ordered by the court to undergo psychological or physical health exams may not be given a "permanent sterilization" unless the procedure is medically necessary "to protect or preserve the life of the child."

Georgia

Under Georgia Code, an incompetent person may be sterilized after a petition requesting sterilization is brought by the parents or guardians, two physicians examine the patient, the hospital in which the sterilization is to be performed approves of the sterilization, and after a hearing the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence the patient is a person subject to this code.

In 1983, the Supreme Court of Georgia held the Georgia sterilization code unconstitutional because it used the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and a court order that permanently deprives a person of a fundamental right requires a judicial finding of “clear and convincing” evidence. Since this case, the Georgia legislature changed the code to require “clear and convincing” evidence in order to comply with the requirements of the Constitution.

Hawaii

The beginning of the Eugenics movement in the islands of Hawaii have been traced back to the early 1900s when a plan to sterilize all persons that were deemed “unfit” for procreation was uncovered. The group of unfit peoples included those of low income, Native Americans, deadly criminals, and those diagnosed as criminally insane. In 1950, sterilization of women after they give birth, if considered unfit to procreate, was happening. This kind of sterilization was found to have been happening on plantations.[36] Doctors would say it was necessary for the mothers to stay healthy. As of 2010 there was a movement to pay “former and current drug users” approximately $200 to voluntarily be sterilized. This movement was named “Project Prevention.” This was created in order to prevent “medical disabilities” from being passed down from generation to generation. Project Prevention was very controversial with people claiming was, “promoting stereotypes and prejudices against pregnant women.”

Illinois

In 2008 the Illinois Appellate Court held that in determining a petition for the sterilization of an incompetent ward, a court should apply the substituted consent standard if there is clear and convincing evidence regarding how the ward would decide if the ward were competent; however, the court should apply the best interest of the patient standard if the ward's substituted judgment cannot be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Indiana

In 1907, Indiana enacted the first sterilization law.

In 1983, the Indiana Supreme Court authorized for the sterilization of a mentally ill twelve-year-old girl who engaged in self-destructive behavior such as pulling her hair, biting herself, banging her head, ripping her skin with her fingernails, and resisting the "restraints in order to hurt her own body." The patient's parents and her doctors were both in agreement that a hysterectomy was necessary in order to prevent "hemorrhaging and infection, and possibly death" because the patient's excitement with her own blood may cause her "to induce bleeding by poking into her vagina or abdomen in an attempt to keep the blood flowing" once she develops her menstruation cycle. The Court held that a specific Indiana statute authorizing sterilization was not necessary in order to authorize the sterilization, the juvenile court had the authority to authorize sterilizations if there was clear and convincing evidence that the medical procedure was necessary, and in this case there was overwhelming evidence that the sterilization was medically necessary.

In 1990, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that an appointed guardian may consent to health care for an adult incapable of consenting if there is "clear and convincing evidence that the judicially appointed guardian brought the petition for sterilization in good faith and the sterilization is in the best interest of the incompetent adult." Judge Sullivan wrote a concurring opinion stating that he was not convinced that in this present case the sterilization was done for healthcare, and consequentially, the consent of the guardian is not a factor in considering the legality of the sterilization. According to Sullivan a sterilization of an incompetent requires "an evidentiary hearing, following which the court finds clear and convincing evidence that sterilization is in the best interests of the individual concerned.

In 2003, the Supreme Court of Indiana recognized the medical malpractice tort of "wrongful pregnancy" when a woman became pregnant after a failed sterilization procedure. The court decided that the damages may include the cost of the pregnancy but may not include the ordinary cost of raising the child.

Iowa

In 1988, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a district court has jurisdiction to authorize the sterilization of an incompetent person, even in the absence of an Iowa statute regulating sterilization.

In 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court held that court approval is required for the sterilization of an incompetent person.

Maine

Under Title 34 B Chapter 7 of the Maine Revised Statutes, also known as the "Due Process in Sterilization Act of 1982," a hearing and a District Court order authorizing the sterilization is required if the sterilization is sought for "A. Persons under age 18 years and not married or otherwise emancipated; B. Persons presently under public or private guardianship or conservatorship; C. Persons residing in a state institution providing care, treatment or security, or otherwise in state custody; or D. Persons from whom a physician could not obtain informed consent." The hearing to determine the patient's ability to give informed consent requires at least two disinterested experts in developmental disabilities or mental health, including at least one psychologist or psychiatrist to examine the person to determine competency. If the court determines the person is not competent to give informed consent the court will appoint at least three disinterested experts to examine the person for the beneficial or detrimental effects of sterilization. The sterilization may be authorized if the court determines with clear and convincing evidence that the sterilization is in the best interests of the patient and other methods of contraception are inappropriate or unworkable for the person.

In 1985, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard a petition from a mother requesting for the court to authorize the sterilization of her mentally incompetent daughter. The court held that it did have the authority to grant a petition for sterilization if it is proven with clear and convincing evidence the sterilization is in the best interest of the patient; however, in this case, the court did not grant the petition because the physicians did not state the patient was capable of reproducing.

Maryland

In 1982 the Maryland Court of Appeals held that circuit courts have the jurisdiction to hear a petition for the sterilization on an incompetent minor. The court may only approve of the petition for sterilization if it is proven with clear and convincing evidence that the "procedure is medically necessary to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the incompetent minor."

In Maryland, a minor has the same capacity as an adult to consent to the use of contraception other than sterilization.

Massachusetts

In 1982 the Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that a court of general jurisdiction has the authority to hear a petition to sterilize a mentally retarded person. The court stated that the court must use substituted consent to determine if the sterilization should be authorized, and "no sterilization is to be compelled on the basis of any State or parental interest."

In 1991 the Appeals Court affirmed the substituted consent standard and wrote that "the guardian's petition" to authorize an abortion for their borderline retarded daughter "should have been allowed."

In 2012 the Appeals Court overturned a decision by a lower court requiring a sterilization and abortion on a woman with "schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective disorder and bipolar mood disorder." The appellate court wrote that the lower court did not follow the due process requirements for a sterilization and the decision to require the abortion was not made using the substituted consent standard. The lower court judge later stated that she required the abortion because she believed that if the patient were healthy she "would elect to abort the pregnancy to protect her own well-being." Rima Kundnani wrote that this case shows how "proper standards must therefore be established to avoid judicial abuse and to protect the reproductive rights of mentally ill women."

Michigan

In 1998 the Michigan Supreme Court held that a probate court has jurisdiction to hear a petition by a guardian for authorization to consent to an extraordinary procedure, including sterilization, if the procedure is in the ward's best interest.

In 2022, Michigan voters passed Proposal 3, which amended the Constitution of Michigan to establish an individual right to reproductive freedom. Proposal 3 defines the right to reproductive freedom to include the right to make decisions about sterilization.

Minnesota

The sterilization law passed in Minnesota in 1925 stated that anyone of any age that was determined to be “feeble minded” was legally able to be sterilized, with or without permission. Around 1930, Minnesota began to be known as “the most feeble minded-conscious” state because of the way they care for the mentally disabled. Out of the population, around 2,350 people were victimized by this sterilization. 519 of these victims were men and 1,831 were women. Throughout the 1930s, sterilization rates were high, but as the war broke out, it became less of a priority and rates dropped tremendously. 

Mississippi

As the 26th state to pass any kind of sterilization law, Mississippi began the first sterilization on an inmate. The people affected by this law were “persons who are afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy.” Approximately three people every year from the year 1938 to the year 1941 were involuntarily sterilized. Mississippi is rated number eighteen for most sterilizations of all states in the United States.

Missouri

Laws considering sterilization in Missouri began by targeting criminals and slowly began to include people with any incurable disease, epilepsy, and eventually all with mental disabilities. Currently, one must be at least 21 years of age in order to be sterilized.

Montana

In total, 256 people were affected by sterilization in Montana. Around 74% of those people were women and 28% were men. These laws began in the early 1920s and peaked around the mid 1930s. They targeted the “idiots, feeble-minded, insane, and epileptics, who are inmates of state institutions.”

Nebraska

More than half of all people who were sterilized were deemed to be "mentally deficient." This sterilization was ended in 1963 . 

Nevada

In the early 1900s, it was mandatory to sterilize all men by “means of vasectomy (but not castration)” if they were found to be guilty of child molestation. This law was not repealed until around 50 years later. 

New Hampshire

In 1980 the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a probate court may approve a petition for the sterilization of an incompetent minor if a guardian ad litem is appointed to represent the minor and the court finds with clear and convincing evidence that the sterilization is in the best interest of the patient.

New Jersey

In 1980, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a mentally disabled woman has the right to be sterilized under the privacy rights of both the New Jersey and Federal Constitutions; however, the incompetent must be represented by counsel and the court may only authorize the sterilization if there is clear and convincing evidence the sterilization is in the person's best interest.

In 2011, the New Jersey Division of Mental Health and Guardianship Advocacy brought an appeal to challenge the procedures the court followed to authorize the sterilization of a severely mentally disabled girl for reasons of medical necessity. The Division recommended more stringent procedures; however, the Superior Court dismissed the issue as moot because the girl was already sterilized.

New York

In 1983, the New York Supreme Court authorized the sterilization of an incompetent person. In 2002, a New York County Court authorized the sterilization of a woman with an intellectual disability who gave informed consent to the procedure.

North Carolina

Under North Carolina General Statutes § 35A-1245, a mentally ill or mentally retarded patient who is unable to give informed consent may be sterilized with an order of the clerk or court after the clerk appoints an attorney to represent the patient and the clerk determines the sterilization is "medically necessary and is not solely for the purpose of sterilization or for hygiene or convenience."

In 1985, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a court has authority to authorize the sterilization of an incompetent person if the sterilization is in the best interest of the patient.

In 2013, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an appropriations bill to give compensation, up to $50,000 per person, to individuals sterilized under the authority of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. However, in 2016, a claimant was denied compensation for her involuntary sterilization because the sterilization did not occur under the authority of the Eugenics Board, so the Court was unable to allow compensation for the claimant.

North Dakota

In the early 1900s a law was passed allowing the sterilization of inmates and “so-called defectives, though it rarely happened with only thirty-nine known cases. Around ten years later, the law was deemed “invalid” because the basic human rights of each individual were not being accounted for. In a ten-year span, around 580 people were reported being sterilized. 

Ohio

Under Ohio statutory law, "no resident shall be subjected to sterilization without the resident's informed consent" except as provided in the statute.

In 2004 the Supreme Court of Ohio vacated part of a decision from a lower court that required for the defendant to make “all reasonable efforts to avoid conceiving another child” during his five-year probationary period.

Oregon

Under the Oregon Revised Statutes section 436.305, a court has the authority to order a sterilization on a patient who is unable to give informed consent if a hearing proves with clear and convincing evidence that the "sterilization is in the best interest of the individual. Under the statute, "Best interest” means that: (a) The individual is physically capable of procreating; (b) The individual is likely to engage in sexual activity at the present or in the near future under circumstances likely to result in pregnancy; (c) All less drastic alternative contraceptive methods, including supervision, education and training, have proved unworkable or inapplicable, or are medically contraindicated; (d) The proposed method of sterilization conforms with standard medical practice, is the least intrusive method available and appropriate, and can be carried out without unreasonable risk to the life and health of the individual; and (e) The nature and extent of the individual's disability, as determined by empirical evidence and not solely on the basis of standardized tests, renders the individual permanently incapable of caring for and raising a child, even with reasonable assistance."

In 1972, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the sterilization of a seventeen-year-old mentally ill girl with a history of sexual and physical abuse by her family. The Court based its decision on the recommendation of the State Board of Social Protection and the testimony of a psychiatrist who stated that the patient would never be able to provide parental guidance and judgment, saying, "she would never be able to provide the parental guidance and judgment which a child requires even though she might be able to master the skills necessary to take physical care of herself and a child." The psychiatrist "based this conclusion on the girl's lack of emotional control, her consistent low scores in areas of judgment on psychological tests, and the likelihood that she would abuse a child."

Pennsylvania

In 1993, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a mentally incompetent patient may be sterilized without her informed consent if there is clear and convincing evidence the sterilization is in her best interest.

Rhode Island

It was not until the late 1900s that it became legal for “patients and doctors” to be sterilized by choice. Information regarding Rhode Island is difficult to find because proper records were never kept and most documentation was lost. Due to Rhode Island being a predominantly Catholic state, birth control such as sterilization was never made mandatory for any reason.

Tennessee

No sterilization laws were ever passed in Tennessee, though bills have been created. In the mid 1960s a bill was created to pass sterilization for mentally ill patients. Tennessee was a part of a series of surveys regarding mental stability in the southern states. An institution was then created for the “feeble-minded” as a result. Tennessee eventually supported said institution.

Texas

In 2012, Katie Barnhill wrote that minimal laws exists in Texas for courts and guardians to know what to do if a non-medically necessary sterilization is in the best interest of the mentally incompetent person.[82] It was stated in the mid 1800s that those with “undesirable traits” such as those who come from low income or who are mentally ill should be sterilized. 

Vermont

Vermont does not have any kind of documentation regarding their sterilization laws open to the public. “Our understanding” of any laws that were created in regards to sterilization in this state is that all types of sterilization was completely voluntary. 

Virginia

An act, passed by the General Assembly of Virginia in 1988 and amended in 2013, provides the procedural requirements necessary for a physician to lawfully sterilize a patient capable of giving informed consent and incapable of giving informed consent.

A physician may perform a sterilization procedure on a patient if the patient is capable of giving informed consent, the patient consents to the procedure in writing, and the physician explains the consequences of the procedure and alternative methods of contraception.

A court may authorize a physician to perform a sterilization on a mentally incompetent adult or child after the procedural requirements are met and the court finds with clear and convincing evidence the patient is or is likely to engage sexual activity, no other contraceptive is reasonably available, the patient's mental disability renders the patient permanently unable to care for a child, and the procedure conforms with medical standards.

Washington

In 1980, the mother of a mentally incompetent minor petitioned the court for an order authorizing the sterilization of the minor. The Washington Supreme Court held that the Washington Superior courts have authority under the Washington constitution to grant the sterilization; however, the mother failed to show with clear and convincing evidence the sterilization was in the best interest of the minor.

In 1991, the Washington Court of Appeals heard a petition for sterilization brought by the parents of an incompetent child named K.M. The Court held that the sterilization of a mentally incompetent patient can be constitutional; however, the incompetent must be represented by independent counsel and the attorney must take an adversarial role in defense of the incompetent’s reproductive rights. Two physicians testified in support of K.M.’s psychological need for sterilization, however; the Court held that K.M.'s attorney did not take an adversarial role because the physicians and witnesses should have been cross examined, and every argument in defense of K.M. should have made. The Appeals Court “remanded for a new hearing, with counsel appointed to represent K.M.”

The Ashley Treatment occurred in Washington state.

West Virginia

West Virginia allows sterilizations on competent non-minors who give informed consent to the procedure.

Wisconsin

Under section 54.25 of the Wisconsin Statutes, a court may determine that a person who was found incompetent has incapacity to consent to a sterilization procedure. The guardian may not provide substituted consent for the incompetent person, unless the court determines the "individual is competent to exercise the right under some but not all circumstances."

In 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in State v. Oakley, upheld a lower court's decision to impose a probation requirement that prohibited a man from having more children "unless he shows that he can support that child and his current children." The Court held that the condition was reasonably related to Oakley's rehabilitation and not overly broad because Oakley already had nine children and intentionally refused to pay child support, and Oakley was eligible for prison so the condition was less restrictive than prison. Additionally, the Court held that the restriction satisfies strict scrutiny since the restriction was narrowly tailored because Oakley could have not intentionally refused to pay child support, and the restriction met the State's compelling interest of having parents support their children.

John Lennon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon   John Lennon Lennon in ...