Examines the developments that led to a Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, explains how abortion became a political issue, and looks at how special interest groups have affected federal policy.

The 2014 Supreme Court ruling on McCullen v. Coakley striking down a Massachusetts law regulating anti-abortion activism marked the reengagement of the Supreme Court in abortion politics. A throwback to the days of clinic-front protests, the decision seemed a means to reinvigorate the old street politics of abortion. The Court's ruling also highlights the success of a decades' long effort by anti-abortion activists to transform the very politics of abortion. The New States of Abortion Politics, written by leading scholar Joshua C. Wilson, tells the story of this movement, from streets to legislative halls to courtrooms. With the end of clinic-front activism, lawyers and politicians took on the fight. Anti-abortion activists moved away from a doomed frontal assault on Roe v. Wade and adopted an incremental strategy—putting anti-abortion causes on the offensive in friendly state forums and placing reproductive rights advocates on the defense in the courts. The Supreme Court ruling on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016 makes the stakes for abortion politics higher than ever. This book elucidates how—and why.

In this analysis of federal court cases relying upon the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, the author finds that the pro-life movement in the United States has suffered repeated losses in abortion litigation. Additionally, her research indicates that, despite claims to the contrary, the pro-life movement is a loose collection of underfunded and understaffed public interest organizations. The pro-choice forces are vastly more powerful in abortion litigation, have superior organization and financing, and include not only public interest groups but also private interests such as clinics and professional medical organizations. Divided into three parts, the study begins with a public law analysis of the progeny of Roe cases, examining those variables which appear to impact court decisions. Next the work examines political factors and litigation resources as variables in explaining court decisions. And finally, the work offers a descriptive analysis of abortion litigants which divides the groups into major categories and evaluates them in terms of their resources, longevity, and other such factors. This book will be of interest to those seriously interested in the political and legal ramifications of the abortion controversy.

In the more than twenty years since Roe v. Wade, the executive and legislative branches of government have pursued a staggering number of initiatives relating to abortion. In this groundbreaking study, legal scholar Neal Devins shows how the Supreme Court, elected government, and private citizens together help to shape what the Constitution means. Central to his study is the question of how the Court and elected government influence each other. In addition to the abortion debate, Devins examines conflicts over federalism, race, religion, and separation of powers. These constitutional disputes, Devins contends, can be as constructive as they are inevitable. Without an ongoing dynamic that allows each side to win some of the time, Devins concludes, the Constitution would be less enduring.

Since the early 1960s the Supreme Court and its congressional critics have been locked in a continuing dispute over the issues of school prayer, busing, and abortion. Although for years the Court's congressional foes have introduced legislation designed to curb the powers of the federal courts in these areas, they have until now failed to enact such proposals. It is likely that these legislative efforts and the present confrontation with the Court will continue. Edward Keynes and Randall Miller argue that Congress lacks the constitutional power to legislate away the powers of the federal courts and to prevent individuals from seeking redress for presumed infringements of their constitutional rights in these areas. They demonstrate that neither the framers nor ratifiers of the Constitution intended the Congress to exercise plenary power over the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Throughout its history the Court has never conceded unlimited powers to Congress; and until the late 1950s Congress had not attempted to gerrymander the Court's jurisdiction in response to specific decisions. But the authors contend this is just what the sponsors of recent legislative attacks on the Court intend, and they see such efforts as threatening the Court's independence and authority as defined in the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution.

"As the landmark Roe v. Wade decision reaches its 40th anniversary, abortion remains a polarizing topic on America's legal and political landscape. Blending history, culture, and law, Before Roe v. Wade eplores the roots of the conflict, recovering through original documents and first-hand accounts the voices on both sides that helped shape the climate in which the Supreme Court ruled. Originally published in 2010, this new edition includes a new Afterword that explores what the history of conflict before Roe teaches us about the abortion conflict we live with today. Examining the role of social movements and political parties, the authors cast new light on a pivotal chapter in American history and suggest how Roe v. Wade, the case, because Roe v. Wade, the symbol. "--Cover, p. 4.

Abortion Politics: Public Policy in Cross Cultural Perspective focuses on current abortion policy and practice in the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan and aims to provide a comprehensive, stimulating and balanced picture of current abortion policy in a cross-cultural perspective. The contributors deal with comparative abortion policy including recent developments in Ireland, Germany and Eastern Europe.

How the deeply divisive abortion controversy has played out on state and national levels during the past two decades provides an illustrative portrait, even if in some ways a disappointing reflection, of the operation of American government and politics. In Abortion and American Politics, Barbara H. Craig and David M. O'Brien tell the story of this explosive social issue, from the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, through the years of grass-roots activism and public debate that led to the de-turning 1989 decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and to the no less controversial 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Against the background of ambiguities of public opinion polls, the authors trace the strategic maneuvering of interest groups in bringing litigation and in pushing for legislation and executive action. And they underscore the prospects for further changes in the national debate over abortion with the Clinton administration's policies and its judicial appointees. Without attempting to resolve the abortion controversy or to advocate one or another position, Craig and O'Brien present a comprehensive analysis of the complex interaction of interest groups, the states, the courts, Congress, and the president and the executive branch. As a case study of institutional conflict over public policy, Abortion and American Politics demonstrates the enduring vitality of the Founders' vision of a system of constitutional politics that allows for incremental change as a means to ensure stability in the face of unyielding social controversy.