Doe v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We cannot distinguish the interests asserted by the plaintiffs in this case from those asserted in Griswold. In both, '[t]he essence of the interest sought to be protected * * * is the right of choice over events which, by their character and consequences, bear in a fundamental manner on the privacy of individuals.' It is as true after conception as before that 'there is no topic more closely interwoven with the intimacy of the home and marriage than that which relates to the conception and bearing of progeny.' We believe that Griswold and related cases establish that matters pertaining to procreation, as well as to marriage, the family, and sex are surrounded by a zone of privacy which protects activities concerning such matters from unjustified governmental intrusion. We do not agree with the defendants that the choice whether to have a child is protected before conception but is not so protected immediately after conception has occurred. A woman's interest in privacy and in control over her body is just as seriously interfered with by a law which prohibits abortions as it is by a law which prohibits the use of contraceptives. The majority of courts which have considered the question have so held, concluding that a woman has a fundamental interest in choosing to terminate a pregnancy. In People v. Belous, supra, the California Supreme Court struck down that state's abortion statute, holding: The fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children follows from”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thompson v. State · State v. Munson

2. “"The question thus becomes whether men of ordinary intelligence must guess at the meaning of the words, `necessary for the preservation of the woman's life.' "We note at the outset that these words, or substantially identical ones, have convinced some courts that they are incapable of certain interpretation, (E.g., Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1223 (N.D.Tex. 1970); United States v. Vuitch, 305 F. Supp. 1032, 1034 (D.D.C. 1969); People v. Belous, 71 Cal.2d 954 , 80 Cal. Rptr. 354 , 458 P.2d 194, 197 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 915 , 90 S.Ct. 920 , 25 L.Ed.2d 96 (1970).) and other courts have disagreed. (E.g., Babbitz v. McCann, 310 F. Supp. 293, 298 (E.D.Wis. 1970); Rosen v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 318 F. Supp. 1217 , (E.D.La. 1970); Steinberg v. Rhodes [Brown], 321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D.Ohio, filed Dec. 18, 1970).) If courts cannot agree on what is the essential meaning of `necessary for the preservation of the woman's life' and like words, we fail to see how those who may be subject to the statute's proscriptions can know what it prohibits. On the issue of vagueness, we are in agreement with the reasoning of People v. Belous ( 71 Cal.2d 954 , 80 Cal. Rptr. 354 , 458 P.2d 194 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 915 , 90 S.Ct. 920 , 25 L.Ed.2d 96 (1970) and Roe v. Wade. ( 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D.Tex. 1970).) One need not inquire in great depth as to the meaning of such words as `necessary' and `preserve' to conclude that the holdings of those cases are correct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Barquet

3. ““The result of (Griswold and related cases) is the evolution of the concept that there is a certain zone of individual privacy which is protected by the Constitution. Unless the State has a compelling subordinating interest that outweighs the individual rights of human beings, it may not interfere with a person’s marriage, home, children, and day-to-day living habits. This is one of the most fundamental concepts that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.” Clark, Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal, 2 Loyola Univ. (La.) L.Rev. 1, 8 (1969). 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thompson v. State