Sarah Weddington in downtown Portland today. Credit: Sarah Mirk

Forty years ago today, lawyer Sarah Weddington got the verdict she wanted in the landmark abortion right’s case Roe v. Wade. This morning, I spoke with her in downtown Portland as she prepared to greet a crowd of 1,000 people at a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette. Despite Roe v. Wade’s protections that abortion should be a safe and legal procedure, Oregon is one of only a small handful of states without laws that restrict and discourage abortion access.

MERCURY: When you were arguing Roe v. Wade, you knew it was a momentous case. But how have the past forty years of abortion politics played out differently than you thought they would be at the time?
SARAH WEDDINGTON: It’s been totally different. In 1965, there was a case called Griswold v. Connecticut, about the law that said using contraception was illegal. A doctor had given a married couple a contraceptive device; they were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. That went to the Supreme Court and the court ruled the right of privacy included the decision about whether or not to use contraception. It was controversial for a little while, but by and large, the American public said, “Well of course!” and just moved on. I thought Roe v. Wade would follow that model. I thought people would be upset about it at first, but they would move onto other things. Instead, in forty years, it’s still a front page issue.

Why is that, do you think? Why is abortion still such a controversial issue for Americans?
I don’t think it’s Americans. If you look at the Pew polls that have come out in the past week, they say Americans are solidly in favor of women making the decision, not politicians. But you do have a core of oppositionโ€”whether it’s the National Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Tea Partyโ€”who use it in a number of ways. I think they truly believe in the position they’re advocating, but it’s also a way to get people to come to their side from a political perspective.

What were you nervous about while arguing the case? Can you remember what kept you up at night?
As a young lawyer, you want to be sure that you give the very best argument you can. There was a lot of weight on my shoulders, because there were a had been people in almost every state also working on casesโ€”there was one case pending here in Oregon. When I filed it, I thought I was trying to build this mountain. You keep throwing cases on the pile and the more that get up to the Supreme Court, the more likely they are to take a case. I was just trying to get a case up to the Supreme Court.

How old were you at the time?
I filed it when I was 25, I argued it when I was 26 and won it when I was 27. I was young. But I was willing to do it for free and nobody else was.

Geez. How did you wind up involved in the case?
It was a group of people up in Austin, Texas, mostly graduate students [at University of Texas, Austin] who were writers for The Rag, an alternate newspaper. Women kept coming to them and saying, “I need contraception.” The [University of Texas] health center had a policy that no one was eligible for contraception unless they certified they were within six weeks of marriage. Because you needed to start the Pill to be ready for your wedding night. The result was a number of unplanned pregnancies. So women were coming this group and saying, “I want an abortion, where can I go?” Eventually, Judy Smith, who was one of the leaders in the group, said, “What we need to do is file a lawsuit! Would you be willing to do that?” And I said, “Yes.”

Sarah Weddington in downtown Portland today.
  • Sarah Mirk
  • Sarah Weddington in downtown Portland today.

Sarah Shay Mirk reported on transportation, sex and gender issues, and politics at the Mercury from 2008-2013. They have gone on to make many things, including countless comics and several books.

6 replies on “Interview With the Lawyer Who Argued Roe v. Wade”

  1. “The [University of Texas] health center had a policy that no one was eligible for contraception unless they certified they were within six weeks of marriage”

    This country has some fucked up history.

  2. @ azure: Congratulations for winning this week’s ‘understatement of the week’ award…..You win a free round-trip to Texas, where there is still PLENTY of fucked up shit to be in fear and awe of. (Governor Rick Perry, for one…)

    @ Sarah: I know you have short-timer’s and all, but this interview is a bit short, no? Surely she allowed you more than 5 questions?

    Anyway, good luck — stay out of harm’s way.

  3. It’s blowing my mind that there was a time when the larger interests would allow a 25-year old to argue a case of that magnitude. Can you imagine N.O.W. or Planned Parenthood, upon hearing someone was about to argue Roe v Wade 2013, just saying, “Good luck with that?”

    To catch you up: now, organizations often band together to buy off people making appeals to the Court that they AGREE with, because they are terrified about creating bad law.

  4. Commenty Colin– Ms. Weddington met with Dr. Guttmacher (of Guttmacher Institute fame, when he was a doc at PP) and PP’s head policy person to help prep up on this case, so PP was supporting her back in the day, too! But you’re right, interests would band together now and have resources to get big name lawyers. Back in the day this was a scrappy grassroots thing. The cases now in 2013 that are grassroots are in similar, under/non-funded straights– without large, decades old non-profits backing them– they have scrappy grassroots non-profits who are struggling to survive backing them.

Comments are closed.