The New York Times Editorial Staff - Abortion

MELISSA GOLDEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

A woman waiting in the recovery area after her abortion at a clinic in Montgomery, Ala.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the Supreme Courts landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade emphasized a womans legal right to privacy, which extended to her right to seek an abortion; however, individual U.S. states remain responsible for their own legislation and access to abortion, if any. Whatever a womans reason might be to terminate a pregnancy, people have protested for or against abortion access for decades. Advocates have historically emphasized a womans bodily autonomy and the right to choose, while those who oppose abortion cite religious, moral or ethical reasons against it.

While medical advances have made abortions safer and improved birth control methods so fewer abortions are necessary, individuals, organizations and state governments remain largely divided on the issue. Debates on when life begins, who should be involved in the decision to get an abortion and political agendas are all inextricably linked in the history of the intensely individual experience of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

CHAPTER 1

In 1873, political reformer Anthony Comstock successfully lobbied for the enactment of the Comstock Laws, strict statutes that prohibited the circulation of any obscene" item related to contraception or abortion. The Comstock Laws persisted into the 20th century, and though many of them were declared unconstitutional over time, anti-abortion sentiment prevailed and abortions were often referred to as simply illegal operations" in news coverage. Medical professionals were arrested for participating in abortion rings, and women relied on whisper networks to find services that could be unsafe or even life-threatening. Abortion began to enter a larger public discussion with cases such as that of Sherri Finkbine.

BY THE NEW YORK TIMES | APRIL , 1873

DR. WRIGHT, of No. 51 Bleecker-street, was before Commissioner Osborn yesterday afternoon for examination on a charge of sending through the mails medicines intended to be used in malpractice cases, in violation of the recent act of Congress on that subject.

Mr. Anthony Comstock was examined on behalf of the prosecution. He stated that he saw the advertisement of Dr. Wright in the Herald, and immediately judged of its character. He then opened a correspondence with Dr. Wright, sending registered letters, in one of which he inclosed $10. He received from his medical correspondent a package containing a box of pills and a paper, with directions for using the same. The letters and package were put in evidence, and the District-Attorney rested the case for the Government on Mr. Comstocks testimony.

Counsel for the defense moved for the discharge of the prisoner on the ground that no case had been made against him. The Commissioner denied the motion. Counsel then asked for an adjournment until to-day, stating that he would show that the prisoner was not the guilty party, but that he merely furnished money to an impecunious medical practitioner who carried on the business. By consent of the District-Attorney, the further hearing was postponed until to-day.

The examination of Dr. Francis E. Andrews, of No. 360 Lexington-avenue, charged with violating the section of the Post-office law prohibiting the sending of obscene publications, &c., through the mails, was commenced yesterday before United States Commissioner Andrews. Anthony Comstock, the only witness examined, testified with reference to his correspondence with the accused. The hearing was then adjourned until Saturday.