Sarah Weddington was the attorney who argued and won the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case in 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide; the summary describes how Weddington became involved in the case after being approached by graduate students seeking legal advice, and it highlights her thorough preparation and eventual victory in the 7-2 decision, establishing her as a pioneering figure in the fight for women's rights.

1. LAWCROSSING
THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH
LAW STAR www.lawcrossing.com 1. 800.973.1177
Sarah Weddington: Professor, University of Texas at
Austin, TX
[By Charisse Dengler]
Everyone has heard of Roe vs. Wade ; but who exactly was Roe, and who was Wade? Sarah Weddington knows. In
fact, as the attorney who represented and won the case on behalf of Roe, Weddington probably knows more about the
case than anyone does.
“Roe was an unmarried pregnant woman who pregnancy; and some women said, ‘I’m what any federal court said, he would
filed as a class action on behalf of all women already pregnant. Where could I go for an continue to prosecute,” she said. “I don’t
who were or might become pregnant and abortion?’” think he was trying to help us, but he
want the option of abortion. Wade was the did; because there was a parliamentary
district attorney of Dallas, TX, and the person The graduate students wanted to know if they procedural standard that said if a state law
responsible for enforcing the anti-abortion could give out advice on birth control without was declared unconstitutional by a federal
statute,” Weddington explained. being arrested, and they came to Weddington court but it is continuing to be enforced,
with their concerns. She took their questions there is a direct appeal to the us supreme
When asked to describe that historic to the law library and found Griswold vs. court.”
day in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, Connecticut, a case involving two people
Weddington—who had only handled who were part of Planned Parenthood and Weddington and the women she was
uncontested divorces, wills, and one adoption were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for representing feared that some other case on
before she got the Roe vs. Wade case— giving a contraceptive device to a married the subject of abortion would make it to the
remembers every detail. couple. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled Supreme Court before theirs; so they were
that married couples had the right to privacy elated when they got the telegram saying the
The heavy, red velvet curtains you walk in regard to having children or not having court was accepting Roe vs. Wade.
through to come into the courtroom. The children.
It wasn’t until early January 1973 that
three-minute tourist section. The gold railing
Weddington also found Eisenstadt vs. Baird, Weddington found out the verdict of the
that separates lawyers from laymen. The
a case in which Bill Baird was arrested for case. She had just been elected to the Texas
press section. The goose quill pen. You name
giving a tube of contraceptive salt to an Legislature in November of 1972 and was at
it; Weddington remembers it. And the picture
unmarried woman. In this case, the Supreme the state capital getting prepared to go into
she paints is one of awe and grandeur.
Court ruled that every individual had a right session.
to privacy in regard to birth control.
Weddington was working for a professor
“The phone rang, and a reporter said, ‘Does
at the University of Texas School of Law
Armed with these two cases, Weddington Ms. Weddington have a comment today
when she was approached by a group of
told the graduate students she believed they about Roe vs. Wade?’ And my assistant said,
women who were graduate students at the
could challenge Texas’ anti-abortion statute, ‘Should she?’ The reporter said, ‘It was
university. The graduate students also ran
which allowed abortion only in situations decided today.’ And my assistant said, ‘How
a counseling service that advised women on
where the woman’s life was jeopardized. was it decided?’ And the words came back,
how and where to get birth control.
‘She won it, 7 to 2,’” Weddington said.
Weddington then brought the case before a
“At the University of Texas in 1969, a woman
three-judge federal court and had the anti- When asked how she handled such a
could not get birth control unless she
abortion statue declared unconstitutional. momentous case at such a young age, (she
certified that she was within six weeks of
However, the panel would not give her was only 26 at the time that she argued
marriage,” Weddington said. “So, there were
an injunction to keep Henry Wade from the case) Weddington responded with
a lot of women who needed and wanted birth
prosecuting. encouraging advice for young lawyers.
control who didn’t meet that criteria. These
women [the graduate students] were trying “You will feel in awe of the court process,
“The next day, Henry Wade had a press
to tell them how to have access to prevent and you will doubt your abilities. That’s just
conference and announced he didn’t care
PAGE continued on back

2. LAWCROSSING
THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH
LAW STAR www.lawcrossing.com 1. 800.973.1177
natural,” she said. “There were certainly kept working at preparing. Whereas, he just Over the course of her life, Weddington has
times when I was worried about how I was assumed that he had argued so many cases been a practicing attorney, a member of the
going to do and what they were going to ask that he could do this without nearly as much Texas Legislature, General Counsel of the
me, and I wanted to win. So, I was extremely effort, and he was wrong.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, assistant
nervous, but that sense of nerves also to former President Jimmy Carter, an
meant that it became the priority for my life; Years after the case, Weddington compiled author, and a professor, among other things.
and I spent endless hours working on the her experiences with the case and interviews Currently, she teaches courses on gender-
case, researching the case, talking to other with the people who were involved into a based discrimination and leadership at the
lawyers.” book titled A Question of Choice, which University of Texas at Austin and travels the
was published in 1992. At the time that the globe speaking on issues concerning women
“So, I almost think being nervous about book was published, she felt it was crucial and leadership. She’s also working on a new
something like that causes you to prepare so to appeal to people on behalf of pro-choice book tentatively titled Memoirs of a Leader.
thoroughly and often more than the lawyers candidates that were running for office,
on the other side, who may have more including Bill Clinton. “I’ve been very lucky,” she said. “I often
experience but who sometimes try to ride say to young people thinking of law or law
on the experience and who don’t prepare as While conducting interviews for the book, students: You should think of your life as a
well,” she said. Weddington asked the women who originally series of course corrections, because even
came to her with the case why they had what I thought I would do when I was in law
Weddington compared the feeling she had picked her and why they had not chosen school hasn’t turned out to be at all what my
on that day to the Biblical scene of David someone with more experience. life has been.”
and Goliath, but a blunder by her opposing “I call law the wind beneath my wings
counsel at the onset of the arguments made “They said, ‘Well, first, we wanted a woman because it has given me the skills and
her feel a little bit better. lawyer, and you were the only one we’d ever information that have allowed me to do so
heard of; and second, we needed somebody many different things,” she said.
“The person who was arguing for the state who’d do it for free,’” Weddington said. “And
started out by saying, ‘Your Honors, when that’s how I got the case—because I was ON THE NET
you’re here arguing against two beautiful willing to do it for free.”
women, you’re in a difficult position.’ Now, University of Texas School of Law
in Texas, the judges might have laughed a Looking back on those days, Weddington www.utexas.edu/law
little—not in the U.S. Supreme Court,” she is glad she got the chance to be involved in
said. “They did not crack a smile. And I think societal change. The Weddington Center
it really threw him, first, because he got www.weddingtoncenter.com
a reaction he didn’t expect and, second, I “It was such a fabulous time in the early ‘70s
don’t think he put nearly as much time into of looking at all kinds of issues that related to McMurry University
preparing as I had. For one thing, I only had women and trying to say, ‘This isn’t right. We www.mcm.edu/newsite/web
one big case at the time, so I really could need to change it,’” she said. “It was a time
put endless hours into preparation; and when we weren’t just questioning the issue of
I was nervous enough about it that I just reproduction, but all kinds of issues.”
PAGE