1. Public Law 93-94. 93rd Congress, S. 1136. See Title IV, §401 (b) and (c) for the Conscience Clause.

2. Public Health Service Extension Act of 1973, Roll Vote No. 64. Congressional Record, 27 March 1973, S9604; Public Health Service Extension Act of 1973, Roll Vote No. 172. Congressional Record, 31 May 1973, H17491. The final Senate vote on the entire health bill, of which the conscience clause was a small piece, was 94–0, with six senators not voting. See Congressional Record, June 5, 1973, vote on final bill recorded on S18072.

3. By July 1973, fifteen states had passed similar conscience clauses. See Memo from Jeannie Rosoff of Planned Parenthood/World Population to Alan Guttmacher and Harriet Pilpel, 24 July 1973, Box 2, Folder 1, Harriet F. Pilpel Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. By the end of 1974, twenty-eight had, out of which twenty-seven had exempted hospitals and other health-care facilities. Only two of those states explicitly excluded public hospitals from those exemptions. See “A Review of State Abortion Laws Enacted Since January 1973,” Family Planning/Population Reporter 3, no. 5 (October 1974): 88–94; Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 1, no. 1 (February 1998).

4. Alperin, David M., “Abortion and the Law,” Newsweek, 3 March 1975, 26.Google ScholarFor a comprehensive list of federal and state legislative debates over abortion in 1973 and early 1974, see John D. Sargent, “The Abortion Controversy: Legislative and Judicial Actions Following the Supreme Court’s Invalidation of Restrictions upon Access to Abortions, Analysis, and Interpretation,” Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 1974.

5. A full consideration of this legal scholarship is beyond the scope of this article, but for a debate between two legal scholars who have different views, and who effectively characterize the arguments and review the literature on both sides, see Steven D. Smith and Caroline Mala Corbin, “Debate: The Contraception Mandate and Religious Freedom,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 161, no. 261 (2013): 261–82, http://www.pennlawreview.com/online/Steve-D-Smith-Caroline-Mala-Corbin-161-U-Pa-L-Rev-261.pdf, accessed 24 June 2013. For an analysis from the perspective of bioethicists, see Holly Fernandez Lynch, Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care: An Institutional Compromise (Cambridge: Mass., 2008); and Kimberly A. Parr, “Beyond Politics: A Social and Cultural History of Federal Healthcare Conscience Protections,” American Journal of Law and Medicine 35 (2009): 620–46.

6. Keesling, Karen, “Selected Women’s Rights Legislation Enacted Between 1919–1976” (Washington, D.C., 1978Google Scholar); Holcomb, Morrigene, “Major Federal Legislation Affecting Women’s Rights Enacted Between 1963–1972” (Washington, D.C., 1973);Google Scholar Holcomb, Morrigene, “Legislation Affecting the Rights of Women Enacted by, or Pending in, the 93rd Congress” (Washington, D.C., 23 May 1974).Google Scholar

7. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965); Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

8. On 15 January 1973, Time magazine announced its intention to devote “much of the observance of its 50th anniversary to a study of Congress and its decline,” and to a series of articles about rising tensions between the legislative and executive branch of government during Nixon’s second term.

9. In the presidential election of 1972, Nixon won forty-nine states, 60.7 percent of the popular vote, and 520 electoral votes. In that same election, the Democrats gained two seats in the Senate, giving them a majority of 56–42. Democrats lost 13 seats in the House, but held a majority of 243–192. For these statistics, see Gerhard Peters and John T. Wooley, The American Presidency Project. “The American Presidency Project,” http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1972#axzz2htlK3dJJ; “Party Division in the Senate, 1789–Present, “http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm; and “Party Divisions of the House of Representatives, 1789–Present,” http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/ (accessed 1 June 2014).

10. On the Watergate hearings and the tension over Nixon’s refusal to spend funds appropriated by Congress, see “The Congress: The Crack in the Constitution,” Time, 15 January 1973; on the impoundment crisis, see “The Budget: Nixon’s Call to Counter-Revolution,” Time, 5 February 1973;Wicker, Tom, “Impounding and Implying,” New York Times, 8 February 1973;Google Scholar Wooten, James T., “White House Says Nixon Will Veto New Funds Bills,” New York Times, 10 March 1973;Google Scholar “The Congress: Rising Emotions over Money and Secrecy,” Time, 23 April 1973. On the Case-Church Amendment, see Madden, Richard L., “Sweeping Cutoff of Funds for War Is Voted in Senate: Case-Church Amendment Passes, 67–15—Goes to Conference,” New York Times, 15 June 1973.Google Scholar

11. Aide quoted in “The Budget: Nixon’s Call to Counter-Revolution,” Time, 5 February 1973.

12. “The Budget: Nixon’s Call to Counter-Revolution,” Time, 5 February 1973; Alan Matusow, Nixon’s Economy: Booms, Busts, Dollars, and Votes (Lawrence, Kans., 1998), 216.

13. Schick, Harold M., “Senate, by 72–19 Vote, Passes Bill Challenging Administration on End of Health Programs,” New York Times, 28 March 1973, 27;Google Scholar Testimony of Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Caspar W. Weinberger,” 22 March 1973, Public Health Service Extension Act, Hearing, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1136, U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 13–117. Given this veto-proof vote, Nixon signed the bill, but in his signing statement, he said, “I believe that these programs spend public monies less effectively than they should be spent, and in my 1974 budget I called for their elimination.” See Richard Nixon, “Statement about Signing Three Bills Providing for Health Care, Economic Development in Rural Areas, and Airport Construction,” 19 June 1973. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Wooley, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3873.

14. Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.). “Public Health Service Extension Act,” Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9594.

15. Senator Peter Dominick (R-Colo.), “Public Health Service Extension Act,” Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9592. Dominick, a conservative Republican who had been one of Nixon’s long-standing supporters, pushed back against him, fearing a challenge in the 1974 election. Dominick was defeated in that election by Hart, Gary. Large, Arlen J., “Sen. Dominick Tries to Ally with Nixon but Duck Watergate,” Wall Street Journal, 17 September 1974;Google Scholar “Keep Distance from Nixon, Senator Advises Colleagues,” Florence Times-Tri Cities Daily, 6 November 1973, 5; Knutson, Lawrence, “Nixon’s Actions Shrink His House Support,” St. Petersburg Times, 6 August 1974, 5.Google Scholar

16. Senator Richard Schweiker (R-Pa.), Hearing, Public Health Service Act Extension, 1973, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., first session on S. 1136 (22 March 1973), U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 12. Schweiker, a liberal Republican who had never been a big ally of Nixon’s, was one of the first senators to call for his resignation.

17. “The Budget: Nixon’s Call to Counter-Revolution,” Time, 5 February 1973.

18. Ibid.

19. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

20. Carmines, Edward G., Gerrity, Jessica C., Wagner, Michael W., “How Abortion Became a Partisan Issue: Media Coverage of the Interest Group–Political Party Connection,” Politics & Policy 38, no. 6 (2010): 1135–58;Google Scholar Adams, Greg, “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution,” American Journal of Political Science 41, no. 3 (1997): 718–37;Google Scholar Williams, Daniel K., “The GOP’s Abortion Strategy: Why Pro-Choice Republicans Became Pro-Life in the 1970s,” Journal of Policy History 4 (2011): 513–39.Google Scholar

21. Poll quoted in Siegel, Reva B. and Greenhouse, Linda, “Before (and After) Roe v. Wade: New Questions about Backlash,” 128 Yale Law Journal (2011): 103;Google Scholar Gallup, George, “Abortion Seen Up to Woman, Doctor,” Washington Post, 25 August 1972Google Scholar, A2, as reprinted in Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel, Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling (New York, 2011). In the 1960s and early 1970s, prominent Republicans including Bob Packwood, Henry Kissinger, George H. W. Bush, Charles Percy, Nelson Rockefeller, and Ronald Reagan all supported abortion reform and legalization.

22. “Abortion and Child Care Planks to Be Proposed to the G.O.P.,” New York Times, 10 August 1972; “Women: How to De-Radicalize,” Time, 4 September 1972; Daynes, Byron W. and Tatalovich, Raymond, “Presidential Politics and Abortion, 1972–1988,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 22, no. 3 (Summer 1992): 546;Google Scholar Wolbrecht, Christina, “Explaining Women’s Rights Realignment: Convention Delegates, 1972–1992,” Political Behavior 24 (September 2002): 237–82.Google Scholar Abortion had been an issue at the state level for at least five years before Roe. See David J. Garrow, Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade (Berkeley, 1994); see chapters 4 and 5 in particular for reforms and liberalization at the state level before Roe. In 1967, Colorado legalized abortion in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, and fetal deformity. California, Oregon, and North Carolina soon passed similar laws. In 1970, New York passed a law making abortion legal up to twenty-four weeks, and similar laws were quickly passed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. By 1972, thirteen states had passed laws based on the American Law Institute’s model penal code that recommended legalizing abortion for reasons including the physical and mental health of the mother, rape, incest, and fetal deformity.

23. Linda Greenhouse, “Misconceptions,” New York Times, 23 January 2013. From Opinionator: Exclusive Online Commentary from the Times, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/misconceptions/?ref=opinion (accessed 23 January 2013).

24. Greenhouse and Siegel, “Before (and After) Roe,” 2058.

25. Ibid.

26. Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), Georgetown University, Presidential Vote of Catholics: Estimates from Various Sources (2010), http://cara.georgetown.edu/Presidential percent20Vote percent20Only.pdf (accessed 1 June 2014).

27. Frank Church (D-Idaho), “Public Health Service Extension Act,” Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9595.

28. Church, Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9595. This kind of statement is typical of Church, who over the next several years in Congress would repeatedly—and ultimately unsuccessfully—try to find common ground on the issue of abortion. For coverage of how Church’s abortion position was a key part of his 1980 loss in his Senate Race, see Hatzenbuehler, Ronald L. and Marley, Bert W., “Why Church Lost: A Preliminary Analysis of the Church-Symms Election of 1980,” Pacific Historical Review 56, no. 1 (February 1987): 99–112.Google Scholar See also Wilson, Marc, “Church Abortion Position Disputed,” The Spokesman-Review, 15 October 1980, 32.Google Scholar

29. Adlai Stevenson III (D-Ill.), “Public Health Service Extension Act,” Congressional Record, (27 March 1973), S9596.

30. Buckley, James (I-N.Y.), “Public Health Service Extension Act,” Congressional Record (27 March 1973)Google Scholar, S9601. Buckley had been elected to the Senate in 1970 as a member of the Conservative Party of New York State, a party established in 1962 as a protest against what some perceived as an overly liberal state Republican Party. He is listed in the Congressional Record as an Independent.

31. Moral Inc., Constitutional Defense Project, “Confidential Memo: CDP Legislative Reports on How MA Reps Think about Abortion,” National Abortion Rights Action League Records, 1968–76, MC 313, Box 3, “Massachusetts Correspondence, January–July 1974,” Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge. When the Massachusetts Organization to Repeal Abortion Laws (MORAL) interviewed Democratic representatives to find out their position on the issue, they heard the same thing repeatedly. Gerry Studds was “personally sympathetic” to the issue but told the interviewers that “from a political standpoint, the best position for a legislator to take on abortion is no position.” Tip O’Neill was “personally opposed” but “doesn’t want to deal with the issue legislatively.” Joseph Moakley was “opposed” but felt that “Congress would prefer to avoid the whole issue.”

32. “Abortion: Campaign to Upset Supreme Court Ruling,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 31, no. 45 (10 November 1973), 2973.

33. “Abortion: Next Round,” Commonweal, 23 March 1973, 98, no. 3, 51.

34. That amendment never passed (although since 1973, some version of the Human Life Amendment has been introduced in Congress more than three hundred times), but between 1973 and 1976 Congress passed legislation that prohibited using legal aid, foreign aid, and Medicaid for abortion-related services. For statistics on Human Life Amendments, see website for National Committee for a Human Life Amendment statistics at http://nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=46 (accessed 25 June 2013).

35. “Abortion: Campaign to Upset Supreme Court Ruling.”

36. Brooks, Clem and Manz, Jeff, “A Great Divide? Religion and Political Change in U.S. National Elections, 1972–2000,” Sociological Quarterly 45, no. 3 (2004): 421–50Google Scholar; Dionne, E. J., “Catholics and the Democrats: Estrangement but Not Desertion,” in Party Coalitions in the 1980s, ed. Martin Lipset, Seymour (San Francisco, 1981), 307–25;Google Scholar Kellstedt, Lyman, “Evangelicals and Political Realignment,” Contemporary Evangelical Political Evolvement, ed. Schmidt, Corwin (Lanham, Md., 1989), 99–117Google Scholar.

37. Civil No. 1090 (D. Montana, November 1972), Taylor v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 369 F. Supp. 948 (D. Montana, 1973). The case is described in “Section 401(b) of the Health Programs Extension Act: An Abortive Attempt by Congress to Solve a Constitutional Dilemma, 17 William & Mary Law Review 303 (1975), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol17/iss2/6. Responding to the Church Amendment, the district court dissolved its prior injunction and denied all relief, in Taylor v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 369 F. Supp. 948, 950 (D. Mont. 1973), 26 October 1973. The Taylors appealed, but the district court’s 1973 decision was upheld in a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Taylor v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 523 F. 2d 75, 26 August 1975.

38. Church, Congressional Record (27 August 1973), S9595.

39. Hyer, Marjorie, “Suits Attack Abortion Rules,” Washington Post, 1 September 1973, A10.Google Scholar

40. Peter J. Riga, “Roe v. Wade: The New Class Warfare,” The Priest 29, no. 9 (September 1973): 17.

41. McKernan, Martin F. Jr., “Compelling Hospitals to Provide Abortion Services,” 20 Catholic Lawyer 317.Google Scholar

42. Letter to Senator Frank Church from Harold Q. Noack Jr., president, Planned Parenthood Association of Idaho, Inc., 5 April 1973, Boise State University, Albertsons Library, Special Collections and Archives, Frank Church Papers, MSS 56, Series 1.1., Box 113, Folder 3.

43. Letter to Senator Frank Church from C. K. Belnap, 15 March 1973, Frank Church Papers, MSS 56, Series 1.1, Box 113, Folder 3.

44. Letter to Senator Frank Church from Catholic Bishop of Idaho, Bishop Treinen, 2 April 1973, Frank Church Papers, MSS 56, Series 1.13., Box 112, Folder 21; Letter to Senator Frank Church from Cardinal Medeiros, 2 April 1973, Frank Church Papers, MSS 56, Series 1.1, Box 112, Folder 21.

45. Church, Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9596. See also “LDS Continue No Abortion,” Times-News of Twin Falls Idaho, 2 March 1973.

46. Letter to Ella Grasso from William Whelean, Executive Director, Connecticut Catholic Conference, 16 March 1973. Ella T. Grasso Papers, MS 0757, Archives and Special Collections, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass., Legislative Files, 1973, Health-Family Planning and Control, Box 69, Folder 7.

47. Rev. Kevin D. O’Rourke, OP, JCD; Rev. Thomas Koppen-Steiner, STD; and Ron Hamel, Ph.D., “A Brief History: A Summary of the Development of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services,” Health Progress, November–December 2001, 18.

48. Ibid.

49. Russell Long (D-La.), “Public Health Service Extension Act,” Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9597.

50. Church, Congressional Record, 27 March 1973, S9597.

51. State Files, A-I; 1974–76; American Civil Liberties Union Records: Subgroup 3, Project Files Series, Box 2949, Folder: Connecticut, The Bishops of Connecticut, “Your Conscience and Abortion,” September 1974; Public Policy Papers, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library.

52. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), “Public Health Service Extension Act,” Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9602; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

53. On school prayer decisions, see Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). On the Republican effort to use opposition to the Warren Court decisions in the 1968 election, see Owen Fiss, “A Life Lived Twice,” 110 Yale Law Journal 1117 (1991): 1120. Fiss writes that “in 1968, Richard Nixon ran against the Warren Court.” See also McMahon, Kevin J., Nixon’s Court: His Challenge to Judicial Liberalism (Chicago, 2011).Google Scholar On the prayer amendment, which was defeated in the House by 240–62, see Hunter, Marjorie, “School Prayers Blocked by House by 28-Vote Margin,” New York Times, 8 November 1971.Google Scholar Voting for the amendment were 138 Republicans and 102 Democrats; voting against the amendment were 136 Democrats and 26 Republicans. See also Marty, Martin, “School Prayer: Many Meanings to Many People,” New York Times, 14 November 1971.Google Scholar

54. Military Selective Service Act of 1967, Pub. L. 90-40, 81 Stat. 100.

55. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), 163.

56. Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 344.

57. Stevenson, , “Public Health Service Extension Act,” Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9596.Google Scholar

58. Buckley, , “Public Health Service Extension Act,” Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9601.Google Scholar

59. Ibid.

60. Letter from Joan Dixon to Bella Abzug, 28 February 1973, Bella Abzug Papers, Box 600, Folder, “Abortion Correspondence, 1973,” Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Library (hereafter Bella Abzug Papers, 1973).

61. Letter from C. K. Belnap to Senator Frank Church, 15 March 1973, Frank Church Papers, Series 1.1., Box 113, Folder 3.

62. “Buckley on Amnesty,” New York Times, 20 February 1073.

63. Buchanan, Assault Book, from Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum (Nixon-WHSF-Buchanan, box 10, folder 1), reprinted in Greenhouse and Siegel, Before Roe v. Wade, 218. Republicans weren’t, however, in lockstep on the confluence of these issues. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) said that he considered legalized abortion as part of the larger trend toward “depersonalization and violence spreading throughout the nation,” which also included “the war in Indochina, with its body-counts, the denial of amnesty to those who would fight in the war, and the conditions that led to rioting in the Attica, NY prison.” Hatfield quoted in “Buckley Pushes Curb on Abortion,” New York Times, 1 June 1973, 12.

64. Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 92nd Congress, H.R. 14175, War Resisters Exoneration Act, Comments by Bella Abzug, 19 April 1972, 4051–54. See also Amy Swerdlow, Women Strike for Peace: Traditional Motherhood and Radical Politics in the 1960s (Chicago), 183.

65. Church-State, Minutes; 1975; American Civil Liberties Union Records: Subgroup 2, Organizational Matters Series, Box 111, Folder 5, 24 March 1975.

66. Ibid., 30 April 1975.

67. Ibid.

68. In an email exchange (27 July 2011, in possession of author), Fulbright biographer Randall Woods offered two possible explanations: first, he said that Fulbright “regarded the Catholic church as an institution—the Vatican—as a reactionary force in the world.” And second, in 1973, Fulbright was angry with Church over what he believed was his grandstanding on the Vietnam War. Crane was one of the most conservative members of Congress. Perhaps his vote reflected his opposition to all social spending, or his unwillingness to compromise on the abortion issue. Crane was the first chair of the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus founded by Paul Weyrich out of the belief that congressional Republican leadership was too moderate. See Michael Kilian, “Crusader Crane: He Was Conservative Before It was Hot,” Chicago Tribune, 2 July 1995, 16; and entry on Philip Miller Crane, in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000873 (accessed 27 August 2012).

69. On bipartisan support for women’s rights legislation and for a general discussion of party politics and feminism, see Lisa Young, Feminists and Party Politics (Ann Arbor, 2000); Kira Sanbonmatsu, Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women’s Place (Ann Arbor, 2002); Catherine Rymph, Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage to the Rise of the New Right (Chapel Hill, 2009).

70. See Holcomb, “Legislation Affecting the Rights of Women,” Congressional Research Service, 23 May 1974.

71. Matthews, Donald and De Hart, Jane Sherron, Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State, and the Nation (Oxford, 1990);Google Scholar Critchlow, Donald T., Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade (Princeton, 2007)Google Scholar. House vote recorded in 117 Congressional Record 35815; Senate vote recorded in 118 Congressional Record 9598. For analysis of party platforms in 1972, see Wolbrecht, “Explaining Women’s Rights Realignment,” 239.

72. Letter from Representative Bella Abzug to Colleagues, 22 May 1973, Bella Abzug Papers.

73. Letter from Representative Bella Abzug to Joan Dixon, 25 June 1973, Bella Abzug Papers.

74. Bella Abzug, Congressional Record, 31 May 1973, H17452.

75. Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 323 F. 2d 959 (4th Cir. 1963); Sams v. Valley General Hospital Association, 413 F. 2d 826 (4th Cir. 1969).

76. Abzug, Congressional Record, 31 May 1973, H17452.

77. Ibid.

78. For statements from these religious organizations, see Greenhouse and Siegel, Before Roe v. Wade, 69–72.

79. Abzug, Congressional Record, 32 May 1973, H17452.

80. Ibid.

81. “Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights,” Options Newsletter 1, no. 5 (September 1974), ed. Catherine Barnett, Bella Abzug Papers, Box 605.

82. Letter from Brenda Feigen Fasteau, Coordinator, Women’s Rights Project, ACLU, to Representative Mr. Marlin D. Schneider, 28 August 1973, cc’d to Bella Abzug, Bella Abzug Papers; Letter from National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, undated, Bella Abzug Papers, Box 605, Folder on Abortion Organizations, NARAL, 1973.

83. Letter from American Association of University Women to Honorable Bella S. Abzug, 16 November 1973; letter from National Board of the Young Women’s Christian Association to Member of Congress, 1 September 1973; letter from Catholics for a Free Choice to Congressperson, 27 November 1973, Bella Abzug Papers. Letter from Eleanor Marvin, President of National Council of Jewish Women, to Representative Harley O. Staggers, 15 May 1973, cc’d to Bella Abzug, Bella Abzug Papers, Box 602, Folder on Abortion: General.

84. The National Women’s Political Caucus gave Drinan a perfect rating on women’s issues. See Simpson, Peggy, “Congress Rated on Sex Equality,” Spokane Daily Chronicle, 19 May 1978, 30.Google Scholar

85. Letter from Robert F. Drinan to Ms. Pamela Lowry, 11 May 1973, Series II: Legislative Correspondence, Box 77, Folder 3, Robert F. Drinan Congressional Papers, CA1986-01, John J. Burns Library, Boston College.

86. Ibid.

87. Memo, Eric Hirschhorn to Bella Abzug, 17 May 1973, “Re: Abortion Language in Public Health Bill,” Bella Abzug Papers.

88. Holcomb, “Legislation Affecting the Rights of Women” and “Women’s Rights Legislation in the 94th Congress,” Congressional Research Service, 77-36G, 9 February 1977.

89. Bender, Marilyn, “Women Equality Groups Fighting Credit Barriers,” New York Times, 25 March 1973.Google Scholar

90. Letter from Betz Christianson to Representative Bella Abzug,” 27 September 1973, Bella Abzug Papers.

91. E-mail exchange with Jane Pierson, 21 October 2012, in possession of author.

92. Javits, Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9599.

93. Church, Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9601.

94. Javits, Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9598.

95. Kennedy, Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9602.

96. Kennedy, Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9602.

97. Memo from Larry Lader, n.d., National Abortion Rights Action League Records, 1968–76; MC 313, Carton 6, Folder ACLU/NARAL Lawsuits, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge.

98. Letter from Hope Eastman, Associate Director of ACLU to Honorable Paul G. Rogers, 19 April 1973, Bella Abzug Papers.

99. Letter from Brenda Feigen Fasteau, Coordinator, Women’s Rights Project, ACLU, to Representative Mr. Marlin D. Schneider, 28 August 1973, cc’d to Bella Abzug, Bella Abzug Papers.

100. Javits, Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9598.

101. Javits, Congressional Record (27 March 1973), S9599 and S9603.

102. Harper Mills, Don, Editorial Board of JAMA, “Abortions, Sterilizations, and Religion,” Journal of the American Medical Association 299, no. 3 (15 July 1974): 338Google Scholar.

103. See Joffe, Carol, Doctors of Conscience: The Struggle to Provide Abortion Before and After Roe v. Wade (Boston, 1995).Google Scholar

104. Letter from Caroline Kennedy to Representative Bella Abzug, 17 April 1973, Bella Abzug Papers.

105. Martin, Douglas, “Howard Moody, Who Led a Historic Church, Dies at 91,” New York Times, 13 Sepember 2012.Google Scholar

106. Moody, Howard, “Church, State, and the Rights of Conscience,” Christianity and Crisis 23, no. 23 (8 January 1973): 293.Google Scholar

107. Pat Fogarty McQuillan and Joan Harriman, letter to Congressman Addabbo, 30 October 1973, NARAL Collection, MCC 313, Box 6, Folder: Catholics for Free Choice. For more on the beginnings of Catholics for Free Choice, see Patricia Miller, Good Catholics: The Battle Over Abortion in the Catholic Church (Berkeley, 2014), 58–83.

108. Siegel, Neil S. and Siegel, Reva B., “Struck by Stereotype: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Pregnancy Discrimination as Sex Discrimination,” Duke Law Journal 59, no. 4 (2010)Google Scholar.

109. Ibid., 782.

110. Jimmey Kimmey, “Right to Choose Memorandum,” NARAL Collection, MC 313, Box 6, “ASA” file.

111. Buckley Amendment to H.R. 3153, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1973, to Prohibit the Use of Federal Medicaid Funds to Pay for Abortion. See 185 Congressional Record, 221561, (daily edition, 30 November 1973).

112. Jacob Javits, 7 December 1973, letter to chair of Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senator Jacob K. Javits Collection, Manuscript Collection 285, Series 1, Subseries 2, Box 2, Abortion 1974 File, Special Collections, Stony Brook University Libraries.

113. NARAL Memo, December 1973, NARAL Collection, MC 313, Box 7, “Congress.”

114. Memo from Robin Elliott to Harriet Pilpel, “The Three Constitutional Amendments on Abortion,” 19 December 1973, Box 3, Folder 9, Harriet F. Pilpel Papers.

115. The first such restriction, included in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973, P.L. 93-189, was known as the Helms Amendment.

116. Public Law 93-355, 93rd Congress, Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974.

117. “Hospital Abortion Drive,” New York Post, Newsday, 29 June 1973, clipping in NARAL Papers, MC 313, Carton 6, Folder: ACLU/NARAL Lawsuits.

118. Draft of a letter from Bella Abzug to Legal Services conferees, 13 February 1974, Bella Abzug Papers, Box 182, Subject Files: Legal Services.

119. Letter from Bella Abzug to Ms. Kalish, 31 May 1974, Bella Abzug Papers, Box 182, Subject Files: Legal Services.

120. State Files, A-I; 1974–76; American Civil Liberties Union Records: Subgroup 3, Project Files Series, Box 2949, Folder: Connecticut, Connecticut Citizens for Human Life, Inc., May 1974 Memo.

121. Ibid.

122. For the history of the Hyde Amendment and other funding restrictions, see Shimabukuro, John O., “Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response,” Congressional Research Service, 24 March 2014.Google Scholar

123. Lawrence Lader, Memo to ACLU and NARAL Affiliates and Member Organizations, “Court Actions Against Public Hospitals Refusing Compliance with U.S. Supreme Court Abortion Decision,” 18 July 1973, NARAL Collection, MC 313, Schlesinger Library, Harvard University, Cambridge.

124. Fasteau quoted in Jerry Filteau, “ACLU to Sue Hospitals That Refuse Abortions,” 12 August 1973, National Catholic Reporter, clipping in National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Records, 1968–76, MC 313, Carton 6, Folder, “ACLU/NARAL Lawsuits.” See also Marjorie Hyer, “Hospital Policies Challenged: Suits Attack Abortion Rules,” Washington Post, 1 September 1973; John Sibley, “Two Groups Challenge Hospitals That Resist Ruling on Abortion,” New York Times, 2 July 1973.

125. Hodgson et al v. Anderson et al, Minn. Fourth Div. Civ. 4-74-155, 27 July 1974; Doe v. Bridgeton Hospital Association, 366 A. 2d. 641 N.J. 1976; Doe v. Charleston Area Medical Center, 528 F. 2nd 638, 1975.

126. Chrisman v. St. Josephs of the Peace, 506 F. 2nd 308 (9th Cir. 1974); Taylor v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 523 F. 2nd 75 (9th Cir. 1975); Watkins v. Mercy Medical Center, 520 F. 2nd 894 (9th Cir. 1975).

127. Kluchin, Rebecca, Fit to Be Tied: Sterlization and Reproductive Rights in America, 1950–1980 (New Brunswick, 2009), 147Google Scholar.

128. Guttmacher Institute, “State Policies in Brief: Refusing to Provide Health Services” and “State Policies in Brief: Emergency Contraception,” 1 February 2014.

National Abortion Federation, Factsheet, “Access to Abortion,” 2010, http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/access_abortion.html; Lori R. Freedman and Debra B. Stulberg “Conflicts in Care for Obstetric Complications in Catholic Hospitals,” American Journal of Bioethics Primary Research, posted online on 18 December 2012; Lisa Harris, “Recognizing Conscience in Abortion Provision,” New England Journal of Medicine (13 September 2012): 367; Wendy Chavkin, Liddy Leitman, and Kate Polin, “Conscientious Objection and Refusal to Provide Reproductive Healthcare: A White Paper Examining Prevalence, Health Consequences, and Policy Responses,” International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 123 (2013): S41–S56; Stephanie Mencimer, “The Catholic Church Is Making Health Care Decisions for More and More Americans—Whether They Know It or Not,” Mother Jones, November–December 2013.

129. These examples come from the ACLU website at https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate (accessed 14 October 2013). See the same website for examples of conflicts having nothing to do with reproductive politics. These conflicts have involved religiously affiliated schools firing unmarried women who become pregnant, social work students refusing to counsel LGBT individuals, private businesses refusing to serve same-sex couples planning weddings, and religious charitable organizations refusing to comply with state antidiscrimination laws. See also Stein, Rob, “New Jersey Nurses Charge Religious Discrimination over Abortion Policy,” Washington Post, 27 November 2011.Google Scholar On the busdriver who refused to drive a woman to Planned Parenthood, see Graning v. Capital Area Rural Transportation System, no. 1:10-523 (W.D. Tex. 2010). For a discussion of conflicts between pharmacists’ right of refusal and patients’ rights to obtain medical care, see Robert A Buerki, “The Conscience Clause in American Pharmacy: An Historical Overview,” Pharmacy in History 50, no. 3 (2008), 107–18; Catherine Grealis, “Religion in the Pharmacy: A Balanced Approach to Pharmacists’ Right to Refuse to Provide Plan B,” Georgetown Law Journal 9, no. 6 (August 2009): 1715–37.

130. Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134 (Coats Amendment to the Public Service Act), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 42 U.S.C. § 238n(a)(1).

131. Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33. The Medicare conscience-clause provision is codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(j)(3)(B), and the Medicaid conscience-clause provision is codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1396u-2(b)(3)(B).

132. Weldon Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005-2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat 786. The amendment defined a “health care entity” as “an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.”

133. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services News Release, “Affordable Care Act Ensures Women Receive Preventive Services at No Additional Cost,” 1 August 2011, http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/08/20110801b.html (accessed 13 June 2013). In the 2011 HHS rules, religious employers who met the following four criteria were exempt from the mandate: (1) Their purpose is the inculcation of religious values; (2) they primarily employ persons who share their religious faith; (3) they primarily serve persons who share that faith; (4) they are structured as a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable corporation. To meet the needs of religious institutions, such as colleges and hospitals, that employ and serve a broad population, the HHS created a second category of exemption “to accommodate non-exempt, nonprofit religious organizations.” That category provides employees with noncost contraception but protects the organization from “having to contract, arrange, or pay for contraceptive coverage.” See Federal Register, vol. 76, no. 149, 3 August 2011; and Rules and Regulations, Office of the Press Secretary, White House Fact Sheet, “Women’s Preventive Services and Religious Institutions,” 10 February 2012.

134. When the rules for the contraceptive mandate had been issued for the first time on 1 August 2011, they had been welcomed by public health experts, women’s health advocates, and Congressional Democrats; but attacked by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Family Research Council, and Congressional Republicans. For reactions, see “USCCB: HHS Mandate for Contraceptive and Abortifacient Drugs Violates Conscience Rights,” 1 August 2011, News Release of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://www.usccb.org/news/2011/11-154.cfm; Steven Reinberg, “HHS: Insurers Must Pay for Birth Control for Women,” Healthday, August 1, 2011, http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2011/08/01/hhs-insurers-must-pay-for-birth-control-for-women; Jason Kane, “Birth Control Will Soon Be Co-Pay Free for Most U.S. Women,” August 1, 2011, PBS Newshour, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/08/hhs-no-cost-birth-control-will-be-universal-in-us.html; Erin Mershon, “Mike Kelly Compares Birth Control Mandate to Pearl Harbor, 9/11,” Huffington Post, August 1, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/mike-kelly-birth-control-mandate_n_1729242.html. All websites accessed by author on June 13, 2013.

135. An Act to Protect the Free Exercise of Religion, Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (16 November 1993), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.

136. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. _____ (2014).

137. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Majority Opinion 32.

138. Ibid., 3.

139. S. 1813, 112th Cong., 2d sess., “To Amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to protect the rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services.” Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine voted against the Blunt Amendment; Democrats Ben Nelson of Colorado, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania voted against it. See Aizenman, N. C. and Helderman, Rosalind S., “Birth Control Exemption Bill, the “Blunt Amendment,” Killed in Senate,” Washington Post, March 1, 2012.Google Scholar

140. Quotes from Sullivan, Sean, “Republicans Hail Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Ruling; Democrats Disappointed,” Washington Post, 30 June 2014.Google Scholar

141. Americans United for Life Press Release, July 30, 2014; Family Research Council Press Release, July 30, 2014. Available on Press Release Newswire.

142. Pelosi and Ernst quoted in Sullivan, “Republicans Hail Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Ruling”; Clinton quoted in “Hillary Clinton Calls SCOTUS’s Hobby Lobby Decision Deeply Disturbing,” Talking Points Memo Livewire, June 30, 2014.

143. United Church of Christ Statement, July 30, 2014, available on Press Release Newswire.

144. Amiri, Brigitte, “A Loss for Women Today in the High Court,” ACLU Reproductive Project, June 30, 2014.Google Scholar

145. Bassett, Laura and Reilly, Ryan J., “Supreme Court Rules in Hobby Lobby Case, Dealing Blow to Birth Control Coverage,” Huffington Post, June 30, 2014Google Scholar.

146. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg dissent, 33.

147. For a list of the pending cases and a discussion of their status, see The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s website: http://www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/.

148. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg dissent, 35.

149. Ibid., 17.

150. Ibid., 25.

151. Richards quoted in Basset and Reilly, “Supreme Court Rules in Hobby Lobby Case”; United Church of Christ Press Release, available on Press Release Newswire.