---
title: "Doe v. Bolton"
description: "Georgia's procedural requirements are unconstitutional. The 'health' exception recognized by the statute must be construed broadly to include 'all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age.'"
type: "case"
court: "U.S. Supreme Court"
decided: "1973-01-22"
citation: "410 U.S. 179 (1973)"
docket: "70-40"
status: "Overruled by Dobbs"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/doe-v-bolton-1973.html"
---

# Doe v. Bolton

_Full caption: Doe et al. v. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, et al._

**Citation:** 410 U.S. 179 (1973) · **Docket No.** 70-40

**Status:** Overruled by Dobbs

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Argued | December 13, 1971 |
| Decided | January 22, 1973 |
| Vote | 7-2 |
| Majority author | Blackmun, J. |
| Joined by | Burger, C.J.; Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, JJ. |

## Question presented

Whether Georgia's Model Penal Code-style abortion statute (permitting abortion only in cases of danger to woman's life or health, fetal defect, or rape) — with procedural requirements including hospital accreditation, committee approval, and two concurring physicians — is constitutional.

## Holding

Georgia's procedural requirements are unconstitutional. The 'health' exception recognized by the statute must be construed broadly to include 'all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age.'

## Reasoning

Justice Blackmun struck down Georgia's procedural restrictions as unduly burdening the constitutional right recognized in Roe. Critically, the opinion defined 'health' expansively — a definition that became the operational engine of Roe's regime.

## Opinions

### Majority — Blackmun, J.

_Joined by Burger, C.J.; Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, JJ._

Georgia's procedural requirements are unconstitutional. The 'health' exception recognized by the statute must be construed broadly to include 'all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age.'

### Concurrence — Burger, C.J.

_Not joined by any other justice_

Joined majority but emphasized narrow scope.

### Concurrence — Douglas, J.

_Not joined by any other justice_

Elaborated on the right to privacy.

### Dissent — White, J.

_Joined by Rehnquist, J._

Same dissent as in Roe: called the Court's rulings 'an exercise of raw judicial power.'

### Dissent — Rehnquist, J.

_Not joined by any other justice_

Historical dissent noting states' authority to regulate.

## Key quotes

> "The medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."
> — Blackmun, J. (majority) · 410 U.S. at 192

## Practical effect

Combined with Roe, Doe's 'health' definition meant that no abortion could be effectively prohibited at any stage if a willing physician would attest to any of the listed factors. Pro-life advocates have described the result as 'abortion on demand through all nine months.'

## Perspectives

The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case.

### Abolitionist framing

Abolitionists cite Doe as showing that Roe's 'health' exception was designed to permit abortion on demand. The 'psychological/familial' health rationale is criticized as unlimited.

### Mainstream pro-life framing

Mainstream pro-life groups have long argued that Doe's expansive 'health' definition, combined with Roe, effectively legalized abortion throughout pregnancy. This framing is now central to the movement's history.

### Pro-choice framing

Advocates view Doe as necessary companion to Roe, ensuring that women's health could not be sacrificed to fetal life.

## Significance

Companion case to Roe. Overruled by Dobbs but historically foundational to understanding Roe-era abortion access.

| Measure | Score |
| --- | --- |
| Overall significance | 7 / 10 |
| Legal precedential weight | 8 |
| Practical impact on access | 9 |
| Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 7 |
| Enduring relevance, 2026 | 4 |

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/179](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/179/)

### Secondary sources

- [itgoestoofar.com/doe-v-bolton](https://www.itgoestoofar.com/doe-v-bolton)

## Related cases

**Cites earlier cases:**

- [Roe v. Wade (1973)](roe-v-wade-1973.md)
- [Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)](griswold-v-connecticut-1965.md)

**Cited by later cases:**

- [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md)
- [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)](dobbs-v-jackson-2022.md)

## Notes

Sandra Cano, the 'Mary Doe' plaintiff, later became a pro-life activist and repeatedly sought (unsuccessfully) to overturn the ruling in her own name.