text:
Page:A history concerning the pension claim of Harriet Tubman.djvu/5

 she be app'd “Nurse or Matron” as appears by the following copy of an original paper in her possession.

“I have the honor to inform you that the Medical Director Dept. of Virginia, has been instructed to appoint Harriet Tubman Nurse or Matron at the Colored Hospital, Fort Monroe, Va.

Very Resp’y

Signed your obt. Servant

To Hon. W.H. Seward
 * Sec. Of State
 * Washington

and with the following pass she returned to Fortress Monroe:

“No. 663

"Permit Harriet Tubman to proceed to Fortress Monroe, Va. on Government transport free of cost.

It does not appear that she rec’d the appointment above indicated and soon after this date she returned to Washington—and thence home—to devote herself since the country’s need had ceased to her aged Father & Mother


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Haugesund

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Haugesund


text:
Page:A history concerning the pension claim of Harriet Tubman.djvu/6

 who still survive at a very advanced age entirely dependent on her.

During the service of more than three years. Harriet states that she received from the Gov’t only two hundred dollars ($200) of pay. This was paid her at or near Beaufort, and with characteristic indifference to self—she immediately devoted that sum to the erection of a wash-house, in which she spent a portion of her time in teaching the freed women to do washing—to aid in supporting themselves instead of depending wholly on Gov’t aid. During her absence with an important expedition in Florida this washhouse was destroyed or appropriated by a Reg’t of troops fresh from the north to make shelter for themselves but without any compensation whatever to Harriet. When she first went to Beaufort she was allowed to draw rations as an officer or soldier, but the freed people becoming jealous of this privilege accorded her—she voluntarily relinquished this right and thereafter supplied her


text:
Page:A history concerning the pension claim of Harriet Tubman.djvu/7

 personal wants by selling pies and root beer—which she made during the evenings and nights—when not engaged in important service for the Gov’t.

The value and extent of Harriet’s services to the Government seems to be sufficiently attested by the papers—copies of which are herewith, and originals now in her possession. But General Saxton certifies more explicitly and under later date as follows:

Copy

Chief & Masters office

Atlanta Go. March 21st 1888.

“Dear Madam:

I have just rec’d your letter in regard to Harriet Tubman. I can bear witness to the value of her services rendered in the Union Army during the late war in South Carolina and Florida. She was employed in the Hospitals and as a spy. She made many a raid inside the enemy’s lines displaying remarkable courage, zeal and fidelity.

She was employed by Gen’l Hunter and I think both by Generals Stevens and Sherman—and is as


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Haughton, Samuel


text:
Page:A history concerning the pension claim of Harriet Tubman.djvu/8

 deserving of a pension from the Government for her services as any other of its faithful servants.

Signed very truly yours, Rufus Saxton Bvt. Brig. General U. S. A.

To Mrs. Mary Derby Auburn, N.Y.

When in Washington in July 1865 Harriet was in need of money, and applied to Mr. Sec. Seward to present her claim to the proper Department. Gen'l Hunter being then in Washington, Mr. Seward refered the matter to him in a note, of which the annexed is a copy:

", July 25, 1865.

Harriet Tubman, a colored woman, has been nursing our soldiers during nearly all the war. She believes she has claims for faithful services to the command in South Carolina, with which you are connected, and she thinks that you would be disposed to see her claim justly settled.

I have known her long as a noble, high spirit, as true as seldom dwells in the human form. I commend her therefore to your kind attention.

Faithfully your friend,

Major"

But no pay whatever was obtained—and another attempt has been made since—I believe with the same result.

This letter of Mr. Seward shows the estimate of Harriet Tubman by all who know her—she is known throught this State and New England as an honest, earnest and most self-sacrificing woman. The substance of this statement has been obtained from her lips and in making it up I have before me the original


text:
Page:A history concerning the pension claim of Harriet Tubman.djvu/9

 papers in her possession, which are copied.

That Harriet is entitled to several thousands of dollars pay—there can be no shadow of doubt—the only difficulty seems to be in the facts that she held no commission, and has not in the regular way and at the proper times and places, made proof and application of and for, her just compensation. On such certificates as she holds she should have it without further delay.

Auburn, June 1st 1868


text:
Page:Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala.djvu/67

CH. IV.] Whoever has read Anson's voyage will remember the delight which his poor sailors experienced when they could, at length, put their foot a-shore: they are described as reviving at every step they took upon terra firma. The delight they experienced in leaving the sea for the dry land could not have been greater than that which I felt in leaving the land to plunge into the sea. I never enjoyed a bath so much in my life, but I was, accidentally, inconvenienced in the operation, in a manner which I could not have foreseen. I had hung my shirt on a Nopal shrub on the beech, which was in a flowering state, and emitted from its buds myriads of little prickles, the whole of which were transferred to my body. My agony, added to the intense heat of the climate, was excruciating; it was in vain to attempt to pick them out, for even if I had had the patience to do so, the thing was impracticable, for they had adhesion enough to keep their hold, whilst the slightest attempt to withdraw them


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 62.djvu/70

 His debaucheries and his riotous frolics were often the outcome of long spells of drunkenness. Towards the end of his life he declared that he was under the influence of drink for five consecutive years. At the same time he cultivated a brilliant faculty for amorous lyrics, obscene rhymes, and mordant satires in verse, and, although he quickly ruined his physical health by his excesses, his intellect retained all its vivacity till death.

The king readily admitted him to the closest intimacy. He was Charles's companion in many of the meanest and most contemptible of the king's amorous adventures, and often acted as a spy upon those which he was not invited to share. But although his obscene conversation and scorn for propriety amused the king, there was no love lost between them, and Rochester's position at court was always precarious. His biting tongue and his practical jokes spared neither the king nor the ministers nor the royal mistresses, and, according to Gramont, he was dismissed in disgrace at least once a year. It was (Pepys wrote) ‘to the king's everlasting shame to have so idle a rogue his companion’ (, viii. 231–2). He clearly exerted over Charles an irresistible fascination, and he was usually no sooner dismissed the court than he was recalled. He wrote many ‘libels’ on the king, which reeked with gross indecency, but his verses included the familiar epigram on the ‘sovereign lord’ who ‘never said a foolish thing and never did a wise one’ (‘Miscellany Poems’ appended to Miscellaneous Works of Rochester and Roscommon, 1707, p. 135). He lacked all sense of shame, and rebuffs had no meaning for him. On 16 Feb. 1668–9 he accompanied the king and other courtiers to a dinner at the Dutch ambassador's. Offended by a remark of a fellow-guest, Thomas Killigrew, he boxed his ears in the royal presence. Charles II overlooked the breach of etiquette, and next day walked publicly up and down with Rochester at court to the dismay of seriously minded spectators. When he attempted to steal a kiss from the Duchess of Cleveland as she left her carriage, he was promptly laid on his back by a blow from her hand; but, leaping to his feet, he recited an impromptu compliment.

On one occasion, when bidden to withdraw from court, he took up his residence under an assumed name in the city of London, and, gaining admission to civic society, disclosed and mockingly denounced the degraded debaucheries of the king and the king's friends. Subsequently he set up as a quack doctor under the name of Alexander Bendo, taking lodgings in Tower Street, and having a stall on Tower Hill. He amused himself by dispensing advice and cosmetics among credulous women. A speech which he is said to have delivered in the character of a medical mountebank proves him to have acted his part with much humour and somewhat less freedom than might have been anticipated (prefixed to the ‘Poetical Works of Sir Charles Sedley,’ 1710;, Memoirs). At another time, according to Saint-Évremond, he and the Duke of Buckingham took an inn on the Newmarket road, and, while pretending to act as tavern-keepers, conspired to corrupt all the respectable women of the neighbourhood. On relinquishing the adventure they joined the king at Newmarket, and were welcomed with delight.

With the many ladies of doubtful reputation who thronged the court Rochester had numerous intrigues, but he showed their waiting women as much attention as themselves. Elizabeth Barry [q.v.], ‘woman to the Lady Shelton of Norfolk,’ he took into his keeping. He taught her to act, and introduced her to the stage, where she pursued a highly successful career. Some of his letters to her were published after his death. A daughter by her lived to the age of thirteen.

Despite his libertine exploits, Rochester succeeded in repairing his decaying fortune by a wealthy marriage. The king encouraged him to pay addresses to Elizabeth, daughter of John Malet of Enmere, Somerset, by Elizabeth, daughter of Francis, baron Hawley of Donamore. Pepys described her as ‘the great beauty and fortune of the north.’ Gramont called her a ‘melancholy heiress.’ Not unnaturally she rejected Rochester's suit, whereupon he resorted to violence. On 26 May 1665 the lady supped with the king's mistress, Frances Teresa Stuart (or Stewart) [q. v.], and left with her grandfather, Lord Hawley. At Charing Cross Rochester and his agents stopped the horses and forcibly removed her to another coach, which was rapidly driven out of London. A hue and cry was raised, Rochester was followed to Uxbridge, where he was arrested, and, on being brought to London, was committed to the Tower by order of the king (, Diary, ed. Wheatley, iv. 419). Miss Malet was not captured, and Rochester was soon released with a pardon. In 1667 he married the lady, and remained on fairly good terms with her till his death (cf. his letters to her in Whartoniana, 1727, vol. ii.).

Rochester's marriage did not alter his relations with the king or the court. In 1666 he was made a gentleman of the king's bedchamber. On 5 Oct. 1667, although still under age, he was summoned to the House


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 62.djvu/71

 of Lords, and in 1674 he received a special mark of royal favour by being appointed keeper of Woodstock Park, with a lodge called ‘High Lodge’ for residence. On 24 Nov. 1670 Evelyn met him at dinner at the lord treasurer's, and described him as ‘a profane wit’ (, Diary, ii. 254). In June 1676 he, (Sir) George Etherege, and three friends engaged in a drunken frolic at Epsom, ending in a skirmish with ‘the watch at Epsom,’ in the course of which one of the roisterers (Downes) received a fatal wound (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 467; Hatton Correspondence, i. 133).

Meanwhile Rochester played the rôle of a patron of the poets, and showed characteristic fickleness in his treatment of them. He was a shrewd and exacting critic, as his caustic and ill-natured remarks in his clever imitation of the ‘Tenth Satire’ of Horace, bk. i., and in the ‘Session of the Poets’ (printed in his works), amply prove. About 1670 he showed many attentions to Dryden, who flattered him extravagantly when dedicating to him his ‘Marriage à la Mode’ (1673). But Rochester fell out with Dryden's chief patron, John Sheffield, earl of Mulgrave [q. v.]; he is said to have engaged in a duel with Mulgrave and to have shown the white feather. By way of retaliating on Mulgrave, he soon ostentatiously disparaged Dryden and encouraged Dryden's feeble rivals, Elkanah Settle and John Crowne. He contrived to have Settle's tragedy, ‘The Empress of Morocco,’ acted at Whitehall in 1671, and wrote a prologue, which he spoke himself. Crowne dedicated to him his ‘Charles VIII of France’ next year, and at the earl's suggestion he wrote the ‘Masque of Calisto,’ which Rochester recommended for performance at court in 1675. The younger dramatists Nathaniel Lee and Thomas Otway also shared his favours for a time. In 1675 he commended Otway's ‘Alcibiades,’ and interested the Duke of York in the young author. Otway dedicated to him his ‘Titus and Berenice’ in 1677; but when the dramatist ventured to make advances to Rochester's mistress, Mrs. Barry the actress, Rochester showed him small mercy. Lee, who dedicated to Rochester ‘Nero,’ his first piece, commemorated his patronage in his description of Count Rosidore in his ‘Princess of Cleves,’ which was first produced in November 1681. Another protégé, whom Rochester treated with greater constancy, was John Oldham (1653–1683) [q. v.] Sir George Etherege is said to have drawn from Rochester the character of the libertine Dorimant in the ‘Man of Mode, or Sir Fopling Flutter,’ which was first acted at the Duke's Theatre in 1676 (, Works, ed. Verity, p. xiv; cf., Le Public et les Hommes de Lettres en Angleterre, 1660–1744, Paris, 1881, pp. 92 sq.)

In 1679 Rochester's health failed, although he was able to correspond gaily with his friend Henry Savile on the congenial topics of wine and women. During his convalescence in the autumn he, to the surprise of his friends, sought recreation in reading the first part of Gilbert Burnet's ‘History of the Reformation.’ He invited the author to visit him, and encouraged him to talk of religion and morality. Rochester, in his feeble condition of body, seems to have found Burnet's conversation consolatory. In April 1680 he left London for the High Lodge at Woodstock Park. The journey aggravated his ailments, and he began to recognise that recovery was impossible. He showed signs of penitence for his misspent life. After listening attentively to the pious exhortations of his chaplain, Robert Parsons (1647–1714) [q. v.], he wrote on 25 June to Burnet begging him to come and receive his deathbed repentance. Burnet arrived on 20 July, and remained till the 24th, spending the four days in spiritual discourse. ‘I do verily believe,’ Burnet wrote, ‘he was then so entirely changed that, if he had recovered, he would have made good all his resolutions.’ Rochester died two days after Burnet left him, on 26 July. He was buried in the north aisle of Spelsbury church in Oxfordshire, but without any monument or inscribed stone to distinguish his grave (cf., Woodstock, suppl. 1874, pp. 25–36). His bed is still preserved at High Lodge.

Rochester's will, with a codicil dated 22 June 1680, was proved on 23 Feb. 1680–1. His executors included, besides his wife and mother, whom he entreated to live in amity with one another, Sir Walter St. John, his mother's brother, and Sir Allen Apsley (1616–1683) [q. v.] Settlements had already been made on his wife and son; 4,000l. was left to each of his three daughters; an annuity of 40l. was bestowed on an infant named Elizabeth Clerke; and other sums were bequeathed to servants (Wills from Doctors' Commons, Camd. Soc., pp. 139–41).

Sympathetic elegies came from the pens of Mrs. Anne Wharton, Jack How [i.e. John Grubham Howe [q.v.] ], Edmund Waller (Examen Miscellaneum, 1702), Thomas Flatman, and Oldham. His chaplain, Robert Parsons, preached a funeral sermon which gave a somewhat sensational account of his ‘death and repentance,’ and attracted general attention when it was published. A more edificatory account of Rochester's


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 62.djvu/72

, which made even greater sensation than Parsons's sermon, was published by Burnet under the title ‘Some Passages of the Life and Death of John, Earl of Rochester,’ 1680, 8vo. Like Parsons's volume, it was constantly reissued. A modern reprint, with a preface by Lord Ronald Gower, appeared in 1875. Of the episode of his visit to Rochester's deathbed Burnet wrote: ‘Nor was the king displeased with my being sent for by Wilmot, earl of Rochester, when he died. He fancied that he had told me many things of which I might make an ill use; yet he had read the book that I writ concerning him, and spoke well of it’ (, Own Times, 1823, ii. 288).

Rochester's widow survived him about thirteen months, dying suddenly of apoplexy, and being buried at Spelsbury on 20 Aug. 1681 (cf. Hatton Correspondence, ii. 6). By her he left a son and three daughters. The son, Charles, third and last earl of Rochester of the Wilmot family, baptised at Adderbury on 2 Jan. 1670–1, survived his father scarcely two years, dying on 12 Nov. and being buried on 7 Dec. 1681 by his father's side. The earldom thus became extinct, but it was recreated in favour of Lawrence Hyde [q. v.] on 29 Nov. 1682. Rochester's eldest daughter and heiress, Anne, married, first, Henry Bayntun of Bromham, Wiltshire; and, secondly, Francis Greville, leaving issue by both husbands, and being ancestress by her second husband of the Grevilles, earls of Warwick. Elizabeth, Rochester's second daughter, who is said to have inherited much of her father's wit, married Edward Montagu, third earl of Sandwich, and died at Paris on 2 July 1757. Rochester's third daughter, Malet, married John Vaughan, second viscount Lisburne.

The best portrait of Rochester is that by Sir Peter Lely at Hinchinbrooke, the seat of the Earl of Sandwich. In a portrait at Warwick Castle he is represented crowning a monkey with laurel. A third portrait, by Wissing, is in the National Portrait Gallery. A fourth portrait of Rochester in youth belonged in 1866 to Col. Sir E. S. Prideaux, bart. (Cat. National Portraits at South Kensington, 1866). Two engravings of him were made by R. White—one in large size dated 1681, and the other on a smaller scale, which was prefixed to the first edition of Burnet's ‘Some Passages,’ 1680. There is also an engraved miniature signed ‘D[avid] L[oggan] 1671.’

Rochester had as sprightly a lyric gift as any writer of the Restoration. As a satirist he showed much insight and vigour, and, according to Aubrey, Marvell regarded him as the best satirist of his time. But he was something of a plagiarist. His ‘Satire against Mankind’ owes much to Boileau, and to Cowley his lyrics were often deeply indebted. His literary work was disfigured by his incorrigibly licentious temper. The sentiment in his love songs is transparently artificial whenever it is not offensively obscene. Numerous verses of gross indecency which have been put to his credit in contemporary miscellanies of verse may be from other pens. But there is enough foulness in his fully authenticated poems to give him a title to be remembered as the writer of the filthiest verse in the language. His muse has been compared to a well-favoured child which wilfully and wantonly rolls itself in the mud, and is so besmeared with dirt that the ordinary wayfarer prefers rather to rush hastily by than pause to discover its native charms (Mr. Edmund Gosse in English Poets, ii. 425).

It is said that on his deathbed Rochester directed all his licentious writings to be destroyed, and that after his death his mother ordered a scandalous history of contemporary court intrigues to be burnt. Of that work nothing is known, and the order may have been carried out, but much else survives. The bibliography of Rochester's poems is difficult owing to the number of poems that are attributed to him in miscellaneous collections of verse of which he was probably not the author (cf. Poems on Affairs of State, passim; Examen Miscellaneum, 1702). No complete critical collection of his works has been attempted. His ‘Satires against Mankind,’ his poem on ‘Nothing,’ and others of ‘his lewd and profane poems’ and libels appeared as penny broadsides in single folio sheets at the close of his life—in 1679 and 1680—doubtless surreptitiously. According to the advertisement to Parsons's sermon, ‘they were cry'd about the street.’ The letter in which he summoned Burnet to his deathbed also appeared as a broadside in 1680.

Within a few months of his death a short series of ‘Poems on several Occasions by the Right Honourable the E. of R——’ was issued, professedly at ‘Antwerpen,’ but really in London (1680, 8vo). The volume was reprinted in London in 1685, with some omissions and modifications, as ‘Poems on several Occasions, written by a late Person of Honour.’ Some additions were made to another issue of 1691, in which are to be found all his authenticated lyrics. This was reissued in 1696.

Meanwhile there appeared an adaptation by Rochester, in poor taste, of Beaumont and Fletcher's tragedy of ‘Valentinian,’ under the title ‘Valentinian: a Tragedy.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wilmot, John (1647-1680)


text:
Page:Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala.djvu/68

48 broke them short off on the surface of the skin. This incident, trifling as it may appear, caused the night, which was excessively hot, and the following day, to pass most miserably.

Whilst walking on the shore, in the evening, I fell into conversation with a respectable elderly man, an old Spaniard, who, in spite of the badness of trade, was still carrying on his mercantile affairs in this comparatively abandoned port. He was of commanding and rather robust stature, wore his hair combed back and powdered, with a pigtail; had on drab kerseymere breeches unbuttoned at the knees, black and white speckled silk stockings, an ample pair of shoes, and a small pair of diamond buckles: the above, with a shirt of the finest cambric, nicely plaited all over and unconfined at the collar, completed his costume. He invited me to his house, and, as I happened to know many of his intimate friends in Mexico, I was glad to go and have a chat with him. He


text:
Page:Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala.djvu/69

CH. IV.] was very fond of cold water and cigars; his two hammocks were suspended in thorough draughts: he spat all about the stone floor, and used half a dozen clean silver forks to eat his dinner with. The gentleman of whom I speak is Don Juan M—a, and, I repeat, a thorough old Spaniard, for he knows how to regard new fangled institutions with a sneering indifference, and those of antiquated prescription with an indififerent sneer; and, whilst possessing cunning enough to appear temperate, and almost temperance enough to hide his cunning, he has a warm heart with a chill of prejudice, as though he were a compound of his puro and his eau-sucré. He had formerly been a physician, and he even now attends the hospital and the poor who may require his services gratuitously.

The Juez de Letras was applied to by Mr. Barcaistegie, with a view of seeing if any thing could be elicited from my servants respecting the robbery; but, as I suspected, nothing came out on their


text:
Page:Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala.djvu/70

50, although taken separately, which could lead to their crimination.

The Carmen, Indiaman, Captain Proudfoot, from China, was lying in the harbour, and we went on board her: she had suffered dreadfully in a gale, a fortnight before she made the port, had lost her mizen, and was so leaky that they had been able to save her only by passing a sail under her, which had fortunately effected the purpose required. She was laden with China goods, the duties of which would have been valuable to the Government, if they had been made available; but, from the system which was going on, I had much doubt whether they would prove so, to any thing like the extent which the republic had a right to expect.

In the evening, about 200 troops were reviewed in the Plaza. On one side of this square, is a shed where some of the authorities, and particularly the Commissary General, were sitting and going through their business with solemnity and


text:
Page:CooperBull1(3).djvu/3

Rh hit the high places along the way. It was a beautiful, clear morning and we had a magnificent view of the country as our trail led along the summits of the mountains for some distance. We could see one hundred miles in any direction, with Mexico on one side of us and the United States on the other. Mountain ranges seventy five miles away did not seem more than twenty-five. After walking for an hour or so re came to my first nest, a Grace's Warbler, together with which I secured a fine set of three slightly incubated eggs and the parent bird. After packing the eggs and the bird we went on until I found a nest of Coues' Flycatcher from which we secured a fine set of four eggs. Next came an Audubon's Warbler's nest which I had found building the week before. It was situated near the end of a long branch in the top of a red fir tree about sixty feet up. While trying to secure this nest I heard an Olive Warbler not far off and soon after I observed a fine male in the branches above my head.

While watching him the female made her appearance and soon after went to her nest which was placed on a large limb of the same tree and not far from the trunk. It was quite a temptation to examine this nest first, but as I had already tied the rope front the limb which held the Audubon's nest to the main trunk above, I thought I had better finish the job, so I crawled out on the limb and with one hand on the rope I reached out for the eggs with the other, but just as my fingers touched the nest the limb broke off short between myself and the trunk and left me hanging by the rope. I lost the set of Audubon's Warbler and came near losing my life with them, but I managed to get back to the trunk of the tree all right and a few minutes later I had forgotten all about it, as I reached out and took the four perfectly fresh Olive Warbler's eggs front the nest above, one by one. I also secured the female and the nest with a large piece of the limb. I know of only one other set, besides those taken by myself, which was taken, I believe, by Mr. Price of Stanford University some years ago and which is now in the Smithsonian Institution.

I found this variety, or rather subspecies, along the San Pedro River, near the Mexican Line and also near Tucson, but had a better chance to observe them along the San Pedro, where I found several nests placed in willow and mesquite trees, generally in upright forks from ten to twenty-five feet up. The nests are very much like those of the Yellow Warbler, likewise the eggs. All the nests I found contained two eggs of the Dwarf Cowbird

Grace's Warbler is equally as rare, if not more so, than the Olive. During three seasons' collecting in the mountains of Southern Arizona I have seen only four or five of these birds, two of which had nests. They are very shy and, like the Olive, keep well up in the pines in the thick foliage, except when they have a nest and then they become quite bold. While walking along the summit of a ridge one morning about the middle of June, I came to a likely looking pine and began to look through it for general results. After stretching my neck for several minutes I spied a single straw protruding front a thick bunch of pine needles. This aroused quite a little suspicion in my mind so laid down my climbers, collecting-box and gun and tried to look into the bunch of needles, looking from all directions, but could not see any other signs of a nest. I could have easily climbed up and made sure, but it was soon after breakfast, and I knew that I would have a great amount of climbing to do later on that day, so I picked up my traps and moved on, but had only gone a short distance when I noticed a Grace's Warbler hopping about in a bush. While I stood watching, it flew to the ground and picked up some fine straws and carried them to the bunch of pine-needles, out of which I had

title: Page:CooperBull1(3).djvu/3


text:
Gonzales v. Carhart

Following this Court's Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, decision that Nebraska's "partial birth abortion" statute violated the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Act) to proscribe a particular method of ending fetal life in the later stages of pregnancy. The Act does not regulate the most common abortion procedures used in the first trimester of pregnancy, when the vast majority of abortions take place. In the usual second-trimester procedure, "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraska's, is a variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as "intact D&E." The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull.

The Act responded to Stenberg in two ways. First, Congress found that unlike this Court in Stenberg, it was not required to accept the District Court's factual findings, and that there was a moral, medical, and ethical consensus that partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. Second, the Act's language differs from that of the Nebraska statute struck down in Stenberg. Among other things, the Act prohibits "knowingly perform[ing] a partial-birth abortion...that is [not] necessary to save the life of a mother," 18 U.S.C. § 1531(a). It defines "partial-birth abortion," § 1531(b)(1), as a procedure in which the doctor: "(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the [mother's] body...,or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the [mother's] body...,for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus"; and "(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the fetus."

In No. 05–380, respondent abortion doctors challenged the Act's constitutionality on its face, and the Federal District Court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting petitioner Attorney General from enforcing the Act in all cases but those in which there was no dispute the fetus was viable. The court found the Act unconstitutional because it (1) lacked an exception allowing the prohibited procedure where necessary for the mother's health and (2) covered not merely intact D&E but also other D&Es. Affirming, the Eighth Circuit found that a lack of consensus existed in the medical community as to the banned procedure's necessity, and thus Stenberg required legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception. In No. 05–1382, respondent abortion advocacy groups brought suit challenging the Act. The District Court enjoined the Attorney General from enforcing the Act, concluding it was unconstitutional on its face because it (1) unduly burdened a woman's ability to choose a secondtrimester abortion, (2) was too vague, and (3) lacked a health exception as required by Stenberg. The Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed.

Held: Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. Pp. 145–168.

1. The Casey Court reaffirmed what it termed Roe's three-part "essential holding": First, a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Second, the State has the power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering the woman's life or health. And third, the State has legitimate interests from the pregnancy's outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. 505 U.S., at 846. Though all three are implicated here, it is the third that requires the most extended discussion. In deciding whether the Act furthers the Government's legitimate interest in protecting fetal life, the Court assumes, inter alia, that an undue burden on the previability abortion right exists if a regulation's "purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the [woman's] path," id., at 878, but that "[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State...may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose," id., at 877. Casey struck a balance that was central to its holding, and the Court applies Casey 's standard here. A central premise of Casey 's joint opinion--that the government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life--would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments below. Pp. 145–146.

2. The Act, on its face, is not void for vagueness and does not impose an undue burden from any overbreadth. Pp. 146–156.

(a) The Act's text demonstrates that it regulates and proscribes performing the intact D&E procedure. First, since the doctor must "vaginally delive[r] a living fetus," § 1531(b)(1)(A), the Act does not restrict abortions involving delivery of an expired fetus or those not involving vaginal delivery, e. g., hysterotomy or hysterectomy. And it applies both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. Second, because the Act requires the living fetus to be delivered to a specific anatomical landmark depending on the fetus' presentation, ibid., an abortion not involving such partial delivery is permitted. Third, because the doctor must perform an "overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered fetus," § 1531(b)(1)(B), the "overt act" must be separate from delivery. It must also occur after delivery to an anatomical landmark, since killing "the partially delivered" fetus, when read in context, refers to a fetus that has been so delivered, ibid. Fourth, given the Act's scienter requirements, delivery of a living fetus past an anatomical landmark by accident or inadvertence is not a crime because it is not "deliberat[e] and intentiona[l]," §1531(b)(1)(A). Nor is such a delivery prohibited if the fetus has not been delivered "for the purpose of performing an overt act that the [doctor] knows will kill [it]." Ibid. Pp. 146–148.

(b) The Act is not unconstitutionally vague on its face. It satisfies both requirements of the void-for-vagueness doctrine. First, it provides doctors "of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited," Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, setting forth "relatively clear guidelines as to prohibited conduct" and providing "objective criteria" to evaluate whether a doctor has performed a prohibited procedure, Posters ‘N' Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513, 525–526. Second, it does not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357. Its anatomical landmarks "establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement," Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 574, and its scienter requirements narrow the scope of its prohibition and limit prosecutorial discretion, see Kolender, supra, at 358. Respondents' arbitrary enforcement arguments, furthermore, are somewhat speculative, since this is a pre-enforcement challenge. Pp. 148–150.

(c) The Court rejects respondents' argument that the Act imposes an undue burden, as a facial matter, because its restrictions on second-trimester abortions are too broad. Pp. 150–156.

(i) The Act's text discloses that it prohibits a doctor from intentionally performing an intact D&E. Its dual prohibitions correspond with the steps generally undertaken in this procedure: The doctor (1) delivers the fetus until its head lodges in the cervix, usually past the anatomical landmark for a breech presentation, see § 1531(b)(1)(A), and (2) proceeds to the overt act of piercing or crushing the fetal skull after the partial delivery, see § 1531(b)(1)(B). The Act's scienter requirements limit its reach to those physicians who carry out the intact D&E, with the intent to undertake both steps at the outset. The Act excludes most D&Es in which the doctor intends to remove the fetus in pieces from the outset. This interpretation is confirmed by comparing the Act with the Nebraska statute in Stenberg. There, the Court concluded that the statute encompassed D&E, which "often involve[s] a physician pulling a 'substantial portion' of a still living fetus..., say, an arm or leg, into the vagina prior to the death of the fetus," 530 U.S., at 939, and rejected the Nebraska Attorney General's limiting interpretation that the statute's reference to a "procedure" that "'kill[s] the unborn child'" was to a distinct procedure, not to the abortion procedure as a whole, id., at 943. It is apparent Congress responded to these concerns because the Act adopts the phrase "delivers a living fetus," 18 U.S.C. § 1531(b)(1)(A), instead of "'delivering...a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof,'" 530 U.S., at 938, thereby targeting extraction of an entire fetus rather than removal of fetal pieces; identifies specific anatomical landmarks to which the fetus must be partially delivered, § 1531(b)(1)(A), thereby clarifying that the removal of a small portion of the fetus is not prohibited; requires the fetus to be delivered so that it is partially "outside the [mother's] body," ibid., thereby establishing that delivering a substantial portion of the fetus into the vagina would not subject a doctor to criminal sanctions; and adds the overtact requirement, § 1531(b)(1), thereby making the distinction the Nebraska statute failed to draw (but the Nebraska Attorney General advanced). Finally, the canon of constitutional avoidance, see, ''e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council'', 485 U.S. 568, 575, extinguishes any lingering doubt. Interpreting the Act not to prohibit standard D&E is the most reasonable reading and understanding of its terms. Pp. 150–154.

(ii) Respondents' contrary arguments are unavailing. The contention that any D&E may result in the delivery of a living fetus beyond the Act's anatomical landmarks because doctors cannot predict the amount the cervix will dilate before the procedure does not take account of the Act's intent requirements, which preclude liability for an accidental intact D&E. The evidence supports the legislative determination that an intact delivery is almost always a conscious choice rather than a happenstance, belying any claim that a standard D&E cannot be performed without intending or foreseeing an intact D&E. That many doctors begin every D&E with the objective of removing the fetus as intact as possible based on their belief that this is safer does not prove, as respondents suggest, that every D&E might violate the Act, thereby imposing an undue burden. It demonstrates only that those doctors must adjust their conduct to the law by not attempting to deliver the fetus to an anatomical landmark. Respondents have not shown that requiring doctors to intend dismemberment before such a delivery will prohibit the vast majority of D&E abortions. Pp. 154–156.

3. The Act, measured by its text in this facial attack, does not impose a "substantial obstacle" to late-term, but previability, abortions, as prohibited by the Casey plurality, 505 U.S., at 878. Pp. 156–167.

(a) The contention that the Act's congressional purpose was to create such an obstacle is rejected. The Act's stated purposes are protecting innocent human life from a brutal and inhumane procedure and protecting the medical community's ethics and reputation. The government undoubtedly "has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 731. Moreover, Casey reaffirmed that the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman. See, e. g., 505 U. S., at 873. The Act's ban on abortions involving partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the Government's objectives. Congress determined that such abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant. This Court has confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned. Glucksberg, supra, at 732–735, and n. 23. The Act also recognizes that respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in a mother's love for her child. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision, Casey, 505 U.S., at 852–853, which some women come to regret. In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence, some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the abortion procedure to be used. It is, however, precisely this lack of information that is of legitimate concern to the State. Id., at 873. The State's interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion. The objection that the Act accomplishes little because the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than intact D&E is unpersuasive. It was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion, more than standard D&E, undermines the public’s perception of the doctor's appropriate role during delivery, and perverts the birth process. Pp. 156–160.

(b) The Act's failure to allow the banned procedure's use where "'necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the [mother's] health,'" Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 327–328, does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right. The Court assumes the Act's prohibition would be unconstitutional, under controlling precedents, if it "subject[ed] [women] to significant health risks." Id., at 328. Whether the Act creates such risks was, however, a contested factual question below: The evidence presented in the trial courts and before Congress demonstrates both sides have medical support for their positions. The Court’s precedents instruct that the Act can survive facial attack when this medical uncertainty persists. See, e. g., Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 360, n. 3. This traditional rule is consistent with Casey, which confirms both that the State has an interest in promoting respect for human life at all stages in the pregnancy, and that abortion doctors should be treated the same as other doctors. Medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts. Other considerations also support the Court’s conclusion, including the fact that safe alternatives to the prohibited procedure, such as D&E, are available. In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of "a living fetus," 18 U.S.C. § 1531(b)(1)(A). ''Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth'', 428 U.S. 52, 77–79, distinguished. The Court rejects certain of the parties’ arguments. On the one hand, the Attorney General’s contention that the Act should be upheld based on the congressional findings alone fails because some of the Act’s recitations are factually incorrect, and some of the important findings have been superseded. Also unavailing, however, is respondents' contention that an abortion regulation must contain a health exception if "substantial medical authority supports the proposition that banning a particular procedure could endanger women’s health," Stenberg, 530 U.S., at 938. Interpreting Stenberg as leaving no margin for legislative error in the face of medical uncertainty is too exacting a standard. Marginal safety considerations, including the balance of risks, are within the legislative competence where, as here, the regulation is rational and pursues legitimate ends, and standard, safe medical options are available. Pp. 161–167.

4. These facial attacks should not have been entertained in the first instance. In these circumstances the proper means to consider exceptions is by as-applied challenge. Cf. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 546 U.S. 410, 412. This is the proper manner to protect the woman's health if it can be shown that in discrete and well-defined instances a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used. No as-applied challenge need be brought if the Act's prohibition threatens a woman's life, because the Act already contains a life exception. 18 U.S.C. § 1531(a). Pp. 167–168.

No. 05–380, 413 F. 3d 791; No. 05–1382, 435 F. 3d 1163, reversed.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined, post, p. 168. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 169.

Solicitor General Clement argued the cause for petitioner in both cases. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Solicitor General Garre, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Katsas, Kannon K. Shanmugam, Marleigh D. Dover, and Catherine Y. Hancock.

Priscilla J. Smith argued the cause for respondents in No. 05–380. With her on the brief were Janet Crepps, Nan E. Strauss, Sanford M. Cohen, and Jerry M. Hug. Eve C. Gartner argued the cause for Planned Parenthood respondents in No. 05–1382. With her on the brief were Roger K. Evans, Helene T. Krasnoff, and Beth H. Parker. Dennis J. Herrera, Therese M. Stewart, and Kathleen S. Morris filed a brief for respondent City and County of San Francisco in No. 05–1382.

title: Gonzales v. Carhart