*1 302 in re-
terest the normal situation to even quire pregnant remain a dur- woman to following
ing early months her con- the
ception. police power, the Under its state regulate aspects of abortion.
can Thus, certain permissible to it for the state is by
require that abortions be conducted
qualified physicians. police power The not, however, it
of the entitle state does right deny re
to to a woman the basic
served to her under the ninth amend carry
ment to she decide whether should yet reject embryo or has not an which challenged
quickened. of The sections present
the suffer Wisconsin statute infirmity
from an of fatal overbreadth. Clarie, J., dissented.
V. CONCLUSION plaintiff a declarato- The is entitled to declaring 940.04(1) judgment ry and § (5) States of United Con- violative the plaintiff The not entitled is stitution. injunction enjoining an the defend-
to in office from or their successors
ants plaintiff
prosecuting the under 940.- § 04(1) (5). and
It is so ordered.
DOE,
Mrs. Jane
Individually and on be-
half of her
dependent
child,
minor
Scott,
in
and
behalf of all others simi-
larly situated
Cimmino, Waterbury
Nicholas J.
Le
v.
gal
Inc.,
Service,
Aid & Reference
Water
HARDER,
John
Acting Commissioner of
bury, Conn.,
Lesser, Legal
and David
Aid
Department.
Connecticut State Welfare
Bureau,
Haven,
(William
New
Conn.
H.
Civ. No. 13093.
Jr.,
Clendenen,
Legal
New Haven
As
Assn.,
Sims, Legal
sistance
and Allen
Aid
United
Court,
States District
Haven,
counsel)
Bureau,
Conn.,
New
of
D. Connecticut.
plaintiff.
for
4,
March
1970.
MacGregor, Asst.Atty.Gen.
Francis J.
Appeal
22,
Dismissed June
1970.
Connecticut,
Conn.,
Hartford,
of
de-
for
See
dren
Department regulation providing termi- illegitimate payments to an
nation of the
child the mother refused to name if regulations father. The were child’s provide termination of then amended to CENTER, GREENBRIAR SHOPPING payments the to mother rather than the INC., Plaintiff, of child in such Three members cases. v. having plaintiff, as- the class of had Inc., COMPANY, LORNE Defendant and regulation, the sistance under terminated Third-Party Plaintiff, judgment contempt and a intervene seek v. against acting Com- the State Welfare COM- TEXAS PACIFIC INDEMNITY injunction. missioner for violation the of Third-Party PANY, Defendant. appears dispute the There be no on to Civ. A. No. 10637. qualified facts. The are under movants regulations except the the and for laws Court, States District United regulation 3, November 1969. amended of Georgia, N. D. 3460.22, I, Chapter III Vol. 3460.23 §§ Atlanta Division. regulation, in and P-3460.1. This while 3, March 1969. than form at the mother rather directed orig- child, the the same as the has vice inal. It to the reduces the assistance
family creating eligi- by an additional
bility requirement that held identical to by and not fed-
invalid .authorized the a
eral the statute. This is of violation injunction. Compare, McComb v. Jack- 187, Paper Co., 336 U.S. 69 S.Ct.
sonville 497, (1949). require- L.Ed. This 93 599 regulation
ment the of invalid. is in
Defendant Harder is therefore con-
tempt injunction by the this of issued may by purge court. He restor- himself ing days within 30 the hereof from date intervening any plaintiffs,
to the and situated, similarly
others the assitance regulation. The
denied under the invalid
question appropriate de- of sanction if purge does of
fendant not himself con-
tempt days. for is continued 30
CLAR1E, separate in J., a dissents
opinion.