*1 negli- whose of one in favor tort-feasor is re- gence passive, and no decision warranty of breach
quired on issues liability. and strict accordance herewith. order in Submit D.C., also,
See Sally Roe, suing on behalf Jane DOE and similarly others themselves all M.D., Danforth, situated, and David N. Wynn, Ralph Fields, M.D., M. Charles M.D., Zuspan, M.D., P. and Frederick suing and all on behalf themselves Plaintiffs, similarly situated, others Poe,
Mary Poe, by mother, Pauline her herself, oth suing and all on behalf Intervening similarly situated, Plain ers tiff, Attorney SCOTT, William J. General Illinois, the State of Han- and Edward V. rahan, Attorney of Coun- State’s Cook ty, Illinois, Defendants, Intervening Heffernan, Dr. Bart Defendant. A. No. C Civ. Court, United States District Illinois, D. N. D. E. Jan. *2 Horan, Dennis J. Thomas Crisham M. Frazel, Hinshaw, A. Jerome Culbert-
son, Moelmann, Fuller, Chicago, Hoban & 111., intervening for Hef- defendant Bart fernan. SWYGERT, Before Chief Circuit Judge,
Judge, ROBSON, Chief District CAMPBELL, Judge. Senior District MEMORANDUM OPINION Judge. SWYGERT, Chief Circuit declaratory This is an action for brought injunctive relief declare violative Illinois statute1 is of the United States Constitution for one three-judge or more After a .reasons.2 parties district court was convened the arguments were ordered to restrict their allegations that the statute is un- constitutionally vague and unconstitu- tionally pregnant invades the argument heard, women. Oral was multiplic- the case is now before us on a ity including of motions cross-motions plaintiffs summary and defendants for judgment. Roe, suing anony-
Plaintiffs Doe and
mously on behalf of themselves and all
similarly
other women
situated, assert
they
legal,
were unable to obtain
medically safe abortions in Illinois be-
physicians reasonably
cause their
be-
they
perform
lieved that
could not
such
operation upon
without
prosecution by
fear of
defendant
law
pursuant
enforcement officials
Sybille Fritzsche,
Roger
Baldwin challenged
Doe,
statute.
Plaintiff
ACLU, Inc.,
Foundation of
Susan Gross-
means, subsequently
woman of
had suc-
man, Chicago, 111.,
plaintiffs;
for
Mar-
performed
cessful abortion
in Great
Patner,
Karaganis,
shall
Patner &
Chi- Britain,
plaintiff Roe,
while
is in-
who
cago, 111.,of counsel.
digent,
compelled
was
to bear an unwant-
Legal
Bureau,
Scott,
Gordon H. S.
Aid
option
foreign
ed child since the
Chicago, 111.,
intervening plaintiff
economically
abortion was
foreclosed.
Mary Poe.
Danforth,
Wynn
Fields,
Plaintiffs
Scott, Atty.
William
Gen.,
J.
Bernard Zuspan,
physicians,
all licensed
sue on
Genis,
Atty. Gen.,
Asst.
Edward Han-
themselves,
Y.
behalf of
and all other sim-
rahan,
Atty.,
Coman,
State’s
Daniel
ilarly
physicians, alleging
situated
Murray,
James
Attys.,
C.
State’s
challenged
Asst.
the existence of the
for defendants.
adversely
terferes with and
affects their
Ill.Rev.Stat.,
cli.
23-1
upon
2. Jurisdiction
is based
42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§
2201, 2202, 2281 and attorney general
practices
conceded that he
ability
medical
conduct their
represent
people
regard
patients’
required
their
proper
supreme
Intervening plaintiff
in all mat-
Poe
state before the
court
interests.
best
apparent
girl
pregnant
high
ters in which their interests are
who
is a
school
rape
prosecution
sues
and to assist in the
forcible
result
peo-
criminal
when he
anonymously
as next
trial
believes
her mother
*3
ple’s
requires
Indeed,
asserting
Doe
it.6
the
friend,
as
the same claims
overlap
powers
of
of the
and duties
the
and Roe.3
attorneys of the several counties
state’s
principal defendants are William
The
attorney general
the
such that
Attorney
of the
Scott,
State
General
J.
appears that,
powers
where their
are con-
Hanrahan,
Illinois,
V.
and Edward
current,
ap-
either officer
initiate
County,
Attorney
Illinois.
Cook
State’s
propriate proceedings in the
of the
name
of the
officials
Both
law enforcement
are
if the
not
other
acted.7
We
charged with
who are
State of Illinois
therefore,
gen-
attorney
hold,
the
including
laws,
enforcing
chal-
the
its
party
proper
eral
defendant
Intervening
lenged
defendant
statute.
action.
physician who
is a licensed
Heffeman
appear
granted
herein
leave to
has been
challenge
Defendants
the
ad, litem,
guardian
for those conceived
standing
plaintiffs
of the
to raise the
yet
but
born.
they
claims which
assert. The female
plaintiffs allege
operation
that the
of the
he
Defendant Scott asserts
deprived
statute
them of their asserted
proper party
Al
this action.
is
though
pregnancies
to terminate unwanted
do not make
statutes
Illinois
They
the state of their residence.
as
general
attorney
prosecutor
the chief
they
sert
injured
have been
either
statutes,
pursuant to the state’s criminal
by having been forced to bear unwanted
leading
his office
Illinois case clothes
by having
childrеn or
foreign
travel
attorneys gen
authority
same
states to
qualified
obtain abortions
Fergus
eral
v.
at the common law.
personnel.
medical
We have no doubt
(1915),
Russel,
304,
N.E. 130
270 Ill.
110
that,
plaintiffs’
“On the basis of
sub
that,
held
al
Illinois
* * *
contentions,
stantive
there
though
legislature may
the state
confer *
**
exists a ‘nexus
between
sta
powers additional to
inherent
those
tus asserted
plaintiffs]
the [female
gen
attorney
the common law office of
8
claim(s) (they present).’”
and’the
standing
eral, may
deprive
office
Cohen,
requirements of Flast v.
powers and duties as
historical
its
83, 102,
1942,
392
88
20
L.Ed.
legal representative
state.4
chief
thus
satisfied
2d 947
stated,
common
“[A]t
The court further
litigative
plain
posture
female
Attorney
the law
General
law the
Moreover,
physician-plaintiffs
repre
tiffs.
chief
crown
officer
5 Furthermore,
standing
of their
to raise the claims
in the courts.”
sentative
336,
1970,
for
Ill. at
II by asserted case both, from those asserted in Griswold. the stat from fact Aside sought essence of the interest “[t]he is to vague, practical effect ute is * ** right protected be is of un to women unavailable abortion make which, by choice over events their char- certainty that is less there a.reasonable consequences, acter and bear funda- a of from a continuation death will result privacy on the of indi- mental manner practical effect pregnancy. This concep- It is after viduals.”24 as true on con an intrusion statute constitutes stitutionally protected topic as is no before that “there sweep too areas closely the inti- more interwoven with necessary to ac justified as to be macy marriage of and than any compelling interest. the home complish state rights protected conception are women’s areas These that which relates to and bodies, 25 life, their own over to control bearing progeny.” of believe that We privacy matters and to freedom related cases establish procreation. relating to sex and pertaining procreation, as matters International Third New 19. Webster’s Meyer Nebraska, See, g., 262 U.S. 21. e. v. Dictionary (1961). 1794 625, 390, 399, 1042 43 67 L.Ed. S.Ct. Society Sisters, (1923) ; 268 physi- Pierce v. of by treating problem faced 534, 571, 510, 69 L.Ed. 45 S.Ct. U.S. v. Roe as described in Illinois is cian Massachusetts, (1925) ; v. 1217, Prince Wade, (N.D.Tex. F.Supp. 1070 1223 314 438, 158, 166, 88 L.Ed. 64 S.Ct. U.S. 1970): 321 Loving Virginia, (1944) ; 388 U.S. likely v. 645 Must be? must death How 1, 12, 1010 18 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 87 is not if the abortion death be certain Georgia, ; Stanley (1967) 394 v. enough performed? Is 22 89 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d undergo birth without woman could not (1969). higher possibility ascertainably an normally the case? death than would 14 L.Ed.2d threatened suicide if What the woman performed? was not if abortion Id. at 1681. must death be if imminent How performed? suf- Is abortion F.Supp. Wade, 24. Roe v. having child will shorten ficient if (N.D.Tex.1970). a number the woman the life of McCann, simply v. 25. Babbitz years? questions cannot These (E.D.Wis.1970). be answered. family, portion sex a marriage, of Columbia well District privacy statute, saying: a zone abortion are surrounded concerning protects such activities which been, morеover, increas- There has governmental unjustified matters from ing indication in decisions the Su- intrusion.26 preme Court of the United States agree liberty do with the defendants as a secular matter a woman’s We right privacy choice whether to have child extends to fam- that the marriage protected conception so and sex ily, before but matters immediately conception right protected after well include the to remove an early stages interest woman’s child at least in has occurred.27 A unwanted * * * body pregnancy. and in control over her Matters have certainly seriously just point interfered reached where prohibits sound, as it is abortions informed interest of the state law which prohibits affirmatively appear usе of con- must a law before infringes traceptives. unduly courts such state on rights.29 question have which have considered the held, concluding that a has a so woman recently, McCann,30 More in Babbitz v. choosing to ter- interest fundamental 31Wade, three-judge and in v. courts Roe People pregnancy. Be- minate lous, supra, right that the. whether found choose Supreme the California a child was bear fundamental and struck down that state’s struck down abortion statutes. holding: Of determination course, woman The fundamental that women have a fundamental fol- to choose whether to bear children choosing preg whether to terminate lows from the Court’s nancies does not establish that Illi acknowledgment repeated this court’s nois statute is unсonstitutional. The “right “liberty” privacy” *6 critical is issue whether the state has marriage, family, matters in related to compelling preventing a interest in 28 sex and early stages preg abortions of supra, Vuitch, nancy except United States where the of the death single judge reasonably district court struck down woman is certain.32 A stat- found, Tom former 26. As Court Justice the Court was constitution- This. ally protected. may said: C. has If Clark an individual pred- prevent conception, why of [Griswold The result and he can not concept nullify conception prevention ecessors] is the evolution of the that when of there is a certain zone that has failed? by privacy protected dividual which is Id. at 9. has the Constitution. Unless the State 954, 354, 963, Cal.Rptr. 28. 71 Cal.2d 80 compelling subоrdinating that interest P.2d cert. 458 199 outweighs rights individual of denied, 90 25 beings, interfere human not (1970). L.Ed.2d 96 person’s marriage, home, with a chil- dren, day-to-day living This habits. F.Supp. (D.D.C.1969). 29. 305 1035 concepts is one most fundamental Founding F.Supp. (E.D.Wis.1970). in mind that Fathers had 30. they drafted when the' Constitution. (N.D.Tex.1970). 31. 314 Clark, Religion, Morality, Abortion: Loyola Appraisal, A Constitutional Wade, 32. As court in stated Roe v. (L.A.) Univ. L.Rev. F.Supp. 1217, (N.D.Tex.1970) : Again, infringe : Mr. Justice observed Clark Texas Since the Abortion Laws upon plaintiffs’ falls within that sensitive [A]bortion to fundamental privacy children, of area marital relation. whether choose to have —the privacy One basic values of this is on the burden defendant to demon by control, is birth as evidenced strate satisfaction necessary infringement act was decision. Griswold’s to such is prevent compelling formation of fetus. state interest. performance during requires risk of abortions a woman to which ute by pregnancy of first trimester of physical harm short licensed emotional physicians hospital therapeutic in a would licensed or oth- abortion when a death scrutiny facility, er licensed medical risk not bear does remove for the benefit measure health women. ORDER Moreover, a which forces foregoing opinion 1. The shall stand every fetus, no how findings matter the birth of of fact and conclusions intensely how unwanted defective or law. legiti displays parents, no its future sum- motion mately compelling interest in fetal state mary judgment hereby granted, is regard life, especially when viewed with summary motion defendants for countervailing rights рreg for the judgment hereby is denied. do that the nant women. We not believe 3. The motion of defendant Scott compelling pre interest against dismiss this action as him serving justifies the fetal life which all hereby denied. gross on woman’s intrusion presently out- 4. All other motions forcing her bear involved standing hereby to the extent denied rule child. therefore an unwanted We granted expressly herein mooted stages preg during early foregoing or subsumed during nancy trimes least the first —at or this order. prohibit, restrict ter —the state ordered, adjudged It is therefore limit access or otherwise women’s decreed: performed li procedures abortion physicians operating in licensed censed That the Illinois Statutes, Chapter facilities. Illinois Revised hereby 23-1, the sаme is Section holding the state has declared to be Constitu- violative justification permit shown sufficient the United States and null uphold in its its abortion statute us prohibits as it void insofar restricts or entirety, agreement arewe during performance of abortions v. McCann: court’s statement Babbitz pregnancy trimester of licensed urge that state’s The defendants hospital physicians a licensed or other embryo protecting facility. licensed medical *7 sustain the stat- a sufficient basis to officers, defendants, 2. That their balancing Upon a of the relevant ute. servants, agents, employees, and attor- interests, we woman’s hold neys, persons act in active and those who right embryo carry an to refuse to participation concеrt or with them be during early pregnancy months permanently hereby and the are same by the state with- not be invaded executing bond, enjoined, without necessity compelling public aout more threatening to enforcing, or or execute than is reflected in statute statute, enforce, or the Illinois abortion question.33 Statutes, Chapter Illinois Revised against physicians Accordingly, licensed stat- 23-1 the Illinois abortion Section practice surgery ute, Statutes, Chapter in all to medicine and Illinois Revised 23-1, performing dur- abortions is unconstitutional be- its branches Section pregnancy vague impermissibly un- trimester of cause right hospital infringes or licensed duly licensed other women’s facility. prohibits the medical insofar as it restricts Rock, 14 L.Ed.2d See alsо Bates v. Little concurring). J., (1965) (Goldberg, L.Ed.2d F.Supp. 293, (E.D.Wis.1970). (1960) ; Connecticut, v. 33. 310 Judge (dissent- CAMPBELL, by any party Senior tion that an situa- actual ing). physician tion exists where a licensed acting good jeopardy faith is in opinion typically erudite of our prosecution performing an abortion distinguished Judge Swygert ex- Chief “necessary pres- he believed for the cellently presents philosophical rea- some of the life.” ervation woman’s In other repeal to or sons for amendment presented are words we no actual existing by abortion statute the Illinois vagueness ques- where the circumstance Legislature. respectfully must disa- game is in The rather forced issue. gree however when these reasons are ad- urged by plaintiffs of semantics judicial vanсed to determina- adopted by majority present- tion that the statute “is unconstitutional merely controversy ed actual but is vague impermissibly it is because vehicle these convenient unduly infringes pri- women’s challenge they law which believe is vacy.” the wisdom of this stat- Neither they unwise and thus far conformity accepted nor ute despite heroic efforts been to re- unable mores of is the issue Illinois in 1971 peal legislative process.2 or amend before us. As federal court we only question concerned with the limited perusal of and federal criminal A enacting this statute the whether examples codes reveals of stat- numerous people of Illinois have exceeded the limi- utes constitutional which have been held tations of the United States Constitu- which are not clear and definite tion. Swy- Judge as this one. gert, Indeed Chief up- writing opinion By foregoing his court’s their decision and order holding constitutionality Illi- concluding in this case that those limits disorderly found exceeded, my nois conduct have been learned brothers language prohib- that the strike down a state statute which has iting any unreasonable years1 act done in “such been enforced for one hundred manner as to alarm or disturb another” impose upon people of Illinois vague. unconstitutionally As important their own views on this most opinion: concerning him “The public stated in that issue controversial require impossible my Constitution does not health and view this morals. specificity penal stat- ju- standards unwаrranted diciary intrusion federal only requires the statute It utes. into the affairs of Illinois warning convey ‘sufficiently definite interpretation name of constitutional proscribed when meas- beyond pow- conduct properly far limited federal understanding by common supported by ured practices.’ and is' ers the facts ” Woodard, my United precedents States this ease cited nor the (7th 1967). Cir. 376 F.2d brethren. decision is basis goes state, “The on to His (and (1) the Illinois statute twofold: un- proscribes is so conduct that particularly exception found there- or disturb’ an- as to ‘alarm reasonable vague in) is so *8 as to render it unconsti- provoke the other and a ‘breach tutional; (2) by prohibiting and the de- peace’ peace’. the term ‘breach struction of fetal life the statute invades meaning precise in rela- has never had a family the the and the women specific its tion to early conduct. Yet entities of Illinois. origin present to the common law fairly vagueness well defined question has received a the I first ob- On gloss.” case, (Id. 141). our how- serve that have before us no we conten- repeal present Attempts essentially present the to amend or the 1. The ’ (1969) (R.S. session in the last failed same as that enacted in 1874. Assembly. proposals 3.) New of the General Oh. Div. pres- already been introduced the have (1971) ent session. thumbs; legs recognizable judge men ever, concludes that the same knees, intelligence and toes. ordinary can- ankles and women meaning of the essеntial not understand operative and sends out The brain preserva- words, “necessary impulses that coordinate function dif- I find it life.” of the woman’s organs. waves have of the other Brain reasoning in the to reconcile ficult beats; days. heart been noted at forth in the set case with that Woodard digestive juices; produces the stomach opinion of herein. cells; and manufactures blood liver kidneys begin function extract- Illinois Abortion The words meaning ordinary uric from the blood. acid taken in their Statute warning sufficiently convey definite month can kick its In the third over proscribed and “have conduct feet, toes, legs, and fan its thumb, turn its curl entirely long years proved period of fist, its make a move its bend including public, adequate to inform heаd, open its its and even wrist, turn people, what lay professional both and drink the amni- mouth and swallow Steinberg Rhodes, 321 is forbidden.” otic fluid that surrounds Thumb it. 1970); (N.D.Ohio, Bab- F.Supp. age sucking has been noted at (E. McCann, F.Supp. bitz v. D.Wis.1970). respiratory the first motions fluid move of the court The statement lungs inhaling out its with Steinberg appropriate opinion is exhaling respiratory movements. problem here: —“The its In the twelfth week it can move understand, they but that do not fingers. thumb, opposition to its It proscrip- basically they accept, its do not regularly. It re- swallows has active p. tion.” expressions of flexes. The facial a fetus ma- second I find the conclusion already in its month are similar third supported jority, is not that the statute expression parents. to the facial of its legitimate interest, a sufficient By the trimester the end disconcerting. major- even more As the being. moving fetus is sentient out, ity correctly points the determina- finger ap- the third month nails tion that women have fundamental pear; apparent sexual differentiation choosing to terminate terest whether organs; and external both internal pregnancies does of itself es- completed. chords vocal is uncon- tablish that the Illinois statute twelfth to sixteenth From the issue is wheth- stitutional. The critical grows eight or inch- week the child ten er state has a sufficient interest in height oxygen and es in and receives preventing justify pro- its through pla- food from its mother My conclude that the hibition. brothers In the fifth month it cental attachment. suffi- of Illinois does not have а State height gains ounc- two inches in and ten preserving life fetal cient interest in weight. hear A doctor soon es will us, when the the statute before stethoscope. his It heart beat with regard for counter- same is viewed with sleeps awakened and wakes and rights vailing pregnancies. to terminate .by external vibrations. again part juncture It is at this my company with brothers. develops month the fetus In the sixth hands; grip Legislature, strong We, muscular did Illinois regularly following undisputed and can starts us breathe have before response respiratory relating weeks maintain a to fetal life. Seven facts egg twenty-four prematurely. if hours born conception after fertilized sur- proportioned chance of velops small It even have slim into well *9 viving in A child hаs been baby. an incubator. all the familiar scale It bears twenty to internal known survive between all the external features and Indeed, being. twenty-five medi- organs weeks old. It has of an adult human fingers progresses field of cal science muscles; hands with Í394 potential viability nancy (at gestation) the date of tection two months I stages continually
moves closer to earlier was handed what I believe was the gestation. living being smallest human ever seen. embryo sac was and trans- intact Gesell, publication. in his Dr. Arnold parent. tiny Within the sac was a Embryology Behavior,3 “The notes:— cm.) swimming (approx. 1 human male repeated own of a “Our observation extremely vigorously amniotic large (an group of fetal infants fluid, while attached to the wall living dividual born at time tiny umbilical cord. This human was forty prior gestation) weeks left perfectly developed, long, taper- psychologically us with no doubt that ing fingers, feet and toes. It was al- they were Just as no two individuals. regards skin, transparent, most alike, pre- looked so no two behaved and the delicate and veins arteries cisely impassive alike. was when One prominent were to the ends of the among another was alert. Even fingers. youngest there were 'discernible dif- baby extremely “The was alive and vividness,' reactivity ferences approximately genuine swam about the sac one responsiveness. These were second, per time differences, already with a natural pro- swim- individual tiny phetic mer’s diversity stroke. This human did which distin- photos guishes look family.” at all like the the human drawings ‘embryos’ and models of Similar facts of fetal life are dis- seen, which nor like did look recently published cussed in in a detail embryos a few I have been able to ob- Byrn, article, Law Review Abortion-On- then, obviously serve since because Morality? 46 N.D. Demand: Whose this one was alive! Byrn Law. 5 Professor con- “ * * * :— cludes the sac When tiny immediately opened, human eight weeks, summary: “In after appearance lost its life and took on the great majority which the of abortions accepted appearance of what is as the pérformed, the fetus is irreversi- age embryo (blunt of an at this bly organized ex- recognizable into a hu- tremities, etc.) responsive to stimula- man-child, tion, possessed pumрing and is my opinion “It if the law- heart, functioning circulatory sys- people very makers and realized tem, an active brain and all other in- vigorous present, possible life it is organs. practical ternal Erom the that abortion would be found much point view, ‘By eighth scientific objectionable more than euthanasia.” embryo fetus, week the as we now my opinion undisputed medical it, call is an unmistakable human be- * * facts of herein a suffi- record establish preservation cient state interest points This author also out that abor- constitutionality of life to regardless procedure tion is a violent of the statute us. before the,stage pregnancy. Byrn, Supra, p. does not hold that the Illinois en- void in its Statute Byrn (at pp. Professor also relаtes tirety every prohib- or that statute that 8-9) following experience of Paul E. destruction of life is uncon- fetal Rockwell, M.D., Director of Anesthesiol- Rather, it stitutional. seems hold that ogy Hospital, Troy, at Leonard New legitimate people of this State have York: legislative protecting some years giving life, ago present “Eleven fetal while but protects, fetus, preg- “every ruptured ectopic anesthetic no matter Brothers, p. Harper Publishers *10 intensely unwanted which has or how matured first how defective trimes- ter, legitimate legiti- parents, displays no but that no interest its future exists protecting a a mately compelling interest.” be- life of a state I fetus few days suggesting younger? majority I believe the Illinois lieve the what adopt- Legislature, Legislature adopting present in had if the stat- that the Illinois ute, which, prohibiting arbitrary was less while if not as a even ted competent my permitted des- generally, the brothers on these so- abortions my opin- or one fetus cial and moral of the “defective” matters. truction ion, however, legislature “intensely it would unwanted” the that alone should legitimate society place displayed state determine a what value will have apparent, regardless life, how- me on this seems to form terest. It the legislature age ever, the development. if the that fe- power that non to decide defective any Thus far have avoided discus- destroyed, may can also de- be it tus not subject sion of the sensitive of whether may not be fеtus cide that defective Admittedly fetal life is “human” life. ju- destroyed. How much latitude shall physicians argue point as to what legislature dicially given its the be development fetal human life commenc- what is as what is and determination As es. former Court Justice “defect” to warrant sufficient Tom C. Clark in the Law Review states po- must a How unwanted struction? quoted by majority, article “Some parents can tential child be before physicians argue that abortion should be suggested under the demand destruction permitted impunity any up time judicial “intensely standard? unwanted” pregnancy to the sixth month of since stating Merely propositions illus- these prior to time fetus no more my brothers trates the extent to which growing plant. than On the other legislative do- into have wаndered hand, many physicians eminent believe reaching in this their decision main fertilized ovum has human life case. conception. time of argument they of this refer Inter- majority rest its con- But does not national Ethics, Code Medical unconstitutionality on such clusion of physician will states that a maintain the majority Instead, tenuous base. respect life, utmost human from the during therefore rule “We states: conception.” Clark, Religion, time of its stages pregnancy early least —at Morality and A Constitution- Abortion: during trimester —the first n Appraisal, Loy.U.L.Rev. al prohibit, otherwise restrict or (1969). Assuming arguendo that fetal proce- limit women’s access abortion ”* life, * ques- * life is there human can dures does Illinois has but that State explain or even intimate how arrived legislative pro- interest in its sufficient ap- It constitutional conclusion. And, opin- varied tection ? view the have, ju- pears my me brothers science, is not the deter- ions medical fiat, successfully dicial the Illi- amended life mination of when human commences permit nois abortions in the legislature, rather than left to better pregnancy. three months of Ironi- This was the conclusion the courts? cally, even their amendment does not Mr.¡Justice Clark reached legislative meet No sound standards. quoted Significantly, above article. they explain where the “first do how liberally quoting Clark’s Justice while at, test arrived or what trimester” (see subject of on the article might relationship previ- have to 27), conven- 26 and *11 thorough concurring opinion, legislative written judicial in the than the Goldberg, there Mr. stressed that reach out to Justice process. cannot Courts showing problem society. was in no the comes that case our A reform justicia- necessary accomplish a form statute was Court drawn, narrowly permissible ren- state interest. and is issue ble ruling dering contracted the Court's case, however, my In is in there Legislatures, finespun. on the and opinion permissible in- valid hand, for in- facilities have such other protection of human life or terest —the hearings vestigation ad- as protection potential at least the hu- to the necessities dress themselves my opinion man life in In the the fetus. the correction social needs broad question is no broader than is existing. probable and evils, both necessary accomplish this valid and ‘Legisla- said, As Mr. Justice Cardozo though permissible it state interest even right cancer, some tion can eradicate distinguish provide excep- does not or definitely wrong, hoary some correct tions, my prefer, as brothers would evil, the fee- which defies established “intensely those which are ’“defective” or the distinctions and the bler remedies, unwanted,” to “the or have not matured judicial proc- the familiar fictions pregnancy.” trimester of ess.’ citing Griswold, the con- case-by-case work on “The courts distinguish cludes: “we cannot the past rath- system which deals with terests asserted in this Society would the future. er than case from those asserted in Griswold.” sweeping ef- the benefit .have words, views, In оther in their there is the doctor nor would fect of no distinction can made between be protection is entitled that he have the prohibiting contraceptives use of be method would to receive. The case prohibiting life, of fetal the destruction slow, possibly expensive, disas- may reasonably explained which above legislature It is for the trous. construed I find to be human life. e., proper balance, i. termine the Contraception this assertion incredible. concep- point prevention of between prevents the creation of new life. Abor- viability fetus which tion and destroys existing Contracep- life. compelling give the would State distinguishable tion and abortion are as subordinating interest so that distinguisha- thoughts or dreams are regulate prohibit or abortion without reality. from ble violating constitution- the individual’s (At myself rights.” pp. ally protected As for I am 10- confronted with plain and bound facts before us 11). in this case and I must conclude that the support To their conclusion that legitimate people of Illinois have a people prop- Illinois have exceeded protecting sufficient interest in life fetal legislative interest, er bounds of the ma- the statute here considered. jority primarily rely the rationale on nothing teachings I find in the Court’s v. Con- Griswold contrary. in Griswold to the necticut, 1678, 14 U.S. only right L.Ed.2d held 510. But individual freedom ever No country through that a statute forbade the use which advanced in this an un- couples judiciary of contraceptives married viо- warranted into intrusion writing legislature. privacy. lated proper province their Court, days pressure groups Indeed, Mr. Justice these Douglas regularly seeking indicated that the Connecticut courts legislatures give, “unnecessarily only properly broad” which can prevented might government activities other- constitutional weakened regulation. subject (381 place personal wise be to state time their each courts 1678). philosophical The more views above law. grant defend- the motion of I would judgment summary and leave ants for under plaintiffs’ where cause belongs Illinois Constitution —in *12 Legislature. McCONNELL, Administrator
Donald T. McConnell, of Anna F. of the Estate Plaintiff, deceased, Secretary, RICHARDSON, Elliott L. Welfare, Health, Education Defendant. A. No. 70-578. Civ. Court, District United States Pennsylvania. W. D. Jan. Criste, Cresson, Pa., Walter A.
plaintiff. Thornburgh, Atty., Richard L. U. S. Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
OPINION
GOURLEY, Judge: District Senior pursuant This filed action Security 205(g) Section of the Social Act, 405(g), 42 U.S.C.A. wherein plaintiff judicial seeks review of Health, Secretary cision Edu- denying applica- cation Welfare by plaintiff’s decedent, tion filed Mrs. McConnell, May 19, Anna 1969 for F. on period disability disability in- 216(i) surance benefits under Sections Act, Security 223 of Social 416(i) and 423. U.S.C.A. §§ applica- in her Mrs. McConnell stated in Decem- disabled tion that became she last month ber of which was notes ously discussed notions of defective- ignores and ad- iently its conclusion rational ness unwantedness. What follows:— monition as supports conclusion that basis their conflicting people doc- a sufficient of Illinois “Accommodation to achieve difficult trine is more protecting the of a fetus life