Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Princeton, NJ v. Kugler

ASSO- CHRISTIAN YOUNG WOMEN’S PRINCETON, NEW OF CIATION Plaintiffs, al., et JERSEY Attorney KUGLER, Jr.,

George Gen- F. Jersey, of New eral of the State

Defendant. ABRAMOWITZ, al., Plaintiffs,

Joanne et

George KUGLER, Jr., Attorney F. Gen- Jersey, eral al., et Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 431-70. Court,

United States District Jersey. D. New

Feb.

1Q49 George Lloyd Kugler, Me- F. Jr. and W. Corkle.

Lowenstein, Sandler, Brochin, Kohl & J., Fisher, Newark, N. for defendant Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. Planned Parenthood Federation of Weisman, America, by Hannoch, Inc., J.; Besser, Newark, N. Stern & Green- baum, Ernst, City, New York Wolff & support plain- counsel, amici curiae in No. 264-70. tiffs Committee, Right New to Life Foundation, Christian Action New Conference, by Stephen Jersey Catholic Asbury Foley, Park, J.,N. cur- amici J. opposition in both cases. iae No. 264-70: Judge, FORMAN, Circuit Before Roy York Lucas, New City, and Rich- Judges. GARTH, District BARLOW Samuel, Newark, J., plain- ard I. N. tiffs. George Kugler Jr., Atty. F. OPINION Gen. Jersey, by Barry Evenchick, H. Judge. FORMAN, Deputy Atty. Gen., Circuit for defendant. raising constitu numerous No. Two cases 431-70: Jersey challenges abor New tional Kahn, Murphy, Rita L. Laura Jane presented statutes are tion and related Jeffrey Fogel, Newark, J., E. for N. disposition Plaintiffs here. for plaintiffs Borenstein, Burt, Hannah Gail Kugler, suit, 264- No. first Y.W.C.A. Catrambone, Fox, M. Frances Emmillie physicians, two (Y.W.C.A.), are nine Good, Mary Hamilton, Ursula Ann fol revoked whose licenses been Margaret Holmes, Jackson, Barbara challenged lowing prosecution under the Marguerite Joralemon, Montgom- Irene statutes; appearing for three women ery, Noonan, Paravati, Joanne Martha the member on themselves and behalf Marilyn Speziale, Thomas, Betty Alberta Jersey ship of the Branch of the New Thomas, Valle, Tripp, Deborah Mercedes League for Peace Women’s International Mary Wright Zangari. and Anna Marie appearing Freedom; and and one woman Boylan, Ann pro Marie se. Young for herself and on behalf Taub, Newark, Nadine J.,N. for all Association Women’s Christian plaintiffs;

other Nancy Stearns, George Princeton, Jersey. F. New Newark, J.,N. of counsel. Kugler, Jr., Attorney General George Kugler, Jr., F. Atty. Jersey, Gen. of as defend of New is named Jersey, by New Barry Evenchick, H. ant. Plaintiffs contend that N.J.S.A. Deputy Atty. Gen., phy for deprive defendants 2A:87-11 45:9-162 and provides 1. 2A :87-l : punished than not more a fine of “Any person who, maliciously $5,000, imprisonment or with- for not more or out justification, lawful years, with intent or both.” than procure cause or miscarriage of a pregnant woman, pre- part: pertinent provides, administers or 2. 45 :9-16 scribes or advises or directs her to Medi- take Board of [State “The board any poison, or drug, grant swallow or medicine or refuse to Examiners] cal thing, any noxious or uses may suspend instrument or or revoke license whatever, guilty means high diploma registration of a of a certificate or misdemeanor. surgery practice and medicine consequence “If as a any chiropractic woman in the office filed die, child shall county the offender act shall be in this State under clerk 1331, 1343, 2201, and of constitutional under sicians women 28 U.S.C. §§ First, Fourth, 2202, 2281, rights guaranteed seq. U.S.C. 291 et § (the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Act), and Four Ninth Hill-Burton U.S.C. § seq. (Medicaid), in Jurisdiction et teenth Amendments. and 42 U.S.C. § voked under 28 U.S.C. §§ three-judge pur A court was convened 2284 and 42 U.S.C. § cases, suant U.S.C. in both § purposes which were consolidated for hearing proceedings. further all suit, second Plaintiffs Abramo arguments Briefs were filed and oral (Abramo Kugler, witz v. No. 431-70 presented. were Plaintiffs sum seek women, witz), approximately are mary judgment requests on for a declara appearing on behalf themselves and tory judgment respec the statutes similarly Jersey of all other New women tively challenged unconstitutional, suffering allegedly situated and viola injunctions against oper seek their rights. their In tions of constitutional addition, ation and enforcement. two Attorney addition General plaintiff-physicians in Y.W.C.A. Jersey, plaintiffs name State of expungement seek of criminal records McCorkle, Lloyd Com defendants W. resulting from their under convictions Agencies missioner Institutions statute, and the return of medi Jersey, Newark State of New licenses, by cal order this court. Beth Plain Israel Medical Center.3 2A:87-1,4 appear Permission to claim N.J.S.A. as amici tiffs curiae granted 2A:87-2,5 2A:170-766 45:9-167 Planned Parenthood America, Jersey of women under Federation violate the New Right First, Fifth, Ninth, Fourth, Committee, Four Life the Christian teenth and Nineteenth Amendments to Action Foundation and the New Conference, Catholic Constitution. Jurisdiction invoked all of whose be- foregoing half under briefs were Amendments submitted. provides upon Legislature, proof 5. 2A the :87-2 of to the : “Any person attempts satisfaction the board that the who or of holder causes miscarriage (c) prac- pregnant to cause the of . . . of a such license has abortion, woman the woman ticed criminal or been convict- herself shall be competent witness, a pelled be ed of the crime of criminal abortion com- testify, testimony pleaded contendere, to . . but the . or has nolo of any such witness prosecution, not in or shall be non vult contendere non vult to an used criminal, against indictment, information, complaint civil or the or person testifying.” alleging so the commission of crime of the any criminal abortion Before .... provides 6. 2A :170-76 : license, suspended . . . shall be or “Any person who, just cause, without revoked, except the case convic- of exposes or utters to the of an- view tions of . criminal abortions. . . the possesses other, or with intent to utter person accused shall be furnished with a expose another, or to the or view of to copy given complaint of the and be a same, any instrument, sell the medicine hearing any person . . and whose thing, designed purporting or or other suspended license shall be or revoked designed prevention be for the of con- in accordance with this section shall be ception procuring abortion, or the of or person during an deemed unlicensed the any way advertises who or aids period suspension revocation, of such or advertising same, any manner, or in subject penal- and as such be shall for or whether against recommendation persons prescribed ties hereinafter for otherwise, gives its use or practice surgery who medicine and any given, giving causes to be or aids in chiropractic, having without first ob- in- information how or where such tained a license so to do. .” strument, thing may medicine or other had, seen, bought sold, By plaintiffs stipulation parties, is a dis- of orderly person.” prosecute do not action de- Newark Israel Cen- fendant Beth Medical supra. note See ter here. supra. note See passage the Declara Since the STANDING I. Judgments 1934,10 tory it has Act in been plain- contend that first Defendants said to liberalize that the Act “intended standing they because lack tiffs conceptions justiciability”.11 It was case or contro- of a shown the existence enlarge not, however, intended to jurisdic-

versy to invoke the sufficient courts,12 jurisdiction and has of the court, raised the issues tion of the necessity way of a no diminished social, political than rather of a declaratory judgment party seeking a properly legal, a and should nature controversy thus, establish a case or legislature resolu- left to the state standing requisite mainte to the tion. of a manifest from nance This is suit. III, language sec. of the Con Article statute itself13 and cogniz stitution, judicially exposition limits from the Court’s involving declaratory judg prerequisites able to those an actual issues to a “controversy,” is “case” or the source ment: and, standing requirement al “Basically, question in each case though outwardedly simple, prin reflects alleged, under all the facts whether ciples operation fundamental to the circumstances, that there is show (cid:127) judicial system: our controversy, par- between substantial part having legal interests, “In those words limit the busi- ties adverse questions pre- reality immediacy ness of federal courts sufficient adversary declaratory sented context and warrant judgment.” issuance historically capable a form viewed as through judicial resolution Expressing principles in another these process. part inAnd words de- those way, the Court that: has stated assigned judiciary fine the role standing aspect “The fundamental tripartite power allocation of party seeking is that it focuses on the that the federal assure courts will get complaint before federal his intrude into areas committed to the court and not on the he wishes issues government. other branches of Jus- ‘gist adjudicated. to have ticiability employed the term art question standing’ is whether give expression to this dual limita- ‘alleged party seeking such relief has placed upon tion federal courts personal in the outcome stake case-and-controversy doctrine.” controversy to assure concrete addition, standing requirement presen- sharpens the adverseness which judicial self-restraint, reflects a rule of upon tation of the court issues designed passing upon prema- to avoid turely largely raised or ill-defined depends controversies so of illumination involving questions.9 constitutional questions.’ difficult Bak- constitutional Cohen, 83, 95, 8. (1936) ; Shulton, Flast v. Inc., U.S. 88 S.Ct. L.Ed. 688 Kane v. 1942, 1950, (1968). F.Supp. 882, (D.N.J.1960). 20 L.Ed.2d 947 884-885 pertinent provides 13. 9. United Public v. U.S.C. § Workers America part: Mitchell, 75, 90-91, 330 U.S. controversy (1947) ; “In a case actual Ash within L.Ed. 754 wander Ten jurisdiction Valley any Authority, . . . court of nessee 297 U.S. . . . United States de- 80 L.Ed. 688 rights legal clare the and other rela- any party seeking tions of interested 10. 28 U.S.C. § declaration, such or not fur- whether ” Printing Supply sought Plate Co. Curtis Pub ther relief is or could Co., lishing F.Supp. 642, (E.D. (Emphasis supplied.) Pa.1968). Maryland Casualty Pacific Co. v. Coal Valley Co., 270, 273, Ashwander v. Tennessee Authori & Oil S.Ct. ty, 288, 325, S.Ct. 85 L.Ed. 826 standing, clearly Carr, oppose dis- er v. 204 (1962).” ants to [82 tinguishable. Tileston, physician 7 L.Ed.2d In 663] challenged contraceptive principles These Connecticut’s have been reaffirmed patients’ as violative con- Golden v. Zwickler:16 statutes of his rights, allege any to stitutional but failed court, “No federal whether this personal property violation of rights. own his court, ‘jurisdiction or a to district has allegations On the basis of these pronounce statute, either of State controversy it held that no case or void, States, or of the United because case, present as to existed him. In the Constitution, irreconcilable contrary, fully physicians on the leged al- have except upon adjudge as it is called to continuing past, present and viola- legal rights litigants in actual tions of their own liberties. Nor is this Liverpool, controversies’ N. & P. Y. persuaded reasoning applied court S. S. Co. Immi- [of v. Commissioners Randall,18 the court held Doe where gration], [5 controversy pre- no had been case (1885).” (Em- L.Ed. 899] by physician perform- sented who had phasis supplied). abortion, in- ed but whom no Examining allegations had dictment been returned. The fact plaintiff-physicians in Y.W.C.A. prior prosecutions under abortion light principles of these it clear that statute, allegations violations they have fulfilled both constitutional plaintiff-physicians’ own constitution- judicially standing formulated re rights are al sufficient to establish quirements. They allege that abor prima Thus, controversy. case facie vague tion statute is on its face and as physicians clearly standing. applied specificity in violation of the re quirement of the Fourteenth Amend Moreover, the violations their ment; deprives physicians that it rights alleged by plaintiff- constitutional practice according medicine physicians closely interwoven with highest prac standard of medical inseparable allegations they from the tice, and that violates patients make on behalf of their women physicians patients and their women for rights. of their violations constitutional privacy physician-patient in their rela alleged The contention that the guaranteed tionships, First, freely practice medicine ac Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth highest cording of med standard Amendments. practice, physician- privacy ical and to prosecutions As a result of under the patient relationships physicians entitle statute, plaintiff-physicians two patients and direct con advise women to cerning practice have lost their licenses medi- perform abortion, and to abor cine and one was incarcerated at the tions, inextricably de linked with and time this action was commenced. pendent upon adjudication alleged addition, allege they all have been right privacy patients se away patients seeking forced to turn ad- curing appropriate Thus, abortions. it is possibili- vice and information about the grant plaintiff-physicians here ing stand ty obtaining abortions. litigate alleged deprivations rights light In of their wom the constitutional of circumstances, these of Tiles- Ullman,17 patients.19 emphasized ton by en defend- aff’d, F.Supp. (D.Minn.1970), Cohen, 83, 99, 15. Flast v. 18. 314 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1952, (1968). Randall, 967, Hodgson S. L.Ed.2d 947 402 U.S. 1656, (1971). Ct. L.Ed.2d 103, 110, 16. 394 U.S. 89 S.Ct. (1969). 22 L.Ed.2d 113 479, Connecticut, 19. Griswold v. 381 U.S. 17. 318 U.S. 14 L.Ed.2d 63 S.Ct. L.Ed. 85 S.Ct. (1943). (1965) ; Jackson, Ullman, See Poe v. Barrows v. 346 U.S. L.Ed. 81 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 989 73 S.Ct. abortion, al- approximately an and that numbering child and Plaintiffs standing leged deprivations on take on constitutional claim 1200 in Abramowitz reality. However, immediacy to, appear and aside they belong and the basis that allegation Jersey that com- from an women are of, New of the class behalf subject pelled, present law, to under the . suffer “who as women women dangers possible of to Jersey their bodies laws.” abortion under the New prior contraceptives to amended, oral and other complaint, as brief In their plaintiffs pregnancy, a not shown they argument New that assert oral rights specific individual invasion of most Jersey the class constitute women statute, prior harm to threat of which arises by directly the abortion affected they pregnancy. do of Nor a occurrence person with is “no and that there allege any pregnant them is question of that greater personal stake in seeking Jersey an child or abor- an unwanted is constitutionality allege that some tion. Plaintiffs do any fertile than woman statute abortion already argue been forced choose them have age.” child-bearing Plaintiffs no But these two alternatives. may ex- between time that such woman presently plaintiff preg- has that she is perience shown an accidental unwanted problem. confronted with this nancy, forced case which she will or to child either to bear an unwanted of New be a class While there illegal “back- risk of an the hazards presently de- threatened as women fur- Plaintiffs contend street” abortion. plaintiff-women, their conten- scribed consequences ther are forced that these they thereof tion that are members statute, upon by operation women complaint, unsupported is their rights in violation their constitutional argument. brief, amended, their oral protection liberty equal to life and that must conclude the constitutional We Amend- under Fourteenth the laws deprivations alleged to infirmities ment, privacy under and their hypo- are of flow from They argue ad- the Ninth Amendment. nature as these thetical abstract ditionally the effect the statute plaintiffs. compelling them to unwanted bear amply supported This conclusion perpetuate children is an inferior stat- involving ques prior adjudications us which the Amendment was Nineteenth Cohen,20 standing. tion of Flast eradicate, intended to and that the stat- upon rely, plaintiffs the Court held proscription ute an violates the possessed taxpayers that federal stand religion free establishment ing constitutionality litigate of al exercise thereof First Amend- under the in to finance of federal funds locations finally ment. Plaintiffs claim struction sectarian schools. period during pregnan- of time available plaintiff-taxpayers had held cy litigation, is insufficient for full personal important shown an stake that, they practically, be unable will litigation, the outcome of the form deprivations of redress their constitu- of an threat consti immediate rights standing grant tional without rights. It observed tutional Here. tax monies for utilization of federal such might purpose plaintiff- alleged apparent well violate It taxpayers’ deprivations and all citizens’ constitutional de of constitutional governmental pend contingency upon pregnan be free estab religion. logical cy. only lishment of Thus then that must women nexus al bearing existed between the violations between choose unwanted (1953) ; Society Sisters, 20. 392 L.Ed.2d Pierce v. 510, 532-536, (1925) ; Raich, v. L.Ed. 1070 Truax 239 33, 38-39, 7, 131 U.S. 36 S.Ct. 60 L.Ed. (1915).

1057 Ieged and the harm threatened to volved in and suc- Zwickler v. Koota24 plaintiffs litigation in their status federal tax cessive v. Golden Zwickler.25 payers. present case, petitioner In ease cannot In we the first had been alleged distributing anonymous po- link find such a between the convicted of against inveighing harm to violations threatened a litical handbills plaintiffs congressman women. York violation of a New sought declaratory judg- law, a money In v. dam- Barrows Jackson,21 ment that unconstitu- the statute was ages sought against petitioner, a were tional, stating to his intention distribute Caucasian, racially for re- breach of opposing more him in the next handbills Her strictive covenant. claim stand- three-judge election. A court abstained litigate alleged ing to violations of the determining petitioner from whether the rights constitutional of black citizens declaratory judgment. was entitled a to judicial enforcement the cove- Supreme re- Court reversed found, upheld by nant Court. was supra. Koota, manded. Zwickler v. in addition to the of a threat substantial Meanwhile, congressman loss, pecuniary which was sufficient petitioner’s whom handbills were standing, confer that “it diffi- would be Congress place directed had left the for a impossible persons cult if not York, on the Court of New rights present are whose asserted to years. which carried a fourteen term of grievance In before court”.22 The District Court held on remand present case, above, as discussed peti- the lack to the of immediate threat plaintiff-physicians in Y.W.C.A. have tioner of enforcement of the statute standing deprivations to assert issuing prevent it from a de- would rights pa- constitutional their women claratory judgment, and held the statute fact, complaint in Y.W. tients. appeal On unconstitutional. alleges deprivations of C.A. most of the decision, Court, in Golden v. of women as- constitutional supra, again holding Zwickler, reversed, by plaintiffs serted in Abramowitz. petitioner presented his had not Hence, we are not faced with a factual question constitutional “in context difficult, situation which would be specific grievance” of a and that live impossible, constitutional if for the hypothetical threat to his was alleged adjudicated violations to be with- declaratory support insufficient grant plaintiff- standing out “unique women. This is not one of the judgment.27 in which considerations situations” reasoning applicable equally This policy” indicate

“broad constitutional plaintiffs the situation in Abramo- standing require- a relaxation of the standing They possess witz. do not they pur- assert the claims of the class ment.23 present port represent circumstances no immediate since case, contrary, on the Abramowitz threat exists which would indicate analogous closely presence controversy in- more facts of a case or as to 1031, standing 21. 346 L.Ed. abortion statutes where (1953). found, substantially greater threat of injury plaintiffs existed. See Doe 22. Id. at 73 S.Ct. Scott, F.Supp. (N.D.Ill.1971), Id. appeal docketed sub nom. Hanrahan Doe, Doe, No. and Heffernan 24. 19 L.Ed.2d (April 6, No. 39 U.S.L.W. 3438 1971), and No. renumbered No. 70-105 25. 394 U.S. 22 L.Ed.2d respectively, 70-106 U.S.L.W. (July 13, 1971) ; Wade, Roe v. 314 F. juris, Supp. (N.D.Tex.1970), prob. Id. at 89 S.Ct. at 960. noted, three-judge (1971) (No. 808, ; In other district court Term cases L.Ed.2d 108 attacking constitutionality Term). of state renumbered No. 1058 expressed general principle Moreover, this the broad this court.

them before Congress: reasoning applicable to women is likewise plaintiffs The contentions in Y.W.C.A. duty upon “imposed all levels plaintiffs of those and in Abramowitz give judiciary re- due the federal spect Y.W.C.A., and as individual women of a federal a suitor’s choice they claim organizations on behalf hearing forum for and decision than al represent no more amount to claims. constitutional his federal 28by they legations “feel inhibited” duty Plainly, escape from that operation abortion statute. permissible merely state because Finding them and distinction between no responsi- courts also have the solemn bility, equally controversy showing or a live courts, absent a federal with the injury, much of threat of so immediate enforce, pro- guard, ‘. .to and . allega complaint pertains every granted secured tect women-plaintiffs in Y.W. tions of the .’” the Constitution C.A., allegedly individually, on be been Under the rule of Zwickler has Young Christian half Women’s held that a court avoid federal Jersey, Princeton, New Association of duty accept federal constitutional the Wom Branch only “narrowly ‘special claims limited League for Peace and ” en’s International 31 special of these circumstances.’ One lack of Freedom29 dismissed for will be circumstances is: standing. ground com On the same concerning question “when decision plaint must fall.29a in Abramowitz necessary disposi- of state law to a There raised remain the issues case, tion of the answer to the complaint defend- Y.W.C.A'. question state involves unclear state Attorney physician- ant General paramount law or a matter of interest themselves, plaintiffs on behalf for 32 to the state.” patients, fol- their women Foremost, susceptibility lowing however, is “the discussion is addressed. of a state of a construction modify courts would avoid II. ABSTENTION 33 question.” At- constitutional Attorney torney present next General General contends that the urges abstain exception court should case falls within this and relies entertaining plaintiffs’ requests Bozanich,34 Rogers on Reetz v. v. declaratory injunctive are, clearly They however, relief. Danforth.35 Koota,30 distinguishable Zwickler v. present from the case. Younger Harris, 37, 42, Forssenius, 534-535, 528, 401 91 U.S. 85 380 U.S. S. 746, (1971). 1177, (1965). S.Ct. 27 L.Ed.2d 669 14 50 Ct. L.Ed.2d allegation showing 241, Koota, 249, 29. No has been made 33. Zwickler v. 389 U.S. (1967) ; the women been authorized have respective 19 444 88 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d represent organizations Hargrave, Askew 401 ; (1971) here. 91 196 S.Ct. 28 L.Ed.2d 82, 85-87, Bozanich, Reetz v. Breckenridge, 29a. Crossen v. 446 F.2d 833 (1970) ; 90 L.Ed.2d 68 (6 1971) ; Dunbar, Cir. Doe v. F. Education, 453 F.2d Reid Board of Supp. (D.Colo.1970). (2 14, 1971). Cir. Dec. 241, 248, 391, 395, 30. 389 U.S. L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d Id. Sept. 10, (W.D.Mo., No. Civ. 18360-2 (3 Stanley, 32. Gere v. F.2d 1970) ; appeal docketed, 39 U.S.L.W. 3447 ; 13, 1971), (No. 1402, Term; 1971) (April Dec. v. Con Cir. Wisconsin stantineau, Term), renumbered No. (1971) ; L.Ed.2d Harman v.

1Q59 Reetz, Supreme eases, hearing In Court held that decided after the in this case, in re a federal erred which restricted the in district court had situations fusing issuing declaratory injunctive a declara which to abstain from relief reg against pending proceedings tory a judgment where Alaska statutes under by ulating licensing granted state criminal and attacked statute salmon be by yet subject Younger plaintiffs had a federal been court.37 district 38 any adjudication appeal v. Harris an courts. was from the state’s de Rogers, three-judge In a federal district court ab cision of a court of the Cen hearing challenge enjoining stained from to Mis tral District of California grounds prosecution pending souri’s abortion statute on the under a state crimi yet statute, and, state court had not authori nal “other and further tatively relief,” declaring construed the both statute. unconstitu the statute cases, adjudi by it was felt that court state tional. This decision was reversed might Supreme Court, cations avoided or resolved which limited grounds justifying injunctive the issues raised in the federal district re federal present ease, “special court. In the on the con lief circumstances” where trary, question great the statute in has been irre a threat of immediate subject judicial scrutiny, parable injury of state is shown. the constitutional issues raised here have important prayer More to the for de- by adjudica not been avoided or resolved claratory present case, relief in the how- tion in the state courts. ever, overturning was the Court’s Jersey Court of New has held the abor declaratory judgment Younger in on the susceptible tion statute of constitutional holding basis of Samuels v. construction,36 light and it 39 Maekell: adjudications state that con “in cases where the state criminal alleged stitutional infirmities are still prosecution begun prior was to the case, to exist. The entertainment of this suit, equitable princi- federal the same therefore, precipitate pre would not ples propriety relevant an disposition mature federal of constitu injunction must taken into consid- be questions might tional avoided be eration district courts federal adjudication in a resolved state if determining a declara- whether issue this court abstained. do con Nor tory judgment, and where stitutional issues raised here involve injunction impermissible would be questions of unclear an is state law or declaratory principles, under re- these state, paramount sue of interest ordinarily lief should denied as which should be in a state resolved first well.” Thus, “special court. circumstances” Younger is clear that and Samuels lacking which demand abstention are gov- indicate a modification rule present case.36a erning declaratory judgments stated Although this Koota, supra, would nor conclusion Zwickler v. where cases mally prosecution inquiry, our terminate the absten under criminal a state question tion pending, must be further examined and now restrict light declaratory issues raised the Su criteria for federal relief preme group in a justifying injunctive of six related those relief federal 82, (1971) ; 674, See discussion at 27 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. infra. Dyson Stein, 200, v. 401 U.S. Ryan Specter, F.Supp. 36a. See v. Byrne (1971) ; v. 27 L.Ed.2d 781 (E.D.Pa.1971). Karalexis, 216, 91 401 U.S. S.Ct. Younger Harris, v. (1971). U.S. S. 27 L.Ed.2d 792 ; (1971) Ct. L.Ed.2d 669 Samuels S.Ct L.Ed.2d Mackell, (1971) ; Boyle Landry, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 66, 401 U.S. 91 L.Ed.2d 39. 401 (1971) ; Ledesma, Perez L.Ed.2d 688 Young Upon is, great and immedi- a consideration of —that threat cases, damage.40 question however, irreparable er and its related we ate persuaded reasoning these whether open Court is left principles applied policies a case fundamental voiced therein are should applicable declaratory petition present, no criminal like the where judgment in proceeding pending case, when the declara- the instant no where injunction against prosecution against pending tory judgment and the state was sought.41 plaintiffs were the time relief of the at the federal enforcement statute sought. Here, was the of consideration underlying Examining the rationale request declaratory judgment for a does decisions, appears the Court it these adjudication not the constitute an disrup- strongly the influenced was plaintiffs’ simultaneously in two claims with interference effects federal tive pending judicial forums, not and does therefore in- prosecutions. state Federal disruption on involve the certain of an cases, all in which for such tervention practical purposes going proceeding the state with which parallel liti- in results Young in was concerned gation in court the two same case Thus, er and the related the cases. enter seriously may interrupt systems, the declaratory petition tainment of a judgment operation and of both smooth efficient in the circumstances always judicial systems. almost It will analogous present injunc case not pro- at least state court interfere ceedings persuaded and tive relief we are not court since a federal district governed by “spe it must be the limited declaratory judgments can effectuate its justify which is cial circumstances” by enjoining proceedings. The the state injunction. Hence, of an we con suance declaratory judgment effect a in these appropriate to con clude here virtually circumstances becomes same plaintiffs’ petition sider the for declara type injunction, that of an for either as tory relief.43 ultimately compels in a a halt relief prosecution. consequence a state Such III. INJUNCTION in a itself constitutes severe .blow to injunc request for Plaintiffs’ and delicate balance between the federal relief, however, raises an tive question abstention judicial systems principles and state A comity of a dimension. protect different it. which enforce and decisions, Younger is judicial line of which Moreover, interference federal example, may but a recent the estab on-going reflect prosecutions in- state injunctions judicial principle lished volve violations of Injunction statute,42 Federal Anti- against pending issued or threatened prohi- in which the prosecution against under state criminal statutes judicial bition federal interven- severely integrity order pending threaten the proceedings tion in always state has ly judicial process, state the bal embody prin- and been held to a basic judicial ciple separation ance and federal state of the state systems. Hence, injunctive has judicial systems. relief federal may day, States “A court of United 40. other cases decided same stay proceed- injunction grant application supra, an note 37 illustrate express- except principles ings Younger in a court set out Congress, ly Act of authorized Samuels. jurisdic- necessary in aid of its where Indeed, Court, specifical- Younger, tion, protect or effectuate ly observed: supplied.) judgments.” (Emphasis “(w)e express view about the cir- no which federal courts cumstances under Ledesma, 98- Perez See prosecution act there is no when (opin L.Ed.2d pending in at time the state courts part concurring Brennan, ion of Justice begun.” proceeding is federal ; part) dissenting v. Har Askew at grave, 28 L.Ed. provides: 2d § which 28 U.S.C. extraordinary judicial long meas- a district been federal court issue an injunction only “special appropriate circum- ure enforcement of state injunc- regulating picketing In order obtain stances.” on grounds petitioner vague more must tive relief a show that the statute was overbroad, injury being “in- than threat of was not utilized every proceeding discourage criminal cidental bad faith to brought lawfully good and in faith civil activities. also stated that any chilling Rather, picketing .”45 he must show effect form might great irrepara- expression of freedom threat of and immediate re- good-faith injury.46 sult from ble enforcement justify the statute was insufficient Pfister,47 irrepara- In Dombrowski v. injunctive reasoning relief. This was injury petitioners ble estab- Younger, affirmed in in which the Court officials utilized lished where state had rejected notion that “the federal pur- statute in bad faith for the may give equitable relief, courts with- pose of harassment. court found regard any showing out to of bad faith allegations support full for the that: or harassment, whenever a state statute enforce “the threats the statutes to vague is found ‘on its face’ or against appellants made with overly of broad violation the First securing any expectation of con- valid 51 Amendment.” victions, part plan rather are of a but employ arrests, seizures, and threats facing challenges Other courts to state prosecution under color the stat- adjudicated requests abortion laws have appellants and utes to harass discour- injunctions for in accordance with these age supporters their them and principles. McCann,52 In Babbitz v. asserting attempting to vindicate federal that district court held Wiscon Negro cit- the constitutional plain sin’s abortion violated statute 48 izens of Louisiana.” rights, tiff’s re Ninth Amendment but Finding injunction against fused that these actions issue an threatened “chilling stating statute, upon stricken that exerted a there was severe effect” showing exceptional petitioners no circumstances of their exercise injunction, freedoms, First sufficient an Amendment to warrant prosecu- no reason the state “defense of the State’s criminal to doubt would plaintiff’s tion adequate constitutional not assure fail rights. vindicate vindi- [would] apparent [petitioners’] Only cation it when became constitutional 49 rights,” granted prose injunc- to cease the state had refused the Court an did the district tion. cutions under statute against injunction court exe issue an Subsequently, in Cameron v. John- Wade,54 son,50 a federal rcise.53 In Roe v. the Court affirmed the refusal ap (E.D.Wis.1970), F.Supp. Younger 37, Harris, 52. 310 293 44. v. 401 43- U.S. 12, peal 1, dismissed, 746, (1971). 91 S.Ct. 400 U.S. 49, L.Ed.2d 91 S.Ct. 27 669 (1970). L.Ed.2d 1 27 City Jeannette, Douglas 45. U.S. 319 F.Supp. McCann, 877, 881, 219 53. Babbitz v. L.Ed. 63 S.Ct. injunctive judg (E.D.Wis.1970). (1943). This remanded ment lias been vacated 46. Id. 903, Supreme Court, 402 U.S. 1116, 479, (1971), for 85 S.Ct. 14 L.Ed. 380 U.S. L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Younger (1965). light 2d reconsideration Harris, 91 S.Ct. at 1118. Id. at 85 S.Ct. (1971), Samuels L.Ed.2d Id. at 1120. at 85 S.Ct. Mackell, Kennan v. see But L.Ed.2d 688 L.Ed. (W.D.Wis.1971), Nichol, F.Supp. 613 2d 182 aff’d, 30 L. 50, 91 at at 753. 51. 401 U.S. procure the miscar- or tent to cause an stat district abortion held court riage pregnant woman, adminis- plaintiffs’ of a Ninth ute of Texas violated prescribes or directs or or advises rights, to issue ters Amendment but refused any poison, or swallow injunction her take find could because thing, drug, or or noxious medicine order was enforced the statute activities, any instrument or means what- discourage uses protected high ever, guilty misdemean- abridge expression. freedom of supplied.) (Emphasis or.” principles to Applying these challenge specifically Plaintiffs plain present case, it clear that phrase justification” “without lawful alleged nor shown tiffs have neither sphere providing inadequate notice of the Jersey abortion utilization the New prohibited of conduct the statute. rea prosecutors for statute good faith son other than in process to due basic securing purpose convictions valid that: allega They no thereunder. made peril required “(n)o one has been tion that abortion specu- liberty property life, in faith as an them bad used penal meaning of stat- late as intimidation harassment strument of informed entitled to be utes. All are protected con exercise or for- commands as to what the State rights. allegation that stitutional they (footnote omitted) .a ‘. bids. of First are chilled the exercise or re- either forbids statute which is insufficient Amendment freedoms quires doing of an act terms so the injunctive support More itself to relief. intelli- vague men of common over, no advanced reasons been have guess gence necessarily its must prosecutors will fail indicate that state applica- meaning as to its and differ protect plaintiffs’ constitu or to enforce tion, of due first essential violates the by this court. tional as found ” 57 process of law.’ are led to believe Nor we otherwise legislative in 2A:87-1 or Nowhere ignore they under circumstance will such history, however, what a hint of there is special Hence, them. circumstances the justifica- may “lawful reasons constitute justify in which relief of the drastic pregnancy. tion” termination for the junction not been shown. Dic- Black’s Law “Lawful” is defined tionary “Legal; or au- as: warranted IV. VAGUENESS law; having quali- by the thorized the statutory Plaintiffs the contend law; by con- prescribed not fications provisions of 45:9-1656 2A:87-155 and trary by the law.” to nor forbidden unconstitutionally vague, facially and are “maintain- defined as “Justification” is applied, they provide insuf- because as. showing ing reason or sufficient warning plaintiffs ficient and oth- why he is what court did the defendant justify ers of which the conditions abor- upon . . . Just answer . called unevenly tion, applied. and are 2A:87-1 Just, . lawful . . cause or excuse . provides pertinent hereto: . Reasonable for act excuse “Any person who, maliciously clarify not definitions do excuse.” These urge justification, without in- the defendants the Nor do statute. lawful (1972), temporary supra. Ed.2d 727 which a 55. See note 1 by restraining single order fed issued supra. 56. See note 2 judge eral district court threaten Jersey, prosecution v. New ed 57. Lanzetta under the stricken statute by upheld L.Ed. 888 was the Court. Connally (1939) ; Construc v. General (N.D.Tex.1970), prob. F.Supp. 54. 314 Co., 391, 46 S.Ct. tion juris, noted, 70 L.Ed. 322 (No. (1971), 29 L.Ed.2d 108 Term; renumbered No. Term). concerning procurement information language itself of the statute requirement abortions.60 specificity fulfills the give reason- Amendment Fourteenth by persuaded the conten We permissible scope of notice of the able language sweeping tion that argue They prohibited activity. rath- expression upheld can as an challenged language, which er that legislative interpreta place intent virtually unaltered since has remained phrase justi tions of “without lawful passage of the statute legis fication” the courts. While provide con- intentionally retained to may validly of de lature the task leave tinuing interpretation judicial termining scope and contours light prevailing conditions broadly judiciary, worded statutes to the interpreted Jersey have- the New courts uphold which bound to constitu its potential to eliminate statute so as hardly tionality possible, if at all this is rely vagueness scope. Defendants in its susceptible accomplishment when guidelines additionally upon formulated purpose intent or of the statute is left County Prosecutors a Committee of indeed, patent, obscure.61 It that the Attorney Office issued Jersey Legislature undeter New has left construing scope of General mined intended whether the statute was justifica- phrase lawful “without safety for the health and measure County in New tion.” Prosecutors All protection women, protection for as a one,58 agreed Jersey, to be save for children, lives of unborn both.62 thereby. bound turn now to the decisions of We pres- whether, urge Finally, that the New defendants courts determine urge, judi- a statute as defendants there have been ent case not involve does construing expression, interpretations the statute cial restricts freedom of deserving sufficiently plaintiffs judicial scruti- forewarn the of the strict chilling sphere activity prohibited ny effect for where called language. Jersey case exist.59 The first Amendment freedoms First involving judicial phrase on the comment reject outset, last At the must we justification” “without was State lawful Amendment freedoms contention. First Brandenburg.63 Following his v. convic- clearly speech expression in- case, under the in that the tion very present in volved the case since the challenged appeal defendant-physician on language imposes pro- a of the statute alia, charge jury inter a at trial “prescribes person hibition on who that: or termi- advises directs” a woman to “ justification pregnancy. ‘Lawful is used nate her courts necessity. that upheld sense It is a defense- of indi- fact convictions imparted life the destruction the child’s was under the statute viduals who (con- (1968) County 58. de- N.J. 244 A.2d 499 The Prosecutor of Middlesex curring) ; Report. Baird, State v. 50 N.J. clined to adhere to the (concur- (1967) A.2d 235 673 Button, v. 83 N.A.A.C.P. ring) ; Cosgrove, 49 N.J. Gleitman v. (1963) ; see 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1967) (dissent- 22, 57-58, 227 A.2d 689 Keyishian Regents, v. Board of ing part) ; opinion and the of Justice 17 L.Ed.2d 629 Cosgrove, supra, in Gleitman v. Francis Ellrich, A.2d (concurring). N.J. v. State A.2d at Murphy, (1952) ; v. 27 N.J.L. State Cosgrove, 62. See Gleitman v. 49 N.J. (Sup.Ct.1858). Gedicke, ; (1967) A.2d State upon fact, (Sup.Ct.1881) ; have been cast shadows State 43 N.J.L. 86 legislative adequacy (Sup.Ct.1858). Murphy, directives N.J.L. judicial interpretation guidelines for (Sup.Ct. opinions A.2d Jus- N.J.L. of Chief this statute. See Moretti, 1948). tice Weintraub mother, Notwithstanding express re- necessary of the court’s that save abortion, if ne- fusal consider whether an that it should remembered but be lawfully justi- strictly sought, cessity be have been would this class must fied, significance language only exer- of the The can be limited. ” 64 ignored. ap- only extremity.’ cannot For it cised proved ground necessity pre- appellant argued court trial that the justifi- serve the mother’s life as a lawful charged protection aof that should have clearly abortion, im- cation for but also well-being constitute woman’s health and plied as well that medical indications justification the statute. under lawful might expres- justify judicial it. Such appellate there court held sion, holding dicta, merely whether a charge, particularly since no error surely did not serve to illuminate had been the defense trial justifi- reasons which constitute lawful necessary moth to save abortion was statute, per- cation under either consider whether er’s life. declined to forming imparting knowl- abortions protection health con mother’s edge Weintraub, thereof. Chief Justice justification, but did re lawful stituted commenting above-quoted on the state- ject proposition a that “so broad ment, that: observed ground ‘well-being’ as be considered miscarriage.” causing ground jury for a very suggestion question “the 65 eugenic remains as to whether a abor- of the inclusive Judicial consideration quite tion as for- is criminal will be statutory sweep challenged lan- bidding holding it flat is.” guage again Cos- in Gleitman v. occurred very language least, At the grove.66 malprac- Although this was implied opportunity court in Gleitman an physicians who tice action two physicians for to utilize their medical allegedly apprise the mother failed to judgment granting abortions, but left might result that birth defects open possibility they wide could rubella, the ex- became vehicle second-guessed judicial forum, in a considerably judicial pression diverse penalties incur the severe of conviction “lawfully” justi- opinion what reasons on and loss of license. Jersey Supreme fy abortion. The New question of Court refused to reach the year In the same de- that Gleitman was sought, abortion, if would whether cided, guidelines were formulated illegal, went have been but County Prosecutors, interpreting that: statutory phrase justifi- “without lawful They cation” as heretofore only noted.69 vir- justification so far held “The preservation tually adopted language courts is lawful our of the court Shapiro, 89 the mother’s life. State stating Gleitman, in would that abortions (E 1916); A& N.J.L. 98 A. 437 lawfully justified be considered when Brandenburg, 137 N.J.L. State necessary life, preserve the mother’s may (Sup.Ct.1948). 58 A.2d 709 performed good when on a faith determi- physician per- a well be when accepted nation made in accordance with good an abortion of a forms because medical standards that termination a faith determination accordance with medically pregnancy It is indicated. accepted that an medical standards apparent relied the Prosecutors medically indicated, the abortion is language the the case as Gleitman justifi- physician acted with lawful has interpretation stat- of the determinative meaning of cation the our stat- within 67 ute. has a crime.” ute and not committed Id. A.2d at 67. at 694. Id. at 58 A.2d at 710. (dissenting part), A.2d Id. Id. at 58 A.2d at 710. at A.2d 66. 49 N.J. p. 22, supra. 69. See preserve pregnancy the mination of court the statement of Neither consid- County life or health should mother’s Prosecutors’ nor the Gleitman justification in his observa- ered lawful guidelines in the clarified further were tion that: con- Jersey Supreme recent Court’s New On v. Moretti.70 sideration have that abortions “it well-known is conspiracy

appeal from conviction good being performed in been and are abortion, to commit unlawful physicians by highly qualified faith appellants’ conten- replied court hospitals, highly reputable when unconstitution- that the statute was tion necessary preserve or health life ally vague by stating that: preclude quick- mother, or to “Clearly, stat- a construction ening in rubella cases of the fetus meaning of the confined ute which (Emphasis supplied.) the like.” justification’ phrase ‘lawful preservation mother’s life foregoing On the basis attack constitutional would avoid the defendant it is clear that discussion vagueness.” based on argued accurately is has that abortion necessary lawfully justified at least when It also stated that: life; preserve mother’s “(i)t beyond comprehension that “may justified performed well be” when the defendants could have believed good that ac on a faith determination our abortion envisioned lawful indicate; cepted medical standards so justification a wom- to exist whenever Jersey prosecutors most New and that having an wanted to a child.” avoid assump operating appear to be under any way The court did not in allude to lawful tion that reasons constitute both language Gleitman, adopted by justification frail This abortion. Jersey, Prosecutors of New that an abor- foundation, however, for the defendant’s may lawfully justified tion if medical- thereby has contention that the statute ly good indicated on the basis of faith sufficiently specific to been rendered determination made accordance with stringent requirements conform to the accepted medical standards. Whether for ade Fourteenth Amendment thereby the court intended to affirm sphere quate notice of the reasonable reject language its earlier is unclear. activity prohibited All of these it. given Yet the Prosecutors indi- no arguments only emphasize the serve cation of their from their withdrawal judicial interpretation estab absence of position report, despite in the 1967 lishing in clear standard language in more restrictive Moretti. prosecutors alike dividuals justices Jersey In fact, several of the New reasonably determine the lawfulness widely Court have voiced differ- statute. We conduct under the ing opinions regarding scope of rea- persuaded that the decisions lawfully justify sons which would abor- provided constitution courts have Francis, tion under the statute. Justice forewarning sphere ally adequate concurring Gleitman, argued that ne- activity prohibited the statute cessity preserve the mother’s life justification.” being lawful “without only justification lawful under the proper notice find cannot We statute, while Chief Justice Weintraub legisla any language inor of the statute (dissenting part) and Justice Jacobs purpose. or expression intent of tive (dissenting) stated their belief that policy is of mere Nor can a statement provides justification rubella a lawful provide prosecutors by the state sued pregnancy. for the termination of Jus- necessary specificity. additionally tice Jacobs noted that ter- Cosgrove, 52- N.J. 73. Gleitman (1968). 70. 52 N.J. 244 A.2d 499 Sanitary ; (1967) Ven- A.2d 689 Id. at 244 A.2d at N.J.Super. Byrne, dors, Inc. v. (1962). A.2d 259 at 505. 244 A.2d Id. at plaintiff- and Jersey that it chills is unlike that deters statute The New physicians protected of exercise which was of Columbia District activities; and that First Amendment on a chal- upheld by Court plaintiff-physicians’ it violates lenge vagueness States v. in United under the Fourteenth Amendment held consti- there Vuitch.74 The freely practice profession their prohibiting abortion statute tutional a “necessary preservation of choice. for the unless health,” finding that life or mother’s RIGHT .OF PRIVACY V. were or health” suffi- “life the words ciently the notice re- specific to fulfill Plaintiff-physicians further contend Amend- quirements of the Fourteenth statutes, Jersey that the New abortion Jersey is not New ment. The 45:9-16, 2A:87-1 and their violate statute, in lan- either similar to guage patients’ privacy and their interpreted the state or as physician-patient relationship courts. guaranteed Fifth, First, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. judicial inter In the absence of They urge statutory that a command legislative history pretation di withhold medical advice services guidelines adequate providing rectives seeking women constitutionally upon intrudes un- abortions may who for the conduct those alleged right of possible prosecution with threatened determining privacy women to wheth- 2A:87-1, under tionally it be constitu cannot child, right er to bear a which includes a challenged sustained. “not to have children in where eases phrase justification” “without lawful pregnancy early can be terminated glimmer provides not a of notice to the stages by means of an induced or may may reader he of what do. argued therapeutic abortion.”76 It analysis, plaintiff-phy- In the final right privacy extends pros- sicians who be threatened quickening including period, at least ecution under the statute can abortion pregnancy. first trimester If women rely judgment, only upon their individual patients are entitled to the services seek always subject judicial to a determina- physicians abortions, perform they guessed wrongly, tion sulting re- that the follows rendition of serv- such of license to conviction loss beyond ices the reach the abortion practice As medicine.74a Justice Clark law. has observed: alleged privacy increasing “The number of abortions grounded upon here is the fundamental subjects physicians to increased dan- principle protects that the Constitution gers incorrectly liability inter- of an individual to control the preting appears a statute. body use and function of his or her with fate face an uncertain when doctors out unreasonable interference from the performing an abortion.” rely state. Plaintiffs do not on language We conclude that abor- literal constitutional provision statute, 2A:87-1, support allegations. tion unconstitution- ally vague applied; Rather, they on its number of face contend concepts, easily free-wheeling 74. 402 28 L.Ed.2d become too juror’s pred- taking meaning from the prejudices.” religious ilections opinion Douglas 74a. See (dissent- Justice Unit- at 1303 ed he States Vuitch in which stated: ing part). statutory “Unless code of conduct Religion, Morality, Clark, and Abortion: very bounds, is stable and in narrow Loyola Appraisal, 2 A L. Constitutional juries physicians range have wide Rev. guideposts. have no reliable The words statutory the [of code] Plaintiff Brief for at 62. any body decisions, to- in its in of its Amend- either or considered Supreme Court and ments. gether, interpreted the Ninth singly Amendments,77 either Fourteenth Meyer The first of line of this cases is right encompass combination, the or in to Meyer, Court v. Nebraska.81 In the privacy here. of asserted down, struck on Fourteenth Amendment sought may grounds, to principle a state statute which foundation for A Railway English support primacy the of the lan- in Pacific be Union observed guage by prohibiting teaching of Botsford,78 the which the Court Co. v. foreign languages chil- modern to school stated: eighth grade. discuss- dren below the sacred, right or more held “No ing applicability of the Fourteenth the guarded, carefully by the com- is more it, the Amendment to the issue before every law, in- than of mon the Court commented: possession con- to and dividual the problem person, “The from all our determination of his free trol own others, whether un- the statute as or interference of construed restraint infringes applied unreasonably by unquestionable au- the clear and less thority guaranteed liberty plaintiff the of law.” by error the Fourteenth Amendment. continuing validity prin of this any deprive ‘No shall . . State . years only ciple four was demonstrated person life, liberty, property, of or ago Ohio,79 Terry the wherein process without due of law.’ specifically Supreme Court reaffirmed above-quoted passage Bots- from the attempted “While this has not Court ford.80 liberty to define with exactness guaranteed, time, Supreme thus has re Court term Since expanded principle, in- much ceived consideration and some has terpreting the Botsford things of have been defi

the Ninth Fourteenth included having nitely doubt, it de established stated. Without Amendments bodily merely protects notes not the relating freedom from Constitution certain marriage, sex, childbearing, restraint but also the contract, childrearing education, engage despite any occupations life, acquire common of that such are not fact mentioned provides: 77. The Ninth held that federal Amendment power “The courts lacked such the absence enumeration Constitu- authority. might tion, rights, congressional be shall certain deny plac- disparage argued reliance construed to others little should upon principle people.” retained extracted ed provides, 1) from, it evolved The Fourteenth Amendment since Botsford 2) pertinent part: to, context, be limited a tort should “ adoption State shall make or the Federal Rules .No any abridge hold- which shall robbed the ultimate enforce law Civil Procedure privileges any ing immunities effect. Sibbach of citizens case of See any States; Co., nor & U.S. 61 S.Ct. United shall v. Wilson 312 (1941). any person deprive liberty, life, 85 L.Ed. 479 property, process argument persuasive, due without is not Such deny law; person however, light nor within its the reaffirmance jurisdiction equal protection Terry principle Court. Botsford stop- Terry propriety laws.” involved conduct- and-frisk search of an individual 250, 78. 141 suspicions policeman had ed whose (1891). L.Ed. The recent restatement been aroused. L.Ed.2d principle in the context of the Botsford clearly es- Amendment ease Fourth very principle is much tablishes negligence action Botsford actions. to tort limited alive question posed the aof federal court’s authority plaintiff L.Ed. to order a submit 81. 262 U.S. physical prior to examination trial. very man,’ fundamental to our marry, of knowledge, establish useful children, bring up wor and survival.” existence a home of according ship to the dictates God right privacy of a The existence generally conscience, his own significant support in Griswold received recognized long privileges enjoy those resulted that case v. Connecticut.89 to the essential law as at common made from a Connecticut statute which by happiness free orderly pursuit of any person for it a criminal offense estab The omitted] men. [citations in the either to or to aid or abet use liberty is lished doctorine any drug, use of article medicinal with, under interfered not be preventing purpose instrument for interest, public guise protecting the Griswold, appellants conception. The arbitrary legislative by which action respectively Director and the Executive some relation to reasonable or without Director, physician, of the the Medical competency of the purpose within the League of Con- Planned Parenthood ..” effect State to advice, necticut, provided information couples to married for con- devices Society later, years in Pierce v. Two traceptive purposes. convictions Their citing Court, Sisters,83 Supreme its engaging prohibited for in the activities supra,, Meyer, Four read the decision upheld by the as were Con- accessories guaranteeing the teenth Amendment as held necticut courts. The Court guardians “liberty parents to di the Connecticut statutes unconstitutional upbringing and education rect interference with the unreasonable as control”84 children under right privacy. of marital Justice right private school vindicated the Douglas, majority, recognized for the requiring despite law attendance a state right upon privacy that the of marital public educated students be opinion which not stated he rested his rel. ex In Skinner v. Oklahoma schools. specifically in the Constitution and ex- challenge Williamson,85 which involved reasoning following plained his compul requiring law an Oklahoma language: sory for habitual sterilization sexual suggest offenders, foregoing Court “The cases a unanimous criminal guarantees violating specific Equal the Bill voided the statute Rights penumbras, formed the Fourteenth have Protection Clause however, guarantees doing, emanations from those help Amendment. so “right give directly life to a them and substance. Court addressed itself See Ullman, 497, perpetuation of a Poe v. 367 U.S. 516-522 basic (dis- offspring.”86 6 L.Ed.2d [81 race—the S.Ct. 989] have senting guarantees Loving Virginia,87 recently, opinion). Various More privacy. “(t)he create zones of the marry noted freedom long recognized penumbra one association contained in the has been one, personal the First Amendment is we essential vital orderly pursuit happiness seen. The Third Amendment prohibition men,” quartering anti- free and held that a state miscegenation of soldiers ‘in house’ in time of law violated the Due peace without the consent of the owner Process Clause of the Fourteenth interfering privacy. unreasonably is another facet of that Amendment marriage, explicitly Fourth Amendment civil affirms “one of the ‘basic 399-400, 82. 86. Id. at at 1111. Id. at at S.Ct. 43 S.Ct. 626-627. 87. S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 69 L.Ed. 388 U.S. ) (1967 (1925). Id. Id. at 87 S.Ct. at 1824. at 573. 14 L.Ed.

85. 316 86 L.Ed. 2d 510 through their privacy people ‘right or zones to be secure the penumbras houses, persons, papers, emanations.91 and and in their effects, against unreasonable searches concurring opinion of Justice The Amendment The Fifth seizures.’ sought' explore Goldberg92 en- Clause emanating Self-Incrimination privacy right of elucidate a zone of ables the citizen create a start- As from Amendment. the Ninth government may privacy which ing analysis, point in Justice Gold- his to his detri- force him to surrender berg stated: pro- ment. The Ninth Amendment decisions, Court, in a series of “This in the Con- ‘The enumeration vides: Amend- that the Fourteenth has held stitution, rights, of certain not be shall applies ment absorbs and States deny disparage others construed to eight specifics of the first those people.’ retained express funda- amendments which -x- * * * * * rights. personal mental [footnote many controversies “We have had history language and The omitted] rights ‘pri penumbral over these reveal that the Ninth Amendment vacy repose.’ See, g., e. Breard v. the Framers of the Constitution be- Alexandria, 622, 626, 644 341 U.S. [71 funda- lieved that there are additional 920, 933, 1233]; 923, S.Ct. 95 L.Ed. govern- rights, protected mental Pollak, Public Comm’n v. 343 Utilities infringement, mental alongside which exist 1068]; 813, L.Ed. U.S. 451 S.Ct. [72 fundamental those Pape, Monroe v. 167 [81 U.S. S.Ct. specifically in the first mentioned ; 5 L.Ed.2d Lanza v. 492] eight constitutional amendments.” York, 370 U.S. 139 S.Ct. [82 proceeded whether He then to determine 384]; Maryland, L.Ed.2d Frank properly in- Amendment was Ninth 877]; U.S. L.Ed.2d S.Ct. [79 considering question of a voked Oklahoma, Skinner v. right reasoning privacy, that: 1655], S.Ct. 86 L.Ed. [62 Court has had little “While this These cases bear witness that interpret Ninth occasion to Amend- recogni privacy presses which for ment, omitted], cannot [footnote ‘[i]t legitimate here is tion one. presumed be clause in then, present ease, “The concerns a be constitution intended to without relationship lying the zone of within Marbury Madison, Cranch effect.’ privacy by several created fundamental interpreting 174 L.Ed. [2 60]. guarantees.” constitutional Constitution, should ‘real effect significance given Notable is critical uses.’ to all it be the words Douglas’ Justice Ninth Myers States, citation v. United listing Amendment in his of constitu- 71 L.Ed. 160]. [47 provisions tional which mark out The Ninth Amendment to the Consti- Id. declaratory at majority 85 S.Ct. at 1681. The Poe found the non-justiciable. judgment However, issue 91. The Griswold decision itself demon- interesting to note that Justices strates the evolution and maturation Douglas and Harlan dissented Poe and principles relating the constitutional the constitutional discussed merits of privacy process. years and due Four by plaintiffs. urged In their dis- claims prior Griswold, the same Connecticut developing sents can be viewed theories challenged statutes were on identical con- process privacy later and due which grounds Ullman, stitutional in Poe v. for the basis resolution formed 6 L.Ed.2d 989 Griswold. distinguishing factor be- tween himself, the two cases was Griswold Goldberg 92. Justice wrote involved review of a state criminal con- Justice Bren- Justice Warren and Chief viction, whereas Poe reached the Court nan. complaint seeking declaratory on a relief upon potential prosecution. based S.Ct. at concurred regarded by Harlan late Justice may some as

tution forgotten decision but discovery the Griswold recent opinion He stated: of the Court. others, it has been but since 1791 Constitution part of the a basic my view, proper constitu “In uphold. To hold that we are sworn inquiry in case is whether tional fundamental so basic infringes this Connecticut society deep-rooted in our so Fourteenth Clause of the Due Process marriage may right privacy in be vio the enactment Amendment because right infringed because is ‘implicit con lates basic values guaranteed many by the in so words liberty,’ cept Palko Con of ordered eight to the Con- amendments first necticut, S.Ct. [58 302 U.S. ignore Amend- is the Ninth stitution to 288], 149, 152, reasons For 82 L.Ed. give it no effect whatso- ment and to dissenting length my in at stated Moreover, judicial construc- ever. Ullman, supra opinion [367 in Poe v. right tion that this fundamental 1752, 6 497, 539-555, S.Ct. U.S. protected by Constitution because (1961)], it I believe L.Ed.2d 989 explicit it is not in terms mentioned inquiry the relevant While does. eight by first amendments one by to one or more aided resort or elsewhere the Constitution would Rights, it provisions of the Bill of Amendment, violate the which Ninth dependent on them or is not specifically enumer- states that ‘[t]he Process The Due radiations. Constitution, ation of certain Amendment Clause of the Fourteenth rights, deny shall not construed stands, my opinion, on its own bot disparage by retained others tom.” ” people.’ (Emphasis original)94 According Harlan, to Justice Fourteenth determining pro- In which are analysis proceeds Amendment as follows: against tected unreasonable state inter- vention and interference the Ninth claim to “Each new Constitutional Goldberg Amendment, stated: Justice protection considered must be background pur- determining of Constitutional “In which are they rationally poses, per- fundamental, been judges have are not left at historically developed. large light ceived and of their to decide cases Though sharp- limited and Rather, we personal private exercise notions. ly yet judgment, restrained there they must look to ‘traditions yardstick,’ no no ‘mechan- people’ ‘mechanical of our conscience [collective] ap- ical The decision of an principle answer.’ determine whether a ‘so parently depend on novel claim must rooted . to be [there] grounds closely on which follow well- Snyder ranked as fundamental.’ accepted principles and criteria. Massachusetts, 105 [54 place in take ‘its new decision must inquiry S.Ct. is wheth 332]. fur- relation to what went before and er a involved a char such ‘is is to ther a channel for what [cut] acter cannot be denied without California, violating come.’ Irvine prin those “fundamental L.Ed. S.Ct. ciples liberty justice [74 which lie (dissenting opinion).”97 561] political at the base of our all civil and institutions.” .’ v. Ala Powell bama, and its as S.Ct. Hence Griswold [53 following 77 L.Ed. 158].” sociated cases establish 94. Id. at U.S. at at 1690. Ullman, Id. at 85 S.Ct. at 1686. 97. Poe v. (1961) (dissenting). principles applicable plicit liberty. issues concept basic presented of ordered

here: ex- decisions heretofore amined have in- determined that rights guar- Not all fundamental person dividual’s his freedom anteed States United Constitution marriage, marry, enjoy privacy in a specifically are mentioned in its either offspring, to have decide have not to amendments; body inor offspring practicing contraception, general right privacy, 2. A control and direct the education particular privacy, collection zones of children, protected from unrea- Constitution, de- exists whether governmental sonable interference. penumbras rived from emana- have the wake of there Griswold provisions tions of various constitutional been a number of lower decisions court Amendment, amendments, Ninth directed merits Four- the Due Process Clause of the privacy expanded contentions or a teenth Amendment thereof; combination scope protected those activities right a include woman’s to choose wheth- determining which activities complete pregnancy er to a and a bear only protection, deserve constitutional child. those that can “fundamental” be termed Belous,98 In California the court concept “implicit or of ordered stated: right liberty” are under or subsumed right “The fundamental wom- of the privacy; zone of an to to bear children choose whether right 4. The or zone constitutional from and follows Court’s privacy has to and been held include acknowledgement repeated this court’s protect relat- certain activities least ‘right ‘liberty’ privacy’ of a ing sex, pro- marriage, contraception, to marriage, family, matter's related to education; creation, child-rearing and Loving, [citing Griswold, and sex. Skinner, Pierce, Meyer, and Cali- two sufficiently right activity fornia That such a Even an cases] if right of the United States to be included within enumerated in either basic im- privacy, is no it is to freedom California Constitutions not entitled right, regulation by government. pediment to all control the existence [citations omitted].” principles cir- Applying these McCann,99 court Babbitz v. case, ab- present cumstances found Ninth Amendment the Con- language specific the Consti- sence inherently protects stitution a “woman’s or diminish tution does not dilute right” personal to obtain an abortion right pri- there is contention that analyzing authority, in- after a host vacy to seek which includes cluding Botsford, Griswold, Belous, Lov- early stages preg- the scope abortion Meyer, ing, Pierce Skinner. nancy. found interests Wade,100 by struck constitutionally In Roe v. court protected the Su- in as abortion statute it views down Texas preme Court demonstrates fringing upon “plaintiffs’ per- fundamental sanctity individual’s both the family right chil to have relationships to choose whether within a his son and Griswold, they citing dren,” Babbitz, Belous, society that vital to free as so our fundamental, supra, im- Munson.101 all and State v. be ranked should (1971). Cal.Rptr. 1610, 29 L.Ed.2d 108 359- 98. 71 Cal.2d (No. 808, Term; renumbered No. 458 P.2d 199-200 Term). (E.D.Wis.1970), F.Supp. appeal dismissed, (S.Dak.Cir.Ct., Memorandum decision L.Ed.2d 1 6, 1970). Pennington County, April (N.D.Tex. F.Supp. 100. 314 noted, juris, 1970), prob. Scott,102 by the court reviewed for In Doe v. restriction on abortion immediately and con- New discussed above statutes in- authorities protected : volves and cluded interferes with the family areas of both and individual free- distinguish cannot the inter- “We dom. plaintiffs in this ests asserted Griswold, case from those asserted Hence, hold we that a woman believe that . We Griswold cog privacy has a constitutional that matters related cases establish nizable under the Ninth and Fourteenth pertaining procreation, as well Amendments to determine for herself marriage, family, sex are whether to bear a child or to terminate privacy surrounded a zone of pregnancy early stages, in its free from concerning protects such activities unreasonable interference the State. governmental unjustified matters from question remains There intrusion.” authority the extent of Accordingly, persuaded we regulate long in this area. itWhile has the freedom to determine whether recognized been that constitutional preg- bear a child and terminate a governmental are not immune from all early stages signifi- nancy in its is so regulation,105 it is insufficient for the cantly indi- related to the fundamental state to demonstrate that a restrictive family already found vidual regulatory merely scheme motivated exist the Constitution that it fol- by purpose. some rational intru directly lows quires channel and re- constitutionally pro sions into an area of recognition.104 a con- Whether tected freedom must be founded on a privacy stitutional area this compelling state interest which overrides right, conceptualized family as a private rights of the individual.106 Griswold, personal and individual Here, inas California Belous:107 v. right, deriving or as sources both significance equally applies is of no and “The critical issue is not whether regardless status, to all exist, women of marital such but whether the state F.Supp. (N.D.Ill.1971), ap States, 321 1385 713, Co. v. United 403 91 peal Doe, 2140, (1971). docketed sub nom. Hanrahan v. S.Ct. 29 L.Ed .2d 822 1522, 1523, Doe, No. and Heffernan v. No. Goldberg 106. As Justice stated in his con- (April 6, 1971), 39 U.S.L.W. 3438 renum curring opinion in Grisioold: bered No. and No. 70-105 70-106 re long “In a series of cases this Court spectively, (July 13, 40 U.S.L.W. 3007 per lias held where fundamental 1971). they may involved, sonal liberties by abridged simply not be the States on F.Supp. 103. 321 at 1389-1390. showing regulatory that a statute has relationship Editorial, some rational to the effec 104. See Anti-Abortion Laws— proper purpose. Morality, Legality tuation of a state As Their and 95 significant 1971). (Jan. 13, ‘Where there is a encroach N.J. 4 Law J. upon personal liberty, ment the State major finding For the cases no may prevail only upon showing a sub privacy, Corkey Edwards, see v. F. 322 ordinating compelling.’ interest which is Steinberg Supp. (W.D.N.C.1971) ; 1248 Rock, 516, Bates v. Little 361 U.S. Brown, F.Supp. (N.D.Ohio 321 741 417, 412, [80 524 S.Ct. 4 L.Ed.2d 480]. 1970) ; and Rosen Louisiana State ‘necessary, The law must be shown Examiners, F.Supp. Board Medical merely rationally related, to the ac appeal docketed, (E.D.La.1970), complishment permissible pol of a state (Dec. 8, 1970), (No. 1010, U.S.L.W. 3247 icy.’ [citations 381 U.S. omitted].” Term; renumbered No. 1678, 1688, 14 479, 497, 85 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Term). Shapiro Thompson, See 394 U.S. States, 105. Schenck v. United 249 U.S. (1969). L.Ed.2d 600 Rey (1919) ; 63 L.Ed. S.Ct. States, nolds v. United 98 U.S. Cal.Rptr. 354, 360, 107. 71 Cal.2d L.Ed. 244 See New York Times P.2d health, safety, regula- safeguarding in the terest compelling interest ahas subject and lives of its citizens. is within tion of a .” police powers . . state . relatively Concerning ab expressed the State as interest ex stract interest of such an Where regulating narrowly Attorney by ists, regulation General be must welfare, general designed reasonably drawn, ful inimical to the conduct encroaching authority nor un no has been advanced purpose fill its without indicating may liberty. sustain necessarily upon personal that a state As found infringe legislation alleged indi :108 was said in N. A. Alabama A. C. P. v. governmental so amor purpose vidual constitutional “a to control general fostering constitutionally phous prevent a reason as sub activities power ported by concept fend the inimical to the grounds in the New ject tion necessarily broadly sued the area of achieved 231].” mental the end can more ed.’ Shelton v. Cantwell v. fundamental stantial, ‘ . regulate attaining infringe . Attorney omitted] of the State to to state [81 of the statutory . purpose briefs and oral purported Jersey [E]ven means that must be so exercised as protected Connecticut, protection means which general welfare, personal purpose General and regulation permissible end, ‘ Tucker, . abortion laws on two restrictions protected though legitimate . state interest: freedoms, regulate narrowly 84 L.Ed. 1213. . cannot be liberties when thereby of the broadly argument, [T]he amici, sup- sweep freedom.’ provided and sub- and the L.Ed.2d conduct embryo govern- achiev- unduly invade power [cita stifle pur- not, un the de- be welfare passage of the 1849 abortion specific which has to Jersey passed the abortion statute. In health of women was a motivation stated: Following mother, prevent much as “The of mother Legislative common is not an indictable offence “the unless the mother be not indictable.” the mere of such State v. interpret ^[*] State v. procuring design interest which of its must the byor attempts. ^[*] been law, hard Cooper109 attempt the 1849 concern procuring guard Murphy,110 citizens. of the show altered but upon another with her ^[*] of an abortion consequently some the court the health statute, for the lives ^[*] commit quick the It is clear compelling. particular the first decision, little to date. consequences abortions, ^[*] held that: the act is the court and life statute, assent, ^[*] child, case so Inevitably or fetus. there are into drawn persons, under of third “The offence issue other areas of conceivable state mainly against statute, life her is interest, guarding such as the health and regards her and health. The statute safety women, the control of sexual crime, the crim- not as as the victim of inal; behavior, promotion and the of increased object protection, rath- population. punishment.” er than court, years in Twenty-three later the question There is no that Gedicke,111 above-quot- cited compelling State has a rational and in- code, as to 288, 307-308, so criminal to amend question crime.” in offence L.Ed.2d make the at 58. N.J.L. (Sup.Ct.1849). 109. 22 N.J.L. At (Sup.Ct.1858). 112, 114-115 N.J.L. opinion Reporter the foot of the not- (Sup.Ct.1881). ed, legislature “This decision induced the 43 N.J.L. legislation language approval is so com- and could abortion restrictive ed every achieving pellingly the desired related to “in almost abortion still note that goal endangers a woman’s health interference with the life and case privacy permissible. woman appropriate considerations However already implemented its The State has safety in 1849 were health regulate by power sexual behavior longer compelling they constitute no providing criminal enactment of statutes statutory grounds justify restrictive engaging primary in ac- sanctions for Today uni it in this area. scheme regulated, tivity sought to be fornica- versally recognized complicated sur adultery.113 tion and gery poses life and far less threat As to the interest of the State patient did much sim than health of the fostering growth, population sub no years pler operations hundred over one compelling has reason stantial let alone ago. authoritatively Today said could override been advanced that preg first trimester of abortion private an to seek woman nancy safer than is almost seven times early especially pregnancy, abortion carrying pregnancy term.112 densely populated heavily urban Moreover, consequence of restric- Jersey, at ized like with its state New legislation produce an is to tive abortion sociolog economic, demographic, tendant safety health, increased threat ecological Hence, problems. ical and matter of com- lives of women. is a these contentions must also fail. knowledge that cannot mon if women Finally, reach the assertion we physicians obtain abortions licensed Attorney and amici General subject clinics, many hospitals compelling pre- State has a interest notorious themselves to the “back-street” serving embryo the life of the or fetus self-abortion, attempt abortion or both justifies prohibitive abortion fraught myriad possibilities of with the legislation. ju- This contention invites mutilation, infection, sterility death. questions dicial resolution of substantial circumstances, we are such religious medical, philosophic di- persuaded compelling there is a embryo mensions to whether health, safeguarding interest being is a human from the moment fetus safety and lives citizens female many conception. articles, Numerous through abortion stat fields, written authorities these utes. purporting been submitted to us conclusively is- settle the multitude of in Nor are considerations question. As sues raised stated volving the control of sexual behavior or Douglas in United States Justice population growth justify sufficient Vuitch:114 prohibitory ques the abortion laws. The regulation con- tion is not “Abortion statutes deal with here whether state weighted heavily reasonable, in with this duct which is area is but whether mortality, excluding Tietze, Mortality Contraception 112. rate maternal with per 100,000 abortion, Abortion, live births and was 18 Induced in Studies Fam- ily Planning (1969) in : 1964-66. :|; # * * Mortality complica- “Maternal from Ai “Mortality legal of, with, pregnancy, tions associated associated childbirth, hospital, performed puerperium, an in the abortions and exclud- ing per early stage gestation: per 8 deaths induced abortion: 20 deaths 100,000 abortions, 100,000 pregnancies. on current based This rate corre- Europe sponds . the statistics from eastern to current level of maternal original.) mortality (Emphasis population in in white in the the United States. Official statistics (Adultery) 2A 113. :88-l N.J.Stat.Ann. mortality maternal in the United States (Fornication). 2A :110-1 only are based on deaths attributed complications pregnancy, childbirth, 28 L.Ed. puerperium. defined, and the 2d 601 Thus teachings that ethical conc the common rule religious law self-abortion prior spoke quickening not off once is criminal epts.1 a Mr. Justice Jackson grounds hold we tread ense.116 Until the recent decision ‘treacherous ing penalty in the death unconstitutional translate ethical undertake to when we by Jersey117 pregnant ones, legal New a could concepts case case. woman into prior quickening.117 George, be executed Moreover, wrongful v. De Jordan (dis a 703, 713, a death action for L.Ed. 886] [71 senting is not opinion).” stillborn fetus maintainable cial resolution. We are the New forded the issue is living issues ment of need not avail not a conviction should without other this is those who believe other can there open those View 218-219 abortion conviction. choanalyst 75, 1969).” philosophy “The most child’s hangs the mutilation ‘There a woman’s noteworthy person. beyond constrained Eight discussion Jersey Legislature has hand, side are not all one-sided. great matter of not bound like a are spirit embryo insoluble, nothing love remains as murder. Psychiatry, well few deadly we Erik Erikson Although threatening than or need into motherhood.’ conflict Abortion: themselves of (Group spirit It has do when he tilings religious fact. a child’s more destructive a matter limit here, competence of not believe being simply to abortion, abortion fetus the all identical than Vol. for We submit We never the moral more moral raised possible cloud over unwanted, suggested spirit.” There however, A principle the Advance being suggest Psychiatric stated it. freedom of is disruptive that such Pub. abrogated issue of religious religious conclude murder On sins is forced moral issue psy that that that No. judi- af ment with the Babbitz v. McCann120that: alive to find statutorily Nothing cludes the more mother’s to refuse to terests, When measured transcends that “Upon ing . ‘rights’ of an “it is ^[*] ourselves reflected less, Jersey118 early invaded plaintiff establishing embryo compelling public invoke sufficient we unquickened we of an ^[*] state, created for months balancing interests In these circumstances we hold ..”121 hold that persuaded has been said herein and a fetus must contends, language carry is mere ^[*] under its embryo that the mother’s of such of. reasonable pregnancy may an conclude ^[*] embryo, state without by superior the relevant of four months or a protoplasm, as embryo that have been woman’s benefit.119 necessity police the claimed ^[*] embryo. human be standards question. that court whether be powers, during agree ^[*] born than pre- in- Chrisaforeorgis Brandenberg (Ct.App., U.S. at at 1302. (dis- Ill., 28, 1972), 279 N.E.2d See Jan. n. senting part). held a 36-week-old the court purpose person fetus not a Vince, re N.J. 67 A.2d Wrongful recovery Act Death under (1949) ; Murphy, 141 State 27 N.J.L. v. of Illinois. (Sup.Ct.1858). Brennan, 31 N.J. 119. v. Smith Eunicello, v. State 60 N.J. (1960). A.2d 497 (1972). A.2d 55 ap (E.D.Wis.1970), F.Supp. 293 120. 310 Cooper, 117a. v. 22 N.J.L. State dismissed, peal (Sup.Ct.1849). (1970). L.Ed.2d 1 Taggert, 118. Graf v. N.J. A.2d See Id. the' recent decision in at 301. (Injunction). How- stention) III under which safety conditions in the disagree ever, conclusion I with the may be rendered.122 services abortion opinion majority re- with reached (Vagueness) spect VI. CONCLUSION to Point IV (Right Privacy). Point V Association Young Christian Women’s Supreme Jersey, al. Court Princeton, et The United States New Vuitch, 62, 91 United Kugler, States v. No. Civ. 264-70: (1971) L.Ed.2d 601 summary judg for motion The reversing court, held that the trial plaintiff-physi petition of ment on District of Co- abortion statute of the declaratory N.J.S.A. relief that cians for phrase, contains lumbia vague unconstitutionally 2A:87-1 is “necessary preservation of the for the vio and 45:9-16 2A :87-l N.J.S.A. life or health” was uncon- mother’s their wom plaintiff-physicians’ and late stitutionally vague. physi privacy in the patients’ en Jersey- granted; relationship true that the New cian-patient While is speaks in terms of “without law- injunctive de- prayer relief is for justification”, extent ful and to that nied; District of from the Columbia differs plaintiff-physicians prayers of statute, of New Jer- M.D., Ralph Raymond, H. Sherwin saving sey preser- or has held Cavalli, M.D., expungment for Dean constitutes vation of the mother’s life resulting from con- records their criminal justification. Branden- lawful State v. Jersey abortion under the New victions burg, 124, 58 A.2d 709 137 N.J.L. statute, of their medical and the return stat- The New abortion injunc- verging they licenses, do on abortions, all ute does not outlaw but relief, are denied. tive only necessary to are not those which Attorney The motion of the General preserve vir- life. mother’s This complaint is denied as dismiss the language statutory up- tually the same granted plaintiff-physicians all as to held as constitutional Vuitch. See plaintiffs. other dissenting opinion, also: Bar- Abramowitz, Kugler, al., et Civ. et al. quet, (Sup.Ct.Fla.1972). So.2d No. 431-70: argued by majority It is Attorney The motion of General differing views of the members granted. complaint dismiss Jersey Supreme expressed New Court as party Each shall bear its own costs. subsequent opinions may in its leave Young Plaintiffs Christian Women’s room for a broader definition of Princeton, Jersey, et Association of justification” term lawful “[un] Kugler appropriate al. v. shall submit an “. . .in some other case where parties. order on notice to other required it, the facts . Su- . . [the preme Jersey] might Court of New GARTH, Judge (concurring District upon specific called to determine the dissenting part, part) : statutory exception limits of the for majority performed justi- I re- abortions with concur with the lawful spect (Standing), (Ab- Moretti, . Points I II fication . .”. State v. miscarriage inAs. other states where abortion is duce an abortion or woman, permitted, g., done e. N.X. Penal Law 125.05 unless the same were § amending (3) (McKinney Supp. 1970), necessary preservation § (McKinney 1967). 105.05(3) mother’s or health and under life competent prac direction of licensed “Whoever, medicine, imprisoned D.C.Code Ann. 22-201: titioner of shall § year any instrument, medicine, drug penitentiary not less than one means of years whatever, procures ”. or other or not more than ten means produces, attempts procure pro [Emphasis supplied.] here, 499, I must must control our decision A.2d N.J. however, expres- respectfully from the conclusion my this latter dissent In view This, by majority. the reached not from nor the sion does detract dilute say Jersey I course, it is not to that would of the law New as status result, jus- the today, equates absent “lawful reached the same exists which “preservation pronouncement. the Vuitch tification” there life”. or not mother’s Whether major respect Point With V might which other circumstances (Right agree ity opinion Privacy), I expansion time cause a re-definition or generally that is a fundamental there justification” con- of “lawful should not right in a to determine married woman task. Suffice cern us our instant child, once con whether or not to bear a Jersey’s interpret- say, law, if New ception con has occurred. I reach that by highest court, ed to the effect is by analysis some clusion that differs only exception for the that one exists analysis projected the what from the abortion, of an then it commission is majority it, opinion. must I see one As defined, statutory concept, so that distinguish the two lines between that this court should address itself. precedents form for the the basis argument by plaintiffs the As Mr. in his advanced Justice White stated (402 Jersey concurring abortion opinion effect that the New in Vuitch violate fundamental at statutes2 28 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. at privacy. 601): family of marital and represented precedential The one line holding “The District that Court’s Connecticut, 381 U.S. Griswold v. the District of Columbia statute is un- 14 L.Ed.2d vague constitutionally on its face be- (fundamental right marital (1965) proscribes cause it all abortions ex- privacy); precedential line the other cept necessary preserva- those for the right family leads a fundamental tion of mother’s life or was health Loving teachings through privacy judgment average person Virginia, 1, 87 388 U.S. could not understand which abortions (1967); 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 Skinner permitted pro- were and which were Oklahoma, 535, 62 S.Ct. surely puts But hibited. statute Society (1942); Pierce v. 86 L.Ed. 1655 everyone adequate on notice that Sisters, mother, health of whatever Meyer (1925); 69 L.Ed. 1070 phrase means, governing Nebraska, 390, 43 standard. It should also be absolute- L.Ed. 1042 ly clear that a doctor not free perform request abortions without Connecticut, v.. The case Griswold considering patient’s whether large part supra, upon in relied has been required average it. No one of health that a woman support contention intelligence could believe that under to bear has fundamental statute abortions this dictated agree child. I do not Griswold legal.” health considerations are authority proposition. Gris- Having distinguishing prohibit- statute found no char- wold held that a state ing contraceptives violated acteristic between abor- the use privacy. interpreted Su-„ tion statute as of marital opinion, preme majority Jersey, Mr. Justice Court of New and the Griswold right, constitutionally by Douglas held definite maintained specifically in in while not set forth United States amendment, Vuitch, swpra, within was included which latter decision one 2. N.J.S. 2A: 170-76 2A :87-l 45: 9-16 2A 45: 10-9 :87-2

1078 guarantees question penumbra of the Bill of The whether the of obvious right Douglas recognized Rights. privacy ex- As Mr. Justice of marital enough encompass plained is broad Griswold : right to have an of married woman guarantees specific “. [The] abortion. The found Court Rights penumbras, have Bill forbidding Griswold that by from those formed emanations contraceptives use had “maximum guarantees help give them life that impact”5 upon destructive the marital omitted]. and substance [citation relationship. contraceptive The use guarantees Various create zones therefore, devices, was left the dis- right privacy. association couples. cretion of married The Gris- penumbra contained recognizes opinion implicitly wold First Amendment is one. regulate couples married prohi- in its The Third Amendment prior the size ception. their to con- families quartering sol- bition why Is there a valid reason peace ‘in in time of diers house’ this should not be extended to of the owner is without the consent post-conception situation as well? This privacy. The facet of that another question by was Mr. raised Justice explicitly affirms Fourth Amendment Clark: ‘right people to be secure houses, papers, persons, “. . abortion falls within effects, against searches unreasonable privacy area of sensitive marital —the Fifth Amendment seizures.’ relation. One the basic values en- in its Clause Self-Incrimination privacy control, is birth as evi zone of ables the citizen create denced the Griswold decision. privacy government may not which prevent act Griswold’s forma was detri- to his force him surrender This, tion of the fetus. the Court pro- Amendment ment. The found, constitutionally protected. Njnth was Con- ‘The enumeration vides: concep may prevent If an individual rights, stitution, of certain shall nullify tion, why can he not that con deny disparage be construed to ception prevention when has failed?” ” people.’ 381 retained others 6 at S.Ct. 1681.3 at 85 language I maintain that the in Gris- concurring opinion, wold Mr. Justice not lend an ex In a itself such does reading. pansive Goldberg, joined by Mr. Chief Justice I am mindful of Brennan, readings given af- Mr. Justice varied broad to Gris- Warren and reasoning See, g., embodied the wold other e. Doe firmed majority courts. emphasized Scott, (N.D.Ill.1971); F.Supp. opinion, but 1385 321 (N.D. Bolton, F.Supp. Ninth conceptual relevance Doe Georgia 1970), docketed, opinion appeal noted Amendment. The No. (U.S. 1970); language history of the Ninth U.S.L.W. Nov. (N.D. Wade, F.Supp. that “the Framers Roe v. Amendment indicate docketed, 1970), appeal there believed Texas No. the Constitution pro- rights, 6, 1970); (U.S. Bab additional fundamental U.S.L.W. 3229 Oct. infringement, McCann, governmental (E.D. F.Supp. bitz Wisc.1970), appeal tected dismissed, alongside those which fundamental exist (U.S. specifically the first mentioned in 27 L.Ed.2d Oct. S.Ct. eight docketed, 12, 1970), appeal amendments.”4 No. constitutional dissented on at Mr. Justice Stewart Id. ground nothing in these there Clark, Morality, Religion, and. Abortion: gave au- amendments thority Loyola Appraisal, A Constitutional law. the Connecticut to invalidate L.Rev. 1 Connecticut, supra, 4. Griswold v. at 1684. (U.S. 16, 1971); Feb. months after a is I child conceived. U.S.L.W. 3362 right People Belous, would v. Cal.2d 80 Cal. therefore hold the of 71 denied, Griswold, privacy, Rptr. marital P.2d cert. as defined in 458 enough encompass 915, 90 L.Ed.2d broad 397 25 to U.S. Edwards, Corkey (1970); But v. of a married woman to determine 96 see (W.D.N.C.1971); F.Supp. whether or not to once bear child con- Steinberg Brown, ception F.Supp. has v. occurred. 1970); (N.D.Ohio Louisi Rosen v. analysis, stop however, This does Examiners, Board ana of Medical with Griswold. I to While have declined appeal (E.D.La.1970), F.Supp. 1217 logical beyond stretch Griswold docketed, No. 39 U.S.L.W. reach, expressions I am aware other agree 27, 1970). (U.S. I Nov. cannot Supreme may of Court be read as generalizations sweeping which leading

with to the fundamental assert- expand the factual con to Griswold right, seek plaintiffs. found, ed This if holding beyond recognition. In genesis text however, famihj has its in a majority on Griswold, focused privacy context rather than in the Gris- sanctity and the the marital home Supreme of wold context. The Court has privacies life. The Court previously of married principle established the anti-contraceptive stat an struck down the states not make unwarranted in permitted the to it state family ute personal because of into areas inroads upon precincts of mar Thus, Virginia, “the sacred autonomy. Loving trude v. observed: supra, The Court Supreme ital bedrooms.” Court noted that long marry to “the freedom has been super-legislature do not sit as a “We recognized personal of the as one vital need, wisdom, determine orderly rights pursuit essential propriety touch economic of laws happiness of free men.” See also affairs, social problems, business Nation, 9 USCMA United States v. however, oper law, This conditions. 26 CMR directly relation on an intimate ates ,”8 [Emp Oklahoma, supra, husband and In v. Skinner wife. supplied.] Supreme struck down a state stat- Court hasis providing ute the sterilization decision import of The the Griswold “habitual criminals.” The Court ob- consensual, rela private, marital dealing legisla- served that was “with protected from unwarranted are tions civil tion of the basic which involves one Henry, 394 regulation. v. Cotner Marriage rights procrea- man. 1968); (7th also See F.2d 873 Cir. very exist- tion fundamental are (1st. Eisenstadt, v. 429 F.2d Baird and survival of race.” ence 1970); United States Mindel v. Cir. Commission, F.Supp. has acknowl Civil Service also The Court (N.D.Cal.1970). is no edged But there funda of certain the existence rights a “fundamen the fam discussion Griswold associated mental supra, right” Society Sisters, out ily, exercised which can be tal Pierce v. bedroom, Nebraska, supra. weeks Meyer of the marital v. side deny Connecticut, supra, stated, “To 7. Griswold As Court factor. [marriage] on at at 1682. freedom 85 S.Ct. this fundamental unsupportable clas- racial as the a basis so Id. at 1680. at 85 S.Ct. statutes, in these embodied sifications directly subversive so classifications The at at 9. 388 U.S. equality principle at heart anti-miscegena- Virginia held that a surely Amendment, de- Fourteenth Equal Protection tion violated liberty prive citizens all State’s the Four- and Due Process clauses process law.” due without opinion was The teenth Amendment. at 1824. at solely recognition vital not based Oklahoma, supra, 316 U.S. personal rights. presence invidi- 10. Skinner 62 S.Ct. at also ous racial discrimination Oregon emphasize that fundamental reviewed I Pierce the Court designed open required parents to is not send doctrine statute which subjective door views indi- public schools. their children judges. parents statute, effect, prevented are directed vidual The courts recognize only private enrolling those their children- in the “traditions and The Court con rooted [collective] schools or academies. Snyder “unreasonably people.” inter of our act conscience cluded that the Massachusetts, liberty parents of 54 S.Ct. 291 U.S. feres the (1934); guardians upbringing 332, Griswold 330, the 78 L.Ed. 674 to direct 493, Connecticut, at their con v. 381 U.S. education children under of 11 principle stress 1686. trol.” The same at Meyer, supra, in where the Court ed Certainly, rights the fundamental prohibiting the law validated a state recognized by Supreme heretofore the foreign languages teaching to chil tra- roots in our culture and Court have eighth passed the dren who grade. not had right marry14 ditions. to The procreate The Court maintained 15 right prod- to are not “liberty” Process in the Due word They popular are ucts of movements. marry, “to freedom Clause included threads into the fabric of our so- woven bring up home and children.” establish a right parents ciety. make And to 12 ed- determinations about their children’s emerges from these standard that 16 training religious is ucation or basic right is A cases is clear. fundamental family are to the rights structure. These protected by the Constitution unless firmly established. which are compelling has a interest which state right travel, recognized by the The Supreme outweighs right. Shapiro v. this v. in United States 634, 618, Thompson, 394 U.S. Guest, 1170, U.S. S.Ct. (1969); Griswold L.Ed.2d product (1966) L.Ed.2d 239 is supra.13 Connecticut, v. This standard judicial roots antedate whim. Its two-step requires operation: a court right right private as- Constitution.17 The must first determine whether sociation, also sustained is a asserted the individual funda- Court,18 fundamental our demo- right-, if court answers this mental society. cratic affirmative, question it must then compelling repeatedly is a Mr. Holmes criti- decide whether there Justice outweighs subjective, this interest which cized a fundamental state right. approach doctrine. Constitutional Sisters, Society significant upon 11. Pierce v. there encroachment a may liberty, prevail personal 45 S.Ct. at the State at 573. subordinating only upon showing in- a Meyer Nebraska, at 12. v. ” compelling.’ [citation which is terest at 626. S.Ct. 497, 85 omitted 381 U.S. at S.Ct. involved, 13. Where fundamental Loving Virginia, supra. flic not utilize the “rational courts do supra. Oklahoma, Skinner regulation” sufficient, standard. therefore, Sisters, Society supra; the state has to maintain 16. Pierce v. purpose Meyer Nebraska, a rational or reasonable supra. policy. Goldberg As Mr. said Justice mention a The Constitution does not long “In series Griswold : a of cases this travel,” “right but the Articles of Con- held where Court has fundamental ingress provided federation for any free and IV, they personal involved, liberties are egress and from Art. state. abridged simply not be States Articles Confederation. that, allowing regulatory has Alabama, relationship some to the effectua- 18. NAACP v. 357 U.S. rational proper purpose. tion of a ‘Where L.Ed.2d 1488 S.Ct. dissenting opinions,19 Massachusetts, he a series of ter. Prince v. 158, 166, not read L.Ed.

maintained that court should conceptions pub- into the Constitution policy happened lic court my reading If I of these am correct entertain.20 The view has Holmesian teachings, precedents then and of their acceptance,

won and the wide granted states are family appear it would experiment now latitude to wide privacy life or which lies at base programs. with social and economic social, and cultural our traditional institutions, necessity result must of grant permit However, this does not concomitant fundamental experiment the state to with basic scope, couple determine married rights, tradi- rooted in our culture and family dimension and extent Goldberg As said in tions. Mr. Justice no direct it is true that unit. While Texas, Pointer v. family pri- authority has extended the (1965), 13 L.Ed.2d 923 vacy pointy concept I feel that agree quite I with Mr. Justice “. logical Supreme is a extension Brandéis ‘a pronouncements in area. Court this may labora- . . serve a . tory; try recognition and econom- and novel social can how be I do see experiments’ rights given previously ic I do not be- . . . . accorded to the power rearing to establishment, lieve that includes the and edu- this to home acknowledg- children, experiment liber- the fundamental with cation of without Supreme ing impressive sociological, of citizens .” The economic ties family de- size Court has since reaffirmed effect and educational family protect personal upon sire to rights and A deci- considerations. these has than which are based more to add to the child hence sion to bear a contemporary unit, inevitably view- facets family social or economic all affects supra; Virginia, points. Loving every mem- family v. and See each life and supra. family. Shapiro Thompson, v. ber right family privacy discussed, If, The exist funda- lies there family pertaining insti- life the base of social and cultural to our mental rea- has rec- nor privacy, tutions. The ognized Court find no basis can I right restricting a home in this to establish those son Pierce, supra, bring aspect. up Ac- children in threshold vital and most that, subject Meyer, supra. to decisions These hold I would cordingly, private interest, respected realm fundamental “have there is a state family en- to right cannot deter- life which the state in a married woman21 plain- Tyson women, single Theatre thrust See & Brother United Banton, argument fundamental is that this Ticket v. Offices tiffs’ women, (1927) ; right possessed married Ad- all L.Ed. 718 Hospital, single. 261 U.S. kins v. Children’s (1923) ; right I have found L.Ed. which fundamental S.Ct. The Meyer, Kansas, Coppage es- which v. from Pierce stems (1915) ; family privacy. right L.Ed. 441 Lochner tablish a analysis York, precedent neces- and this force of right sarily married to this L.Ed. 937 restricts women. op- Judge was also an Learned Hand however, recognize, New Jer- I ponent stat- of this doctrine. He once sey distinction no statutes make abortion myself irk- be most ed : “For it would women. married and unmarried between bevy of Platonic some to be ruled compelling Thus, state in the absence of Guardians, if I how to choose even knew infra), I (but interest see discussion assuredly them, do not.” which I Hand, obliged statutes hold these to would be op Rights Bill unconstitutional. and therefore overbroad Alabama, my 21. While framed See conclusion has been NAACP ; (1964) L.Ed.2d 325 distinct in terms of women as married practice polygamy or not to bear a child or refusal mine whether would family adding (thereby unit or result life “damnation conception not, be) personal once come.” as the case But fundamental lib give way has occurred. erties must where there are compelling interests. The Su I conclusion therefore reach same preme upon problem touched this majority, predicated upon a but as the Reynolds it when asked: right” analysis “family rather than on analysis expand “Suppose which would one an Gris- believed that human regard imper- necessary part wold be of re to what I would sacrifices were ligious distinction, worship, seriously That it limits. missible would government course, restrict extent contended that would some civil scope I the fundamental which under which could not inter he lived respect recognize. prevent if with fere to sacrifice? Or would (the equation religiously na- it was her the latter half of the wife believed duty upon the state interest nec- herself the funeral ture extent of burn justify pile essary husband, invasion of fun- her dead would [sic] Edwards, right, Corkey beyond power su- of the civil damental government carrying pra,) prevent part company I her practice?” majority. her belief into com- I hold that the state has such a Certainly, have been watch the courts pelling preservation interest prevent intrusions ful unwarranted life, including life,26 fetal that even upon personal liberties. fundamental I ac- fundamental rights are But First Amendment even knowledged must subordinated be point This not considered absolute.22 that state interest.27 Reynolds in v. United is illustrated (1878), 145, fun- States, 244 It must remembered that be U.S. 25 L.Ed. 98 colony may here not with which we are damental which held that a clan by though only de- permit prac polygamy this can exercised even concerned be Corkey religious stroying potential of v. beliefs See tice with the life. accords Edwards, supra. religious practice23 of fam- The interests its members. way ily Reynolds privacy no matter in in or convenience reviewed was no argued forcefully no matter the mem clear that how frivolous. was vital, of be elevated over bers of the of Christ how cannot Church Jesus Latter-Day has ob- to live. As believed that failure one Saints question, Tucker, 479, 488, want of substantial Federal Shelton v. 364 U.S. 81 Carolina, 247, (1960). sub nom. 336 Bunn North S.Ct. 5 L.Ed.2d 231 942, 813, 93 L.Ed. 1099 U.S. 22. I cite Mr. Holmes’ : “The Justice maxim (1949). stringent speecli protection most free falsely protect Exercise is 23. The Free clause absolute would not ing man in shout- protection beliefs, religious causing panic.” it but in a its fire theatre and States, absolute bar does serve an Schenck v. United regulation religious practices. L.Ed. 470 Reynolds, 24. at U.S. Other cases the First Amendment area Reynolds, at point. may A illustrate farmer be comply agricultural forced to quotas with Federal in the “fetal life” all I term include they though even lie are feels may potential exist as it from life contrary teachings Holy conception. moment Scriptures. Kissinger, United States v. (3rd Cir.), possible denied, 250 F.2d 940 state interests cert. 27. There are other might population con- be asserted : L.Ed.2d 1066 regula- safety precluded public trol, An individual health My using poisonous holding makes from in a conduct. snakes re tion sexual signifi- unnecessary ligious ritual, Massey, it to determine N.C. appeal interests. 51 S.E.2d dismissed for cance these outweighs preserving served, fetal the in “Protection of life has tradition- life family ally terest first duties owed of the mother and the unit. been one of the ” policy people.28 view is consistent with the This to its a state expressed in three decisions the New preg Even in first few weeks Raleigh In Fit- Court. embryo nancy, unmistakable shows Morgan Hospital v. kin-Paul Memorial signs some courts I realize that life. Anderson, A.2d N.J. helpful found it to use terms such denied, cert. “quickening” or in evalu “trimester” (1964), pregnant McCann, L.Ed.2d ating rights. fetal Babbitz v. See refused, grounds, religious on woman pra; supra. Scott, Old Doe v. su er There submit to a blood transfusion. generally cases used words sufficient evidence indicate “quickening” “viability” to chart pregnancy point at she in the some development. According to Black’s fetal hemorrhage severely would both and that Dictionary, “quickening” Law she un and the unborn child would die first motion of is felt the fetus which less a blood adminis transfusion was Quickening the mother. occurs Finding support previ tered. some pregnancy, the middle term of cases, ous the court held: usually part in the last the fifth quickening month. But are the unborn the moment satisfied “We woman, protection varies with and this makes child entitled to the law’s each measuring appropriate An order should unreliable device. and that an when to insure transfusions unborn child said be “viable” made blood they capable apart event that it is of existence the mother in the Viability necessary opinion mother.30 also occur does fact, physician charge a fixed the time.” date. advances technology pushing keep medical in Gleit- A conflict was raised similar viability into the date further back Cosgrove, man 227 A.2d 49 N.J. early pregnancy. months of (1967), plaintiff-family, when brought malpractice concepts helpful do doc- I not find these action adjudicating allegedly competing them tors failed to inform interests who fact, when the the In that child defective of mother and I could be fetus. their the born. Plaintiffs maintained fail see how sound constitutional doc- give warning prevented the trine can the be based artificial time- failure to procuring I lines. fetal from an abortion. view life as a continuous woman growth process qualitative without the affirming In dismissal of the com- the changes suggested by terms such as plaint, the court observed: quickening viability. right to life is inalienable “The society our .... equiv- imply I do not life is fetal every life.” I alent sense to “human ne- are not here with the We faced only maintain that the interest cessity balancing state’s life the mother’s Brunelle, developing 28. erally No. Commonwealth the considered be (Middlesex County, Mass.Super.Ct. conception at 5 organism from after one week 1970). The month.” the end second de- defines a fetus “the same source may life Fetal subdivided into various veloping young in af- the human uterus stages: zygote, embryo, the and the ter end of second month.” According fetus. to Dobland’s Illus- Lancet, N.Y. Woods v. See Dictionaky zygote tbated Medical 102 N.E.2d resulting “the cell from the fusion two gametes; Raleigh, Dorland’s the fertilized ovum. at 201 A.2d at N.J. embryo early developing defines at as “the the time The court noted quick” organism, especially state of an since “the was the de- of the action child thirty- product beyond veloping pregnancy of an was fertilization egg. human, embryo gen- second week. “life” after Eu- fined or restricted .... child her against protecting interest birth. State’s control- are not genic considerations preserving I it commenc life as view talking here about ling. areWe conception. “What moment of may es at the prize breeding cattle. is, entity the state has chosen ever that mother and for easier been have ” very Cor protect its existence. expensive for father less Edwards, supra, F.Supp. key while their child life terminated the agreement respect I am in 1253. In this alleged embryo, these but was he Edwards, Corkey v. with rationale stand cannot detriments Judge supra, and with dissent single life human preciousness of the supra. Scott, tort, Campbell in Doe v. remedy in support [citations merits omitted]. Whatever argu- sociological, moral, economic sympathize un Though with the we plaintiffs by the as a ba- ments advanced in which these situation fortunate parents holding otherwise, it would sis our firmly themselves, we be find arguments appear to me that these child to live lieve the greater ap- supporting are more the data them precludes their than legislative propriate than for for a rather financial emotional and not to endure judicial forum. injury.” respectfully Accordingly, dis- must I Jersey Supreme reaf- The New by the reached sent conclusions preserving life firmed interest majority I would hold the Court. Kennedy Hospital v. John F. Memorial Jersey abortion be consti- statute to Heston, 576, 279 A.2d 670 58 N.J. tutional for the reasons hereinabove ex- twenty- case, Heston, In that Dolores pressed. year two old in- Jehovah’s Witness was jured severely in an automobile accident. religious reasons, For Miss Heston’s

mother insisted that a blood transfusion signed

not be administered and a release liability hospital for the and medical personnel. hospital appli- then made judge ap- cation to a state court for the pointment guardian of a for Miss Hes- TREE, The PLUM INC. hearing, ton. After apppint- the court guardian ed a authority to consent Jerome Dorothy Seligson, SELIGSON and Surgery blood per- transfusions. husband and wife. formed hospital at the and blood was Civ. A. No. 71-1780. Following operation, administered. Court, United States District the defendants order, moved to vacate .the Pennsylvania. E. D. grant but the court declined to the mo- May 15, 1972. tion. appeal On Court of New Jersey held that there was no constitu-

tional to choose to die. The court

found that “the hospital interest staff, as well as the State’s in- life,

terest in warranted the transfusion

of blood under the circumstances of this case.”

As previously I have evident, made

“the State’s interest in life” is not con- Cosgrove, supra, Gleitman v. Kennedy Hosp. N.J. 33. John P. Memorial 277 A.2d at Heston, supra, page 279 A.2d at

Case Details

Case Name: Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Princeton, NJ v. Kugler

Court Name: District Court, D. New Jersey

Date Published: Feb 29, 1972

Citation: 342 F. Supp. 1048

Docket Number: Civ. A. 264-70, 431-70

Court Abbreviation: D.N.J.