Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth
Decision Date | 31 January 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 74-416C (A).,74-416C (A). |
Citation | 392 F. Supp. 1362 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Parties | PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI, a Missouri Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John C. DANFORTH, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, and J. Brendan Ryan, Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Defendants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Frank Susman, Clayton, Mo., for plaintiffs.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., John F. White, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for defendants.
Before WEBSTER, Circuit Judge, WANGELIN, District Judge, and HARPER, Senior District Judge.
This is an action by plaintiffs seeking to have declared as unconstitutional certain provisions of House Bill No. 1211 ( ), passed by the Missouri General Assembly on April 30, 1974, and signed into law on June 14, 1974, and for an injunction against the enforcement of the challenged provisions of the Bill.
Plaintiffs are Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri (hereinafter referred to as Planned Parenthood), a not-for-profit Missouri corporation which maintains facilities for the performance of abortions in Columbia, Missouri; David Hall, a resident of the State of Missouri who supervises abortions at the Columbia Planned Parenthood facility as a duly licensed physician; and Michael Freiman, a resident of Missouri who performs abortions as a duly licensed physician at the Barnes and Jewish Hospitals in St. Louis, Missouri, and at a St. Louis abortion clinic operated by Reproductive Health Services, Inc. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of the class of physicians desiring to perform pregnancy termination services, and on behalf of the class of their patients who seek abortions. The complaint charges that certain provisions of House Bill 1211 are invalid in that they deprive plaintiffs and their patients of various alleged constitutional rights, including the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, the physician's right to the free exercise of medical practice, the right of a woman to determine whether to bear children, the right to life of their patients and the right to receive adequate medical treatment, all in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The petition further alleges that the legislation is violative of the rights of due process and equal protection guaranteed plaintiffs and their patients under the Constitution, and that it imposes a cruel and unusual punishment upon women by forcing them to bear pregnancies which they conceive.
Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202, 2281 and 2284, and under 42 U.S. C. § 1983. Because of the claim for injunctive relief, a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281.
In their initial application for a temporary restraining order plaintiffs challenged only Sections 2(2), 6(1), 7 and 9. At the hearing for a preliminary injunction plaintiffs expanded their challenge to include Sections 3(3) and 3(4). During discovery plaintiffs additionally attacked Sections 3(2), 10 and 11. On the day defendants submitted their trial brief, plaintiffs advised defendants of their intention to challenge Sections 5, 6(3) and 8, and the next day Section 4 was included. On the day of trial defendants' motion for continuance as to Sections 4, 5, 6(3) and 8 was granted, and the Court proceeded to trial on the other provisions and set a later date to complete the trial on the late challenged provisions. At the close of the hearing plaintiffs withdrew their challenge to those provisions.
The challenged portions of House Bill 1211 provide as follows:
House Bill 1211 concludes with a clause declaring that the provisions of the Act are severable, so that judicial invalidation of any provision shall not affect such remaining provisions as can be given effect in the absence of the invalid provision.
The threshold question for consideration is the justiciability of this litigation. The individual plaintiff-physicians have standing as to each of the challenged provisions of House Bill 1211 by reason of the criminal sanctions imposed under that Act. In holding that the Georgia physicians who attacked that state's abortion legislation in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), presented a justiciable controversy, the Supreme Court stated at page 188, 93 S.Ct. at page 745 of their opinion:
Section 6(1) of House Bill 1211 provides that an attending physician who fails to exercise the prescribed standard of care to protect an aborted fetus shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter. In addition, Section 14 provides that any person who performs an abortion in violation of the requirements set forth elsewhere in the Act will be guilty of a misdemeanor. This statute is "recent and not moribund", Doe v. Bolton, supra, and we may assume that violations thereof will be actively prosecuted.
Due to the obvious standing of the physician-plaintiffs in this case, the Court deems it unnecessary to pass upon the question of Planned Parenthood's standing to challenge House Bill 1211. See Doe v. Bolton, supra, page 189, 93 S.Ct. 739.
In January of 1973, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baird v. Bellotti
...rights of the minor outweigh the rights of the parents, and must be protected. The single exception to this is Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, (E.D.Mo., 1975), 392 F.Supp. 1362. We do not agree with the majority Consequently, the parental consent requirement of Massachusetts General Laws, C......
-
Margaret S. v. Edwards, Civ. A. No. 78-2765.
...knowledge. These provisions establish reporting procedures for statistical purposes only . . .." Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 392 F.Supp. 1362, 1374 (E.D.Mo.1975), aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 49 L.Ed.2d 788 (1976). The Supreme Court......
-
Catholic Charities of Archdiocese of Dubuque v. Zalesky
...Amendment 14) denotes * * * the right * * * to marry, establish a home and bring up children * * *'); Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 392 F.Supp. 1362, 1370 (E.D.Mo.1975) ('Procreation has been held to be a fundamental aspect of the marriage How is it then that a biological f......
-
Planned Parenthood Association v. Fitzpatrick
...been invalidated, however the Supreme Court has stayed enforcement of that particular statute. See, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 392 F. Supp. 1362 (E.D.Mo.1975), stay grtd., 420 U.S. 918, 95 S.Ct. 1111, 43 L.Ed.2d 389 The spousal consent provision of the Act mandates ......
-
Judicial Decision Making and Biological Fact: Roe v. Wade and the Unresolved Question of Fetal Viability
...v. Fitzpatrick, 401 F. Supp. 554 (E.D. Pa.1975)Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft, 51 LW 4783 ( 1983)Planned Parenthood v. Danforth 392 F. Supp. 1362 (E.D. Mo. 1975)Simopoulos v. Virginia, 51 LW 4791 ( 1983)Wolfe v. Schroering, 388 F Supp. 631 (W.D. Ky. 1974)Wynn v. Scott, 499 F. Supp. 1302 (N.......