Armstrong v. State
Decision Date | 26 October 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-066.,98-066. |
Citation | 989 P.2d 364,1999 MT 261 |
Parties | James H. ARMSTRONG, M.D.; Susan Cahill, P.A.; Barbara Polstein, D.O.; Mindy Opper, P.A.; and Blue Mountain Clinic, on behalf of themselves and their patients throughout Montana, the surrounding states and Canada, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. The STATE of Montana and Joseph P. Mazurek, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Montana and his agents and successors, Defendants and Appellants. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Clay R. Smith, Solicitor (argued), Helena, Montana, for Appellant.
Janet Benshoof, Simon Heller(argued), Julie F. Kay, The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, New York, New York;Bruce Measure, Law Offices of Ambrose Measure, Kalispell, Montana, for Respondent.
¶ 1PlaintiffsJames H. Armstrong, M.D.; Susan Cahill, P.A.; Barbara Polstein, D.O.; Mindy Opper, P.A.; and Blue Mountain Clinic, filed suit in this matter seeking a determination that § 37-20-103,MCA(1995), and§ 50-20-109,MCA(1995), prohibiting physician assistants-certified from performing abortions, violates the privacy, equal protection and bill of attainder provisions of the Montana Constitution.The District Court for the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, protecting the abortion practice of Armstrong and Cahill.The State appeals.We affirm.
¶ 2 The core constitutional right which is under attack in the case at bar is the fundamental right of individual privacy guaranteed by Article II, Section 10, of the Montana Constitution.Quite simply, the statutory amendments at issue prevent a woman from obtaining a lawful medical procedure — a pre-viability abortion — from a health care provider1 of her choosing.In so doing, these amendments unconstitutionally infringe a woman's right to individual privacy under Montana's Constitution.
¶ 3 Before we begin our substantive discussion setting forth our rationale for this conclusion, we must first note the obvious.Plaintiffs Armstrong, Cahill, Polstein and Opper are not women who were prevented from obtaining a pre-viability abortion.Rather, they are health care providers who perform such abortion services, or who provide counseling and referrals related to such services.Plaintiff Blue Mountain Clinic, an institutional health care provider, employs Polstein and Opper.In all instances, the plaintiffs brought suit on their own behalf as well as on behalf of their patients.Thus, we are faced with a threshold question: Do the plaintiff health care providers have standing to assert the privacy rights of their women patients?We conclude that they do.
¶ 4 Standing was not raised by the parties.Rather, this case was briefed and argued to the District Court and to this Court on appeal on the basis that the statutory amendments either did or did not violate women's constitutional right to privacy.Presented in that posture, we would, as a general rule, decline to address on appeal an issue not raised by the parties.SeeCustody of N.G.H.(1998), 1998 MT 212, ¶ 19, 290 Mont. 426, ¶ 19, 963 P.2d 1275, ¶ 19.Standing, however, is an exception to that rule.SeeMatter of Paternity of Vainio(1997), 284 Mont. 229, 235, 943 P.2d 1282, 1286( );Rieman v. Anderson(1997), 282 Mont. 139, 144, 935 P.2d 1122, 1125( ).
¶ 5 Moreover, since this case involves important issues of first impression in Montana, our failure to raise and to address standing may leave open to further challenge via that argument the constitutional rights at issue.We are not willing to leave that stone unturned, and, therefore, choose to articulate the rationale which makes it appropriate that we decide this case on the basis that it was presented to us.
¶ 6 In the context of challenges to government action, we have stated that the following criteria must be satisfied to establish standing: (1) The complaining party must clearly allege past, present or threatened injury to a property or civil right; and (2) the alleged injury must be distinguishable from the injury to the public generally, but the injury need not be exclusive to the complaining party.SeeOlson v. Department of Revenue(1986), 223 Mont. 464, 470, 726 P.2d 1162, 1166( );Lee v. State(1981), 195 Mont. 1, 7, 635 P.2d 1282, 1285( ).¶ 7 Although we followed Lee in Helena Parents v. Lewis & Clark County(1996), 277 Mont. 367, 922 P.2d 1140, we also extensively relied on numerous United States Supreme Court decisions in articulating whether a parents' organization had standing to challenge a county and school district's investment practices that allegedly violated state law.In concluding that the organization had standing, we effectively broadened the second prong of the above two-part rule to include harm that is common to the general public but that can still affect the individual taxpayer in ways that are not common to the public.SeeHelena Parents,277 Mont. at 371-74,922 P.2d at 1142-44(citingWarth v. Seldin(1975), 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2205, 45 L.Ed.2d 343;Flast v. Cohen(1968), 392 U.S. 83, 99-100, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1952, 20 L.Ed.2d 947;Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass'n(1988), 484 U.S. 383, 392-93, 108 S.Ct. 636, 642-43, 98 L.Ed.2d 782;United States v. SCRAP(1973), 412 U.S. 669, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254;Sierra Club v. Morton(1972), 405 U.S. 727, 734, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1366, 31 L.Ed.2d 636).
¶ 8The case at bar — involving constitutional issues related to abortion and privacy — presents a standing question of first impression in Montana.It is one which does not fit precisely within the parameters of the broadened two-part rule set out above.Specifically, the standing question can be phrased as: Where governmental regulation directed at health care providers impacts the constitutional rights of women patients, may a health care provider litigate the infringement of these rights on behalf of the women or must the women aggrieved assert their own rights?
¶ 9 Finding no relevant authority in Montana on this question we again turn, as we did in Helena Parents, to federal case law.The federal courts have thoroughly addressed and resolved whether the special relationship between a physician and patient afford the former standing to litigate the constitutional rights of the latter.SeeSingleton v. Wulff(1976), 428 U.S. 106, 117-18, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2875-76, 49 L.Ed.2d 826( ).See alsoCruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health(1990), 497 U.S. 261, 340 n. 12, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2884 n. 12, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 n. 12(Stevens, J., dissenting)( ).See alsoPlanned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth(1976), 428 U.S. 52, 59, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 2836, 49 L.Ed.2d 788( ).
¶ 10 It is especially noteworthy that the federal courts have not refrained from according to physicians, threatened with the personal risk of prosecution, standing to challenge abortion restrictions by asserting the rights of their patients.The holding and analysis in Singleton unequivocally established that right three years after the Court decided Roe v. Wade.Citing prior case law where physicians had been allowed to assert the rights of their patients, the Singleton Court stated:
Singleton,428 U.S. at 117-18, 96 S.Ct. at 2875-76.
¶ 11 Even the concurring-dissenting justices in Singleton (who disagreed with part of the Supreme Court's decision on the facts of the case) nevertheless conceded the correctness of the Court's analysis and holding...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Menges v. Knudsen
... 538 F.Supp.3d 1082 Randall MENGES, Plaintiff, v. Austin KNUDSEN, Attorney General of the State of Montana; Gary Seder, Bureau Chief of the Montana Crime Information Bureau; and Sara Malikie, Head of the Sexual and Violent Offenders Program for ... 433, 942 P.2d 112, 121 (1997), and constitutes "one of the most stringent protections of [the] right to privacy in the United States," Armstrong v. Montana , 296 Mont. 361, 989 P.2d 364, 373 (1999). Under the Montana Constitution, the right to privacy inquiry is two-fold, asking first ... ...
-
Buhmann v. State
... ... " It has been said that the "guarantee that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 1569, 4 ... 201 P.3d 99 ... L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960). On this principle alone, it seems abundantly obvious that the costs of achieving the Sportsmen's goals must be borne by the public as a whole, not disproportionately placed on the shoulders of ... ...
-
Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co.
... ... and Chor, the District Court's findings clearly establish that the arbitration provision by which Kloss waived her right of access to this State's courts, her right to a jury trial, her right to reasonable discovery, her right to findings of fact based on the evidence, and her right to enforce ... 1, ¶ 30, 29 P.3d 485, ¶ 30 (right to effective assistance of counsel for involuntary commitment proceedings); Armstrong v. State, 1999 MT 261, ¶ 34, 296 Mont. 361, ¶ 34, 989 P.2d 364, ¶ 34 (right to privacy); and MEIC v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 1999 MT ... ...
-
City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co.
... ... State ex rel. Livingston v. District Court, 90 Mont. 191, 196, 300 P. 916, 918 (1931). Thus, we will not disturb a district court's finding that a public ... F.H. v. C.P.H. ( In re D.A.H. ), 2005 MT 68, 7, 326 Mont. 296, 109 P.3d 247 (citing Armstrong v. State, 1999 MT 261, 4, 296 Mont. 361, 989 P.2d 364 ). 84 Second, we disagree with Justice McKinnon's analysis on the merits because 378 P.3d ... ...
-
THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT AT (ALMOST) FIFTY: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
...of Minn. v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 32 (Minn. 1995); Pro-Choice Miss. v. Fordice, 716 So. 2d 645, 666 (Miss. 1998); Armstrong v. State, 989 P.2d 364, 384 (Mont. 1999); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 450 A.2d 925, 933-34 (N.J. 1982); Hope v. Perales, 634 N.E.2d 183, 186 (N.Y. 1994); Planned Parenth......
-
Abortion
...§§ 28-101, 28-326 to -328, 38-2021. 276. Planned Parenthood of Mont. v. State, 515 P.3d 301 (Mont. 2022); Armstrong v. State, 989 P.2d 364, 384 (Mont. 1999). 277. Grant Schulte, Abortion rights backers block ‘trigger’ law in Nebraska , AP NEWS (Apr. 7, 2022, 5:45 PM), https://perma.cc/KYD3-......
-
A Review of Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell
...for all members of the current Supreme Court. 65. Mat265. 66. Hat274. 67. Id. at 273. 68. Id. at 274 (quoting Armstrong v. Montana, 989 P.2d 364,378 (Mont. 1999))....