Doe v. Woodahl
| Citation | 360 F. Supp. 20 |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2302. |
| Parties | Mary DOE, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robert L. WOODAHL, Attorney General for the State of Montana, Robert L. Deschamps III, County Attorney for Missoula County, Montana, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Robert J. Campbell, Missoula, Mont., for plaintiff.
John P. Connor, Jr., Lawrence Dewey Huss, Asst. Attys. Gen., R. W. Walsh, Jr., Great Falls, Mont., for Robert L. Woodahl, Atty. Gen.
Robert R. Skelton, Missoula, Mont., amicus curiae.
In a previous order I quoted from Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), as follows:
and held that Montana's abortion laws (R.C.M.1947, §§ 94-401 and 94-402) were unconstitutional as applied to a woman in the first trimester of her pregnancy.
Now, following the receipt of briefs from the concerned parties and amicus curiae, I face the problem of whether these laws must fall as a unit and whether I should so declare.1
Under the doctrines of Roe vv. Wade, supra, and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), the state may curtail a woman's 14th amendment right to terminate her pregnancy in the second trimester by laws reasonably related to maternal health and in the third trimester by laws recognizing the state's interest in the potentiality of human life. These laws must be tailored to accommodate the conflicting rights of pregnant women and the interests of the state. The Montana laws are not so tailored—are in substance no different from the laws of Texas2—and are, as were the laws of Texas, unconstitutional as a unit.3
I have considered whether this Federal Court should abstain from granting relief beyond that given in the temporary restraining order and have concluded that in the public interest any doubt about the invalidity of the Montana abortion law should be removed. The official position of the State of Montana is that the Montana laws will be presumed to be constitutional until a court of competent jurisdiction rules to the contrary. This position shadows the constitutional rights of women as delineated in Roe v. Wade, supra, and confuses the members of the medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodos v. Michaelson, Civ. A. No. 750167.
...Doe v. Bolton, supra, 410 U.S. at 208, 93 S.Ct. at 756 (Burger, C. J., concurring in Doe and Roe v. Wade, supra.) See Doe v. Woodahl, 360 F.Supp. 20, 22 (D.Mont.1973). See also Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 252, 88 S.Ct. 391, 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967); Hathaway v. Worcester City Hospital, 47......
-
Montalvo v. Colon
...to Puerto Rico, and that their rights are in a crepuscular limbo until clarified. This situation is similar to the one in Doe v. Woodahl, 360 F.Supp. 20 (D.Mont.1973), in which the court declined to abstain in an abortion case in part because the official position of the state that Roe v. W......
-
Nyberg v. City of Virginia, 73-1686.
...Wade, supra at 218, 93 S.Ct. 705 (Mr. Justice Douglas concurring); Nyberg v. City of Virginia, supra at 939 of 361 F.Supp.; Doe v. Woodahl, 360 F.Supp. 20 (D.C.1973); Doe v. Israel, 482 F.2d 156, 159 (CA1 1973); cf. Hathaway v. Worcester City Hospital, supra at 706 of 475 Appellant frames t......
-
Leigh v. Olson, Civ. No. A2-74-43.
...437, 438, 439, 91 S.Ct. 507, 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971); Clark v. City of Fremont, 377 F.Supp. 327, 333, 334 (D.Neb.1974); Doe v. Woodahl, 360 F.Supp. 20, 22 (D.Mont.1973). Sections 12-25-02 and 12-25-03 are clear on their face. "Quickening" cannot be construed to mean "viable" and there is no w......