Lifchez v. Hartigan
Decision Date | 26 April 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 82 C 4324.,82 C 4324. |
Citation | 735 F. Supp. 1361 |
Parties | Aaron LIFCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Neil F. HARTIGAN and Richard M. Daley, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Colleen K. Connell, The Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Lori B. Andrews, Ami Jaeger, American Bar Foundation, Frances Krasnow, Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Harry McKee, Asst. State's Atty., Paula Giroux, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Dr. Lifchez represents a class of plaintiff physicians who specialize in reproductive endocrinology and fertility counselling. Physicians with these medical specialities treat infertile couples who wish to conceive a child. Dr. Lifchez is suing the Illinois Attorney General and the Cook County State's Attorney, seeking a declaratory judgment that a provision of the Illinois Abortion Law is unconstitutional. He also seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants from enforcing the statute. The provision at issue concerns fetal experimentation. Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch. 38 ¶ 81-26, § 6(7) (1989). Both sides move for summary judgment, alleging that there are no disputed facts and that each side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court finds that § 6(7) of the Illinois Abortion Law violates the Constitution in two ways: (1) it offends Fourteenth Amendment principles of due process by being so vague that persons such as Dr. Lifchez cannot know whether or not their medical practice may run afoul of the statute's criminal sanctions, and (2) the statute impinges upon a woman's right of privacy and reproductive freedom as established in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977), and their progeny. The court therefore declares § 6(7) of the Illinois Abortion Law to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoins the defendants from enforcing it.
Section 6(7) of the Illinois Abortion Law provides as follows:
Vague laws — especially criminal laws — violate due process in three ways. First, they fail to give adequate notice of precisely what conduct is being prohibited. Without such notice, it is impossible for people to regulate their conduct within legal bounds. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 572 n. 8, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 1247 n. 8, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974) ) See also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) () The second problem with vague statutes is that, by failing to explicitly define what conduct is unlawful, they invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by the police, judges, and juries. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170, 92 S.Ct. 839, 847, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) ( ). See also Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. at 575, 94 S.Ct. at 1248 )
Last, vague standards of unlawful conduct, coupled with the prospect of arbitrary enforcement, will inevitably cause people to "steer far wider of the unlawful zone ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked." Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. at 109, 92 S.Ct. at 2299. This is an especially dangerous consequence of vague statutes that encroach upon constitutional rights. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 391, 99 S.Ct. 675, 683, 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979) ( ). See also Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 499, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) ) ; Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. at 573, 94 S.Ct. at 1247 () It is a fundamental principle of due process that persons "`of common intelligence' not be forced to guess at the meaning of the criminal law." Id. at 574, 94 S.Ct. at 1248.
The Illinois legislature's failure to define "experimentation" and "therapeutic" in § 6(7) means that persons of common intelligence will be forced to guess at whether or not their conduct is unlawful. As Dr. Lifchez points out in his briefs, there is no single accepted definition of "experimentation" in the scientific and medical communities. Dr. Lifchez identifies four referents for the term. One meaning of experiment is pure research, where there is no direct benefit to the subject being experimented on, and the only goal of the research is to increase the researcher's knowledge. Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Summary Judgment at 7. This definition describes the defendants' "Orwellian nightmare" of laying out fetuses in a laboratory and exposing them to various harmful agents "just for the scientific thrill" of it. Defendant Hartigan's Reply Brief in Support of Summary Judgment at 3. A second meaning of experiment includes any procedure that has not yet been sufficiently tested so that the outcome is predictable, or a procedure that departs from present-day practice. This is the kind of definition adhered to by insurance companies, which often deny coverage for procedures whose effectiveness is not generally recognized. Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Summary Judgment at 8. Dr. Lifchez also cites to the definition of experiment by the American Fertility Society, which includes as "experimental" even standard techniques when those techniques are performed by a practitioner or clinic for the first time. Id. at 8-9. Finally, any medical therapy where the practitioner applies what he learns from one patient to another, could be described as an "experiment." Id. at 9. See, e.g., Margaret S. v. Edwards, 794 F.2d 994, 999 (5th Cir.1986) ( ) This definition of experiment is in line with that apparently contemplated by the federal regulations on protection of human research subjects: "`Research' means a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." 45 C.F.R. § 46.102(e) (1989).
The legislative history of § 6(7) is unenlightening as far as nailing down a particularized meaning of "experiment" to counter the vagueness that Dr. Lifchez claims is inherent in the statutory language. The bill's sponsor, Representative O'Connell, responded as follows to the governor's veto of the bill (due to what the governor saw as unconstitutional vagueness in the word "experimentation"): Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit A, State of Illinois 84th General Assembly, House of Representatives Debate, October 30, 1985 (Exhibit A), p. 74. It is hard to imagine two more opposed definitions of "experiment" than, on the one hand, "a test made to demonstrate a known truth," and, on the other hand, a test "to determine the efficacy of something previously untried." That the bill's sponsor could offer such wildly different definitions of "experiment" as if they both meant the same thing offers little help to persons of common intelligence who want to know what the state forbids.2 Smith v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jane L. v. Bangerter, Civ. No. 91-C-345G.
...an abortion. 19 See discussion on vagueness, supra. 20 See Margaret v. Edwards, 794 F.2d 994, 998-99 (5th Cir.1986); Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D.Ill.1990). 21 This interpretation of the statute makes the same distinction as the University of Utah Medical Center's guidelines g......
-
Forbes v. Woods, Civ-96-288-TUC-WDB.
...Jane L., 518 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 2068, 135 L.Ed.2d 443 (1996)); Margaret S. v. Edwards, 794 F.2d 994 (5th Cir.1986); Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D.Ill. 1990) aff'd 914 F.2d 260 (7th Cir.1990). The Court agrees with these decisions and finds two major difficulties with employing......
-
Forbes v. Napolitano, 99-17372
...sub. nom., Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U.S. 137 (1996); Margaret S. v. Edwards, 794 F.2d 994, 998-99 (5th Cir. 1986); Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F.Supp. 1361, 1363-76 (N.D.Ill.), aff'd mem., 914 F.3d 260 (7th Cir. 1990). In this appeal by the state, we affirm the district court holding. Its decis......
-
Jane L. v. Bangerter, s. 93-4044
...procedures that facilitate pure research and do not necessarily benefit the subject of experimentation. See Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F.Supp. 1361, 1364-65, 1376 (N.D.Ill.1990) (concluding the term "experimentation" was unconstitutionally vague and therefore invalidating similar fetal experi......
-
Stem Cell Research and Cloning for Human Reproduction: an Analysis of the Laws, the Direction in Which They May Be Heading in Light of Recent Developments, and Potential Constitutional Issues - Catherine D. Payne
...See id. 237. See id. 238. See Ledford, supra note 59. 239. See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 125300 (note) (West 2006). 240. 735 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Ill. 1990). 241. Id. at 1377. 242. Id. 243. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 571. 244. Id. at 573-74. 245. Carey, 431 U.S. at 685. 246. See Lawre......
-
SEXUAL AGREEMENTS.
...Markets in Baby-Making: In the Matter of Baby M, 30 HARV. J.L. & GENDER 67 (2007). (121.) See generally, e.g., Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. 111. (122.) See PATEMAN, supra note 106, at 214; RADIN, supra note 106, at 141; see also Dorothy E. Roberts, The Genetic Tie, 62 U.......
-
The Legitimization of Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Under Roe v. Wade
...dismissed, Carey v. Wynn, 439 U.S. 8 (1978), aff'd, Winn v. Carey, 599 F.2d 193 (7th Cir. 1979). But see, e.g., Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F. Supp. 1361, 1376 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (holding abortion statute's provision prohibiting fetal tissue transplantation research as unconstitutional because i......
-
The Legitimization of Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Under Roe v. Wade
...dismissed, Carey v. Wynn, 439 U.S. 8 (1978), aff'd, Winn v. Carey, 599 F.2d 193 (7th Cir. 1979). But see, e.g., Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F. Supp. 1361, 1376 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (holding abortion statute's provision prohibiting fetal tissue transplantation research as unconstitutional because i......