Right to Choose v. Byrne
| Decision Date | 18 August 1982 |
| Citation | 450 A.2d 925,91 N.J. 287 |
| Parties | RIGHT TO CHOOSE: E. M., P. B., A. C., D. T., E. R., on Behalf of E., A Minor, and D. C. on Behalf of K., A Minor, all on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated; Edward S. Milner, Jr., M. D.; New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization, and New Jersey Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, Plaintiffs-Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. Brendan T. BYRNE, Governor, State of New Jersey; John J. Degnan, Attorney General, State of New Jersey; Ann Klein, Commissioner, Department of Human Services, State of New Jersey; G. Thomas Riti, Director, Division of Human Services, State of New Jersey; Thomas M. Russo, Acting Director, Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, Department of Human Services, State of New Jersey, and Joanne E. Finley, Commissioner, Department of Health, State of New Jersey, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Respondents, and John T. Scully, M. D., F.A.C.S., as Guardian on Behalf of Those Conceived but Unborn Herein and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Dominic A. Introcaso, M. D., F.A.C.O.G.; Anthony P. Despirito, M. D., F.A.A.P.; The New Jersey Right to Life Committee; the Student Ad Hoc Committee Against the War in Vietnam, and New Jersey Concerned Taxpayers, an Association, Intervenors- Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Michael R. Cole, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants-appellants and cross-respondents (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Atty. Gen., attorney; Stephen Skillman, former Asst. Atty. Gen., and Michael R. Cole, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel; Andrea M. Silkowitz, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the briefs).
Nadine Taub and Louis Raveson, Newark, for plaintiffs-respondents and cross-appellants (Nadine Taub and Louis Raveson, attorneys and on brief; Joan Vermeulen and Claudia Davidson, Newark, on the briefs).
Stephen J. Foley, Asbury Park, for intervenors-respondents (Campbell, Foley, Lee, Murphy & Cernigliaro, Asbury Park, attorneys).
Pamela Kaufelt, Somerville, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.; Ass'n of Planned Parenthood Physicians, Inc.; Conference of New Jersey Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Inc. and Certain Physicians and Family Planning Nurse Practitioners (Pamela Kaufelt, Somerville, attorney; Eve W. Paul, Trenton; and Dara Klassel, New York City, members of the New York bar, of counsel).
Randall W. Westreich, Basking Ridge, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women, New Jersey Committee for Abortion Rights and Against Sterilization Abuse (CARASA); Women's Equity Action League (WEAL) and Women's Resource and Survival Center.
Nancy Goldhill, Newark, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae National Ass'n of Social Workers, Inc., New Jersey Chapter; National Ass'n of Social Workers; National Conference of Black Lawyers; Women's Affirmative Action Committee of the New Jersey State Industrial Union Council AFL-CIO; Hispanic Political Action Committee of New Jersey; Peoples Independent Coalition; Northern New Jersey Chapter of the Coalition of Labor Union Women and New Jersey Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.
Morton Stavis, Hoboken, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae American Humanist Ass'n; Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Unitarian Universalist Ass'n; Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation and Women's Div., Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church (Morton Stavis, Hoboken, attorney; Rhonda Copelon, New York City, a member of the New York bar, of counsel).
Gloria B. Cherry, Hackensack, on behalf of amicus curiae League of Women Voters of New Jersey joined in the brief submitted on behalf of amici curiae National Ass'n of Social Workers, et al.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This appeal presents the question of the validity under the New Jersey Constitution of a statute that prohibits Medicaid funding for abortions "except where it is medically indicated to be necessary to preserve the woman's life." N.J.S.A. 30:4D-6.1 (1981). Medicaid pays for the costs of all childbirths and abortions to save the life of the mother but, because of the statutory prohibition, does not pay for those therapeutic abortions needed to protect the health of the mother or for elective, nontherapeutic abortions.
Originally plaintiffs claimed that the denial of Medicaid funds violated rights assured by the due process and equal protection clauses of the New Jersey and United States Constitutions. The Chancery Division found the statute violated a fundamental right to health under both Constitutions. Consequently, that court declared the statute invalid and awarded attorneys' fees to plaintiffs as the prevailing party in a federal civil rights claim. After an appeal had been taken to the Appellate Division, we granted direct certification. 88 N.J. 472, 443 A.2d 692 (1981).
Following the Chancery Division decision, however, the United States Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 65 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980), determined that the federal Constitution does not invest pregnant women with the right to Medicaid funds for abortions. Although we are bound to honor that determination of plaintiffs' federal constitutional rights, we conclude that under the New Jersey Constitution the State may not restrict funds to those abortions to preserve a woman's life, but not her health. We conclude further that the New Jersey Constitution does not require the funding of elective, nontherapeutic abortions. Without determining whether a constitutional right to health exists in New Jersey, we find that the statute violates the right of pregnant women to equal protection of the law under Art. I, par. 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. Accordingly, we modify and affirm the declaration of the invalidity of N.J.S.A. 30:4D-6.1, 169 N.J.Super. 543, 405 A.2d 427. Although plaintiffs have succeeded in their state constitutional claim, they have not prevailed on the federal constitutional claims, and we reverse the award of attorneys' fees, 173 N.J.Super. 66, 413 A.2d 366.
In recent years abortion has generated an intense public debate, which is reflected in constantly changing federal and state legislative and administrative responses. With the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), the issue assumed a new dimension. 1 In that case, the Court ruled that during the first trimester of a pregnancy the state has no role in the abortion decision, which "must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician." Id. at 164, 93 S.Ct. at 732. In the second trimester, the state may "regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." Id. During the third trimester, the state may "regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." Id. at 164-65, 93 S.Ct. at 732.
After Roe v. Wade, indigent women received funding for abortions under Medicaid, a joint federal-state program of medical care for the needy. In the three years between the Roe v. Wade decision and the enactment of N.J.S.A. 30:4D-6.1 in 1975, New Jersey did not restrict state Medicaid funding for abortions. See Statement to S-528 (1975); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 165 N.J.Super. 443, 446, 398 A.2d 587 (Ch.Div.1979) (Right to Choose I ). In N.J.S.A. 30:4D-6.1, however, the New Jersey Legislature restricted state Medicaid funds to abortions needed to preserve the life, but not the health, of the mother. Subsequently, in September, 1976, Congress adopted the first version of the "Hyde Amendment," which, in terms similar to the present version 2, provided that federal Medicaid funds should not be used to pay for abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered. Pub.L.No. 94-439, § 209, 90 Stat. 1434. The 1977 version of the Hyde Amendment, Pub.L.No. 95-205, 91 Stat. 1460, however, extended the permissible use of Medicaid funds to situations in which the mother was the victim of rape or incest, or where two physicians determined "severe and long-lasting physical health damage to the mother would result if the pregnancy were carried to term...." Although that version of the Hyde Amendment permitted funding for abortions to prevent serious injury, N.J.S.A. 30:4D-6.1 restricts funding to abortions to preserve the life of the mother. Thus the state statute is more restrictive than the 1977 Hyde Amendment.
In that context, plaintiffs filed their original complaint in June, 1978 challenging the statute on a variety of grounds. Plaintiffs alleged the funding restriction violated the federal Medicaid Act as well as provisions of the federal and state Constitutions, including those that guarantee equal protection of the laws. They also asserted that the statute constituted the establishment of religion and impinged upon their free exercise of religion. The action has led to three opinions by the Chancery Division, as well as a final judgment on March 28, 1979 and a supplemental final judgment on March 19, 1980. Right to Choose I, 165 N.J.Super. 443, 398 A.2d 587; Right to Choose v. Byrne, 169 N.J.Super. 543, 405 A.2d 427 (1979) (Right to Choose II ); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 173 N.J.Super. 66, 413 A.2d 366 (1979) (Right to Choose III).
In its first opinion, the Chancery Division described the parties:
Plaintiffs are four women who were pregnant when their complaint or amended complaint was filed, two mothers on behalf of minor daughters who were then pregnant, a medical doctor, two nonprofit associations formed to protect abortion and welfare rights, and a religious association for abortion rights.
In accordance with R.R. 4:32-1, 2, this court certified the individual plaintiffs as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Novembrino
...analogous or identical provisions of the federal Constitution. State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 459 A.2d 641 (1983); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 450 A.2d 925 (1982); State v. Hunt, supra, 91 N.J. 338 450 A.2d 952; State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 440 A.2d 1311 (1981); State v. Schmid,......
-
Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co.
...public dissemination of information provided by applicants for casino employment); and procreative rights, Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 303-04, 450 A.2d 925 (1982) (elective abortion) (citing Schroeder v. Perkel, 87 N.J. 53, 66, 432 A.2d 834 (1981); Berman v. Allan, 80 N.J. 421, 4......
-
Ran-Dav's County Kosher, Inc. v. State
...constitution more broadly than the federal constitution in cases implicating the establishment of religion. Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 313, 450 A.2d 925 (1982); Marsa v. Wernik, 86 N.J. 232, 239-40 n. 2, 430 A.2d 888, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 958, 102 S.Ct. 495, 70 L.Ed.2d 373 (19......
-
American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren
...v. Gomez (Minn.1995) 542 N.W.2d 17; Women's Health Center v. Panepinto (1993) 191 W.Va. 436, 446 S.E.2d 658; Right to Choose v. Byrne (1982) 91 N.J. 287, 450 A.2d 925; Doe v. Maher (1986) 40 Conn.Supp. 394, 515 A.2d 134.) Thus, these states too have recognized that, unlike the federal Const......
-
Abortion
...haven’t been officially repealed. 280 In 2023, the governor joined the Reproductive Freedom Alliance. 281 280. Right to Choose v. Byrne, 450 A.2d 925, 934 (N.J. 1982); id. at 941 (finding § 30:4D-6.1 unconstitutional); Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.J. v. Farmer, 762 A.2d 620, 638–39 (N.J.......
-
Freedom and Diversity in a Federal System: Perspectives on State Constitutions and the Washington Declaration of Rights
...of Social Services, 657 P.2d 969 (Colo. App. 1982) (relying on Colo. Const, art. V, § 33); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 450 A.2d 925 (1982) (relying on N.J. Const, art. I, para. 1); Planned Parenthood Ass'n, Inc. v. Department of Human Resources, 63 Or. App. 41, 663 P.2d 1247 (198......
-
Right to Shelter Under the Connecticut Constitution
...29 Cal. 3d 252 625 P.2d 779 (1981); Moe v. Sec'ty of Admin. and Finance 382 Mass. 629, 417 N.E.2a 387 1981); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287,450 A.2 925 (1982) modidifying 169 N.J.super. 543, 405 A.2d 427 (1979); Doe v. Maher, 40 Con Sup. 394,815 A.2d 134(Super.Ct. 1986). 9 In Daly v.......
-
THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT AT (ALMOST) FIFTY: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
...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 Parenthood of Middle Tenn. v. Sundquist, 38 S.W.3d 1, 25 (Tenn. (82.)......
-
N.J.S. § 10:7-1 Findings and Declarations
...Legislature finds and declares that:a. In cases such as Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287 (1982) and Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.J. v. Farmer, 165 N.J. 609 (2000), the New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized that the right to reproductive choice is a fundamental right enshrined in the......