Taylor v. St. Vincent's Hospital, Civ. No. 1090.

Decision Date26 October 1973
Docket NumberCiv. No. 1090.
Citation369 F. Supp. 948
PartiesJames Michael TAYLOR and Gloria Jeane Taylor, husband and wife, on behalf of themselves, Individually, and on behalf of others who may be members of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL, a Montana corporation, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Montana

Robert L. Stephens, Jr., Robert L. Kelleher, Billings, Mont., for plaintiffs.

Stephen H. Foster and Gareld F. Krieg, Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson & Gallagher, Billings, Mont., for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

BATTIN, District Judge.

The parties have agreed that the court may render a decision in this cause without a trial, based upon the stipulated facts which appear in the court's final pre-trial order. Those pertinent facts may be summarized as follows:

St. Vincent's Hospital is a private corporation which operates a hospital facility in Billings, Montana, known as St. Vincent's Hospital. It has done so since May 1, 1972, when it took over the operation of the hospital from the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, also a private corporation, whose members are all members of a religious order of that name. The physical facilities of St. Vincent's Hospital are now and at all times material in this case have been owned by the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, a corporation.

As a private, charitable, non-profit corporation, St. Vincent's Hospital received certain tax benefits from the State of Montana. The Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, a corporation, when it operated St. Vincent's Hospital, also applied for and received funds under the Hill-Burton Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 291-291 (c)) during the years 1956 through 1963.

Tubal ligation as a sterilization procedure had not, prior to the preliminary injunction issued by this court in this cause, been performed at St. Vincent's Hospital because of the interpretation placed upon the publication entitled "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Hospitals" which is incorporated by reference in the By-laws of the medical staff of St. Vincent's Hospital. The Bishop of Eastern Montana of the Roman Catholic Church has the responsibility to interpret the directives for members of the Church of Eastern Montana, including members of the congregation of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth who are on the Board of Directors or are employed at St. Vincent's Hospital. The Preamble in the "Ethical and Religious Directives" makes it clear that they are based upon moral convictions.

St. Vincent's Hospital and Billings Deaconess Hospital are the only hospitals in Billings, Montana. In June, 1972, the maternity departments of the two hospitals were combined in St. Vincent's Hospital, and an intensive care nursery was constructed in St. Vincent's Hospital in order to reduce infant mortality in the community and to reduce the cost to the community of duplicated maternity services. Prior to approving consolidation of maternity services at St. Vincent's Hospital, the Trustees of Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth advised local obstetricians and trustees of the Billings Deaconess Hospital that surgical sterilizations would not be allowed at St. Vincent's Hospital. The consolidation was completed and the combined maternity department with intensive care facilities opened in June, 1972.

The plaintiffs, James and Gloria Taylor, are a married couple who were expecting a second child to be delivered by Caesarian section on October 31, 1972. The couple decided that they wished Mrs. Taylor to be sterilized by tubal ligation at the time of the Caesarian section and requested permission of St. Vincent's Hospital for the procedure. Permission was denied.

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the defendant in refusing to permit Mrs. Taylor to undergo a tubal ligation at the time of her Caesarian delivery infringed certain rights guaranteed to the plaintiff by the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs further allege that the infringement was committed under color of state law. The prayer asked for injunctive relief, not only for the Taylors, but also for "other persons similarly situated in the State of Montana."

The plaintiffs seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S. C. § 1343. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 reads:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

28 U.S.C. § 1343 reads in pertinent part:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: * * *
"(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; * * *."

Essential to the plaintiffs' invocation of jurisdiction in this cause is that the defendant, in its alleged violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, acted under color of state law. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant is acting under the color of state law is grounded primarily on the fact that Hill-Burton grants have been used to defray a portion of the cost of hospital remodeling and construction over the years. In fact, this court, in its order dated October 27, 1972, found jurisdiction in this cause because of the receipt of such funds by the defendant.

However, on June 18, 1973, the President signed into law the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973. Title IV, Section 401, of that Act, provides in part:

"(b) The receipt of any grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act by any individual or entity does not
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Doe v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 6 Noviembre 1975
    ...& Admin.News at pp. 1473, 1477--78; Chrisman v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, 506 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1974); Taylor v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 369 F.Supp. 948 (D.Mont.1973); Watkins v. Mercy Medical Center, 364 F.Supp. 799 (D.Idaho 1973). We think the statute is inapplicable.CAMC's only at......
  • Barrett v. United Hospital
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 23 Mayo 1974
    ...397 F.2d 33 (6th Cir. 1968); Holmes v. Silver Cross Hospital, 340 F.Supp. 125 (N.D.Ill.1972) 7th Circuit; Taylor v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 369 F.Supp. 948 (D.Mont.1972) 9th 54 "State approval is required for incorporation or construction of a hospital. There are limitations on ownership an......
  • New York v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 6 Noviembre 2019
    ...court decision that had preliminarily enjoined a Catholic hospital from prohibiting sterilizations, see Taylor v. St. Vincent's Hosp. , 369 F. Supp. 948, 951 (D. Mont. 1973) (withdrawing preliminary injunction in response to Church Amendments). See 119 Cong. Rec. 9,595 (Mar. 27, 1973) (stat......
  • New York v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 6 Noviembre 2019
    ...court decision that had preliminarily enjoined a Catholic hospital from prohibiting sterilizations, see Taylor v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 369 F. Supp. 948, 951 (D. Mont. 1973) (withdrawing preliminary injunction in response to Church Amendments). See 119 Cong. Rec. 9,595 (Mar. 27, 1973) (state......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Lessons from Pharaoh and the Hebrew Midwives: Conscientious Objection to State Mandates as a Free Exercise Right
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 39, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...Liberty, 70 U. CIN. L. REV. 31 (2001). 272. Fisher, 70 U. CIN. L. REV. at 49-51. 273. See id. at 51-59. 274. 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 275. 369 F. Supp. 948 (D. Mont. 1973). 276. For an overview of the case, see Taylor v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 369 F. Supp. 948, 950-51 (D. Mont. 1973), explaining ......
  • Crisis of conscience: reconciling religious health care providers' beliefs and patients' rights.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 51 No. 6, July - July 1999
    • 1 Julio 1999
    ...(1997). (19.) See Gold, supra note 18, at 1. (20.) See 42 U.S.C. [sections] 300a-7 (1994). (21.) See Taylor v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 369 F. Supp. 948, 950 (1973), aff'd, 523 F.2d 75, 76 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 948 (1976). See notes 49-53 infra and accompanying text for a m......
  • When a Hospital Becomes Catholic - Lisa C. Ikemoto
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 47-4, June 1996
    • Invalid date
    ...discussion that includes a response to Professor Wardle. 152. See 401 of PL 95-45 (1973); see also 214 of PL 93-3-348 (1974). 153. 369 F. Supp. 948 (D. Mont. 1973), affd, 523 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. 1975), cert, denied, 424 U.S. 948 (1976). Mrs. Taylor wanted a tubal ligation performed immediatel......
  • Can Jiminy Cricket be silenced? Congressional spending powers, federalism, and the federal refusal clause.
    • United States
    • Jones Law Review Vol. 12 No. 1, September 2007
    • 22 Septiembre 2007
    ...civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest. 50 U.S.C. app. [section] 456(j) (2000). (22) 369 F. Supp. 948, 950 (D. Mont. 1973), aff'd 523 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. (23) Id. (24) The Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade on Jan. 22, 1973. The Church Amendme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT