Women of State of Minn. by Doe v. Gomez, No. CX-94-1442

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtKEITH; STRINGER; COYNE
Citation542 N.W.2d 17
PartiesMedicare & Medicaid Guide P 43,970 The WOMEN OF the STATE OF MINNESOTA, as represented by Jane DOE, et al., Respondents, v. Maria R. GOMEZ, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of Human Services, Appellant, Hennepin County Board, Ramsey County Board, St. Louis County Board, Respondents.
Docket NumberNo. CX-94-1442
Decision Date15 December 1995

Page 17

542 N.W.2d 17
Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 43,970
The WOMEN OF the STATE OF MINNESOTA, as represented by Jane
DOE, et al., Respondents,
v.
Maria R. GOMEZ, in her official capacity as the Commissioner
of Human Services, Appellant,
Hennepin County Board, Ramsey County Board, St. Louis County
Board, Respondents.
No. CX-94-1442.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Dec. 15, 1995.

Page 18

Syllabus by the Court

Statutes that permit the use of public funds for childbirth-related medical services but prohibit similar use of public funds for medical services related to therapeutic abortions impermissibly infringe on a woman's fundamental right of privacy under Article I, Sections 2, 7 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Patricia A. Sonnenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for appellant.

Simon Heller, Janet Benshoof, New York City, Linda Ojala, Minneapolis, for respondents Jane Doe, Jane Hodgson, M.D., Pro-Choice Resources, Women's Health Center of Duluth, Midwest Health Center for Women, and Meadowbrook Women's Clinic.

Page 19

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin Co. Atty., Martin Munic, Asst. Hennepin Co. Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent Hennepin Co. Bd.

C. David Dietz, Asst. Ramsey Co. Atty., St. Paul, for respondent Ramsey Co. Bd.

Clay Odden, Duluth, for respondent St. Louis Co. Bd.

Creighton R. Magid, Stacey M. Fuller, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, for amicus Minnesota Civ. Liberties Union.

Barry W. McKee, Stillwater, for amicus Pro-Life Action Ministries, Inc.

Eric J. Magnuson, David F. Fitzgerald, Gregory M. Weyandt, Minneapolis, for amicus Minnesota Lawyers for Life, Inc.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

KEITH, Chief Justice.

In this appeal, we are called upon to assess the validity under the Minnesota Constitution of statutes that restrict the use of public funds for abortion-related medical services to three limited circumstances while permitting the use of such funds for comprehensive childbirth-related medical services. Plaintiffs contend that this selective funding scheme violates a woman's right to privacy and equal protection of the law because it denies medical benefits to otherwise qualified women solely because they seek to exercise their constitutional right to procreative choice in a manner which the State does not approve.

In light of the emotional and political overtones of the abortion issue in this country, we must emphasize that this case presents a very narrow legal issue. This opinion is not based upon the morality or immorality of abortion, or the ethical considerations involved in a woman's individual decision whether or not to bear a child. In this case, the Minnesota legislature has adopted certain restrictions which impact poor women who, for medical reasons or because of rape or incest, choose to have an abortion. A similar constitutional challenge would certainly arise if the Minnesota legislature funded abortions for qualified women to limit the population of the poor, but refused to provide medical care for poor women who choose childbirth. Thus, the constitutional issues in this case concern the protection of either choice from discriminatory governmental treatment.

Both parties agree that women have a fundamental right to obtain an abortion before fetal viability under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. However, plaintiffs assert that the statutory scheme at issue in this case infringes upon this fundamental right to privacy, and therefore must be subjected to strict scrutiny by this court. See Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299, 312 (Minn.1993) (statutes which impinge upon a fundamental right are subject to strict scrutiny by the judiciary). Because we agree with plaintiffs and because the State has not convinced us that the statutes in question are necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, we hold that the challenged provisions are unconstitutional. Our decision is only based upon this court's determination that a pregnant woman, who is eligible for medical assistance and is considering an abortion for therapeutic reasons, cannot be coerced into choosing childbirth over abortion by a legislated funding policy. In reaching our decision, we have interpreted the Minnesota Constitution to afford broader protection than the United States Constitution of a woman's fundamental right to reach a private decision on whether to obtain an abortion, and thus reject the United States Supreme Court's opinion on this issue in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 65 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980). We conclude that the challenged provisions impermissibly infringe upon a woman's fundamental right of privacy under Article I, Sections 2, 7 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. Accordingly, we affirm the district court, and therefore find it unnecessary to address the equal protection arguments raised by the plaintiffs. 1

Page 20

I.

On March 8, 1993, plaintiffs filed suit in Hennepin County District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services (the "State"), the Commissioners of Hennepin County, the Commissioners of Ramsey County, and the Commissioners of St. Louis County. 2 Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations arising out of statutory provisions that restrict the use of public medical assistance and general assistance funds for therapeutic abortion services. Plaintiffs sought an injunction against the enforcement of the challenged provisions and a declaration that the provisions violated the Minnesota Constitution.

Both the State and Ramsey County moved to dismiss. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs moved for class certification. In its order filed July 15, 1993, the district court denied the motions to dismiss and granted certification. The court certified:

the class of all women eligible for Minnesota's Medical Assistance, General Assistance Medical Care, or County Poor Relief programs, who seek abortions for health reasons during the pendency of this litigation or have obtained abortions for health

Page 21

reasons within the one year period prior to the filing of this action. 3

Following discovery, the State and the plaintiffs made cross-motions for summary judgment. In its order dated June 16, 1994, the district court denied the State's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The court struck Minnesota Statutes section 256B.0625, subdivision 16 as unconstitutional under the equal protection and privacy guarantees of Article I, Sections 2, 7, and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution and permanently enjoined the defendants from enforcing the challenged statutes and regulations. 4

On June 23, 1994, the State filed a motion for a stay of enforcement of the judgment and for a suspension of the injunction issued by the district court. In its July 5, 1994 order, the district court denied the State's motion for a stay and reserved the issues of reimbursement to class members and of costs and reasonable disbursements until all appeals have been exhausted.

The State filed a notice of appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on July 6, 1994 and filed a petition for accelerated review in this court on the same day. By an order dated July 29, 1994, this court granted the State's petition for accelerated review. In this appeal, we are asked to resolve the issues of whether the challenged provisions violate the equal protection guarantees or impermissibly infringe on a woman's fundamental right of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution.

Before addressing the issues presented, however, it is important to note the statutory scheme and caselaw implicated in this appeal and the facts presented to the trial court prior to its decision.

A. The Statutory Scheme and Related Caselaw

Created in 1965 under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, Medicaid is a joint federal-state entitlement program that provides medical assistance to persons whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary care. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a-1396v (1988 & Supp. IV 1992); see Atkins v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 154, 156, 106 S.Ct. 2456, 2458, 91 L.Ed.2d 131 (1986). States are not required to participate in the Medicaid program, but once a state elects to participate, it must comply with the requirements of Title XIX. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 301, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 2680, 65 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980). Federal law sets out mandatory and optional categories of services funded under Medicaid. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a, 1396d(a) (1988 & Supp. IV 1992). The mandatory categories require a participating state to provide financial assistance to the "categorically needy" 5 with respect to five general areas of medical treatment. 6 See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A) (1988 & Supp. IV 1992); McRae, 448 U.S. at 301, 100 S.Ct. at 2680; Atkins, 477 U.S. at 157, 106 S.Ct. at 2458-59. The optional categories permit a participating state to provide additional medical benefits to the "medically needy." 7 See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(10)(C)

Page 22

and 1396d(a) (1988 & Supp. IV 1992). Although the program does not identify specific types of medical treatment required under the program, the state's plan must establish "reasonable standards * * * consistent with the objectives of [Title XIX]" to determine what treatment is covered. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17) (Supp. V 1993). Thus, Title XIX gives states "substantial discretion to choose the proper mix of amount, scope, and duration limitations on coverage, as long as care and services are provided in 'the best interests of the recipients.' " Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 303, 105 S.Ct. 712, 721, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(19)).

The United States Supreme Court has, in several cases, addressed the issue of coverage for abortion services in light of Title XIX and the United States Constitution. In Beal v. Doe, the Court considered whether Title XIX requires...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Burdick, No. 20130259.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • October 28, 2014
    ...(1969) ; North Florida Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So.2d 612, 634–35 (Fla.2003) ; Women of Minnesota v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 27–31 (Minn.1995) ; Armstrong v. State, 1999 MT 261, ¶ 41, 296 Mont. 361, 989 P.2d 364 ; Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundqui......
  • American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, No. S041459
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 4, 1996
    ...providing medical care for childbirth without providing it for abortion. (See, e.g., Women of the State of Minnesota 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.......
  • 1999 -NMSC- 5, New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, No. 23,239
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 25, 1998
    ...394, 515 A.2d 134, 162 (1986); Moe v. Secretary of Admin. and Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 417 N.E.2d 387, 404 (1981); Women of Minn. v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 32 (Minn.1995); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 450 A.2d 925, 941 (1982); Women's Health Ctr. of W. Va., Inc. v. Panepinto, 191 W.Va.......
  • Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 5, 1996
    ...violated privacy, due process, and equal protection provisions of California Constitution); Women of the State v. Gomez, Page 114 542 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Minn.1995) (using strict scrutiny to rule that "a pregnant woman ... cannot be coerced into choosing childbirth over abortion by a legislated ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 cases
  • MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Burdick, No. 20130259.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • October 28, 2014
    ...(1969) ; North Florida Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So.2d 612, 634–35 (Fla.2003) ; Women of Minnesota v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 27–31 (Minn.1995) ; Armstrong v. State, 1999 MT 261, ¶ 41, 296 Mont. 361, 989 P.2d 364 ; Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundqui......
  • American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, No. S041459
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 4, 1996
    ...providing medical care for childbirth without providing it for abortion. (See, e.g., Women of the State of Minnesota 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.......
  • 1999 -NMSC- 5, New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, No. 23,239
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 25, 1998
    ...394, 515 A.2d 134, 162 (1986); Moe v. Secretary of Admin. and Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 417 N.E.2d 387, 404 (1981); Women of Minn. v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 32 (Minn.1995); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 450 A.2d 925, 941 (1982); Women's Health Ctr. of W. Va., Inc. v. Panepinto, 191 W.Va.......
  • Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 5, 1996
    ...violated privacy, due process, and equal protection provisions of California Constitution); Women of the State v. Gomez, Page 114 542 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Minn.1995) (using strict scrutiny to rule that "a pregnant woman ... cannot be coerced into choosing childbirth over abortion by a legislated ......
  • 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