Women's Health Services, Inc. v. Maher
| Decision Date | 25 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 232,232 |
| Citation | 636 F.2d 23 |
| Parties | WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated; Virginia Stuermer, M.D., individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated; Forrest D. Gibson, M.D., individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edward W. MAHER, in his official capacity as Commissioner, State of Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance; Henry E. Parker, in his official capacity as Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Patricia R. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees. ocket 80-6029. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Michael Anthony Arcari, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn. (Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., Paige J. Everin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., of counsel) for defendants and third-party plaintiffs-appellants.
Catherine Roraback, Canaan, Conn. (Martha Stone, Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Hartford, Conn., of counsel) for plaintiffs-appellees.
Linda Cole, Atty., Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Richard Blumenthal, U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., William Kanter, Atty., Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., of counsel) for third-party defendants-appellees.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD * and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.
Defendants Edward W. Maher and Henry E. Parker appeal from orders of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, M. Joseph Blumenfeld, J., that held unconstitutional a Connecticut regulation providing public funds for abortions only when the mother's life would otherwise be endangered and that enjoined state officials from refusing to provide reimbursement to those otherwise eligible for medically necessary abortions. 1 For reasons set forth below, we vacate the orders of the district court, and remand the case for further proceedings in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Harris v. McRae, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 65 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980), and Williams v. Zbaraz, 448 U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 2694, 65 L.Ed.2d 831 (1980).
The present appeal involves three groups of parties and numerous amici curiae. The named plaintiffs are a New Haven clinic (Women's Health Services, Inc.) providing pregnancy termination services, an indigent pregnant woman in need of a medically necessary abortion and her two physicians. The district judge certified the case as a class action, including all indigent pregnant women who qualify for State medical assistance in Connecticut, as well as all physicians "who are certified to and who treat as patients Medicaid eligible women." Defendant Maher is the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance, formerly known as the Department of Social Services, and is responsible for administration of the State's medical assistance program. That program is funded in part by federal grants, including those provided under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (Medicaid). Defendant Parker is the State Treasurer, with authority over disbursement of state monies. Third-party defendants are Patricia R. Harris and the federal department of which she is Secretary, formerly the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and now the Department of Health and Human Services (the Department). The Department is responsible for disbursement of federal funds under the Medicaid program.
Plaintiffs' complaint attacked on various grounds a regulation issued by defendant Maher, 3 Department of Income Maintenance, Medical Assistance Program Manual, Chapter III, § 275 (§ 275), which denied an indigent pregnant woman in need of a "medically necessary" abortion the Medicaid funds necessary to secure an abortion unless continuation of pregnancy would endanger her life. The complaint was filed on July 17, 1979, and apparently on the same day the district court enjoined enforcement of § 275 pending resolution of this suit. Defendants then brought their third-party action against Harris and the Department, demanding the continuation of federal funding for all Medicaid-subsidized abortions performed in Connecticut, including those performed only owing to the district court's injunction. Thereafter, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction which, by agreement of the parties, was consolidated with the hearing on the merits on plaintiffs' demand for a permanent injunction. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 65(a)(2).
In January 1980, the district court held that § 275 was an unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection; the court did not decide any issues arising out of the third-party complaint, 482 F.Supp. 725. On June 30, 1980, after defendants had taken an appeal to this court, the Supreme Court decided Harris v. McRae, supra, and Williams v. Zbaraz, supra. McRae held, among other things, that the so-called Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the disbursement of federal funds for abortions except when the life of the mother would otherwise be endangered (unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest), was not an unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection. 2 Zbaraz held that an Illinois statute restricting state funding of abortions according to the standards of the Hyde Amendment was likewise not an unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection.
On this appeal, we have been favored not only with the briefs of the parties, but also with two amici briefs: one from the Connecticut Catholic Conference, which is opposed to the district court decision, and another on behalf of 38 organizations that favor that decision. Considered together with the appeal were three motions: the first by defendants, to "suspend" the district court's injunction against enforcement of § 275; the second by third-party defendants, to dismiss the appeal with respect to them; and the third also by third-party defendants, to remand the proceedings to the district court.
The motions by third-party defendants are made in an uncommon procedural context which fortunately need not detain us long because of our ultimate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Maher
...limits provided in the Hyde amendment, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Women's Health Case I. Women's Health Services, Inc. v. Maher, 636 F.2d 23 (2d Cir.1980) (the remand was granted because of the claim of the plaintiffs that Women's Health Case I was factually d......
-
Women's Health Services, Inc. v. Maher
...requiring medically necessary abortions. Women's Health Services v. Maher, 482 F.Supp. 725, 735-36 (D.Conn.), vacated and remanded, 636 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1980). The court held that a Connecticut regulation ("section 275") allowing Medicaid reimbursement for abortion services only when "on th......
-
The "other" Within: Health Care Reform, Class, and the Politics of Reproduction
...See infra notes 211-13 and accompanying text. 117. Women's Health Servs., Inc. v. Maher, 482 F. Supp. 725, 731 (D. Conn. 1980), vacated, 636 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1980) (concluding that the government has no constitutional obligation to pay for abortions for poor women). 118. Id. 119. See Dehlen......