Docstoc

MEMORANDUM

Document Sample
MEMORANDUM Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                Go back to Life Issues Institute
MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT


 THORNBURGH  V AMERICAN COLLEGE
    OBSTETRICIAN
 OF OBSTETRICIANS AND  GYNECOLOGIST
                       GYNECOLOGISTS
 NO 84K95 DIAMOND V CHARLE
                         CHARLES
 NO       841379                                                                                                    MAY   30    1985

TO                                                                                       FROM




 THE      SOLICITOR     GENERAL                                                          SAMUEL           A     AUTO




                                                                        TIME

      IN THORNBURGH   THE STATE
                          STATES TIME TO FILE ITS BRIEF                                                                        HAS   BEEN
EXTENDED  UNTIL  JUNE 29 1985    IN DIAMOND   APPELLANT
                                              APPELLANTS                                                                       BRIEF    IS
DUE WITHOUT AN EXTENSION     ON JULY     1985


                                                     RECOMMENDATION
                                                     RECOMMENDATIONS

          THE   CIVIL   DIVISION                   AND          THE          OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY   RECOMMEND
AMICU
AMICUS      PARTICIPATION                  IN      SUPPORT                   OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY   OF THE
STATE      LEGISLATION                       AGREE




                                                                              OF   THE
                                            FROM     THE     HOLDING
                                                             HOLDINGS
                        REPRODUCED
                                                               RECORD
                                                               RECORDS         ADMINI5AL
                                      ARCHIVE
                                      ARCHIVES        AND
                        NATIONAL
                                                                              OF   JUSTICE
                                                60    DEPARTMENT
                        RECORD       GROUP                                                   GENERAL
                                                                             ATTORNEY
                                                           ASSISTANT
                                OF   THE   DEPUTY
                        FILE
                        FILES
                                                     198     11985
                        CHARLES
                        CHARLE       COOPER
                                                                       BOX   20
                         ACCESSION      060892L6                                                    OBSTETRICIAN
                                                                                                 OF OBSTETRICIANS
                                                                                    COLLEGE
                         FOLDER       ORNBURGH V                  AMERICAN


                            GYNECOLOGIST
                            GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                                             DOJ200055
                                                     DISCUSSION

       A     THE    DECISION BELOW
                    DECISIONS          THESE ARE                  DECISION
                                                   APPEAL FROM DECISIONS
                                                   APPEALS
BY   TWO   COURT
           COURTS        APPEAL
                     OF APPEALS STRIKING   DOWN STATE   LAW
                                                        LAWS REGULATING
ABORTIONS

      1 IN AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND
                                           OBSTETRICIAN
GYNECOLOGIST
GYNECOLOGISTS      V THORNBURGH 737 F2D 283 1981                    DIVIDED     PANEL
OF THE  THIRD CIRCUIT SLOVITER             HIGGINBOTHAIN     SELTZ HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL       NUMEROU PROVISION
                       NUMEROUS PROVISIONS        OF THE   PENNSYLVANIA ABORTION
CONTROL ACT 18 PA CONS STAT ANN                       32013320   PURDON
1983      THE   PANEL
                PANELS APPROACH WAS SIGNALLED BY THE OPENING SECTION
OF THE  OPINION      737 F2D AT 287289 WHICH CAN ONLY BE VIEWED AS
AN EFFORT    TO IMPUGN     THE  MOTIVE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
                                MOTIVES
LEGISLATURE        AFTER   CONCLUDING           AT             ID
                                                     289290 THAT THE
CUSTOMARY      DISCRETION      ACCORDED       DISTRICT    COURT
                                                          COURTS RULING ON
PRELIMINARY     INJUNCTION     MOTION   WAS   INAPPROPRIATE    IN VIEW    OF THE

UNUSUALLY      COMPLETE    FACTUAL AND LEGAL PRESENTATION             THE   PANEL
HELD  UNCONSTITUTIONAL        OR ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT        OF SEVEN    MAJOR
PROVISION
PROVISIONS     OF THE    PENNSYLVANIA    LAW      FORMER   CHIEF JUDGE    SEITZ
DISSENTED ON MOST        POINTS     THE  FOLLOWING     IS    SUMMARY OF THE
PANEL HOLDINGS
PANELS HOLDING

                    SECTION 3205     OF THE   PENNSYLVANIA          REQUIRE
                                                               LAW REQUIRES
PHYSICIAN     OR ASSISTANT     TO PROVIDE CERTAIN      FACTUAL INFORMATION TO
   WOMAN SEEKING AN ABORTION             THI INFORMATION INCLUDES THE NAME
                                         THIS                  INCLUDE
OF THE    PHYSICIAN     PERFORMING    THE  ABORTION    THE   PROBABLE
                               FETU
GESTATIONAL AGE OF THE FETUS THE FACT THAT                 CERTAIN    BENEFIT
                                                                      BENEFITS MAY
BE AVAILABLE      TO ASSIST    IN CHILDREARING        AND   THE   FACT  THAT    THE
FATHER     IS LIABLE    FOR  CHILD   SUPPORT     THE  PANEL STRUCK DOWN         THI
                                                                                THIS
PROVISION     IN  ITS ENTIRETY      737 P2D AT 295296 HOLDING                THAT    IT
WAS   INTENDED    TO DISCOURAGE      ABORTION
                                     ABORTIONS    RATHER    THAN   INFORM      AND
WOULD    INTERFERE WITH THE PHYSICIAN
                                   PHYSICIANS    PREROGATIVES         JUDGE SELTZ
DISSENTED      ID    AT   313 NOTING THAT MUCH OF THE INFORMATION HAD
BEEN    TERMECFNOT      OBJECTIONABLE       IN AKRON      AKRON    CENTER    FOR          V
REPRODUCTIVE     HEALTH  462                  US
                                    416 445 N37 1983        JUDGE    WEI
                                                                     WEIS
DISSENTING    FROM THE DENIAL OF REHEARING     EN BANC  LIKEWISE
              THI HOLDING
CRITICIZED THIS              737 F2D AT 317 AND OBSERVED THAT
                   OF OBJECTIVE  INFORMATION HIGHLY PERTINENT     TO
IMPORTANT    DECISION
             DECISIONS  IS INDEED     DISTURBING  AND UNWELCOME CONCEPT
IN AMERICAN     LAW




                                                                 OF   THE
                                              THE    HOLDING
                                                     HOLDINGS

                      NARCH
                                     FT



                      NARCHS                   AND RECORD
                                                   RECORDS        ADMIRNSTRATION

                                                                 OF   JUSTICE
                                               IE      ARTMCFL
                      RECORD    GROUP                                           GENERAL
                                                                  TTORFLEV
                                                    ASSISTAN
                      FILE
                      FILES   OF THE DEPUTY

                       CHARLESC00PET19S19
                                                                 20
                                                                                    OF    OBSTETC1A
                                                                       COLLEGE


                          GYNECOLOGIST
                          GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                      DOJ200056
                 SECTION 3206       OF THE    PENNSYLVANIA         REQUIRE
                                                              LAW REQUIRES
UNEMANCIPATED    MINOR
                 MINORS    TO OBTAIN PARENTAL        CONSENT   OR      COURT   ORDER
BEFORE HAVING AN ABORTION             THE                 THI PROVISION TO BE
                                           PANEL FOUND THIS
FACIALLY CONSTITUTIONAL        BUT    ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT       UNTIL   THE
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME       COURT              RULE SPELLING OUT THE COURT
                                    ISSUE RULES
                                    ISSUES
PROCEDURE
PROCEDURES    IN GREATER     DETAIL     737 F2D AT 296297              TO PASS
                                                                             PAS
CONSTITUTIONAL    MUSTER THE PANEL PRONOUNCED                THE ALTERNATIVE
JUDICIAL PROCEDURE MUST BE AN ESTABLISHED AND PRACTICAL AVENUE
ID    AT  297 JUDGE SELTZ AGREED WITH THIS DISPOSITION
                                                    THI                          AT                           ID
313 JUDGE WEIS CONCLUDED
                WEI                        AT  318 THAT    THEID PROVISIOIE
SATISFIED THE STANDARD
                 STANDARDS     OF PLANNED      PARENTHOOD    ASSOCIATION      V
ASHCROFT    1462        1173   US
                               4901193     L9I3 PLURALITY            ID AT 505
OCONNOR                 J
                  CONCURRING          AND  AKRON 1162          AT  4394112                          US             1
           CC    SECTION 3208     OF THE   PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE   PROVIDE
                                                                  PROVIDES
FOR   THEPUBLICATION     BY THE   STATE  OF MATERIAL
                                             MATERIALS REGARDING
ABORTION     UNDER    SECTION 3205 WOMEN WERE TO BE TOLD        THAT   THEY
COULD BUT NEED NOT VIEW THESE MATERIALS               IN AN EXTRAORDINARY
RULING       THE2  PANEL  INVALIDATED    THI PRINTING PROVISION
                                         THIS                          STATING
THAT  IT TE  INEXTRICABLY      INTERTWINED    WITH SECTION 3205      737 F2D
AT    298              JUDGE       SEITZ          DISAGREED               ID          AT     3L33114

          CD   SECTION 3210 MAKES MAKE IT         CRIME   KNOWINGLY    OR
RECKLESSLY TO INDUCE OR PERFORM AN ABORTION               ON              FETU BUT
                                                                VIABLE FETUS
PROVIDE THAT
PROVIDES          PHYSICIAN      HAS      COMPLETE    DEFENSE   IF IN HIS BEST
MEDICAL JUDGMENT      THE  FETU IS NOT VIABLE OR THE ABORTION
                           FETUS                                             IS
NEEDED TO PRESERVE     MATERNAL     LIFE    OR HEALTH      THE  PANEL FOUND NO
CONSTITUTIONAL   FLAW       THI PROVISION BUT SUGGESTED 737 P2D AT
                         IN THIS
299300 THAT IT MIGHT REACH               DIFFERENT CONCLUSION       IF THERE    WERE
CONVINCING   EVIDENCE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL             CHILL      JUDGE    SEITZ
OBJECTED       AT     ID
                    3111       THI OBSERVATION
                           TO THIS




1       SEE           ALSO HL V MATHESON    US 398 1981 BELLOTTI V        1150

BAIRD         11113     US 622 1979 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MISSOURI V
DANFORTH               428 US 52 1976
2       THE           PANEL
                      PANELS                    THI PROVISION
                                    RULING ON THIS              WHILE   FAIRLY  INCLUDED
WITHIN        THE       QUESTION
                        QUESTIONS        PRESENTED  8111195           SUP CTF               JS
151A                   IS    NOT    DISCUSSED IN THE JURISDICTIONAL     STATEMENT




                                                                           OF   THE
                                                  FT    THE   HOLDING
                                                              HOLDINGS
                                                                           ADMINISTRATION
                                             ARCHIV5     AND RECORD
                                                             RECORDS
                               NATIONAL

                                                                                      GENERAL
                                                              SSTSTANTA
                               FILE    OF   THE   DEP
                                                        198L
                               FILES


                               CHARLES
                               CHARLE       COOPER
                                                                          20
                                                                                              OBSTETRICIAN
                                                                                           OF OBSTETRICIANS
                                                                                 COLLEGE


                                    GYNECOLOGIST
                                    GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                       DOJ200057
                   CE        SECTION        3210B
                                    PROVIDE THAT
                                    PROVIDES          PHYSICIAN
PERFORMING              AN   ABORTION     FETU MUST USE THE METHOD MOST
                                  VIABLE FETUS
                                             OF
LIKELY    TO PRESERVE   ITS       UNLES
                                  UNLESS  THE  RISK
                                               RISKS TO THE MOTHER
                                             LIFE                     WOULD
BE   SIGNIFICANTLY     GREATER     SEIZING ON THE WORD SIGNIFICANTLY
AND   REJECTING THE    STATE
                       STATES SAVING INTERPRETATION       THE  PANEL  HELD
THAT   THE  STATUTE                      MOTHER
                      TRADED OFF THE MOTHERS HEALTH          IN VIOLATION
OF COLAUTTI              V
                    FRANKLIN 1139        379 1100 1979   US   JUDGE SEITZ
AGREED 737 F2D AT 3111

                             SECTION        3210C         REQUIRE THE ATTENDANCE
                                                          REQUIRES               OF                              SECOND
DOCTOR
1186   OPINION
  REQUIREMENT
              IF   THE


                 WAS
                              FETU MAY
                              FETUS
                             OF POWELL
                     UPHELD ON CONDITION THAT
                                                  J
                                                  BE


                                                THERE
                                                       VIABLE
                                                         505
                                                                 IN ASHCROFT
                                                              OPINION OF OCONNOR
                                                      BE AN EXCEPTION
                                                                             462                         US
                                                                                                           J    AT    1182
                                                                                                                     SUCH


FOR  EMERGENCIES     REFUSING TO INFER  SUCH  AN EXCEPTION  THE PANEL
              THI PROVISION 737 F2D AT 300301 OVER JUDGE
STRUCK DOWN THIS
SEITZ
SEITZS DISSENT          AT       ID
                            3114315

                 SECTION 32114 REQUIRES
                                REQUIRE REPORTING           PHYSICIAN
                                                         BY PHYSICIANS
PERFORMING   ABORTIONS     DISTINGUISHING     THE  REPORTING     REQUIREMENT
UPHELD  IN  PLANNED  PARENTHOOD    V DANFORTH 428               52 7981                             US
1976 THE PANEL HELD SECTION 32111 UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF
ITS  NATURE AND COMPLEXITY        737 F2D AT 302           IT WOULD    INCREASE
THE  COST  OF ABORTION    THE  PANEL   NOTED              WOULD   INTERFERE    IBID
WITH MEDICAL DISCRETION       PRODUCE      PROFOUND     CHILLING EFFECT
AND  SERVE  NO  COMPELLING STATE     INTEREST     JUDGE   SEITZ   DISSENTED
ID       AT    315316
               SECTION 3215E REQUIRES
                                  REQUIRE HEALTH AND DISABILITY
INSURER
INSURERS            POLICIE AT LOWER COST THAT EXCLUDE ABORTION
                    POLICIES
                   TO    OFFER
COVERAGE    BECAUSE  IT HAD  BEEN   STIPULATED  THAT THE   ACTUARIAL COST
OF THESE  POLICIE MIGHT BE HIGHER
          POLICIES                      OR LOWER THE   PANEL STRUCK DOWN
THI PROVISION ON THE GROUND THAT IT INIHT CAUSE INSURANCE
THIS                                                                 COST
                                                                     COSTS
FOR  WOMEN WHO WISH ABORTION    COVERAGE        RISE 737 F2D AT
303 JUDGE SEITZ AGREED              AT             THI ID
                                        316 WITH THIS EXTRAORDINARY
HOLDING             3



3        THI
         THIS       ISSUE  FALL WITHIN THE QUESTIONS
                           FALLS            QUESTION                                       PRESENTED     BUT    IS   NOT
DISCUSSED           IN THE  JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT                                        SEE NOTE           SUPRA




                                         1ARCHVESAD
                                                              TATTORNEY


                                         COOPER    19S11985
                               CHARLE
                               CHARLES

                                                                                    OBSTETRICIAN5
                                                                               OF
                                                                     COLLEGE


                                  GYNECOLOGIST
                                  GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                             DOJ200058
      THE  THIRD CIRCUIT DENIED REHEARING   EN BANE WITH   FOUR
DISSENTS      THE STATE  APPEALED UNDER  28        125112       APPELLEE
                                                                APPELLEES           USC
           DISMIS FOR LACK OF FINALITY
MOVED TO DISMISS                            ON APRIL  15 THE SUPREME
COURT   POSTPONED   CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION  OF JURISDICTION
UNTIL  THE  MERIT STAGE
            MERITS

        2  IN  CHARLE V DALEY 7119 F2D 452 19811
               CHARLES                                   SEVENTH
CIRCUIT  PANEL   WOOD FELL CAMPBELL    HELD THAT  THREE  PROVISION
                                                         PROVISIONS
OF THE  ILLINOI ABORTION
        ILLINOIS          LAW OF 1975 WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL        THE
COURT
COURTS ZEAL IS INDICATED BY THE FACT THAT     TWO OF THESE
PROVISION HAD BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY
PROVISIONS                          AMENDED IN 19811 PRIOR   TO THE
TIME  OF DECISION


       THE  PROVISION THAT WERE
            PROVISIONS              AMENDED SECTION
                                             SECTIONS        AND                                      61     64
MADE   IT    CRIME  FOR    PERSON PERFORMING   AN ABORTION  ON   FETU
                                                                 FETUS
THAT   IS OR MAY BE VIABLE INTENTIONALLY      TO FAIL   EXERCISE THAT
DEGREE    OF PROFESSIONAL   SKILL CARE AND DILIGENCE TO PRESERVE THE
LIFE   AND HEALTH   OF THE  FETU WHICH SUCH PERSON WOULD BE REQUIRED
                            FETUS
TO EXERCISE    IN ORDER   TO PRESERVE  THE LIFE  AND HEALTH  OF ANY   FETU
                                                                      FETUS
INTENDED      TO BE BORN AND NOT     ABORTED      REJECTING      CLAIM OF
                                                                 CLAIMS
MOOTNES
MOOTNESS       THE PANELHELD THAT       THE CHALLENGE     TO SECTION            WAS                         61
LIVE   CONTROVERSY   BECAUSE     THE   POSSIBILITY    OF PROSECUTIONS
                                                          PROSECUTION       BASED ON
EVENT
EVENTS   PRIOR  TO REPEAL    WAS    INSUFFICIENTLY       SPECULATIVE       749 F2D
452THI                       STATE EXPRES
452THIS DESPITE THE STATES EXPRESS DISCLAIMER OF ANY INTENT
TO INITIATE    SUCH CASES        ALTHOUGH ENFORCEMENT        OF SECTION            HAD                       61
BEEN ENJOINED SINCE      THE  PLAINTIFF
                              PLAINTIFFS       INITIAL CHALLENGE        IN  1979
THE  PANEL HELD THAT     THE   CONSTITUTIONAL      CHALLENGE         THI DEFUNCT
                                                                 TO THIS
PROVISION    SURVIVED AS WELL BECAUSE        THE   STATE    MIGHT   AT ANY   TIME
REENACT   THE  PRIOR  PROVISION       739        AT   457458        2D
        ONTHE  MERIT
               MERITS THE COURT INVALIDATED    SECTION       BECAUSE                                   61          IT
DOE
DOES   NOT SPECIFY THAT   THE  ATTENDING PHYSICIAN
                                         PHYSICIANS    VIABILITY
DETERMINATION    ALONE SHALL  GOVERN 7119 F2D AT 459        IN THE
COURTS WORD ID AT 1160 SECTION
COURT WORDS                                 DID NOT   AFFORD DUE              61
DEFERENCE    TO THCONCLUSIVE    VIABILITY DETERMINATION   OF THE
ATTENDING      PHYSICIAN                  4


JL      AS    PREVIOUSLY        NOTED SECTION                            61          WAS SUBSTANTIALLY    WENDED
IN     1981     IN   1983         PREVIOUS AMENDMENT
                                  PREVIOU                                              WASENACTED  MAKING
VIABILITY     SUBJECTIVE   DETERMINATION                                            BASED ON THE MEDICAL
JUDGMENT OF THE ATTENDING    PHYSICIAN 7119 F2D AT 455                                                       THE
COURT  FOUND      AT ID
                      1169      THAT  THI AMENDMENT WAS
                                      THIS N5
INSUFFICIENT




                                                                   OF
                               FT              THE     OLDING
                                                       OLDINGS          THE

                      REPRODUCEOM                                  ADMINISTRATION
                                                AND      RECORD
                                                         RECORDS
                                                                   OF   JUS   ICE
                                          60    DEPARTMENT
                                                                                GENERAL
                                                                 ATTORNEY
                                                     ASSISTANT
                      FILE
                      FILES   OF THE DEPUTY
                                               L981L9S5
                      CHARLES
                      CHARLE     COOPER

                                                                                     OF OBSTET1CN15
                                                                         COLLEGE


                          GYNECOLOGIST
                          GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                        DOJ200059
       THE        HELD THAT
              COURT           SECTION 611 WHICH PERTAINED TO
POTENTIALLY    VIABLE FETUSE WAS
                      FETUSES         UNCONSTITUTIONAL   BECAUSE  IT
PURPORT         TO REGULATE   THE PERFORMANCE      ABORTION AT
                                                OF ABORTIONS         STAGE
PRIOR   TO VIABILITY    7119  F2D AT 1160 AND BECAUSE THE STATESSTATE
INTEREST IN PRESERVING      FETAL LIFE        BECOME COMPELLING ONLY
                                              BECOMES
AT  THE  STAGE  OF VIABILITY          AT 461                 ID
      FINALLY    THE  COURT   STRUCK DOWN       SECTIONS 210 AND
                                                SECTION                                                                  11D
WHICH ACCURATELY DEFINE THE            TERM   ABORTIFACIENT         AND  REQUIRE                                   5
PHYSICIANS
PHYSICIAN    TO NOTIFY    THEIR                            SUBSTNCE
                                  PATIENTS WHEN SUCH SUBSTNCES
                                  PATIENT                               OR
DEVICE ARE PRESCRIBED
DEVICES                         BRUSHING     ASIDE   THE ASSERTION THAT    THESE
PROVISION
PROVISIONS   PROTECT THOSE       WOMEN    WHO   OPPOSE ABORTIFACLENT    METHOD
                                                                        METHODS
OF BIRTH   CONTROL   FOR  MORAL ANDOR RELIGIOU REASONS
                                             RELIGIOUS   REASON 7149 F2D AT
161462 THE COURT FOUND THAT THESE PROVISIONS WERE AN ATTEMPT
                                                 PROVISION
BY THE  STATE OF ILLINOISTT      TO                            FOIST
                                                   UPON WOMEN ITS VIEW       THAT
LIFE  BEGIN AT CONCEPTION
      BEGINS                              AT  462            ID
       ON    MAY    20    THE         SUPREME COURT                            NOTED          PROBABLE         JURISDICTION         OF
THE   APPEAL       FROM THI
                        THIS           DECISION

       2 JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS                        CASE POSE SUBSTANTIAL
                                                BOTH CASES
JURISDICTIONAL       PROBLEM THAT MAY PRECLUDE THE SUPREME
                     PROBLEMS                                              COURT    FROM
REACHING    THE   MERIT
                  MERITS OF CERTAIN        QUESTIONS                       POSE THE
                                                             THORNBURGH POSES
QUESTION    WHETHER 28                 USC
                                      125112     CONTAIN AN IMPLICIT
                                                 CONTAINS
REQUIREMENT      OF FINALITY        IN SLAKER          OCONNOR 278               188 V                                 US
189   1929 THE COURT FOUND SUCH                 REQUIREMENT          SEE  ALSO   SOUTH
CAROLINA ELECTRIC           GAS   CO       FLEMMING       351  V      901   1956                          US
MORE   RECENTLY      THE   COURT   HAS  QUESTIONED      THI CONSTRUCTION
                                                        THIS
CITY   OF NEW ORLEAN
                 ORLEANS    V DUKES 1127
                                 DUKE                  297 301 1976 DORAN      US                                                   V
SALEM INN       INC 422                     US
                                    922 927 1975              AS NOTED BY STERN       AND
GRESSMAN     SUPREME      COURT PRACTICE 67 5TH ED                        THE   COURT                     1978
HAS   FINESSED       THI PROBLEM IN RECENT YEAR BY TREATING APPEAL
                     THIS                            YEARS
PAPER AS
PAPERS           PETITION    FOR   CERTIORARI AND GRANTING           CERTIORARI     28
USC       2103 OR EMPLOYING            LIBERALIZED      STANDARD     OF FINALITY
ACCORDINGLY       IT   IS POSSIBLE     BUT  BY NO MEAN
                                                     MEANS     CERTAIN THAT     THE
 CONCEDED LACK OF FINALITY IN THORNBURGH WILL                   PRECLUDE    THE  SUPREME
 COURT FROM REACHING        THE   MERITS      THE   FEDERAL     GOVERNMENT HAS NO
 INSTITUTIONAL      INTEREST IN THE INTERPRETATION              OF 28                                               USC
12542         AND        DOUBT   THAT   WE SHOULD                                        ENTER      THI
                                                                                                    THIS      FRAY       WE   MAY
URGE   HOWEVER           THAT  THE    COURT GRANT                                        CERTIORARI           IF   APPELLATE
JURISDICTION   IS          FOUND TO BE LACKING




5      SEE    DORLAND
              DORLANDS             MEDICAL                   DICTIONARY                            1493   26TH      ED    1980




                                                                          OF   THE
                                                     THE     HOLDING
                                                             HOLDINGS


                         NAINALAR5                    AND      IRD
                                                               IRDS       ADMINISTRATION

                                                                          OF   JUSTICE
                                                      1E       AXTMEFLT
                         RECORD       GROUP                                              GENERAL
                                                                           ORNE
                                                           ASSISTANT
                         FILE
                         FILES   OF   THE   DEPUTY
                                                     I98119Z5
                         CHARLES
                         CHARLE       COOPER

                                                                                             OF OBSTETRIC1
                                                                                                OBSTETRIC1S
                                                                                COLLEGE


                             GYNECOLOGIST
                             GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                                         DOJ200060
                                                           7
        IN CHARLE
           CHARLES       IT      SEEM
                                 SEEMSQUITE CLEAR        THAT   THE    CONSTITUTIONALITY        OF
OLD    SECTION   64      IS            MOOT
                                       QUESTION             APPELLANT
                                                        AS APPELLANTS         CONTEND           31            JS
1111     THE   CASE ON WHICH THE COURT OF APPEAL RELIED
               CASES                                     APPEALS                  7119  P2D AT
457INVOLVING THE VOLUNTARY CESSATION OF CHALLENGED                                 CONDUCTARE
INAPPOSITE         NONE   INVOLVED THE REPEAL            OF     STATUTE        AN EVENT
QUITE UNLIKE THE TEMPORARY              CESSATION OF CHALLENGED               CONDUCT BY
PRIVATE PARTY        OR EVEN    THE   REPEAL     OF      MUNICIPAL       ORDINANCE        CITY
OF MESQUITE       V ALADDINS CASTLE INC 1155
                      ALADDIN                                            283    1982      USAN
TFORT     TO ENACT     OR REENACT          STATUTE      ACTIVATE THE PUBLIC
                                                        ACTIVATES
SCRUTINY AND SAFEGUARDS
                   SAFEGUARD        OF DEMOCRATIC        GOVERNMENT        ON      STATEWIDE
LEVEL        IT IS OFTEN     PROCEDURALLY        DIFFICULT AND UNCERTAIN                THEREBY
MILITATING       AGAINST REPEAL       AND   REENACTMENT        TO AVOID       COURT
SCRUTINY         THI
                 THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE HERE SINCE THE ILLINOI               ILLINOIS
ABORTION      LAW  HAD   TO BE PASSED       OVER     THE   GOVERNOR
                                                           GOVERNORS        VETO
MOREOVER       PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM AND COMITY MAKE IT WHOLLY
               PRINCIPLES
INAPPROPRIATE        FOR      FEDERAL    COURT     TO PRESUME       THAT        STATE
LEGISLATURE       AND GOVERNOR WILL         ACT    IN   BAD   FAITH BY REPEALING AND
THEN    REENACTING        STATUTE     FOR    THE   PURPOSE     OF EVADING FEDERAL
 COURT   REVIEW          STATE    IS NOT    TO BE TREATED         LIKE        MISCREANT     WHO
WILL RETURN          TO HIS          WAY
                               OLD WAYS          CITY OF MESQUITE             1155         AT            US
 289   NLO CITATION         OMITTED AS SOON AS THE FEDERAL COURTS TURN          COURT
 THEIR   HEADS          DOUBT THAT      THE   SUPREME COURT         WILL     FOLLOW THE
 SEVENTH     CIRCUIT
             CIRCUITS REASONING               THI POINT OR THAT IT WILL REACH
                                         ON THIS
 OUT   TO ADJUDICATE       THE   CONSTITUTIONALITY          OF      DEFUNCT       STATUTE                       6
        APPELLEE
        APPELLEES           FOR
                        CLAIM    AN INJUNCTION     AGAINST ENFORCEMENT     OF
OLD    SECTION    61 SHOULD ALSO     BE DISMISSED     FOR LACK OF
                     THE  POSSIBILITY     THAT   APPELLEE
                                                 APPELLEES MIGHT BE

                                                       E
JUSTICIABILITY
PROSECUTED   UNDER   THE   OLD  STATUTE   IS TOO CONJECTURAL      TO SATISFY
ART    III REQUIREMENTS        SEE           LOS  ANGELE
                                                  ANGELES     LYON
                                                              LYONS 461                              V         US
95 101110 1983 OSHEA V LLTTLETON                    1114      1188  1974                        US
GOLDEN    V ZWICKLER     394          103   US
                                          1969 POEV ULLMAN 367                                                US

 6    APPELLANT ARGUE
      APPELLANTS                        JS   THI
                                   43 THAT THIS CASE PRESENTS
                                                         PRESENT        LIVE
CONTROVERSY   REGARDING   THE  CONSTITUTIONALITY      OF THE  CURRENT    VERSION
OF SECTION   611 BECAUSE THE COURT OF APPEALSAPPEAL REASONINGTHAT ANY
REGULATION   OF ABORTION    IN THE                      FETU
                                     INTEREST OF THE FETUS PRIOR        TO
                INVALIDDOOM
VIABILITY IS INVALIDDOOMS           THE  CURRENT VERSION AS WELL AS ITS
PREDECESSOR      HOWEVER THE COURT OF APPEAL EXPRESSLY
                                            APPEALS               DECLINE
TO EVALUATE           CONSTITUTIONALITY      OF THE   CURRENT PROVISION
7119  F2D AT 1155 AND THE SUPREME COURT REVIEW JUDGMENT
                                                  REVIEWS    JUDGMENTS      NOT
STATEMENTS
STATEMENT    IN  OPINIONS      BLACK V CUTTER      LABORATORIE
                                                   LABORATORIES      351                                      US
 292    297   1956




                                                              ATTOLFL
                                                      STANT
                      FES   OF   THE   DEPUTY

                                 COOPER         19811985
                      CHARLE
                      CHARLES

                                                                                     OBSTETRICIAN
                                                                                  OF OBSTETRICIANS
                                                                        COLLEGE



                         GYNECOLOGIST
                         GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                    DOJ20006
497   507 1961       APPELLEE HAVE NOT EVEN ALLEGED
                     APPELLEES                            THAT   THEY
PERFORMED ANY   LATETERM    ABORTION TO WHICH OLD SECTION
                            ABORTIONS                                  MIGHT                        61
APPLY SEE        JS
                  42143      AND  EVEN      APPELLEE COULD
                                        IF APPELLEES           SATISFY
ARTICLE III      DO NOT SEE HOW    THEY   COULD  SHOW THE IRREPARABLE
INJURY REQUIRED   FOR  INJUNCTIVE    RELIEF     LYON
                                                LYONS 461         AT  111                US
113

      TO    SUMMARIZE      ON THE  JURISDICTIONAL   POINT
                                                    POINTS NO OBSTACLE
STAND
STANDS     IN   THE   WAY  OF REVIEW  OF THE   CONSTITUTIONALITY        SECTION
                                                                    OF SECTIONS
210      AND     11D     OF THE  ILLINOI
                                 ILLINOIS LAW NOTIFICATION       REGARDING
ABORTIFACIENT       IT  IS UNCERTAIN  WHETHER THE SUPREME                                    COURT       WILL
REACH THE MERIT
          MERITS      OF ANY OF THE  ISSUE IN THORNBURGH
                                     ISSUES                                                    IT   IS
UNLIKELY    IN MY   JUDGMENT    THAT THE  COURT WILL REACH                                   THE    MERTI
                                                                                                    MERTIS      OF
THE  REMAINING   ISSUE IN CHARLES
                 ISSUES


      B         PARTICIPATION              AS   CIVIL    NOTE
                                                         NOTES       MEMO               NO    ONE
SERIOUSLY        BELIEVE THAT
                 BELIEVES                THE    COURT    IS  OVERRULE ROE
                                                              ABOUT        TO                             V
WADE    110      US 113   1973        BUT  THE  COURT
                                                COURTS DECISION TO REVIEW
THESE           NEVERTHELES
        CASE NEVERTHELESS
        CASES                     MAY BE      POSITIVE SIGN       BOTH COURT    OF
             DECISION
APPEAL DECISIONS PURPORTED TO APPLY SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT IN
APPEALS                                                             PRECEDENTS
AREA
AREAS   THAT   THE COURT     HAS  ALREADY    AND RECENTLY      EXPLORED     THERE
ARE   NO CONFLICTING      COURT   OF APPEAL
                                      APPEALS     DECISIONS      IF THE  SUPREME
COURT HAD AGREED WITH         THE   THIRD AND SEVENTH     CIRCUIT DECISION
                                                                    DECISIONS      IT
MOST LIKELY WOULD        HAVE SUMMARILY      AFFIRMED     THU
                                                          THUS BY TAKING THESE
CASES THE COURT MAY BE SIGNALLING AN INCLINATION TO CUT BACK
CASE
WHAT   CAN   BE MADE       THI OPPORTUNITY
                        OF THIS                   TO ADVANCE   THE  GOALS OF
                                                                    GOAL
BRINGING     ABOUT THE EVENTUAL        OVERRULING   OF ROE      WADE AND     IN     V
                                                                                  THE
MEANTIME      OF MITIGATINGG      ITS   EFFECT
                                        EFFECTS

      CIVIL IS OBVIOUSLY CORRECT           MEMO AT         THAT    WE CANNOT    REPEAT
OUR  APPROACH   IN AKRON         IN AKRON    WE DID   NOT    EXPRESSLY
ACKNOWLEDGE    OUR POSITION        ON ROE  V WADE       WE DECIDED NOT       TO
DISCUS THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS BEFORE THE COURT
DISCUSS                     PROVISION                              SEE BR          BUT
RATHER   ARGUED IN BROAD TERMS TERM THAT THE COURTSCOURT SHOULD REVIEW          STATE
AND  LOCAL  LEGISLATION      REGULATING     ABORTION    WITH GREATER
DEFERENCE      THE COURT REJECTED         OUR ARGUMENT       REAFFIRMED ROE V
WADE    AND PROCEEDED      TO SLASHI       AM TEMPTED    TO SAY      REFLEXTLYAT
THE  PARTICULAR REGULATIONS
                   REGULATION        BEFORE IT      FOR  EXAMPLE       IT IS ALMOST
INCREDIBLE   THAT    THE   COURT    STRUCK DOWN AN ORDINANCE          REQUIRING THE
HUMANE AND SANITARY          DISPOSAL OF ABORTED FETUSESFETUSE 1162              AT                 US
451452         PROVISION     DESIGNED              TO
                                                PRECLUDE     THE   MINDLES DUMPING
                                                                   MINDLESS
OF ABORTED    FETUSE ONTO GARBAGE PILES
              FETUSES                                   PILE ID
                                                             AT  1451  CITATION
OMITTED        THE   COURT   FOUND THAT     THE  TERM HUMANE AND SANITARY
                                                 TERMS
WERE   IMPERMISSIBLY     VAGUEA MOST REMARKABLE CONCLUSION                 IN VIEW     OF
THE  COUNTLESS
     COUNTLES     LAW CONTAINING THOSE VERY TERMS
                  LAWS                                             CONGRES HAS
                                                                   CONGRESS




                           N1ARCHIVESAD01
                                                              GENERAL
                                  ATTORNEY
                       CHAR1ESC00PN19819S
                       CHAR1ESC00PN19819SS
                                                    20
                                                                   OF OBSTETRICIA
                                                         COLLEGE
                       FOLDERT0MAMJC
                         GYNECOLOGIST
                         GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                     DOJ200062
EVEN  MANDATED THE  HUMANE                                      DISPOSAL            OF   EXCES
                                                                                         EXCESS     WILD   FREE
ROAMING  HORSE       BURROW
         HORSES AND BURROWS                                43   USC 19016
                        CASE NOW BEFORE THE COURT EXHIBIT
           POSTAKRON CASES
            THE                                                      SIMILAR
APPROACH   BY THE  COURT OF APPEALS
                   COURTS      APPEAL AND THE DECISION TO REVIEW
THESE  CASE MAY MEAN THAT
       CASES                     MAJORITY OR NEARMAJORITY        OF THE
COURT IS UNCOMFORTABLE     WITH WHAT IT SEES        ACCORDINGLY    AND    IN
              LESSON OF AKRON
VIEW OF THE LESSONS                  MAKE THE FOLLOWING
RECOMMENDATION      WE  SHOULD FILE     BRIEF       AMICU
                                                AS AMICUS CURIAE
SUPPORTING   APPELLANTS IN BOTH CASES
             APPELLANT                        IN THE  COURSE   OF THE   BRIEF
WE  SHOULD MAKE     CLEAR  THAT   WE DISAGREE WITH        ROE      WADE AND WOULD               V
WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY         TO BRIEF   THE    ISSUE   5TWHETHER      AND  IF SO
TO WHAT   EXTENT     THAT  DECISION    SHOULD BE OVERRULED            THEN WITHOUT
GREAT  FORMAL                      LEVEL OF SCRUTINY OR DEGREES OF STATE
                 DISCUSSION OF LEVELS                             DEGREE
INTEREST               LD DEMONSTRATE     THAT    MANY OF THE PROVISIONS
                                                                  PROVISION
  RUCK DOWN BY THE THIRD AND                   CIRCUIT ARE EMINENTLY
                                               CIRCUITS
REASONABLE    AND   LEGITIMATE    AND  WOULD    BE UPHELD     WITHOUT     MOMENT
                                                                          MOMENTS
HESITATION    IN OTHER    CONTEXTS       IF THE     COURT  CAN BE CONVINCED     TO
SUSTAIN THESE     REGULATION
                  REGULATIONS       IT MAY HAVE      TO ADJUST    ITS  STANDARD   OF
REVIEW             THI
                   THIS       IS     ESSENTIALLY THE OPPOSITE OF THE AKRON  APPROACH
IT     IS    AN    ARGUMENT           FROM THE SPECIFIC TO THE GENERAL   RATHER THAN
VICE        VERSA

      1      STRIKING   EXAMPLE  OF THE   COURT REFUSAL TO ALLOW
                                          COURTS
BREATHING   ROOM FOR REASONABLE    STATE   REGULATION   IS THE
INVALIDATION    OF THE  PROVISION
                        PROVISIONS   OF THE  PENNSYLVANIA    AND  ILLINOI
                                                                  ILLINOIS
LAW REQUIRING THAT
LAWS                      WOMAN  CONTEMPLATING    AN ABORTION    OR USE    OF
AN ABORTIFACIENT     BE PROVIDED  WITH   CERTAIN  RELEVANT     ACCURATE
FACTUAL AND NONINFLAMMATORY              STRONG CASE   CAN  BE MADE   THAT
THI IS AN ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE STATE
THIS                                        REGULATION     EVEN  WITHIN    THE
CONFINE
CONFINES           OF     ROE

            WHAT        FOR       IS THE
                               EXAMPLE     OBJECTION TO INFORMING       WOMAN
THAT
THAT
            CERTAIN       METHOD
                          METHODS
             DO NOT PREVENT
                                 BIRTH CONTROL OF  ARE ABORTIFACIENT
                                                       ABORTIFACIENTS
                                   FERTILIZATION BUT TERMINATE      THE
                                                                                                              IE
      THEY
DEVELOPMENT     OF THE   FETU AFTER
                         FETUS             CONCEPTION    WHY CANNOT    THE STATE
    ILLINOI
OF ILLINOIS REQUIRE        THAT     THI INFORMATION BE PROVIDED TO
                                    THIS
PATIENT
PATIENTS     IN  THE  DOCTOR
                      DOCTORS OWN WORDS   WORD SO THAT WOMEN FOR WHOM THE
DIFFERENCE IS MORALLY         SIGNIFICANT CAN MAKE AN INFORMAL CHOICE
WOULD      COURT  HESITATE      FOR      MOMENT BEFORE UPHOLDING    GOVERNMENT
                                                                    GOVERNMENTS
AUTHORITY    TO REQUIRE      THAT    PATIENT BE INFORMED
                                     PATIENTS               ABOUT THE
OPERATION    OF ANY   OTHER     DRUG OR MEDICAL DEVICE




                               REPRODUCE



                               RECORD       GROUP     60
                                                                          GENERAL


                                                    L911985
                               CHARLES
                               CHARLE        COOPER
                                                                20
                                                                               OF OBSTETRICI5
                                                                     COLLEGE
                                             THORNB
                                   FOLDER

                                     YNECOLOGIST5




                                                                                                                   DOJ200063
                                                         10



      SIMILARLY   THE  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SHOULD                                            BE
ALLOWED  TO REQUIRE   THAT WOMEN CONTEMPLATING ABORTION  BE                                           TOLD   737
F2D   AT   305306
                             THE    NAME        OF       THE          DOCTOR

           II                THE FACT  THAT  THERE  MAY
                             BE UNFORESEEABLE    DETRIMENTAL
                              EFFECT
                              EFFECTS

           III                THE  PARTICULAR                         MEDICAL           RISK
                                                                                        RISKS    OF
                             ABORTION  IN  THE                        WOMEN
                                                                      WOMENS            CASE

           IV                THE    PROBABLE              GESTATIONAL                     AGE
                              OF    THE       FETU
                                              FETUS

                             THE    MEDICAL              RISK
                                                         RISKS             OF    CHILDBIRTH

           VI                THAT  AID  MAY  BE AVAILABLE   TO
                             PAY  FOR  PRENATAL  ARID NEONATAL

                             CARE  AND  DELIVERY

           VII               THAT      THE   FATHER                   IS FINANCIALLY
                             LIABLE       FOR   CHILD                  SUPPORT  AND

           VIII              THAT  THE   WOMAN MAY BUT    NEED
                             NOT   REVIEW   STATEPREPARED
                             MATERIAL DESCRIBING THE UNBORN
                             MATERIALS
                             CHILD   AND  AGENCIE OFFERING
                                          AGENCIES
                             ALTERNATIVES
                             ALTERNATIVE      TO ABORTION



      THI IS RELEVANT
      THIS                   ACCURATE     FACTUAL      AND NONINFLAMMATORY
INFORMATION       NO RESTRICTION     IS PLACED         PHYSICIAN WISHING TO
                                                   ON PHYSICIANS
CONTRADICT     OR SUPPLEMENT   IT     IF ABORTION      IS     WOMAN
                                                              WOMANS CHOICE      AS
THE  COURT HAS    HELD THEN SURELY       THE   CHOICE    SHOULD BE INFORMED
IT GOE WITHOUT
    GOES             SAYING THAT   THE   WOMAN IS ENTITLED       TO FULL
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WILL BE DONE TO HER AND ABOUT THE POSSIBLE
EFFECT
EFFECTS ON HER HEALTH        IT ONLY THE     WOMAN    IS CONSIDERED     ABORTION
IS LIKE    OTHER  SURGERY AND THE STATE POWER
                                        STATES              TO ENACT  DETAILED
INFORMED    CONSENT LEGISLATION     REGARDING      GENERAL    SURGICAL
PROCEDURE CAN HARDLY BE QUESTIONED
PROCEDURES                                       SEE NOTE ABORTION
REGULATION       THE  CIRCUMSCRIPTION      OF STATE     INTERVENTION   BY THE
EOCTRINE OF INFORMED       CONSENT     15GA          REV 63L 69IB99 1981   L
GAUVEY LEVITON        SHUGER      SYKE
                                  SYKES INFORMED          AND SUBSTITUTE CONSENT




                                                            OF JUSI
                                      60    DEPARTMENT
                                                                           GENERAL
                                             ASSISTHT     ATTOI1LEY
                   FI1ESOFTHDEP
                                           19811985
                   CHARLES
                   CHARLE     COOPER

                                                                                OF OBSTE111C11
                                                                  COLLEGE


                      GYNECOLOGIST
                      GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                   DOJ200064
                                                                               11



TO    HEALTH      CARE         PROCEDURE
                               PROCEDURES                   PROPOSAL FOR                                       STATE  LEGISLATION 15
HARV     J        LEGIS         1131         14611    19713   PROPOSING                                        DETAILED  MODEL ACT
115   CPR         1161011161101                      DETAILED   INFORMED                                       CONSENT FOR HUMAN
EXPERIMENTATION

      WHILE    ABORTION   INVOLVE
                          INVOLVES ESSENTIALLY       THE   SAME  MEDICAL CHOICE
AS OTHER    SURGERY        INVOLVE IN ADDITION
                        IT INVOLVES                       MORAL CHOICE     BECAUSE
THE  WOMAN CONTEMPLATING           FIRST TRIMESTER     ABORTION   IS GIVEN
ABSOLUTE   AND   NONREVIEWABLE      AUTHORITY   OVER   THE  FUTURE   OF THE
FETUS     SHOULD NOT THEN      THE    WOMAN BE GIVEN RELEVANT      AND  OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION BEARING ON THI CHOICE
                              THIS              ROE TOOK FROM STATE
LAWMAKER THE AUTHORITY
LAWMAKERS                      TO MAKE     THI CHOICE AND GAVE IT TO THE
                                           THIS
PREGNANT    WOMAN     DOE IT NOT FOLLOW THAT THE WOMAN CONTEMPLATING
                      DOES
ABORTION    HAVE  AT HER    DISPOSAL AT LEAST      SOME   OF THE  SAME  SORT   OF
INFORMATION             THAT       WE       WOULD          WANT             LAWMAKER
                                                                            LAWMAKERS                     TO    CONSIDER

      DOCTOR
      DOCTORS MAY VOLUNTARILY                   THI INFORMATION
                                      PROVIDE THIS                      BUT THEY
MAY    ALSOFAIL TO DO SO IN         LARGE    NUMBER OF CASES         BENEVOLENT
DOCTOR MAY HAVE       NARROW   IDEA    ABOUT   HIS  PATIENTS WELLBEING
                                                    PATIENT                     HE

MAY  WISH TO SPARE    HIS  PATIENT FROM HAVING TO CONFRONT AN
UNCOMFORTABLE     MORAL CHOICE        FURTHERMORE            PHYBICIAN
                                                       MANY PHYBICIANS
INCLUDING   THOSE   OPERATING    HIGHVOLUME       ABORTION   CLINIC HAVE
                                                             CLINICS
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ENCOURAGING            WOMEN TO HAVE    ABORTIONS     MUST
THE  STATE  ENTRUST   TO THEM THE      SOLE   RESPONSIBILITY    TO PROVIDE
WOMAN WITH THE RELEVANT       INFORMATION BEARING ON HER CHOICE

      MOST         OF    THE      CASE AND COMMENTARY ON THI ISSUE MAKE
                                  CASES                       THIS                    VERY
WEAK CASE          AGAINST         THE  CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF LEGISLATION     LIKE                                                  THAT4TC
CHALLENGED          HERE               7ONE OF THE  FEW THAT                THE    LEVEL   OF              EWABOVE
JARGON  IS         JUDGE         COFFIN
                                 COFFINS ARGUMENT IN PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE                                                           V


7
1980
        SEE        E
              FREIMAN
                   US
                               V
                                 CHARLE
                                 CHARLES
                                       ASHEROFT
                                                       V
                                                   772 779786 7TH CIR

                       1971 LEIGH V OLSON 497 F SUPP 1340
                                                               CAREY
                                                8TH CIR 1978 AFFD   51311       F2D
                                                                                       627        F2D
                                                                                                2117

MEM       14140   941
13441347           DND1980 MARGARET S V EDWARD EDWARDS 488 F SUPP
181 205212          ED           WOMEN SERVICE
                       LA 19130 WOMENS SERVICES               V PHONE                                                   PC
1183 F SUPP 1022 10119         NEB
                               RHETORIC
                                       1979 CHEMERNSKY D
                                                     ABORTION
                                                              RAIONALIZING
THE  ABORTION  DEBATE    LEGAL             AND  THE            CONTROVERSY
31 BUFF    L REV 107 161162 19132 NOTE TOWARD CONSTITUTIONAL
ABORTION   CONTROL LEGISLATION     THE   PENNSYLVANIA APPROACH      137 DICK
L REV 371 3135390 19133 NOTE ABORTION REGULATION                  THE
CIRCUMSCRIPTION                  OF      STATE          INTERVENTION                              BY      THE      DOCTRINE   OF   INFORMED
CONSENT   15 GA                  L       REV           6431              7D2         19131




                                                                                OF    THE
                                                FROM   THE     OLDING
                                                               OLDINGS
                                                                                    ADMINISTRATION
                                                        AND      RECORD
                                                                 RECORDS
                               NAIONALARCHJ5                                    OF    JUSTICE
                                                                 ARTMEFLT
                                                                                                GENERAL
                                                                               ATTORNEY
                               FILE
                               FILES   OF THE   DPY          ASSISTANT


                                                       198119A5
                               CHARLES
                               CHARLE       COOPER
                                                                         BOX    20
                                                06089216                                                OBSTETRICIAN
                                ACCESSION                                                            OF OBSTETRICIANS
                                                                                       COLLEGE
                                            HORNBURGH           V    AMERICAN
                                FOLDER

                                   GYNECOLOGIST
                                   GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                                                DOJ200065
                                                            12



BELLOTTI       641    F2D
                        1006 10211022        1ST CIR 1981 AGAINST THE
VALIDITY      OF  MASSACHUSETTS
                  MASSACHUSETT     LAW REQUIRING           DESCRIPTION   OF THE
STAGE   OF DEVELOPMENT    OF THE   UNBORN CHILD               AT  1021                      ID
FIRST HE CONTENDED                 IBID
                                     THE  INFORMATION IS NOT MEDICALLY
RELEVANT BUT IT IS VERY RELEVANT TO THE EXTRAMEDICAL
DIMENSION OF THE ABORTION       CHOICE       SECOND    HE ARGUED                                         IBID
THAT  THE  INFORMATION WOULD      CAUSE   EMOTIONAL     DISTRES ANXIETY
                                                        DISTRESS
GUILT AND IN SOME CASE INCREASED PHYSICAL PAIN
                        CASES                                     THESE
RESULT HOWEVER ARE PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY
RESULTS                                                       OF MORAL
CHOICE     ANY   ONE  CONFRONTING    SUCH     CHOICEA LEGISLATOR VOTING

ATN
ON ABORTION


THAT      KNOW WILL COST LIVESMAY
      HE KNOWS
               LEGISLATION
               IMPRISONMENT
                                  JUDGE   OR

                                   MILITARY
                                              JUROR  PRONOUNCING
                                               OFFICER    COMMANDING
                                             EXPERIENCE SIMILAR
                                                                       SENTENCE
                                                                         MISSION
                                                                     EFFECTS
THI
THIS  IS NOT   BAD ALTHOUGH OF COURSE          THERE  IS NO  JUSTIFICATION FOR
MALICIOUSLY    INFLICTING     SUFFERING      THIRD HE ARGUED IBID THAT
THE  DESCRIPTION     PRESENT NO INFORMATION WHOSE ESSENCE MOST IF
                     PRESENTS
NOT  ALL  WOMEN DO NOT UNDERSTAND         BEFORE RECEIVING           THI SEEMS
                                                                     THIS    SEEM                   IT
MOST DUBIOUS       IT  IS NOT   EVIDENT THAT      MOST WOMEN THINKING     ABOUT
ABORTION   CAN   PROVIDE     REASONABLY     ACCURATE    TRIMESTERBY
TRIMESTER     LET  ALONE MONTHBYMONTH            DESCRIPTION   OF FETAL
DEVELOPMENT       IN ANY   EVENT    THI IS SURELY
                                    THIS                  FACTUAL ISSUE
FINALLY HE MAINTAINED               AT  ID
                                         1022 THAT MOST WOMEN THINKING
ABOUT ABORTION     DO NOT WANT    TO HEAR     SUCH    DESCRIPTION             THI
                                                                       DOE THIS
                                                                       DOES
MEAN THAT   WOMEN HAVE        RIGHT TO MAKE AN UNINFORMED        CHOICEEVEN
THOUGH THAT     CHOICE   INVOLVE SOMETHING MORE THAN THEIR
                         INVOLVES                                   OWN   WELL
BEING         8




8       IN    AKRON     AMERICAN
                         THE          PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION        ARGUED                                   AM
BR      1522       DETAILED
                  THAT           INFORMED     CONSENT   REQUIREMENTS
                                                        REQUIREMENT     ARE
HARMFUL  BECAUSE    THEY   DO NOT     ALLOW THE FLEXIBILITY       THAT  GOOD
COUNSELLING REQUIRES          THI IS
                              THIS          MORE ATTRACTIVE      ARGUMENT
ESPECIALLY   IF ONE ENVISION
                       ENVISIONS         TRAINED     PSYCHOLOGICAL
COUNSELLOR     EVEN    IN  SUCH CASE THE COUNSELLOR
                                   CASES                        MAY HAVE AN
UNDULY NARROW    IDEA    OF HIS    FUNCTION       BUT  IN ANY   EVENT   THE
AVERAGE FIRSTTRIMESTER          ABORTION    IS NOT LIKELY      TO FEATURE   SUCH
COUNSELLING     AS       DOCTOR    AT  ONE  OF THE    CLINIC IN AKRON
                                                      CLINICS
TESTIFIED   WHEN       TEENAGER      8HOWED UP AT THE      CLINIC   HE ASSUMED   THE
DECISION WAS   MADE       IN HIS     WORD
                                     WORDS              YOU   GO TO    BAR YOU GO
THERE    TO    DRINK       REAP         BR          20




                                                              OF   THE
                                      FROM   THE HOLDING
                                                 HOLDINGS
                                                                 ADMIFLISTRAT1
                                              AND   RECORD
                                                    RECORDS
                         NA1ONA1ARCHJES
                         NA1ONA1ARCHJE

                                                                          GENERAL


                                             19811985
                         CHARLES
                         CHARLE    COOPER
                                                                                    OBSTETRICIAN
                                                                                 OF OBSTETRICIANS
                                                                    COLLEGE


                            GYNECOL0G15




                                                                                                                     DOJ200066
                                                              13



         STATE    SHOULD HAVE   THE RIGHT   TO REQUIRE     THAT     WOMAN
CONTEMPLATING      ABORTION   BE GIVEN  INFORMATION REGARDING        THE
PROCEDURE      THE  FETU
                    FETUS THE EFFECT OF THE PROCEDURE ON HER AND THE
FETU                ALTERNATIVE
FETUS AND THE ALTERNATIVES TO ABORTIONPROVIDED THAT THE
INFORMATION IS FACTUAL IS ACCURATE OR IN THE CASE                 OF MEDICAL
INFORMATION       REFLECT THE CONSENSUS
                  REFLECTS        CONSENSU    OF SCIENTIFIC     OPINION    AND IS
NOT  LURID   OR INFLAMMATORY        IN ADDITION     THE   STATE  SHOULD   NOT
RESTRICT THE PHYSICIAN
                  PHYSICIANS    ABILITY TO PROVIDE WHATEVER OTHER
INFORMATION HE BELIEVE RELEVANT
                    BELIEVES                THE  ILLINOI AND PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 ILLINOIS
STATUTE
STATUTES    PAS THESE TESTS
            PASS

        IN   AKRON    THE       COURT         LARGELY              SIDESTEPPED    THE                   ISSUE      THE
AKRON    ORDINANCE     REQUIRED               THAT            WOMAN      BE INFORMED                    BY      PHYSICIAN

                     THAT       SHE     IS     PREGNANT

                     THE     PROBABLE            AGE      OF        THE           UNBORN         CHILD

                     THAT  THE UNBORN CHILD IS      HUMAN LIFE
                     FROM THE MOMENT  OF CONCEPTION    AND  THE
                     ANATOMICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL
                     CHARACTERISTIC
                     CHARACTERISTICS  OF THE PARTICULAR    UNBORN
                     CHILD  AT THE GESTATIONAL POINT   OF
                     DEVELOPMENT

              11     THAT  AN          UNBORN            CHILD MORE THAN 22 WEEK
                                                                            WEEKS
                     OLD  MAY          BE     ABLE        TO SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE
                     WOMB

                     THAT ABORTION    IS    MAJOR SURGICAL
                     PROCEDURE   THAT    MAY RESULT IN CERTAIN
                     SERIOU COMPLICATIONS
                     SERIOUS   COMPLICATION

                     THAT NUMEROU
                          NUMEROUS                AGENCIE
                                                  AGENCIES                   ARE AVAILABLE    TO
                     PROVIDE BIRTH                   CONTROL                INFORMATION    AND


                     THAT  NUMEROU AGENCIE ARE AVAILABLE
                           NUMEROUS  AGENCIES                                                            TO
                     ASSIST HER DURING PREGNANCY  AND AFTER
                     BIRTH IF SHE   CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE AN
                                    CHOOSES
                     ABORTION




                       REPRODUCED

                       NATIONAL                                    OF   JUSTICE
                                                     ITMENT
                                                                                  GENERAL
                                                 ASTNT         ATTORNEY



                           CHARLES
                           CHARLE    COOPER
                                                                                      OF    OBSTEUICI
                                                                          COLLEGE
                                      ORNBURGH       V
                              LDER


                              GYFLEC0L0G5T5




                                                                                                                            DOJ200067
                                                                    14



         THE      STRUCK DOWN
                 COURT             THE   ENTIRE ORDINANCE     BECAUSE    THE
ORDINANCE  INSISTED     THAT   THE   INFORMATION BE PROVIDED       BY
PHYSICIAN  RATHER    THAN    AN ASSISTANT       462        AT  445     N37                    US
448    THE COURT    ALSO   CRITICIZED SUBSECTION         FOR   ADOPTING     ONE
THEORY OR WHEN    LIFE    BEGINS 462
                          BEGIN                  AT  444 IT FAULTED      US
SUBSECTION     FOR   REQUIRING     SPECULATION       BY THE   PHYSICIAN
REGARDING  THE   PARTICULAR      UNBORN CHILD                   AND   IT                     IBID
CRITICIZED SUBSECTION          AS MEDICALLY     INACCURATE          AT   444                                 ID
445 NEITHER THE PENNSYLVANIA NOR ILLINOI PROVISION SHARES
                                               ILLINOIS                SHARE
THESE FLAWS

         AKRON COURT
         THE           WENT ON TO STATE   462        1445446                                      US                         N37
THAT     THE
         REMAINING   SUBSECTION
                     SUBSECTIONS WERE   NOT OBJECTIONABLE                                                                     THESE
SUBSECTIONS PARALLEL MANY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA PROVISIONS
SUBSECTION                                                                                                                     THE
COURT     ALSO  STATED HOWEVER 462         AT  445 THAT   THE               US                                            AKRON
ORDINANCE       RBLY INSISTING UPON RECITATION   OF   LENGTHY   AND
INFLEXIBLE      LIST  OF INFORMATION INTRUDED   UPON THE DISCRETION                                                                   OF
THE     PREGNANT WOMAN PHYSICIAN
                   WOMANS              THE                    THI
                                           TENSION BETWEEN THIS
STATEMENT  AND            THE  STATEMENT  NOTED ABOVE MAY REFLECT DISAGREEMENT
OR UNCERTAINTY              ON THE  PART OF THE AKRON MAJORITY AND MAY ACCOUNT
IN     PART     FOR    THE   COURT
                             COURTS DECISION TO REVIEW THE PRESENT CASES

          THE  COURT MAY WELL REJECT      THE ARGUMENT                                                 OUTLINED ABOVE BUT
DO     NOT   THINK IT WILL FIND IT        PARTICULARLY                                                 EASY  ARGUMENT TO
DISMISS           THE  CONTRARY                    DOE
                                 POSITION REALLY DOES                                                  APPEAR      LIKE       KIND  OF
CENSORSHIP         AND     DENIAL OF INFORMED   CHOICE                                                  SEE   NOONAN        THE   ROOT
AND  BRANCH           OF   ROE   V       WADE           63      NEB          L       REV          668        677678        L94
THORNBURGH            HIGHLIGHT
                      HIGHLIGHTS            THI
                                            THIS
                                         CENSORSHIPLIKE  QUALITY  BY PROHIBITING
THE     STATE     FROM      EVEN PRINTING  CERTAIN MATERIAL
                                                   MATERIALS   MUCH LES
                                                                    LESS
REQUIRING         THAT      WOMEN BE ALLOWED TO SEE THEM

      2 ANOTHER EXAMILE OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS SUFFOCATING
                                            COURT      APPEAL
APPROACH   IS THE    THIRD   CIRCUIT INVALIDATION
                             CIRCUITS                      OF SEVERAL   STATUTORY
PROVISIONS BASED ON FLIMSY
PROVISION                            AND   UNSUPPORTED   FACTUAL ASSUMPTIONS
THE  THIRD CIRCUIT HELD        THAT   PENNSYLVANIA MAY NOT REQUIRE          DOCTOR
PERFORMING   AN ABORTION       TO REPORT     INFORMATION SUCH    AS THE  NAME   OF
THE  PHYSICIAN   AND FACILITY         THE   WOMAN
                                            WOMANS AGE AND MARITAL STATUS
                                                                        STATU
THE  MONTH OF PREGNANCY          THE  TYPE   OF PROCEDURE    USED AND ANY
COMPLICATIONS        THE   COURT    RELIED    737 F2D AT 302 ON AND MAY
HAVE  DISTORTED     SEE ID AT 315316                STIPULATION   THAT  THESE
REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENT     WOULD    CAUSE    AN UNSPECIFIED     INCREASE IN THE COST OF
AN ABORTION       THE   COURT    ALSO   CONCLUDED         AT  302 THAT    SUCH               ID




                                                    FROM
                                 REPRODUCED

                                 NATIONAL      ARCHIVE
                                               ARCHIVES
                                                                              OF   JUSTICE
                                                                   ARTMENT
                                                                                             GENERAL
                                                                             ATTORNEY
                                                               ASSLSTSLLT
                                         OF   THE   DEP0TY
                                 FILE
                                 FILES
                                                             19811985
                                 CHARLES
                                 CHARLE       COOPER
                                                                             20
                                                                                                 OF    OBSTETICI
                                                                                    COLLEGE


                                     GYNECOLOGIST
                                     GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                                           DOJ200068
                                                               15



REPORTING   REQUIREMENTS
            REQUIREMENT    WOULD HAVE   PROFOUND  CHILLING EFFECT                                                            ON
THE  WILLINGNESS
     WILLINGNES        PHYSICIAN TO PERFORM ABORTIONS
                   OF PHYSICIANS                         THE
INVALIDITY       THI REASONING HARDLY NEEDS DEMONSTRATION
             OF THIS                   NEED

         WOULD   HATE TO HAVE      TO COMPILE       LIST   OF ALL  THE  FEDERAL
NOT   TO MENTION    STATE AND LOCAL RECORDKEEPING             AND REPORTING
LAWS     MANY OF THESE     LAW INCREASE THE COST OF GOODS AND
                           LAWS                                GOOD
SERVICES      NO DOUBT THERE      ARE  INSTANCE IN WHICH THESE COST
                                       INSTANCES
INCREASE BURDEN THE EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
INCREASES
RECORDKEEPING     AND REPORTING      LAW
                                     LAWS APPLICABLE       TO THE                                              PRESSE
TAX  AND  SAFETY LAWSINCREASE           THEIR   COST
                                                COSTS MAY THEREBY INCREASE
THE  PRICE OF PRINTED MATERIAL
     PRICES                 MATERIALS       AND  MAY DRIVE MARGINAL
PUBLICATIONS
PUBLICATION      INTO   BANKRUPTCY              THI
                                         DOE THIS MEAN THAT THESE
                                         DOES
RECORDKEEPING      AND REPORTING     LAW ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
                                     LAWS
                                                             IF WE FOCU
                                                                   FOCUS JUST ON
THE  ABORTIONIST      WHY SINGLE OUT ABORTION          REPORTING   REQUIREMENT
                                                                   REQUIREMENTS
WHY NOT ALL REGULATION        THAT   INCREASES HIS
                                     INCREASE            COST OF DOING BUSINES
                                                         COSTS             BUSINESS
AND   THU
      THUS   HIS   FEE

       AS FOR THE CHILLING EFFECT ON PHYSICIANS
                                          PHYSICIAN      IT IS HARD TO
TAKE   THI ARGUMENT VERY SERIOUSLY
       THIS                              DOCTOR
                                         DOCTORS ARE SUBJECT TO        HOST
OF RECORDKEEPING   AND REPORTING   LAWS     IN TRUTH WHAT PROBABLY
CHILL THEM IS NOT THE THOUGHT OF FILLING OUT ABORTION
CHILLS                                                         REPORT OR
                                                               REPORTS
THE  WILDLY UNLIKELY  PROSPECT   OF CRIMINAL   PROSECUTION   FOR AN
ABORTIONRELATED    OFFENSE  BUT  THE                                   THOUGHT             OF         VISIT    FROM   AN   IRS
AGENT INVESTIGATING   TAX  SHELTERS

      MUCH  LIKE                   CIRCUIT
                    THE THIRD CIRCUITS HOLDING           WITH RESPECT      TO THE
REPORTING   PROVISION WAS ITS INVALIDATION
            PROVISIONS                                  OF THE   PENNSYLVANIA
PROVISION   REQUIRING       INSURER TO PROVIDE LOWERCOST
                            INSURERS                                HEALTH
INSURANCE   TO THOSE NOT WANTING          ABORTION   COVERAGE       THE   COURT
STRUCK DOWN    THI PROVISION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING
               THIS                                                           THE
EFFECT ON THE     COST    OF INSURANCE     FOR WOMEN    WANTING    ABORTION
COVERAGE   737 F2D AT 302303                INSTEAD     THE  COURT    RELIED ON
STIPULATION        ID  AT   302303 THAT THE ACTLFTCO8T                OF PROVIDING
INSURANCE   WITHOUT     ABORTION     COVERAGE MIGHT     BE HIGHER     OR LOWER      IT
SEEM TO ME THAT
SEEMS                  THI STIPULATION PROVE NOTHING
                       THIS                  PROVES                 IF  THI
                                                                        THIS
PROVISION
PROVISIONS     EFFECT ON COSTS COST WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY         SIGNIFICANT      THE
 COST QUESTION    SURELY      SHOULD  HAVE  BEEN   REMANDED   FOR   TRIAL

              CC    IN   SEVERAL       INSTANCE
                                       INSTANCES   BOTH THE THIRD AND SEVENTH
CIRCUIT
CIRCUITS     INSISTED     ON       CONSTRUING  CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
                                                              PROVISIONS  SO AS




                                                                         OF   THE
                                                     HE HOLDING
                                                        HOLDINGS
                                                                          ADMIFL15TRFL
                                                      AND   RECORD
                                                            RECORDS

                                                                         OF   JUSTICE
                                                      DE    ARTMEFLT
                                                                                        GENERAL
                                                       ASSISTANT        ATTORNEY
                         FILE
                         FILES   OF   THE   DEPUTY
                                                     19811985
                         CHARLES
                         CHARLE       COOPER
                                                                        20
                                                                                               OBSTETRICIAN
                                                                                            OF OBSTETRICIANS
                                                                               COLLEGE
                                                            AMERSC
                                       THORFLBU8
                         POLDER

                             GYNECOLOGIST
                             GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                                  DOJ200069
                                                    16



TO  CREATE  CONSTITUTIONAL    PROBLEM INSTEAD OF EITHER
                              PROBLEMS                        ADOPTING
ENTIRELY   PLAUSIBLE   ALTERNATIVE    INTERPRETATION
                                      INTERPRETATIONS   URGED BY THE
STATE OR AWAITING
STATES                   DEFINITIVE    INTERPRETATION   BY THE   STATE
COURTS     THI
           THIS IS TRUE       SECTION 3210B AND CC OF THE
                          OF SECTIONS
PENNSYLVANIA    LAW  CONCERNING    THE   METHOD OF ABORTION   AND
ATTENDANCE   OF     SECOND PHYSICIAN     IN                   FETUSE
                                            CASE OF VIABLE FETUSES AND
                                            CASES
SECTION    61   OF THE  ILLINOI LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE PHYSICIANS
                        ILLINOIS                                PHYSICIAN
ABSOLUTE   AUTHORITY   TO DECIDE ON VIABILITY                                    9
                  THE   THIRD CIRCUIT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT           OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA     PARENTAL    CONSENT    PROVISION       ALTHOUGH  IT FOUND NO
CONSTITUTIONAL     DEFECT       INSTEAD     THE   COURT    MERELY WANTED TO MAKE
SURE  THAT                    RULE
             IMPLEMENTING RULES WERE          ISSUED       737 F2D AT 297
UNDER   WHAT  AUTHORITY     CAN     FEDERAL     COURT   ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT  OF
STATE   LAW  THAT   DOE NOT CONTRAVENE THE CONSTITUTION OR ANY
                    DOES
FEDERAL    LAW




9     MOREOVER     IF THE   COURT SHOULD REACH THEJISSUE        WITH RESPECT
TO   THE ILLINOI LAW
         ILLINOIS             THINK WE HAVE      VERY STRONG ARGUMENT       THAT
CONTRARY   TO WHAT    THE  COURT SAID   IN COLAUTTI      K39        AT  396           US
VIABILITY CANNOT BE         MATTER   SOLELY FOR THE JUDGMENT       OF THE
ATTENDING    PHYSICIAN     IT MUST HAVE   AN OBJECTIVE     MEANING      IFJIN
COLAUTTI WERE     CORRECT     STATE WOULD BE SEVERELY
                              STATES                         HAMPERED IN
REGULATING    LATETERM     ABORTION BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW
                           ABORTIONS
THAT  THE PHYSICIAN      ACTUALLY BELIEVED    THAT   THE  FETU
                                                          FETUS WAS    VIABLE
MOREOVER IF VIABILITY HAS NO OBJECTIVE MEANING                  PHYSICIAN
COULDBE PROSECUTEDTHOUGHT                     CRIMEIE
                                                   FOR   PERFORMING    AN
ABORTION   ON                     NONVIABLEFTU WHILE LABORING UNDER
                  PREDICTABLY NONVIABLEFTUS
THE  MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT        IT WAS VIABLE      IS THERE   ANY DOUBT    THAT
THE  COURT WOULD     NOT  TOLERATE   THI
                                     THIS




                                                              GENERAL
                   FILESOFTHEPYA5515T0
                                      L98119S5
                   CHARLES
                   CHARLE    COOPER
                                      S9216    BOX2O
                                                                      OBSTETRICIAN
                                                                   OF OBSTETRICIANS
                                                         COLLEGE
                             TH0RFLBURH   V   AMERICAN
                   FOLDER

                      GYNECOLOGIST
                      GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                           DOJ200070
                                                                      17



          CE    FINALLY   THE  SEVENTH CIRCUIT WAS    SO EAGER  TO
OVERTURN  ABORTION   LAW AND SO DEEPLY
                     LAWS                 SUSPICIOUS
                                          SUSPICIOU    OF THE  ILLINOI
                                                               ILLINOIS
LEGISLATURE THAT   IT INSISTED   ON REVIEWING   AND INVALIDATING    LAW
                                                                    LAWS
NO LONGER  ON THE  BOOKS

       WE       NEED RAISE ALL OF THESE
                        NOT                  ISSUES    OUR POINT   IS THAT
EVEN   AFTER           ABORTION
                      AKRON       IS NOT UNREGULABLE       THERE MAY BE AN
OPPORTUNITY    TO NUDGE THE     COURT TOWARD    THE PRINCIPLES
                                                    PRINCIPLE   IN JUSTICE
OCONNOR AKRON DISSENT TO PROVIDE GREATER RECOGNITION OF THE
OCONNORS
STATE INTEREST IN PROTECTING
STATES                                 THE UNBORN THROUGHOUT PREGNANCY
OR  TO DISPEL    IN PART  THE   MYSTICAL FAITH IN THE ATTENDING
PHYSICIAN   THAT   SUPPORT ROE AND THE SUBSEQUENT
                   SUPPORTS                               CASES

            FIND       THI
                       THIS      APPROACH                PREFERABLE TO     FRONTAL  ASSAULT    ON
ROE    V    WADE          10            IT    HAS        MOST OF THE ADVANTAGES
                                                                      ADVANTAGE    OF    BRIEF
DEVOTED         TO    THE6VERRULING                      OF ROE  V WADE IT MAKE OUR POSITION
                                                                              MAKES
         DOE
CLEAR DOES NOT EVEN TACITLY          CONCEDEE
                                     CONCEDEES LEGITIMACY           AND
SIGNAL THAT
SIGNALS         WE REGARD   THE   QUESTION   AS LIVE   AND  OPEN    AT THE
SAME  TIME   IT IS FREE   OF MANY OF THE      DISADVANTAGES
                                              DISADVANTAGE     THAT  WOULD
ACCOMPANY     MAJOR  EFFORT    TO OVERTURN    ROE    WHEN THE COURT     HAND
                                                                        HANDS
DOWN  ITS  DECISION  AND  ROE IS NOT      OVERFTED     THE  DECISION WILL     NOT
BE PORTRAYED    AS   STINGING REBUKE         WE ALSO WILL NOT FORFEIT       THE
OPPORTUNITY   TO ADDRESSAND        WE WILL   NOT  PROD THE COURT INTO
SUMMARILY   REJECTINGTHE        IMPORTANT   SECONDARY   ARGUMENTS OUTLINED
                                                        ARGUMENT
ABOVE




10
MADE
1975 A
GOVERNMENT
           THE
            SEE

            L12LL
                       E
                     CASE      WADE HAS
                              AGAINST
                             THE   A
                                         BEEN  FULLY
                                   MORALITY OF CONSENT 2729
                                             BICKEL
                                                     AND
                                                   ROE


            C6X THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN
                                        1976
                                                           V
                                                          PUBLICLY


                                                        PROCES
                                      SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS BY
                           EPSTEIN
    OTHER  NAME 1973 SUP CT REV 167185         ELY THE WAGES OF
                                                         WAGE
CRYING WOLF     COMMENT ON ROE      WADE   82 YALE       920          V                                    LJ
1973             IN    AKRON            THE        COURT
                                                   COURTS         RESPONSE                WAS      STARE    DECISI
                                                                                                            DECISIS   AND   THE
RULE       OF    LAW




                                                           Go back to Life Issues Institute




                                                                       OF   THE
                                              FR     THE   HOLDING
                                                           HOLDINGS
                                                                       ADMINISTRATION
                                                       AND RECORD
                                                           RECORDS
                            NAIONALATCH5

                                                           ATTAUO1Y
                                                     19811985
                              CHARLES
                              CHARLE     COOPER
                                                                      20
                                                                                           OBSTETRICIAN
                                                                                        OF OBSTETRICIANS
                                                                             COLLEGE



                                 GYNECOLOGIST
                                 GYNECOLOGISTS




                                                                                                                                  DOJ20007

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:17
posted:9/8/2012
language:Unknown
pages:17