This article relies largely or entirely on a single source .(May 2013) |
United States v. Vuitch | |
---|---|
Argued January 12, 1971 Decided April 21, 1971 | |
Full case name | United States v. Vuitch |
Citations | 402 U.S. 62 ( more ) 91 S. Ct. 1294; 28 L. Ed. 2d 601; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 50 |
Case history | |
Prior | 305 F. Supp. 1032 (D.D.C. 1969) |
Holding | |
The abortion statute of the District of Columbia, banning abortion except when necessary for the health or life of the woman, is not unconstitutionally vague. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Black, joined by Burger, White (in full); Douglas, Stewart (Part I (jurisdiction)); Harlan, Blackmun (Part II (merits)) |
Concurrence | White |
Dissent | Douglas (as to merits) |
Dissent | Harlan, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun (as to jurisdiction) |
Dissent | Stewart (as to merits) |
Dissent | Blackmun (as to jurisdiction) |
United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held that the District of Columbia's abortion law banning the practice except when necessary for the health or life of the woman was not unconstitutionally vague. [1]
Milan Vuitch, an abortion provider in the District of Columbia, had several times come under suit for providing abortion services that the government deemed not necessary for the life or health of the woman, as required by the DC law. Vuitch challenged the law as being unconstitutionally vague with regard to the term "health;" the law did not define health in terms that would allow doctors to determine if their actions had broken the law. [2] Federal District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell agreed, dismissing Vuitch's indictment and ruling that the law failed to give the sufficient certainty required by due process of law in criminal matters. [3] Gesell's finding was the first federal court decision declaring an abortion law unconstitutional. [4]
The United States appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court. [5]
There were two questions before the court: firstly, whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide the case, and secondly, whether the D.C. law was unconstitutionally vague. On the first question, Justice Black, joined by Burger, Douglas, Stewart, and Byron White, held that they could. On the second question, Harlan and Blackmun, although dissenting in jurisdiction, joined Black on the merits, while Douglas and Stewart joined Brennan and Marshall in dissent. [1]
On the merits, Black held that "health" was not vague, since lower courts had construed it fairly concretely to mean physical as well as psychological health. Although this was the final (as well as the first) abortion case prior to Roe , only Justice Douglas, writing in dissent, suggested the existence of a general right to abortion as part of a broader right to privacy. This view would be embraced by seven justices in Roe two years later.
Vuitch lost in the sense that the statute was ruled not "vague"; the district court's decision was overturned and Vuitch could be prosecuted. [6] However, the decision treated abortion as a surgical option not fundamentally different from any other, and the Court seemed to care most about sufficient leeway being given to a doctor's professional judgement. [7]
The case was one of the first that the Supreme Court heard in regards to abortion restrictions in the United States. [8] The justices voted to hear Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton , other abortion cases, the day after Vuitch's opinion was announced. [7]
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States conferred the right to choose to have an abortion. The decision struck down many federal and state abortion laws, and it caused an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the imposition of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
The United States abortion-rights movement is a sociopolitical movement in the United States supporting the view that a woman should have the legal right to an elective abortion, meaning the right to terminate her pregnancy, and is part of a broader global abortion-rights movement. The movement consists of a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body.
Harry Andrew Blackmun was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 to 1994. Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court. He is best known as the author of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. Under this law, any physician "who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both". The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling an abortion. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an aspect that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade (1973).
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed its abortion rights jurisprudence. In an opinion by Justice Powell, the Court struck down several provisions of an Ohio abortion law, including portions found to be unconstitutionally vague.
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case that dealt with whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion. The law in question provided a judicial alternative.
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose ruling had the same effect as that of the Eighth Circuit.
Milan Vuitch was a physician performing abortions in Washington, D.C. and Silver Spring, Maryland. Born in Serbia, he was a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979), is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled 8-1 that teenagers do not have to secure parental consent to obtain an abortion.
The Burger Court was the period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1969 to 1986, when Warren Burger served as Chief Justice of the United States. Burger succeeded Earl Warren as Chief Justice after the latter's retirement, and Burger served as Chief Justice until his retirement, at which point William Rehnquist was nominated and confirmed as Burger's replacement. The Burger Court is generally considered to be the last liberal court to date. It has been described as a "transitional" court, due to its transition from having the liberal rulings of the Warren Court to the conservative rulings of the Rehnquist Court.
Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held void for vagueness part of Pennsylvania's 1974 Abortion Control Act. The section in question was the following:
(a) Every person who performs or induces an abortion shall prior thereto have made a determination based on his experience, judgment or professional competence that the fetus is not viable, and if the determination is that the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable, shall exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the fetus which such person would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and health of any fetus intended to be born and not aborted and the abortion technique employed shall be that which would provide the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive so long as a different technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case that established First Amendment protection for advertising.
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case involving a challenge to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982.
Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975), is a United States Supreme Court case which struck down Utah's definitions of adulthood as a violation of equal protection: females reached adulthood at 18; males at 21.
Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a local city ordinance that made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and “annoy” any passersby was unconstitutionally vague. Dennis Coates participated in a protest along with four other unnamed students, all of whom were convicted of violating the city ordinance. Coates appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. However, this conviction was overturned in the divided United States Supreme Court decision. The Court found that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment freedom of assembly.
June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, 591 U.S. 1101 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a Louisiana state law placing hospital-admission requirements on abortion clinics doctors was unconstitutional. The law mirrored a Texas state law that the Court found unconstitutional in 2016 in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (WWH).
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., No. 18-483, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 1780 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of a 2016 anti-abortion law passed in the state of Indiana. Indiana's law sought to ban abortions performed solely on the basis of the fetus' gender, race, ethnicity, or disabilities. Lower courts had blocked enforcement of the law for violating a woman's right to abortion under privacy concerns within the Fourteenth Amendment, as previously found in the landmark cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The lower courts also blocked enforcement of another portion of the law that required the disposal of aborted fetuses through burial or cremation. The per curiam decision by the Supreme Court overturned the injunction on the fetal disposal portion of the law, but otherwise did not challenge or confirm the lower courts' ruling on the non-discrimination clauses, leaving these in place.