# United States v. Vuitch
## Concurring Opinion

    White

## Dissenting Opinions

    Douglas
    Harlan
    Stewart
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 62
United States v. Vuitch
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
No. 84. Argued: January 12, 1971. --- Decided: April 21, 1971
Appellee physician's indictments for producing and attempting to produce abortions in violation of D.C. Code § 22-201 was dismissed by the District Court on the ground of unconstitutional vagueness. That court held that the word "health" was overly vague, and, relying on Williams v. United States, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 147, 138 F. 2d 81, held that once an abortion is proved, the burden is on the doctor to persuade the jury that it was necessary to preserve the mother's life or health. The Government appealed to this Court under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
Held:
    1. Although the abortion statute applies only to the District of Columbia, this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal under § 3731, which provides for direct appeals from district court judgments "in all criminal cases... dismissing any indictment where such decision is based upon the invalidity... of the statute upon which the indictment... is founded." Once the appeal is properly here, this Court should not refuse to consider it because it might have been taken to the Court of Appeals. Pp. 64-67.
    2. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague. Pp. 67-73.
       (a) Under § 22-201 the burden is on the prosecution to plead and prove that an abortion was not "necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or health." Pp. 69-71.
       (b) The word "health" in the statute, in accord with general usage and modern understanding, and a recent interpretation of § 22-201 by the federal courts, includes psychological as well as physical well-being, and as thus construed is not overly vague. Pp. 71-72.
305 F. Supp. 1032, reversed and remanded.
BLACK, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in Part I of which BURGER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, STEWART, and WHITE, JJ., joined, and in Part II of which BURGER, C.J., and HARLAN, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 73. DOUGLAS, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, post, p. 74. HARLAN, J., filed an opinion dissenting as to jurisdiction, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 81. STEWART, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, post, p. 96. BLACKMUN, J., filed a separate opinion, post, p. 97.
Samuel Huntington argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Roger A. Pauley.
Joseph L. Nellis and Norman Dorsen argued the cause for appellee. With Mr. Nellis on the brief was Joseph Sitnick.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed by David W. Louisell for Dr. Bart Heffernan; by Alfred L. Scanlan, Thomas J. Ford, and Gary R. Alexander for Dr. William F. Colliton, Jr., et al.; by Robert E. Dunne for Robert L. Sassone; by Marilyn G. Rose for the National Legal Program on Health Problems of the Poor; by Sylvia S. Ellison for Human Rights for Women, Inc.; by Lola Boswell for the Joint Washington Office for Social Concern et al.; and by Ralph Temple, Melvin L. Wulf, and Norma G. Zarky for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse