Document: 439 U.S. 379 99 S.Ct. 675 58 L.Ed.2d 596 Aldo COLAUTTI, Secretary of Welfare Pennsylvania, et al., Petitioners,v.John FRANKLIN al. No. 77-891. Argued Oct. 5, 1978. Decided Jan. 9, 1979. Syllabus Section 5(a) the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act requires every person who performs an abortion to make a determination, "based on his experience, judgment or professional competence," that fetus is not viable. If such determines "is viable," "if there sufficient reason believe may be then he must exercise same care preserve fetus' life and health as would required in case intended born alive, use technique providing best opportunity for aborted so long different necessary mother's health. The Act, § 5(d), also imposes penal sanction violation 5(a). Appellees brought suit claiming, inter alia, unconstitutionally vague, three-judge District Court upheld their claim. Held : 1. viability-determination requirement void vagueness. Pp. 390-397. (a) Though apparently determination whether viable" rest upon basis attending physician's "experience, it ambiguous subjective language applies second condition activates duty viz., "sufficient viable." 391-392. (b) distinction between "may elusive. Apparently those phrases refer distinct conditions, one which indeterminately differs from definition viability set forth Roe v. Wade, 410 113, 93 705, 35 147, Planned Parenthood Central Missouri Danforth, 428 52, 96 2831, 49 788. 392-394. (c) vagueness compounded by fact 5(d) subjects physician potential criminal liability without regard fault. Because absence scienter provision directing determine viable, little more than "a trap act good faith," United States Ragen, 314 513, 524, 62 374, 379, 86 L.Ed. 383, perils strict are particularly acute here because uncertainty itself. 394-397. 2. standard-of-care likewise impermissibly vague. It uncertain statute permits consider patient paramount fetus, "trade-off" patient's increased chances fetal survival. Where conflicting duties magnitude involved, greater statutory precision before subjected possible sanctions. 397-401. 401 F.Supp. 554, affirmed. Carol Los Mansmann, Pittsburgh, Pa., appellants. Roland Morris, Philadelphia, appellees. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 At issue constitutionality subsection 51 1974 Pa.Laws, 209, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 35, 6605(a) (Purdon 1977). This if fails utilize statutorily prescribed when A Federal Court2 declared vague overbroad enjoined its enforcement. App. 239a-244a. Pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction sub nom. Beal Franklin, 435 913, 98 1465, 55 504 (1978). 2 * was passed Legislature, over Governor's veto, year following this Court's decisions 147 (1973), Doe Bolton, 179, 739, 201 (1973). comprehensive statute. 3 gave title. defined, among other terms, "informed consent" "viable." latter specified mean "the capability live outside womb albeit with artificial aid." See U.S., at 160, S.Ct., 730. 4 3(a) proscribed performance "upon any informed consent thereto person." 3(b)(i) prohibited written woman's spouse, provided spouse could located notified, certified licensed "to order mother." 3(b)(ii), applicable woman unmarried under age 18, forbade "one parent loco parentis" woman, unless "as 3(e) whoever performed guilty misdemeanor first degree. 5 whoever, intentionally willfully, took premature infant murder 5(a), n. 1, supra, determined might performing adopt mother. imposed 6 controls. during stage pregnancy subsequent viability, except where necessary, physician, No approved facility. appropriate records kept, quarterly reports filed Commonwealth's Department Health. And solicitation advertising respect abortions. third degrees, specified. 7 public funds certificate stating Finally, 8 authorized Health rules regulations abortions facilities were performed. §§ 6601-6608 Prior Act's effective date, October 10, 1974, present Eastern challenging, federal constitutional grounds, nearly all provisions.3 court 10 issued preliminary injunction restraining enforcement number provisions.4 Each side sought class-action determination; plaintiffs', but defendants', motion effect granted.5 9 went trial January 1975. received extensive testimony expert witnesses aspects procedures. resulting severable, certain provisions, held provisions unconstitutional. Assn. Fitzpatrick, 554 (1975).6 sustained 2; facility-approval reporting requirements 6; 8's authorization regulations; and, divided vote, 3(a). overturned 3(b)(i)'s spousal-consent requirement, again 3(b)(ii)'s parental-consent requirement; 6's relating spousal parental consent; prohibition advertising; 7's restriction funding. "viable" incorporation definition, proscription after struck down. part "viable," perceived overbreadth phrase invalidated F.Supp., 594. Both sides appealed While appeals pending, decided Virginia State Board Pharmacy Citizens Consumer Council, 425 748, 1817, 48 346 (1976); 788 Singleton Wulff, 106, 2868, 826 (1976). shed light services. had direct bearing patient-, spousal-, issues instructive definition-of-viability issue. concerned standing challenge regulations. Accordingly, portion court's subject plaintiffs' appeal summarily Franklin 901, 3202, 1205 defendants' vacated remanded further consideration Parenthood, Singleton, Board. 3201, 1204 11 On remand, parties entered into stipulation disposed 7. Relying supervening Doe, 432 438, 97 2366, 53 464 (1977), Maher Roe, 464, 2376, 484 found, contrary original view, see 594, did violate either XIX Social Security added, 79 Stat. 343, amended, 42 1396 seq., Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. 241a. court, however, declared: "After reconsideration section most recent Supreme decisions, adhere our view decision unconstitutional." Id., 240a-241a. Since plaintiffs-appellees have ruling 7, only remaining protracted litigation validity II 12 Three cases sensitive earnestly contested area provide essential background controversy. 13 In concluded right privacy, implicit liberty secured Amendment, broad enough encompass terminate her pregnancy." 153, 727. right, said, although fundamental, absolute unqualified, considered against important state interests pregnant fetus. "These separate distinct. grows substantiality approaches term point pregnancy, each becomes 'compelling.' " 162-163, 731. For both logical biological reasons, indicated State's interest reaches compelling viability. Hence, prior seek directly restricting pregnancy.7 But State, chooses, regulate even prohibit medical judgment, woman. 163-164, 731-732. 14 We undertake examine various factors enter simply observe that, scientific communities, viable "potentially able womb, added potentiality "meaningful life," id., 163, 731, merely momentary usually placed about seven months (28 weeks) occur earlier, 24 weeks." thus left flexible anticipated advancements skill. 15 stressed repeatedly central role consulting abortion, determining how carried out. up points justifications intervention, inherently, primarily, decision," 166, 733, privilege abused, usual remedies, judicial intra-professional, available." Ibid. 16 Roe's companion case, underscored importance affording adequate discretion judgment. After reiterated does demand," 189, 746, discussed, vagueness-attack context, Georgia statute's perform "his clinical judgment." found critical exercised factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, age—relevant well-being patient." 192, 747. 17 (1976), similar themes. There defined challenged ground conflicted discussion was, reality, attempt advance earlier gestation. rejected argument, repeated 63, 2838-2839, observed matter skill, technical ability, preserved [in Roe] flexibility term." 64, 2838. contention weeks fixed viability." 65, 2839. said: 18 "In event, agree proper function legislature courts place essentially concept, specific gestation period. time achieved vary particular is, be, responsible physician." 19 these three cases, then, has recognized differing legal consequences ensue near far human reaffirm principles. Viability reached when, facts him, reasonable likelihood survival support. differ neither nor proclaim elements entering ascertainment viability—be weight single factor—as determinant point. no stretch way other. 20 With principles mind, turn presented instant III 21 attack mounted centers stated standard care. former provision, requiring "there asserted inform arises, good-faith conclusive. said overbroad, carves out new period restrictive couple wants abort genetic testing defective.8 care, employ "which alive mother," failing afford appropriate. 22 defendants-appellants, opposition, assert post-viability prescribing They terminology correctly describes statistical probability associated viability; otherwise sufficiently definite interpreted community; legislature, judiciary, genetically defective life. contend preserves sound practice, choice procedures equal risk select procedure least likely fatal IV 23 ambiguous, aggravated finding conclude vagueness, find unnecessary appellees' alternative arguments based alleged A. settled due process, "fails give ordinary intelligence fair notice contemplated conduct forbidden statute," Harriss, 347 612, 617, 74 808, 812, 989 (1954), indefinite "it encourages arbitrary erratic arrests convictions," Papachristou Jacksonville, 405 156, 162, 92 839, 843, 31 110 (1972), generally Grayned City Rockford, 408 104, 108-109, 2294, 2298-2299, 33 222 (1972). appears especially true induced threatens inhibit constitutionally protected rights. 109, 2299; Smith Goguen, 415 566, 573, 94 1242, 1247, 39 605 (1974); Keyishian Regents, 385 589, 603-604, 87 675, 683-684, 629 (1967). 25 induces supra. contains double ambiguity. First, unclear imports purely standard, mixed objective standard. Second, refers been undefined penumbral "gray" 26 conform two conditions satisfied: Apparently, reference. triggering condition, words, reason" perspective training cross community panel experts. latter, obviously, portends inconsequential hazard typical private practitioner skills technology readily available teaching hospital large center. 27 Appellants argue difference intended, words "simply incorporates acknowledged 'viable' 'chance' community." Brief 28. statute, support synonymous with, explicate meaning of, "viable."9 "that (emphasis supplied). syntax clearly implies Appellants' argument redundant largely superfluous, elementary canon construction should render inoperative. Menasche, 348 528, 538-539, 75 519-520, 615 (1955). 29 Furthermore, suggestion explication flies face 2, already defines This, presumably, exclusive throughout Act.10 respect, significant 6(b) speaks limited availability "subsequent concept just Yet explain includes 30 reject appellants' theory means serious ambiguity hand, appellees urge 572, remote possibility yet attained physicians associate appellants do this, understand it, some undetermined later pregnancy. need resolve question. crucial indeterminate Parenthood.11 distinguishable "necessary preservation health," Vuitch, 402 62, 69-72, 91 1294, 1299, 601 (1971), determine, "best judgment," "necessary," 191-192, allow attendant circumstances—psychological emotional well physical—that relevant patient. physician. Instead, confusing criteria. therefore presents problems notice, discriminatory application, chilling B 32 Under abide civil pertain him child aborted." To sure, law homicide, made guilt scienter. 2501-2504 1973 Supp.1978). mental state, "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly negligently caus[ing] death another being." 2501 Thus, homicide actions will result culpable viable.12 closely related mens rea. See, example, Gypsum Co., 438 422, 434-446, 2864, 2873, 57 854 (1978); 843; Boyce Motor Lines States, 342 337, 342, 72 329, 331, 367 (1952).13 faith." 383 (1942). 34 As record indicates, considering variables: gestational derived reported menstrual history woman; weight, inexact estimate size uterus; general nutrition; quality facilities; factors.14 imprecision variables, obtaining meaningful can difficulty. Moreover, indicates agreement survival, equate probabilities refuse numerical all.15 uncertainties, unlikely experts disagree trimester advanced prospect disagreement, conjunction imposing erroneous profound willingness manner hold face, now decide whether, properly drafted bad faith type criminally reaffirm, regulation impinges constitutional, room needs V 36 vague.16 applies, 37 "exercise degree diligence employed shall 38 Plaintiffs-appellees focus offering greatest mother.17 understanding requirement. That illuminating. When asked what method they prefer thought saline amnio-infusion choice.18 described involving removal amniotic fluid injection solution sac. 75-79, 2843-2845. All agreed, always fetus,19 commonly assumed 40 physician-experts respectively opinions differed widely. Preferences ranged prostaglandin infusion, hysterotomy, oxytocin induction.20 method, conceded, involved disadvantages Hysterotomy, Caesarean procedure, highest incidence abortifacients. risks operative anesthesia incision tissue.21 agreed future children having hysterotomy rupture scar.22 41 Few testifying experience prostaglandins, drugs stimulate uterine contractibility, inducing expulsion 77-78, 2844-2845. prostaglandins significantly amnio-infusion.23 Several testified, undesirable effects, nausea, vomiting, headache, diarrhea, unsafe patients asthma, glaucoma, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, epilepsy.24 Wynn Scott, 449 1302, 1326 (N.D. Ill.1978). One recommended induction. He doubted, fully prolonged expensive.25 acknowledge disagreement authorities relative merits safety used trimester. 24. submit, legally considerations alternatives exist abortifacients, "and mindful state's protecting life, competent feasibility chance consistent woman." 25. read much problematical. 43 specify, imply, prevail conflict. mentioned sets fetus; deals directs suited "so mother" word "necessary" suggests indispensable health—not desirable adopted. construed Commonwealth mean, necessarily welfare taken account making decision. Cf. 71-72, 1298-1299; 191, 44 Consequently, additional percentage Serious ethical difficulties, address, lurk behind least, proceed 45 selection finds authoritative interpretation statute.26 Certainly, nothing suggest rea technique, amply demonstrates, complex can—and do—disagree. lack exacerbates like 46 47 ordered. WHITE, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting. withdraws substantial measure power protect reserved them reaffirmed I file dissent. 50 "viability" signify strong permit "go proscribe period, 732. obviously crafted chose define development actually ability survive aid, potentially survive. usage being thing. Potential actual ability. "[e]xisting possibility, actuality." Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1958). Wade doctor say assurance womb. 52 adopted entered. Insofar concerned, case—"potentially womb"—and go far. entirely . 6602 1977) added). able" regulate, forbid, viable"; reasonably believed equivalent meant womb." abortionists exists, regulated imposed. breach exposes abortionist penalties birth rather intended. (E.D.Pa.1975), grounds: first, term, unenforceably vague; second, invalid cases. disturbed hopelessly since understood given content 24th week concrete guidance "tend[ed] carve [which cover of] gestation," unlawfully regulating enforce invalidated. 6(b), fell 54 pending argued decided. There, unborn continued indefinitely natural life-supportive systems." attacked expanding "mere survival," argued, be" vulnerable reasons us. Appellants, O.T.1975, 74-1151, pp. 65-66, quoting Ass'n 571-572. Court, "even with" mother "unless certifies certainty 63-64, appellant doctors "had difficulty definition" favorable complainants "point 'continued womb' 'potentially womb.' clear "flexibility term," preserved. plainly existing so. understood, several Fitzpatrick highly questionable, accordingly reconsideration. drastically modified eventuated. deemed itself, hence sustained. conclusory adhered unconstitutional, insofar 56 Affirmance untenable. originally itself scotched notion doing so, nullified major invalidation incorporated supposedly impermissible effort "potential" sole articulated invalidating very urged defining "may" announced Roe. affirming many argues too difficult know urges, permitted seriously error, trouble Act. precisely kind erroneously entitled protect.1 respect. Only unalterable invalidate draw measurable seems me affirming, tacitly disowning "potential ability" component unwarranted intrusion police powers States. uneasy work, searched seized affirmance, relied notes failure determinations comply prosecution laws "would Although concededly defendant intentionally, recklessly, caused being, nevertheless goes declare successfully prosecuted fault omission says, fortifies holding 59 incredible statutes. suggested sort, ignoring degrees homicides, ignorance mistake fact, explanation, defense charge negatives conviction. 304 1973). Given background, makes homicide. submission Court; below address matter; something hearing courts. 60 Secondly, proceeds am unable agree. place, provisions. provision. complaint expressly ground, request findings conclusions grounds Also, post-trial brief dealt tangential way. cross-appeal; question still unconstitutional instance, thereby extent relief obtained below.2 York Telephone 434 159, 166 8, 364, 369 376 (1977). 61 cannot join mistaken asserting violating remotest goodfaith regarding abort, does, used. doubt complain construction, abstention familiar court. considerably narrowed scope forbid expected enjoy forbidding save Nor ruled abortionist's final immune attack. Sections law, remain undisturbed 63 What done warning name considers edict warrant, it. reads pertinent part: "(a) Every competence "(d) Any section, designated September pursuant 2281 (1970 ed.). repealed Pub.L. 94-381, 90 1119, repeal apply action commenced August 12, 1976. plaintiffs named complaint, Association Southeastern Inc., nonprofit corporation; appellee John M.D., board-certified obstetrician gynecologist director Parenthood; Concern Options: Information, Care Education, Inc. (CHOICE), Clergy Consultation Service Northeastern voluntary organization. Later, Obstetrical Society Philadelphia intervened party plaintiff. Named defendants F. Emmett Jr., Attorney County, Helene Wohlgemuth, Pennsylvania. Subsequently, General defendant. here, eventually dismissed CHOICE, plaintiffs. 562, 593-594 (1975). posture consequence, Dr. Society, plaintiffs-appellees, Colautti, Welfare, General, Commonwealth, Attorney, defendants-appellants. cited 1975 opinion, 561-562, 188, 745, plaintiff claims justiciable 2837, preliminarily spousal- requirements, 3(b); 3(e); (d); 6(b); 6(c); 6(d); 6(i); restrictions funding abortions, 7; definitions Record, Doc.No. 16; 559. class behalf and/or counsel female family planning including option sub-class members practice Pennsylvania." 57. Zimmerman, 534 (M.D.Pa.1975). 471-477, 2381-2384, withhold indigent women though withholding influences impose obstacles—such penalties—to introduced evidence modern detect afflicted disorders Tay-Sachs disease Down's syndrome (mongolism). Such testing, often completed until 18-20 weeks' 53a-56a (testimony Hope Punnett, Ph.D.). federal-court issue, appropriate, afflicts abstain sua sponte. Bellotti Baird, 132, 143 2857, 2864 844 (1976.) says "means," "includes," rule, "[a] declares 'means' excludes stated." 2A C. Sands, Statutes Statutory Construction 47.07 (4th today confined conclusion merit dissenting opinion's suggestion, post, 406, "tacitly disown[ed]" Parenthood. contrary, above, 388, concept. competence." keyed individual skill abilities, blameworthy namely, "[T]he intent avoid accused invalid. willful purposeful certain, purposes, crime respects uncertain. relieve objection punishes offense unaware." Screws 325 91, 101-102, 65 1031, 1035-1036, 89 1495 (1945) (plurality opinion). 5a-6a, 10a, 17a Louis Gerstley III, M.D.); 77a-78a, 81a Thomas W. Hilgers, a-101a, 109a, 112a William J. Keenan, M.D.). 8a Gerstley) (viability 5% "certainly percent" ); 104a Keenan) (10% viable); 144a (deposition M.D.) "ten percent better" survival); 132a Arturo Hervada, (it misleading obsessed figure). questions us, entirety, 243a. Appellees, prevailing parties, course "whether court." Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 475 6, 1153, 1156, 491 (1970). 81-84, 2846-2848, down applied stages Except reach, 390, grounds. 11a Gerstley); 28a Franklin). e. g., Franklin); 36a Fred Mecklenburg, dilation curettage suction, common methods trimester, normally 39a-40a Mecklenburg). 23a 43a Mecklenburg); 73a Hilgers). 13a 11a-12a 37a-38a 72a 12a Gerstley). again, passing observed: "Roe abundantly prohibit, presumably recognizes periods concerning fetuses. altogether sees fit. 'may viable' tends 572 (E.D.Pa.1975) restrictively coextensively Based misapprehension condemned reaching "capability Unquestionably, rehabilitating satisfy task faced ruling.

Category: 4