Document: 432 U.S. 519 97 S.Ct. 2391 53 L.Ed.2d 528 John H. POELKER, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.Jane DOE, etc. No. 75-442. June 20, 1977. Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, See 434 880, 98 241. Eugene P. Freeman, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners. Frank Susman, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Jane Doe, an indigent, sought unsuccessfully to obtain a nontherapeutic abortion at Starkloff Hospital, one of two city-owned public hospitals in Mo. She subsequently brought this class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Mayor Louis and Director Health Hospitals, alleging that refusal by Hospital provide desired violated her constitutional rights. Although District Court ruled Doe following trial, Appeals Eighth Circuit reversed opinion accepted both factual legal arguments. 515 F.2d 541 (1975).1 2 The concluded Doe's inability resulted from combination policy directive longstanding staffing practice Hospital. directive, communicated Hospitals Mayor, prohibited performance abortions city except when there was threat grave physiological injury or death mother. Under practice, doctors medical students obstetrics-gynecology clinic hospital are drawn faculty University School Medicine, Jesuit-operated institution opposed abortion. Relying on our decisions Roe v. Wade, 410 113, 93 705, 35 147 (1973), Bolton, 179, 739, 201 held city's hospital's denied "constitutional rights indigent pregnant women . long after those had been clearly enunciated" Doe. F.2d, 547. court cast issue equal protection mold, finding provision publicly financed services childbirth but not elective constituted invidious discrimination. In support its analysis, also emphasized contrast between nonindigent who can afford private cannot. Particular reliance placed upon previous decision Wulff Singleton, 508 1211 (CA8 1974), other grounds, 428 106, 96 2868, 49 826 (1976), which unconstitutional state Medicaid statute provided benefits carried their pregnancies term them abortions. stated "(t)here is no practical distinction case one." 545. 3 We agree question presented here identical principle with State's while providing childbirth. This before us Maher Roe, 464, 2376, 484. For reasons set forth case, we find violation electing, as choice, without corresponding 4 briefs supporting decision, emphasis Poelker's personal opposition abortion, characterized "a wanton, callous disregard" women. Mayor's position irrelevant note he elected official responsible people Louis. His denying funds such subject debate approval disapproval polls. merely hold, Maher, Constitution does forbid State city, pursuant democratic processes, expressing preference normal has done.2 5 judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 6 It so ordered. 7 Mr. Justice BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 8 holds may constitutionally refuse permit carry term. As Appeals: 9 "Stripped all rhetoric, here, through procedure, simply telling women, like if they choose term, will physicians facilities full maternity care; exercise protected right determine wish terminate pregnancy, even though it probably safer than going pregnancy childbirth." 541, 544 (1975). 10 could way "interfer(e) whether bear child have because she unable treatment," ibid., impermissible be " 'subjected coercion children do (while) similarly situated coerced,' id., 11 my dissent 482, 2386, 52 484, I would affirm Appeals. Here fundamental woman freely infringed deliberate based moral grounds officials. While still possible some clinics hospitals, clear significant, cases insurmountable, obstacle cannot pay facilities. Nor closing Louis' isolated instance little significance. importance today's greatly magnified fact during 1975 first quarter 1976 only about 18% country services, States were services.1 12 A number difficulties lie beneath surface Court's holding. Public frequently staffs willingly perform them. operate communities significantly reduce willing able setting. complete answer many safely performed clinics, affiliated pose unacceptable risks outside hospital. Indeed, ironic, result force properly should hospital, operated increase rather health associated abortions; 163, 732, permitted regulation solely protect maternal health. 13 holding small where nearby care facility. If closed abortions, any rich poor seriously inconvenienced; particularly unavailability insuperable obstacle. recent survey suggests felt most strongly rural areas, likelihood sufficient demand separate clinic.2 14 Because constitutes "coercion (of women) bear," Wade require show compelling interest justifies infringement "[E]xpressing childbirth," ante, 521, satisfy standard. explicitly trimester regulating compelling, second insofar U.S., 162-164, S.Ct., 731-732. "important legitimate potential life," 732 take another referring "preference childbirth" becomes end trimester. Thus insufficient justify trimesters interference ground therefore "unduly burdens seek abortion," Bellotti Baird, 132, 147, 2857, 2866, 844 (1976). 15 facts concerning visit reason hotly disputed. Our view erred application law makes unnecessary describe resolve conflict. awarded attorney's fees respondent "bad faith" exception traditional American Rule disfavoring allowance prevailing party. Alyeska Pipeline Co. Wilderness Society, 421 240, 95 1612, 44 141 follows merits error award Sullivan, Tietze, & Dryfoos, Legal Abortion United States, 1975-1976, Family Planning Perspectives 116, 121, 128 (1977). "The concentration among relatively few providers mostly clincis nation's larger cities failure especially smaller major institutions nonmetropolitan areas offer along services. Since less likely poor, very young need travel own terminations. these least funds, time familiarity system cope problems travel." Id., 121.

Category: 4