Court Opinion

ID: 9885141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:32:49.763257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:44.573816
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER, dissenting: The 15-year-old girl involved in this case is a ward of the juvenile court of Chicago who had unsuccessfully attempted to commit suicide on two occasions. She was examined by psychiatrists. One, a resident at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, had made the initial examination; another, who had served as Chief of the Psychiatry Department at Cook County Hospital and is serving presently on the staff of the Psychiatry Department of Presbyterian-St. Lukes’s Hospital, examined the girl on two separate occasions. Each of these doctors testified that it was critical that the girl receive an abortion in order to preserve her life, because otherwise it was highly probable that she would commit suicide. The State’s Attorney of Cook County requested two additional psychiatrists to examine the girl. They did so and reported that she was suicidal and that if an abortion was not performed it was significantly probable that she would commit suicide. The State’s Attorney did not call either of these two doctors as witnesses, but stipulated as to what their testimony would be. The State’s Attorney did call two other witnesses. One, a psychiatrist on the faculty of the University of Minnesota Medical School, who also specializes in obstetrics and gynecology, testified that psychiatrists cannot predict when it is necessary to perform an abortion in order to preserve the life of the mother. The other, a resident at the Mayo Clinic, also testified that in his opinion psychiatrists can never determine when it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. He also testified that he would himself perform a therapeutic abortion only in cases of “ectopic” pregnancy, meaning a pregnancy which does not occur in the womb, is “self-destroying to the unborn child and can be devastating to the mother as well.” Based upon the testimony and upon numerous articles which were received in evidence, the trial judge found “on the basis of the facts presented and evidence available in this cause that an abortion is necessary to the preservation of the life of” the ward. He therefore directed the guardian to consent to the abortion. The case comes to this court in a curiously inverted fashion. There is no statute which specifically authorizes the performance of an abortion under any circumstances. But section 23 — 1 of the Criminal Code, which defines the crime of abortion, provides in paragraph (b): “It shall be an affirmative defense to abortion that the abortion was performed by a physician licensed to practice medicine and surgery in all its branches and in a licensed hospital or other licensed medical facility because necessary for the preservation of the woman’s life.” The initial proceeding in this case sought a declaration of the rights of the parties. After hearing the evidence the trial judge denied declaratory relief and, as stated, directed the guardian to consent to the abortion. There is no doubt but that the trial court had jurisdiction to direct the guardian to consent to and arrange for the abortion. An original action was then filed in this court by the State’s Attorney upon the ground that it was not his “desire nor would it be in the interest of justice to needlessly subject a party or state agency to criminal prosecution when they are purportedly acting pursuant to color of law under an erroneous order of a Circuit Court Judge.” The court concurred in this view, and in this extraordinary situation decided to take jurisdiction of this original action for mandamus and prohibition. The controlling portion of the statute establishes an affirmative defense when an abortion is performed “because necessary for the preservation of the woman’s life.” The majority opinion narrows the defense established by the General Assembly by adding an additional restrictive clause. It construes the statute as though it read “because necessary for the preservation of the woman’s life — unless her life is endangered by reason of her mental condition.” For this narrow reading the majority relies upon a dictum of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Hatchard v. State (1891), 79 Wis. 357, 48 N.W. 380. In my opinion this reading of the statute is unwarranted. Whether an abortion is necessary for the preservation of a woman’s life is not to be determined by the state of medical knowledge more than 75 years ago. I suppose that no rational interpretation of this criminal statute, which is concerned with danger to a woman’s life, would exclude a physical danger to a woman’s life just because it was not known to medical science a hundred years ago. So it should be with dangers to life that are due to mental causes. The science of psychiatry has been recognized by the legislature in many statutes. Perhaps most closely analogous is the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (Ill.Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, art. 105) which authorizes continued imprisonment depending upon an individual’s mental condition, or, as the statute puts it, his “propensities,” and the likelihood of specific future conduct attributable to those propensities. I know of no reason why a psychiatrist’s judgment as to the likelihood of suicide should be ignored. The majority seeks support for its construction of the statute in the fact that the General Assembly rejected several proposed amendments which would have shifted the statutory criterion from danger to the life of the woman to impairment of her physical or mental health. But the fact that the legislature refused to change the ground of affirmative defense from danger to life to impairment of health does not, in my opinion, indicate or even suggest an intention to exclude from the existing statute the possibility of danger to life from mental causes. GOLDENHERSH and RYAN, JJ., join in this dissent.