Court Opinion

ID: 9701875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:41:34.819802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:47.966991
License: Public Domain

Sullivan, J.
(dissenting). Defendants are private, nonprofit hospitals serving their respective communities on a voluntary basis. They have adopted a policy, based on social and moral considerations, of not permitting their facilities to be used for elective abortions. I do not view that policy as an infringement on the constitutional rights of the female plaintiffs or their physicians under Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179, 93 S. Ct. 739, 35 L. Ed. 2d 201 (1973), particularly when elective abortion facilities were available within reasonable distances. Nor do I think that this Court’s decision in Greisman v. Newcomb Hospital, 40 N. J. 389 (1963) mandates that such policy be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable and inimical to the public good. In the context of this litigation I would not require a sectarian or a private non-profit hospital to act contrary to its conscience. None of the eases cited in the majority so holds. I would affirm.
For reversal and remandment—Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain, Pashman, Clieeoed and Schkeibek and Judge Kolovsky—6.
For affirmance—Justice Sullivan—1.