Colautti v. Franklin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1979 United States Supreme Court case

Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held void for vagueness part of Pennsylvania's 1974 Abortion Control Act. The section in question was the following:

(a) Every person who performs or induces an abortion shall prior thereto have made a determination based on his experience, judgment or professional competence that the fetus is not viable, and if the determination is that the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable, shall exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the fetus which such person would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and health of any fetus intended to be born and not aborted and the abortion technique employed shall be that which would provide the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive so long as a different technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Doctors who failed to adhere to the provisions of this section were liable to civil and criminal prosecution "as would pertain to him had the fetus been a child who was intended to be born and not aborted." Franklin and others sued, arguing that the provision was both vague and overbroad. In a 6–3 decision written by _Roe _ author Harry Blackmun , the Supreme Court agreed, finding that requiring a determination "if... the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe the fetus may be viable" was insufficient and impermissibly vague guidance for physicians who might face criminal liability if a jury disagrees with their judgment.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colautti_v._Franklin&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: External links")
]

Text of Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

Abortion

Main topics

Movements

Issues

By country

Law

Methods

…

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that it is an “elementary canon of construction that a statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative”

stating that “[it is an] elementary cannon of construction that a statute should not be interpreted so as to render one part inoperative.”

reasoning that a physician must be afforded adequate discretion in the exercise of his medical judgment

noting that regulations that threaten abortion rights are held to a higher level of clarity

explaining that absence of an intent requirement is an important factor to be considered when determining whether a statute is unconstitutionality vague

determining that it is an \elementary canon of construction that a statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative\

Colautti v. Franklin

Citations

About this case

See also

External links

How courts have described this case

Cited by

Cites