United States v. Vuitch

Background

Milan Vuitch, a licensed physician in Washington, D.C., was indicted for performing abortions under a D.C. law that allows abortions only to preserve the mother's life or health and when done by a licensed doctor. A district judge dismissed the indictments as unconstitutionally vague, and the Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court held it had jurisdiction under the federal Criminal Appeals Act and rejected the vagueness ruling. Interpreting the D.C. statute, the Justices read the law to permit abortions necessary for the mother's life or health when performed under a competent licensed physician's direction. The Court ruled that the prosecution must prove an abortion was not necessary and that "health" reasonably includes mental as well as physical well-being, so the statute can be applied.

Real world impact

The immediate effect is that the dismissal was reversed and prosecutions under the D.C. abortion law may proceed. Prosecutors must prove an abortion was not necessary for life or health; physicians will not be presumed guilty simply because an abortion occurred. The Court’s view that health includes mental well-being may allow abortions for psychological reasons recognized by doctors. The decision is not a final national ruling on abortion law; the case returns to the lower court for more proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices disagreed. Justice Douglas would have affirmed, finding the law too vague. Justice Stewart would read the law to leave the abortion decision to physicians and shield competent doctors from prosecution. Justice Harlan and others dissented only on the jurisdiction question.