Colautti v. Franklin
Headline: Court strikes down Pennsylvania law's 'may be viable' abortion rules as unconstitutionally vague, blocking criminal penalties and protecting doctors who must judge fetal viability near term.
Holding:
- Prevents criminal prosecution of doctors under Pennsylvania's vague 'may be viable' abortion rule.
- Protects physicians’ discretion to judge fetal viability without fear of strict liability.
- Pushes states to write clearer rules before imposing criminal penalties near fetal viability.
Summary
Background
A group of doctors and medical organizations sued Pennsylvania officials over a 1974 Abortion Control Act provision that required physicians to decide whether a fetus 'is viable' or 'may be viable' before certain abortions and to use techniques that give the fetus the best chance of being born alive. The case went to a three-judge federal trial court. The trial included extensive medical testimony, and the court declared §5(a) vague and blocked its enforcement. The State appealed.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the statute gave clear guidance to doctors. The Court found two main problems. First, the law created a double ambiguity by treating 'viable' and 'may be viable' as different, without explaining how doctors should make that call or whether the test was subjective or objective. Second, the law required doctors to use techniques favoring fetal survival but did not clearly say when the mother's health could override that choice, and it lacked any rule that a doctor must be at fault to face criminal penalties. Because of these uncertainties, the Court held both the viability rule and the technique rule unconstitutionally vague.
Real world impact
The ruling blocks enforcement of §5(a), so doctors cannot be criminally punished under that unclear standard. It preserves the attending physician’s role in making viability judgments and limits a State's ability to impose criminal liability without clear standards. Lawmakers who want to regulate post-viability abortions must write much clearer, medically grounded rules. The Court reaffirmed that viability determinations are medical judgments.
Dissents or concurrances
A dissent argued that the State had authority to protect fetal life under Roe and Danforth and that the statute was reasonably related to that power. That opinion said Pennsylvania's criminal statutes and defenses would prevent convictions for honest mistakes and urged that state courts should clarify the law. The dissent was joined by the Chief Justice and one other Justice.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?