Mobile Women's Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners

426 F. Supp. 331, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17747
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama
DecidedJanuary 21, 1977
DocketCiv. A. 76-592-H
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 426 F. Supp. 331 (Mobile Women's Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mobile Women's Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners, 426 F. Supp. 331, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17747 (S.D. Ala. 1977).

Opinion

This matter is under submission to the Court for decision on the motion of the plaintiffs for summary judgment which was heard December 20, 1976 and has now been fully briefed. At the hearing testimony was taken, evidence admitted, and arguments stated. The parties, at the conclusion, agreed to treat this hearing as a trial on the merits.

Briefly stated, the issue revolves around an abortion ordinance passed by the City of Mobile which has been attacked by the plaintiffs as being unconstitutional in that it violates plaintiffs’ rights of privacy, equal protection, procedural and substantive due process; is void for vagueness and over-breadth; and is the result of a conspiracy. The issue is one which is fraught with emotion and is the vortex of a storm of controversy not only in Mobile, but across the United States. Both sides of the issue have expressed strong moral feelings which naturally compel them to strongly advocate their respective positions. Indeed, though the hearing which was conducted on December 20, 1976, did not involve passionate and heated outbursts of counsel, it was one at which the Court was impressed with the sure moral certainty exhibited by each side. It must be understood that this Court, by its ruling today, makes no attempt to delineate and separate the moral issues involved in this cause nor does it express an opinion as to those moral issues since that is not the function of the Court on this point and especially since it is the opinion of this Court that the question involved is one which has been amply covered by legal precedent established by the United States Supreme Court and other Federal judicial bodies. Based upon these legal precedents and upon the facts found by the Court as expressed below, it is the opinion of this Court that the ordinance under consideration is unconstitutional in its attempts to abridge the rights of the parties to conduct first trimester abortions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This is an action brought pursuant to the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the provisions of Title 42, U.S.C.A., §§ 1983 and 1985(3) et seq.

2. The plaintiffs are Mobile Women’s Medical Clinic (which owns a medical facility that plans to offer women a variety of services, including first trimester abortions); Ralph R. Robinson, (who is a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Alabama and is medical director of the Mobile Women’s Medical Clinic and who is responsible for the policies and procedures of that clinic and the performance of first trimester abortions at the clinic); and the National Organization of Women (which is a national organization with an Alabama chapter). The defendants are the City of Mobile Board of Commissioners, Robert Doyle, Jr., Gary Greenough, and Lambert Mims; the Mobile County Board of Health and its members; the Mobile County Health Officer, Dr. George Newburn; and the District Attorney for the County of Mobile, Charles Graddick. Except for the members of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Mobile, who are sued in both their individual and official capacities, the defendants are sued only in their official capacities. The ordinance in question was adopted by the Mobile County Board of Commissioners in July, 1976. The ordinance contains comprehensive regula *333 tions concerning the performance of abortions in the City of Mobile. 1

3. The Commissioners conceded in their depositions, which were admitted into evidence as plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, that they knew nothing about abortion procedure and had not read the ordinance or the registrational requirements prior to the adoption of the ordinance.

4. Section 11(a) of the ordinance provides that “nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prohibit an abortion performed by an affiliated physician based upon his best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary, subject to the provisions of this ordinance.” The testimony of Dr. Newburn and Dr. Otts was that the word “necessary” meant to them “medically necessary”.

5. The ordinance in Section 1(e) prohibits a physician from performing abortions unless he has written hospital admission privileges and/or a comprehensive written contractual agreement with a physician qualified to provide such admission privileges. The ordinance further provides in Section 1(d) that the abortion service itself have a written affiliation agreement with a licensed Mobile hospital and be located within a total transport time of fifteen minutes from such a hospital. The ordinance also prescribes requirements for facilities, equipment and supplies; admission and examination facilities; laboratory facilities; operating facilities; recovery rooms; staff qualifications; admission and examination procedures; tests to be performed; and other general operative and post-operative requirements.

6. Registration, regulation, and enforcement powers under the ordinance are given to the Mobile County Board of Health which, among other things, is empowered to refuse to register any facility which in the Board’s opinion fails to comply with the ordinance.

7. The technique to be used in the actual performance of the abortions by the clinic is said to be the vacuum method which the evidence shows has an extremely low percentage of complications arising from its use. Dr. Robinson, who has performed some 10,000 first trimester abortions in various parts of the country, has performed at least 1,000 abortions by this method in Birmingham, Alabama, and there has only been one complication there. Dr. Portman, who has performed somewhere between 3f000 and 4,000 first trimester abortions in Atlanta using this method, has had only one patient who was required to be hospitalized.

8. The City of Mobile, while comprehensively regulating abortion facilities and the physicians performing abortions, has not regulated other medical procedures, some of which are more dangerous to the patient’s health. For instance, childbirth was acknowledged by Dr. O. M. Otts, a local doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology and Chairman of the Mobile County Board of Health, to have a higher mortality rate and be more complicated than first trimester abortions. Despite this fact, the evidence is uncontroverted that childbirth is unregulated by the City of Mobile, and a physician may deliver a child under any conditions at any place that he sees fit. Indeed, in Alabama, licensed midwives, who are neither doctors or nurses, may legally deliver children anywhere they desire, without having to have an affiliation agreement with a hospital or a physician or having to file a registration statement with the Board of Health. Dr. Otts also testified that his practice was not regulated by the City and that it was the product of his medical judgment. Dr. Portman and Dr. Robinson confirmed that a physician’s practices and procedures were and should be the result of the physician’s medical judgment.

9. The testimony of Dr. Otts and Dr. Cooner, President of the Medical Society of Mobile County, was that they did not know any need for the City to single out for regulation abortion and doctors performing abortions from other medical procedures and doctors performing those medical procedures.

*334 10. Dr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF WEST COUNTY v. Webster
681 F. Supp. 1385 (E.D. Missouri, 1988)
Margaret S. v. Edwards
488 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. Louisiana, 1980)
Bossier City Medical Suite, Inc. v. City of Bossier City
483 F. Supp. 633 (W.D. Louisiana, 1980)
Mahoning Women's Center v. Hunter
610 F.2d 456 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)
Women's Community Health Center, Inc. v. Cohen
477 F. Supp. 542 (D. Maine, 1979)
Women's Medical Center of Providence, Inc. v. Cannon
463 F. Supp. 531 (D. Rhode Island, 1978)
EMMA G. v. Edwards
434 F. Supp. 1048 (E.D. Louisiana, 1977)
Mahoning Women's Center v. Hunter
444 F. Supp. 12 (N.D. Ohio, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
426 F. Supp. 331, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobile-womens-medical-clinic-inc-v-board-of-commissioners-alsd-1977.