noting that hospital’s efforts to elevate hospital standards and improve medical care will receive broad judicial support
How later courts described this case
- noting that hospital’s efforts to elevate hospital standards and improve medical care will receive broad judicial support
- Private non-profit hospital may not use moral concepts to limit common law right of access to quasi-public hospital facilities for elective abortion
- 6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned
- Conscience Statute does not apply to defendant non-sectarian non-profit hospital, which Court considered to be a quasi-public institution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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.