# Doe v. Bridgeton Hospital Ass'n, Inc.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · November 17, 1976 · 71 N.J. 478

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701875

## Case

- **Full name:** Jane Doe and Mary Roe, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Women Similarly Situated, and Dr. Edward S. Milner, Jr., and Dr. Calvin Hahn, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Physicians Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bridgeton Hospital Association, Inc., Newcomb Hospital, and Salem County Memorial Hospital, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** November 17, 1976
- **Citations:** 71 N.J. 478; 366 A.2d 641; 1976 N.J. LEXIS 169
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sullivan
- **Judges:** Schreiber, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701875

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that hospital’s efforts to elevate hospital standards and improve medical care will receive broad judicial support

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701875. Public record. Not legal advice.