# Alexander v. Whitman

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 23, 1997 · 114 F.3d 1392

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9816067

## Case

- **Full name:** Karen ALEXANDER; Dennis Drazin, Esq.; Drazin and Warshaw, v. Christine Todd WHITMAN; Peter Verniero; Janice S. Mathis; Stephen R. Rothman; Elton A. Conda; W. Robert Hentges; Harry A. Freitag, Jr.; Maria Yizcarrondo-De Soto; Donald H. Wagner; Donald W. De Leo; Susan Hoffman Greene; Carol Oswald; Kevin J. Hoagland; Marie S. Muhler; John Pecoraro; Franklin v. Fisher; Rosalie Masseri; Geneva B. Wood; Vernon A. Noble; Nancy Fitzgibbons; Ann P. Conti; Albert J. Ruh; Maria Barnaby Greenwald. Karen Alexander, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated; Dennis Drazin, Esq., Individually and on Behalf of All Attorneys Similarly Situated; And Drazin & Warshaw, a Professional Corporation, Individually and on Behalf of All Firms Similarly Situated, Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** May 23, 1997
- **Citations:** 114 F.3d 1392; 1997 WL 272350
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Alito
- **Judges:** Greenberg, Alito, McKee
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9816067

## Opinion text

ALITO, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I am in almost complete agreement with the court’s opinion, but I write to comment briefly on two points. First, I think that the court’s suggestion that there could be “human beings” who are not “constitutional persons” (Maj.Op. 1401-02) is unfortunate. I agree with the essential point that the court is making: that the Supreme Court has held that a fetus is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the reference to constitutional nonpersons, taken out of context, is capable of misuse.
Second, I think that our substantive due process inquiry must be informed by history. It is therefore significant that at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and for many years thereafter, the right to recover for injury to a stillborn child was not recognized. See Giardina v. Bennett, 111 N.J. 412 , 545 A.2d 139, 143 (1988); Smith v. Brennan, 31 N.J. 353 , 157 A.2d 497, 498 (1960).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9816067. Public record. Not legal advice.