# Petition — Civic Awareness of America, Ltd. v. Mathews > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0061%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 429 U.S. 829 ## Text No. @5-1774 In the | * 976 Supreme Cot of the United States Ocroser Term, 1975 CIVIC AWARENESS OF AMERICA, LTD., a non-profit Wisconsin Corp., ROSE EMMONS and JOANNE KUFFEL, Petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF H.E.W., DONALD 8S. BUZARD, President of Planned Parenthood Association of Milwaukee, PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF MILWAUKEE and PLANNED PARENTHOOD-WORLD POPULATION, Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TC THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT GEORGE P. KERSL EN 231 N. Wisconsin Avenue Milwauhes, Wisconsin 53203 CHARLES B. CANNON 135 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, [llinois 60603 Attorneys for Petitioners Of Counsel: ROMAN H. PAPKA and KERSTEN & MC KINNON 231 W. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 June 3, 1976 AL AEE TT EASES, ~AIES ORI eC RS E UNITED STATES LAW PRINTING CO., CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60618 (312) 525-6581 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TT TE REE ae Tot 2 SN SET NL IMME MET et 2 III aicnccinisiaiesntcnsainicicmeuidmeidedibel emacs. 2 Statutory Provisions Involved 20................ccssscsesessssssceeeees 4 eS TET TR GI hiecetsntinciss In the case before me plaintiffs do not suggest that Con- vress enacted the challenged statutes for any other reasons than those contained upon the face of the statutes: ‘‘In order to help reduce the incidence of mental retardation and other handicapping conditions caused by complications associated with childbearing and to App. 26 help reduce infant and maternal mortality * * *.’’ $ 508(a) Social Security Act (Title 42 U.S.C. § 708 (a)). ‘*to assist in making comprehensive voluntary fam- ily planning services readily available to all persons desiring such services; * * *’’ § 2 Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 (Title 42 U.S.C. § 300). There is nothing before me to suggest otherwise. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 613 (1971). Instead plaintiffs take the position that the purpose of promoting family planning or indeed promoting any ‘‘pattern of sex- ual behavior’’ is per se religious. It is of course true that some activities are so steeped in religion and limited to religious use that except in un- usual circumstances to promote them is per se to promote religion. In Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), for instance, Bible reading in public schools at the beginning of each school day was found to contravene the establishment clause. However, sexual behavior or family planning, while clearly possessing religious signifi- cance in the minds of some citizens, just as clearly do not find their origins, as does the Bible, in religion; are not so steeped with religious implications as to be virtually inseparable from religion, as is the Bible; and finally are not, as is the Bible, limited almost solely to religious use. Davis v. Beason, supra, and Reynolds v. United States, supra, finding that adultery and polygamy may be for- bidden, stand as clear Supreme Court authority to the effect that legislation in the area of sexual activities is not per se establishment of religion. I find the argument that Abington as opposed to McGowan controls the case before me to be clearly insubstantial and frivolous. © lila App. 27 Turning next to plaintiffs’ contention that their exer- cise of religion is impaired, I find that this position, too, is without merit. Both statutes are careful to insist on voluntary participation. Thus, there is no threat that plaintiffs will be compelled to learn about or exercise birth control. Nor can they be heard to complain of religious re- straint because part of their taxes go to fund Planned Parenthood. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 689 (1971). In light of my conclusion that plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge is insubstantial and frivolous, it is clear, even assuming that the other requirements of Title 28 U.S.C. $ 2282 are met, that plaintiffs’ motion to convene a three- judge court must be denied. Jdlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 7138 (1962). However, in that this action challenges government grants to Planned Parenthood upon statutory as well as constitutional grounds, my decision today disposes of only a cause of action and not the entire case before me. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ mo- tion to convene a three-judge court be and it hereby is de- nied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file a brief in support of their previously filed motion to dis- miss no later than twenty-one days from the daie of entry of this order. Plaintiffs may file a responding brief no later than forty-two days from the date of the entry of this order. Defendants shall have, forty-nine days from the cate of the entry of this order to respond. Unless other- wise ordered, the motion to dismiss will be decided upon the briefs filed without oral argument. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 24th day of July 1972. /s/ John W. Reynolds U.S. District Judge --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0061%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.