Amicus Curiae Brief — Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

No. 84-495 f Office - Supreme Court, US. |

ELL LD

IN THE JUN 28 joa5

Supreme Court of the United) Saintes srevas

OCTOBER TERM. 1984 SE —

RICHARD THORNBURGH, ef al.,

Appellants,

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND

GYNECOLOGISTS, PENNSYLVANIA SECTION, ef al.

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF

WATSON D. BOWES, JR., M.D. AND

RICHARD T. S. SCHMIDT, M.D.

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS

STEVEN FREDERICK MCDOWELL

Catholic League for Religious

and Civil Rights

1100 West Wells Street

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233

(414) 289-0170

Counsel of Record for

Amici Curiae

~ BEST AVAILABLE COPY

II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE REQUIREMENTS OF § 3211 VALIDLY EXPRESS THE

COMPELLING INTEREST OF THE STATE IN PROTECTING

VIABLE UNBORN CHILDREN ........................

A. The State Has a Compelling Interest in the Protec-

tion of Viable Unborn Children .............

B. The Compelling State Interest in the Life of Viable

Unborn Children Supports § 3211 . .........

THE REQUIREMENTS OF § 3214 VALIDLY EXPRESS THE

IMPORTANT INTEREST OF THE STATE IN PROTECTING

D ꝛ

A. The State Has an Important Interest in the Preser-

vation of Maternal He alt 3

B. The Important State Interest in Maternal Health

D :—T—97dUꝗ?

1. The categories of data incorporate standard

demographic and medical factors

2. The information collected forms an essential

basis for medical and legal treatment of abortion

3. The reporting requirements impose no imper-

missible burdens on the performance of

/ / ..

ES A ⅛oemĩ

. baeke tees

Text of Reporting Laws Overturned by Court of

% ͤ— „„

ii

Table of Contents Continued

2. Curriculum Vitae: Watson Allen Bowes, Ir.

3. Curriculum Vitae: Richard T. F. Schmidt ...... »

—— —

— L— —

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES: Page

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

Pennsylvania Section v. Thornburgh, 737 F. 2d 283 (3rd

OE, re 4

City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health,

iee., S62 U.S. 416 (1983S) .............. 5, 7, 10, 12, 13

Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979) .......... 5, 8, 12

Connecticut v. Menillo, 423 U.S. 9 (1975).......... 11, 13

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (197 3)ÿůůů 12

H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (198177 12

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980) ............ 11

Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977) · 77 0

Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City, Missouri,

Inc. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983) .......... 3, passim

Planned Parenthood of Centrai Missouri v. Danforth, 428

SE 2, passim

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ............ 6, 7, 12, 13

STATUTES:

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3201-3220 (Purdon 1983) 4

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3211 (Purdon 1983) ..2, passim

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3214 (Purdon 1983) .. 3, passim

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

Centers for Disease Control, Abortion Surveillance, 1981,

in 33 CDC Surveillance Summaries 188 (No. 388.

EE ̃ Ee 7

Centers for Disease Control, Abortion Surveillance

. . 8-9, 11-12, 14

Chervenak, Jeanty & Hobbins, Current Status of Fetal Age

and Growth Assessment, 10 Clinics Obstet. & Gynecol.

EEE SS 9

Dunn & Stirrat, Capable of Being Born Alive), 1 The

EEE 7

Hutchins, Kessel & Piacek, Trends in Maternal and In-

fant Health Factors Associated with Low Infant Birth

Weight, United States, 1972 and 1980, 99 Pub. Health

F ũ œꝗ—ngna . 9

iV

Table of Authorities Continued

Page

Kloosterman, Birthweight and Maturity, in 1972 WHO

Public Health Papers 38 (no. 42) ............... 9

Pleasure, Dhand & Kaur, What Is the Lower Limit of

Viability?, 138 Am. J. Diseases Children 783 (1984) 7-8

Sepkowitz, An Appraisal of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Weight-Specific Mortality Rates, 76 J. Okla. St. Med.

C/ ee 9, 10

No. 84-495

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

RICHARD THORNBURGH, ef al.,

Appellants,

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND

GYNECOLOGISTS, PENNSYLVANIA SECTION, ef ul.,

Appellees.

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF

WATSON D. BOWES, IR. M.D. AND

RICHARD T. S. SCHMIDT, M. D..

IN SUPPORT OF APELLANTS

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amicus Watson A. Bowes, Jr., M.D., is a professor in the

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Ma-

ternal and Fetal Medicine, at the University of North Caroli-

na School of Medicine. (See Appendix for curriculum vitae.)

Amicus Richard T. F. Schmidt, M.D., is Director of the De-

partment of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Good Samaritan

Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio, and is former national presi-

dent of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo-

gists. (See Appendix for curriculum vitae.) Amici recognize

the importance of recent advancements of modern medicine

in the area of fetal viability, and the need for room for fur-

ther developments in the care of unborn and premature chil-

dren. Amici also recognize the need for the collection of basic

health data to assist the development of care for pregnant

women and their children.

Amici have obtained written consent from the parties for

the filing of this brief, and have filed the consent letters with

the Clerk of this Court.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The court of appeals held unconstitutional certain abor-

tion reporting requirements of Pennsylvania law. These pro-

visions allow Pennsylvania to obtain basic information es-

sential to the protection of viable unborn children and wom-

en undergoing abortions, and thus represent permissible

abortion regulations.

One section (§ 3211(a)) requires the aborting physician to

determine, in pregnancies beyond the first trimester, wheth-

er the child to be aborted is viable. If the physician con-

cludes that the child is not viable, he must report the basis

for that determination. This provision represents a valid

expression of the compelling state interest in protecting via-

ble unborn children. See Fienned Parenthood of Central

Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52. 55-64 (1976).

The state has a compelling interest in the protection of

viable unborn children. If this compelling interest is to have

any meaning, the state must be able to identify, as a thresh-

old matter, which unhorn children are viable. The state may

not, however, itself fix an arbitrary point of viability, but

uiust instead rely upon the judgment of the physician.

Hence, in order to effectuate its interest in protecting viable

unborn children, the state may require the physician to

make the determination of viability.

Pennsylvania has limited the requirement of a viability

determination to abortions after the first trimester of preg-

nancy. The exclusion of abortions performed in the first

trimester, though not constitutionally necessary (viability

determination in the first trimester is, because medically

trivial, constitutionally insignificant), exempts the vast ma-

jority of abortions of nonviable children, while allowing room

for further expansions at the frontier of viability. (Viability

> —— —

already extends back into the latter part of the second

trimester.)

The viability determi:ation and reporting law does not

burden the abortion decision, since it merely reo res the

physician to consider factors (e.g., length of gestation, wom-

an’s general health) already relevant to sound abortion prac-

tice. Corisequently the test of rational scrutiny applies, and

this essential informational law easily passes constitutional

muster.

Tue other reporting provision which the court of appeals

struck down (§ 3214(a), (b), (e), (h)) requires the reporting

of certain basic health data concerning abortions. This sec-

tion permissibly furthers the important state interest in

maternal health. Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas

City, Missouri, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 486-90 (1983)

(plurality opinion); Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri

v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 80-81 (1976).

The state has an important interest in safeguarding ma-

ternal health and medical standards in the area of abortion.

Recordkeeping and reporting laws further the health con-

cerns which underly the abortion right; consequently such

regulation has no legal impact on this right, even when the

regulation causes a small increase in the cost of abortion.

The Pennsylvania law allows the state to obtain routine,

basic information relevant to the health supervision of abor-

tion. The data categories largely incorporate national stan-

dards for health analysis, and thus both represent accepted

epidemologic methods and assist the pursuit of national

health objectives. Moreover, the information obtained con-

tributes to the formation of the groundwork for judicial and

legislative treatment of abortion and abortion regulations.

The Pennsylvania health reporting requirements do not

burden the abortion right. These background health regula-

tions have no legal impact on the abortion decision. Further-

more, a responsible aborting physician will already obtain

such standard health data as part of sound abortion practice.

Thus, the law merely sets forth standard bookkeeping re-

quirements in the area of vital statistics. Consequently, the

4

test of rationality applies, and this straightforward health

regulation survives constitutional review.

The abortion reporting laws before this Court fall well

within constitutional limits, and advance threshold concerns

crucial to the expression of state interests in abortion regula-

tion. This Court should uphold the challenged provisions.

ARGUMENT

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down as

unconstitutional numerous sections of the 1982 Abortion

Control Act of Pennsylvania, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§

3201-3220 (Purdon 1983). American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists, Pennsylvania Section v. Thornburgh, 737

F.2d 283 (3rd Cir. 1984). Two of these sections, §§ 3211 and

3214, establish reporting requirements which permit Penn-

sylvania to obtain information essential to the safeguardire

of state interests in the protection of unborn children ai:

their mothers. The court of appeals effectively and improp-

erly stifled these interests when it prohibited Pennsylvania

from securing this information. This Court should therefore

reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and uphold §§

3211 and 3214.

THE REQUIREMENTS OF § 3211 VALIDLY EXPRESS

THE COMPELLING INTEREST OF THE STATE IN PRO-

TECTING VIABLE UNBORN CHILDREN.

Section 3211(a) of the Pennsylvania law provides as foi-

lows:

Prior to performing any abortion upon a woman subse-

quent to her first trimester of pregnancy, the physician

shall determine whether, in his good faith judgment,

the child is viable. When a physician has determined

that a child is viable, he shall report the basis for his

determination that the abortion is necessary to preserve

maternal life or health. When a physician has deter-

— et ree,

5

mined that a child is not viable, he shail report the basis

for such determination.

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3211(a) (Purdon 1983).

This provision validly furthers the compelling state inter-

est in the life of viable children in the womb; hence, this

Court should reverse the decision of the court of appeals and

uphold § 3211(a).

A. The State Has a Compelling Interest in the Protection of

Viable Unborn Children.

A state has an important and legitimate interest in pro-

tecting unborn children. City of Akron v. Akron Center for

Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 428 (1983). This

interest exists throughout pregnancy, id., and becomes com-

pelling when the child attains viability, id.

B. The Compelling State Interest in the Life of Viable

Unborn Children Supports § 3211.

The compelling state interest in the protection of viable

children in the womb supports the requirements of § 3211.

The state interest in viable children would be meaningless

if the state could not require the physician to determine

whether the child intended for abortion was viable. A state

may not proclaim some fixed point in gestation or fetal de-

velopment to be the point of viability. Colautti v. Franklin,

439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979); Planned Parenthood of Central

Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 64-65 (1976). Legal estab-

lishment of such an arbitrary point of viability would be nei-

ther constitutionally permissible, Colautti; Danforth, nor

biologically sound, Colautti, 439 U.S. at 395-96. Consequent-

ly, the state must rely upon the medical judgment of the re-

sponsible physician. Id. at 388; Danforth, 428 U.S. at 64-65.

At a minimum, then, the state may require the physician

whose medical judgment the state relies upon to exercise

that judgment and determine whether the child slated for

abortion is viable. See Danforth, 428 U.S. at 89 (concurring

6

opinion of Stewart, J., joined by Powell, J.) (upholding chal-

lenged definition of viability) (“The State has merely re-

quired physicians performing abortions to certify that the

fetus to be aborted is not viable (emphasis in original). To

enforce this requirement, the state may then require the

physician to report the basis for his judgment. See id.

The question of viability constitutes a threshold inquiry

essential to any regulation of post-viable abortions. Conse-

quently, a state may require a determination of viability for

all abortions performed. For those pregnancies for which

early gestation currently precludes viability, the inquiry is

simple. The determination that the pregnancy has not

progressed beyond the first trimester, for example—a deter-

mination made as ° -aatter of course - would effectively con-

stitute a determination of nonviability. To report the basis

for the determination of nonviability, then, the physician

would need only to note that the woman was still at an early

stage of gestation.

When the pregnancy has progressed to a point at which

viability becomes a realistic possibility, the medical deter-

mination becomes somewhat more involved. The relevant

state interest, however, becomes correspondingly stronger,

as the importance of the viability determination grows. In

early pregnancies, the physician’s task is trivial, and an im-

portant state interest justifies the regulation. In later preg-

nancies, the medical task is greater, but a compelling state

interest justifies the regulation.

Pennsylvania, therefore, could constitutionally have re-

quired a determination of viability, and a reporting of the

In Danforth, this Court considered parts of a statutory scheme which

required, in one provision, that the physician certify the nonviability of

any child aborted for reasons other than to preserve the life or health of

the mother. While that particular provision was not presented for review,

the Court noted in upholding a related section that the provision “reflects

an attempt. to comply with our observations and discussion in Roe (v.

Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972) | relating to viability.” 428 U.S. at 63-64.

basis for this determination, for all abortions.’ The state has

not gone so far, however. Instead, it has limited the need for

a viability determination to those abortions performed after

the first trimester, see § 3211(a), and has only required the

physician to report the basis of the determination when the

physician finds the child not to be viable, see id. Thus, §

3211 (a) is more narrowly tailored than is necessary, and easi-

ly satisfies constitutional requirements.

By limiting the viability determination and reporting re-

quirement to abortions performed after the first trimester,

Pennsylvania has spared physicians a minor adminstrative

task in the vast majority of abortions,’ while allowing room

for scientific advancement in the area of viability. When this

Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court

noted that viability “is usually placed at about seven months

(28 weeks), but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” 410

U.S. at 160 (footnote omitted). By the time of the Court's

decision in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive

Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the frontier of viability had

already extended to 22 weeks of gestation. Id. at 457 n.5

(O’Connor, J., dissenting). See also Dunn & Stirrat, Capable

of Being Born Alive?, 1 The Lancet 553, 554 (1984) (World

Health Organization (WHO) recommendations urge that

perinatal statistics include children of 22 weeks gestation or

more). At the time of Roe, a fetal weight of 1000g represent-

ed the general lower cutoff for viability. 462 U.S. at 457

(O'Connor, I., dissenting). By the time of Akron, the general

cutoff had dropped to 500g. Id. at 457 n.5; Dunn & Stirrat,

supra, at 554 (WHO guidelines set 500g as lower limit). See

also Pleasure, Dhand & Kaur, What Is the Lower Limit of

No difference of constitutional dimension exists between requiring

the physician facing a first trimester pregnancy to report under an all

inclusive statute—that viability cannot exist, or to note under the Penn.

sylvania scheme—that the reporting statute does not apply.

For the last five years for which official national statistics are availa-

ble, at least 90 of all abortions took place during the first trimester.

Centers for Disease Control, Abortion Surveillance, 1981, in 33 CDC Sur-

veillance Sinem ries 188. 388 (No. 388. 1984).

8

Viability?, 138 Am. J. Diseases Children 783 (1984) (describ-

ing healthy outcome, after two years, of child weighing 440g

at delivery).

This trend of expanding viability has already pushed the

lower limits of viability back into the second trimester of

pregnancy. As technology advances, the capacity for extrau-

terine survival will reach children of even earlier gestational

stages. The Pennsylvania law, by requiring determinatiozs

of viability in the second trimester as well as the third, has

recognized recent developments in the care of premature

infants, and has allowed proper flexibility “for anticipated

advancements in medical skill.“ Colautti, 439 U.S. at 387.

Section 3211 does not burden the abortion decision.’ It

merely requires the physician to do that which sound medi-

cal practice already would dictate— primarily, obtain an esti-

mate of gestational age and fetal size“ These two factors in-

fluence the choice of abortion method, see Centers for Dis-

These “anticipated advancements” represent the leading edge of med-

ical science; hence state lawmakers cannot predict with precision the date

or the extent of future breakthroughs. The Constitution, however, aliows

the state the latitude necessary to legislate in this area, and does not force

the state to amend its laws with each incremental extension of the viabili-

ty frontier. Cf. Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City, Missouri,

Inc. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S, 476, 483 n.7, 485-86 (1983) (plurality opinion)

(upholding requirement of second physician for abortion of viable chil-

dren, despite uncertainty of child's survival).

Since a compeiling interest supports the regulation of post-viability

abortions, § 3211 would survive constitutional scrutiny even if it burdened

the abortion right: the threshold determination of viability obviously con-

stitutes an essential prerequisite to any expression of this state interest,

and thus is both reasonably related to and narrowly drawn to further this

compelling interest.

* Other factors possibly relevant to the viability question, see Colautti,

439 U.S. at 395-96 (woman's general health and nutrition, quality of avail.

able medical facilities), like gestational age and fetal size, represent infor-

mation essential to the proper performance of abortions; hence the acqui-

sition of such information to determine viability entails no new burden for

the physician.

9

ease Control, Abortion Surveillance 1979-1980 6 (1983), and

thus inquiry into these factors forms a routine prelude to

abortion. Gestation and fetal size, in turn, correspond rough-

ly with fetal weight, Kloosterman, Birthweight and Maturi-

ty, in 1972 WHO Public Health Papers 38 (no. 42); Cherven-

ak, Jeanty & Hobbins, Current Status of Fetal Age and

Growth Assessment, 10 Clinics Obstet. & Gynecol. 423

(1983), which is the principal indicator of viability, Hutchins,

Kessel & Placek, Trends in Maternal and Infant Health Fac-

tors Associated with Low Infant Birth Weight, United

States, 1972 and 1980, 99 Pub. Health Rep. 162, 162 (1984);

Sepkowitz, An Appraisal of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Weight-Specific Mortality Rates, 76 J. Okla. St. Med. A. 339,

342 (1983). Requiring the physician to take the extra mental

step of formulating a conclusion about viability and—if the

conclusion is against viability—reporiing the basis for this

determination, does not burden the abortion decision, and

may even promote maternal health by inducing the physi-

cian to scrutinize more closely the state of the pregnancy.

Since § 3211 does not burden the woman’s decision to

abort, the test of rational scrutiny applies. Maher v. Roe, 432

U.S. 464, 478 (1977). As a threshold matter essential to the

effectuation of state protection for viable unborn children,

the requirements of a viability determination and the re-

porting of the basis for that determination clearly pass the

test of rationality.

Section 3211, then, represents a permissible expression of

the compelling state interest in the protection of viable un-

born children. The judgment of the court of appeals, which

invalidated § 3211(a), should be reversed.

THE REQUIREMEN"'S OF § 3214 VALIDLY EXPRESS

THE IMPORTANT INTEREST OF THE STATE IN PRO-

TECTING MATERNAL HEALTH.

Section 3214 provides, in subsections (a), (b), (e), and (h),

for the reporting of certain information relevant to the per-

formance of abortions. The court of appeals invalidated

10

these subsections. (See Appendix for text of subsections.)

These provisions validly implement the interest of Penn-

sylvania in furthering maternal health.’ Hence, this Court

should reverse the decision of the court of appeals and up-

hold § 3214.

A. The State Has an Important Interest in the Preservation

of Maternal Health.

A state has an important and legitimate interest in safe-

guarding maternal health and maintaining medical stan-

dards in the area of abortion. Akron, 462 U.S. at 428-29. This

interest exists throughout pregnancy, and becomes compel-

ling at approximately the end of the first trimester. Jd. at

429. The state may enact regulations that apply to all stages

of pregnancy when those regulations “have no significant

impact on the woman’s exercise of her right” and further

“important state health objectives.” Id. at 430.

B. The Important State Interest in Maternal Health Sup-

ports § 3214.

Recordkeeping and reporting laws which promote mater-

nal health constitute permissible expressions of the impor-

tant state interest in maternal health. Danforth, 428 U.S. at

80-81 (general authorization of recordkeeping and report-

ing); Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City, Mis-

souri, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 486-90 (1983) (plurality

opinion) (pathology reports). Such recordkeeping furthers

Health concerns support the recordkeeping and reporting provisions

of § 3214(a)(1) to (7), (12), (14), and § 3214(b), (e), (h). The provisions of §

3214(a)(8) to (11), (13), merely represent mechanisms for enforcement of

other sections of the abortion law. Subsections (8), (10), (11), and (13)

expressly refer to other parts of the Pennsylvania law, and enable the

state to assure compliance with the law. Subsection (9), requiring a report

of the length and weight of the unborn child when measurable,” facili-

tiates enforcement of the provisions relating to viability, since fetal weight

is a main indicator of both gestational age and viability. Sepkowitz, supra

p. 9, at 342. These subsections therefore constitute permissible corolleries

to other valid abortion regulations.

the health concerns which form a predicate for the abortion

right, Connecticut v. Menillo, 423 U.S. 9, 11 (1975) (per cur-

iam); see also Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 316 (1980)

(woman’s health may be core concern supporting abortion

liberty). The abortion right presupposes the existence of

such regulation, or its equivalent. Consequently, these re-

porting requirements do not have a “legally significant im-

pact or consequence on the abortion decision,” Danforth,

428 U.S. at 81; Menillo, 423 U.S. at 11. Even when the regu-

lations produce a small increase in the cost of abortions, the

resulting burden is “relatively insignificant’ and constitu-

tionally permissible. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. at 490 (plurality

opinion) ($19.40 estimated additional vost per abortion).

Through the provisions of § 3214, Pennsylvania has

sought to obtain basic information relevant to the supervi-

sion of the health aspects of abortion. The data requested

represent standard demographic and medical factors em-

ployed in health analyses, form an essential informational

basis for medical and legal developments in the area of abor-

tion, and create no serious burdens for the aborting physi-

cian.

1. The categories of data incorporate standard demo-

graphic and medical factors.

The categories of information sought under § 3214 corre-

spond closely with the type of data which the Centers for

Disease Control (CDC), a division of the United States De-

partment of Health and Human Services, uses for its official

national supervision of abortion.* Compare Centers for Dis-

* See Centers for Disease Control, Abortion Surveillance 1979-1980

(1983) (preface):

Recognizing both the importance of abortion as a public health issue

and the need for national abortion statistics, the Division of Repro-

ductive Health [a part of CDC]. . . in 1969 began continuous epide-

miologic surveillance of abortion in the United States. The objec-

tives of this surveillance are twofold: 1) to document the number

and characteristics of women obtaining abortions, and ) to elimi-

nate preventable mortality and morbidity related to abortion.

12

—

ease Control, Abortion Surveillance 1979-1980 4-6, 8, 13, 15

(1983) [hereinafter cited as CDC], with § 3214(a)(2) (resi-

dence status), 3214(a)(3) (age, race, marital status),

3214(a)(4) (prior pregnancies), 3214(a)(5) (gestational age),

3214(a)(6) (type of procedure), 3214(a)(7) (complications),

3214(a)(14) (source of funds for abortion). The Pennsylvania

law, in essence, merely adopts the national standards for

abortion surveillance. The law therefore facilitates national

statistical analysis, by assuring the availability of the data,

see CDC, supra, at 3 (noting varying availability of demo-

graphic information from different states), and incorporates

accepted means of health review.

2. The information collected forms an essential basis for

medicai and legal treatment of abortion.

The data provided under § 3214 supplies the basis for in-

formed medical and legal consideration of abortion.

As a medical matter, the collection of health statistics

enabies the sort of broad perspective necessary for new de-

velopments within the field. The CDC, as discussed above,

coliects abortion information virtually identical to that re-

quired under § 3214, to help “eliminate preventable mortali-

ty and morbidity related to abortion.” CDC, supra (preface).

See also Ashcroft, 462 U.S. at 487-88 (plurality opinion)

(“questions remain as to the long-range complications [of

abortion] and their effect on subsequent pregnancies”) (cita-

tions omitted); Danforth, 428 U.S. at 81 (recordkeeping

“may be a resource that is relevant to decisions involving

medical experience and judgment”) (footnote omitted).

Tnis Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of

medical judgment to the abortion decision and its effectua-

tion. Akron, 462 U.S. at 427, 448, 450; H. L. v. Matheson, 450

U.S. 398, 419 (1981); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 387

(1979); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973); Roe v. Wade,

410 U.S. 113, 163, 165-66 (1973). The collection and analysis

of health statistics relevant to abortion helps facilitate the

ideal of the “competent, conscientious, and ethical physi-

cian.” Akron, 462 U.S. at 448 n.39 (citation omitted).

13

As a legal matter, health statistics form much of the basis

for judicial and legislative decisions. This Court has repeat-

edly relied upon medical statistics in its shaping of abortion

jurisprudence. E.g., Hoe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 162 (state in-

terest in maternal health becomes compelling at end of first

trimester “because of the now-established medical fact

that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion

may be less than mortality in childbirth”); Danforth, 428

U.S. at 77-79 (prohibition on saline amniocentesis unconsti-

tutional because is method which is “most commonly used

nationally by physicians after the first trimester and which

is safer, with tespect to maternal mortality, than. . . normal

childbirth”); Akron, 462 U.S. at 437-39 (second-trimester

hospitalization requirement unconstitutional because

“dilation-and-evacuation” method may be used safely on

outpatient basis in early weeks of second trimester). In its

recent Akron decision the Court emphasized the relevance of

“accepted medical practice” t/ the evaluation of abortion

regulation. 462 U.S. at 431, 434. The information sought

under § 3214 facilitates both the description and the devel-

opment of accepted medical practice.

Legislative and administrative bodies, furthermore, need

information such as that which § 3214 would provide, in or-

der to regulate in the area of abortion. This valuable health

data would serve both to aid compliance with the pro-

nouncements of this Court, and to identify problems in need

of remedial legislation. Without such information, these

governing bodies could only act blindly; the judiciary, mean-

while, would be unable to evaluate the reasonableness of

such regulation.

3. The reporting requirements impose no impermissible

burdens on the performance of abortions.

The requirements of § 3214 place no impermissible bur

dens upon the abortion decision or its effectuation. Report-

ing requirements which further materna! health do not in-

fringe upon the abortion liberty. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. at 489-90

(plurality opinion); Danforth, 428 U.S. at 81; Menillo, 423

U.S. at 11. The Pennsylvania provision requests information

14

which is readily available from the woman or her physician,

and much of which will be necessary in any event as a matter

of sound medical practice (e.g., length of gestation, age of

woman). Since the data sought in § 3214 largely reflect cate-

gories of information already collected in much of the coun-

try, see CDC, supra p.11,§ 3214 imposes no more than stan-

dard bookkeeping requirements in the area of vital statistics.

The requirements of § 3214 represent valuable implemen-

tations of the state interests in protecting maternal health.

This Court should therefore reverse the judgment of the

court of appeals, which invalidated several provisions of this

section.

CONCLUSION

In §§ 3211 and 3214, Pennsylvania has sought to obtain

basic information necessary to the implementation of its in-

terests in the protection of viable unborn children and the

preservation of maternal health. Since they place no burdens

on the abortion right, the test of rationality applies. This

standard collection of vital abortion data clearly furthers

state health concerns, and thus passes constitutional muster.

The judgment of the court of appeals denies the state access

to this basic information, and frustrates valid state regula-

tion. This Court should now reverse the judgment of the

court of appeals, and uphold the constitutionality of §§ 3211

and 3214.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVEN FREDERICK MCDOWELL

Catholic League for Religious

and Civil Rights

1100 West Wells Street

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233

(414) 289-0170

Counsel of Record for

Amici Curiae

JUNE 29, 1985

—

APPENDIX

1. Text of Reporting Laws

Overturned by Court of Appeals

§ 3211(a) Determination of viability.—Prior to performing

any abortion upon a woman subsequent to her first trimester

of pregnancy, the physician shall determine whether, in his

good faith judgment, the child is viable. When a physician

has determined that a child is viable, he shall report the ba-

sis for his determination that the abortion is necessary to

preserve maternal life or health. When a physician has de-

termined that a child is not viable, he shall report the basis

for such determination.

§ 3214(a) General rule.—A report of each abortion per-

formed shall be made to the department on forms prescribed

by it. The report forms shall not identify the individual pa-

tient by name and shall include the following information:

(1) Identification of the physician who performed the

abortion and the facility where the abortion was per-

formed and of the referring physician, agency or service, if

any.

(2) The political subdivision and state in which the

woman resides.

(3) The woman’s age, race and marital status.

(4) The number of prior pregnancies.

(5) The date of the woman’s last menstrual period and

the probable gestational age of the unborn child.

(6) The type of procedure performed or prescribed

and the date of the abortion.

(7) Complications, if any, including but not limited to,

rubella disease, hydatid mole, endocervical polyp and ma-

lignancies.

(8) The information required to be reported under

section 3211(a) (relating to viability).

A-2

(9) The length and weight of the aborted unborn child

when measurable.

(10) Basis for any medical judgment that a medical

emergency existed as required by any part of this chapter.

(11) The date of the medical consultation required by

section 3204(b) (relating to medical consultation and

judgment).

(12) The date on which any determination of pregnan-

cy was made.

(13) The information required to be reported under

section 3210(b) (relating to abortion after viability).

(14) Whether the abortion was paid for by the patient,

by medical assistance, or by medical insurance coverage.

(b) Completion of report.—The reports shall be completed

by the hospital or other licensed facility, signed by the phy-

sician who performed the abortion and transmitted to the

department within 15 days after each reporting month.

* * *

(e) Statistical reports; public- availability of reports.

(1) The department shall prepare an annual statistical

report for the General Assembly based upon the data

gathered under subsection (a). Such report shall not lead

to the disclosure of the identity of any person filing a re-

port or about whom a report is filed, and shall be available

for public inspection and copying.

(2) Reports filed pursuant to subsection (a) shall not

be deemed public records within the meaning of that term

as defined by the act of June 21, 1957 (P. L. 390, No. 212),

referred to as the Right-to-Know Law, but shall be made

available for public inspection and copying within 15 days

of receipt in a form which will not lead to the disclosure of

the identity of any person filing a report. On those reports

available for public inspection and copying, the depart-

ment shall substitute for the name of any physician which

appears on the report, a unique identifying number. The

identity of the physician shall constitute a confidential

A-3

record of the department. The department may set a rea-

sonable per copy fee to cover the cost of making any cop-

ies authorized hereunder.

(3) Original copies of all reports filed under subsec-

tion (a) shall be available to the State Board of Medical

Education and Licensure, and to law enforcement offi-

cials, for use in the performance of their official duties.

(4) Any person who willfully discloses any informa-

tion obtained from reports filed pursuant to subsection

(a), other than that disclosure authorized under para-

graph (1), (2) or (3) hereof or as otherwise authorized by

law, shall commit a misdemeanor of the third degree.

* * *

(h) Report of complications. Every physician who is

called upon to provide medical care or treatment to a woman

who is in need of medical care because of a complication or

complications resulting, in the good faith judgment of the

physician, from having undergone an abortion or attempted

abortion shall prepare a report thereof and file the report

with the department within 30 days of the date of his first

examination of the woman, which report shall be open to

public inspection and copying and shall be on forms pre-

scribed by the department, which forms shall contain the

following information, as recieved, and such other informa-

tion except the name of the patient as the department may

from time to time require:

(1) Age of patient. g

(2) Number of pregnancies patient may have had

prior to the abortion.

(3) Number and type of abortions patient may have

had prior to this abortion.

(4) Name and address of the facility where the abor-

tion was performed

(5) Gestational age of the unborn child at the time of

the abortion, if known.

(6) Type of abortion performed, if known.

A-4

(7) Nature of complication or complications.

(8) Medical treatment given.

(9) The nature and extent, if known, of any perma-

nent condition caused by the complication.

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 3211, 3214 (Purdon 1983).

ee — . pas

— —

A-5

2. Curriculum Vitae: Watson Allen Bowes, Jr.

Date of Birth: March 28, 1934

Place of Birth: Denver, Colorado

Social Security Number: 521-36-8704

Citizenship: United States

Marital Status: Married; six children

Present Position:

Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

University of North Carolina School of Medicine

Present Address:

Division of Maternal and Fetal Medicine

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

214 MacNider Building 202H

University of North Carolina School of Medicine

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Education.

B. S., Washington and Lee University - 1955

M.D., University of Colorado School of Medicine -

1959

Licensure:

Colorade Board of Medical Examiners

License #13628, 1960

Board of Medical Examiners of North Carolina

License #25884, 1982

Academic Appointments:

Intern, Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital

1959-1960

Resident, General Practice

University of Colorado School of Medicine

1960-1961

Fellow, Obstetrics and Gynecology

Reproductive Physiology Laboratory

University of Colorado School of Medicine

1961-1962

A-6

Resident, Obstetrics and Gynecology

University of Colorado School of Medicine

1962-1965

Clinical Instructor, Obstetrics and Gynecology

University of Colorado School of Medicine

1965-1966

Assistant Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology

University of Colorado Schoo. of Medicine

1966-1970

Major, U.S. Army Medical Corps

Madigan General Hospital, Tacoma, Washington

1967-1969

Associate Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology

University of Colorado School of Medicine

1970-1976

Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology

University of Colorado School of Medicine

1976-1982

Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology .

University of North Carolina School of Medicine

1982-

Certified:

American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology

1967

American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine

1981

Major Scientific Interest:

High Risk Obstetrics

Other Activities and Honors: 1

Magna Cum Laude, Washington and Lee University,

1955

Upjohn Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and

A-7

Professional Societies:

1. American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians

and Gynecologists

2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo-

gists

3. American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society

4. Robert A. Ross Obstetrical and Gynecological So-

ciety

5. Society of Perinatal Obstetricians

Articles:

1.

2.

Bowes, Jr., The Knight of Norwich (Sir Thomas Browne),

57 Rocky Mtn. Med. J. 57 (1960).

Bruns, Bowes, Jr., Drose & Battaglia, Effect of Respirato-

ry Acidosis on the Rabbit Fetus in Utero, 87 Am. J. Ob-

stet. & Gynecol. 1074 (1963).

Bowes, Jr., Drose & Bruns, Amniocentesis and Intrauter-

ine Fetal Transfusion in Erythroblastosis, 93 Am. J. Ob-

stet. & Gynecol. 822 (1965).

Brazie, Ibbott & Bowes, Jr., Identification of the Pigment

in Amniotic Fluid of Erythroblastosis as Bilirubin, 69 J.

Pediatrics 354 (1966).

Battaglia, Meschia, Makowski & Bowes, Jr., The Effect of

Maternal Oxygen Inhalation upon Fetal Oxygenation, 47

J. Clinical Investigation 548 (1968).

Bowes, Jr. & Droegemueller, Intrauterine Transfusion of

Twins, 108 Cal. Med. 380 (1968).

Brazie, Bowes, Jr. & Ibbott, An Improved Rapid Proce-

dure for the Determination of Amniotic Fluid Bilirubin

and its Use in the Prediction of the Course of Rh Sensi-

tized Pregnancies, 104 Am. . Obstet. & Gynecol. 80

(1969).

Battaglia, Bowes, Jr., McGaughey, Makowski & Meschia,

The Effect of Fetal Exchange Transfusions with Adult

Blood Upon Fetal Oxygenation, 3 Pediatric Research 60

(1969).

10.

11.

12.

13

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

A-8

Bowes, Jr., Gibson, Beibovitz & Palin, Rubella Antibody

Screening in a Prenatal Clinic Using the Indirect Flu-

orescent Antibody Test, 35 Obstet. & Gynecol. 7 (1970).

Bowes, Jr., Brackbill, Conway & Steinschneider, The

Effects of Obstetrical Medication of Fetus and Infant,

35 Monographs Soc. for Research Child Dev. (No. 4,

1970).

Sabol, Gibson & Bowes, Jr., Pitressin Injection in Cervi

cal Conization: A Double-Blind Controlled Study, 37

Obstet. & Gynecol. 596 (1971).

Haverkamp & Bowes, Jr., Uterine Perforation: A Com-

plication of Continuous Fetal Monitoring, 110 Am. J.

Obstet. & Gynecol. 667 (1971).

2. Bowes, Jr., Intrauterine Transfusion Indication and

Results, 14 Clinical Obstet. & Gynecol. 561 (1971).

Robinson, Bowes, Jr. & Droegemueller, /ntrauterine

Diagnosis: Potential Complications, 116 Am. J. Obstet.

& Gynecol. 937 (1973).

Barton & Bowes, Jr., Successful Pregnancy in a Patient

with Severe Superior Vena Cava Syndrome, 65 Chest 2

(1974).

Jeffrey, Bowes, Jr. & Delaney, Role of Bed Rest in Twin

Gestation, 43 Obstet. & Gynecol. 822 (1974).

Kohler, Dubois, Merrill & Bowes, Jr., Prevention of

Chronic Neonata! Hepatitis B Virus Infection with An-

tibody to the Hepatitis B Surface Antigen, 291 New

Eng. J. Med. 1253 (1975).

Jones, Burd, Bowes, Jr., Battaglia & Lubchenco, Failure

of Association of Premature Rupture of Membranes

with Respiratory-Distress Syndrome, 292 New Eng. J.

Med. 1253 (1975).

Kahn, Duncan & Bowes, Jr., Spontaneous Opening of

Congenital Imperforate Hymen, 87 J. Pediatrics 768

(1975).

Bowes, Jr., Detection and Treatment of Tuberculosis, 6

Contemp. Ob/Gyn 43 (1975).

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

27.

28.

31.

32.

A-9

Kowalski & Bowes, Jr., Parents Response to a Stillborn

Baby, 8 Contemp. Ob/Gyn 53 (1976).

Carson, Losey, Bowes, Jr. & Simmons, Combined Obste-

tric and Pediatric Approach to Prevent Meconium Aspi-

— Syndrome, 126 Am. J. Obstet. & Gynecol. 712

Kowalski, Gottschalk, Greer & Bowes, Jr., Team Nurs-

ing Coverage of Prenatal-Intrapartum Patients at a

University Hospital: An Innovation in Obstetric Nurs-

ing, 50 Obstet. & Gynecol. 116 (1977).

Bowes, Jr., Results of the Intensive Perinatal Manage-

ment of Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants (501-1500), in

Pre-Term Labour 331 (A. Anderson, R. Beard, J. Brun-

denell & P. Dunn eds. 1977).

Carson, Simmons & Bowes, Jr., Meconium Aspiration

Syndrome Following Cesarean Section, 130 Am. J. Ob-

stet. & Gynecol. 596 (1978).

Bowes, Jr., Halgrimson & Simmons, Results of the In-

tensive Perinatal Management of Very-Low-Birth-

Weight Infants (501-1500 gm), 23 J. Reproductive Med.

245 (1979).

Bowes, Jr., Taylor, O’Brien & Bowes, Breech Delivery:

Evaluation of the Method of Delivery on Perinatal Re-

sults and Maternal Morbidity, 135 Am. J. Obstet. &

Gynecol. 965 (1979).

Watson, Besch & Bowes, Jr., Managment of Acute and

Subacute Puerperal Inversion of the Uterus: A Case

Controlled Study, 55 Obstet. & Gynecol. 12 (1980).

Bowes, Jr., Current Role of the Midforceps Operation,

23 Clinical Obstet. & Gynecol. 549 (1980).

Bowes, Jr., The Puerperium, 23 Clinical Obstet. & Gyne-

col. (No. 4, W. Bowes, Jr. ed. 1980).

Bowes, Jr., Gabbe & Bowes, Fetal Heart Monitoring in

Premature Infants Weighing 1500 Grams or Less, 22

Am. J. Obstet. & Gynecol. 549 (1980).

Bowes, Jr., The Effect of Medications on the Lactating

Mother and Her Infants, 23 Clinical Obstet. & Gynecol.

1073 (1980).

37.

39.

41.

42.

A-10

Clewell, Dunne, Johnson & Bowes, Jr., Fetal Transfu-

sion with Real-Time Ultrasound Guidance, 57 Obstet. &

Gynecol. 516 (1981).

Bowes, Jr., Delivery of the Very-Low-Birth-Weight In-

fant, 8 Clinics Perinatology (No. 1, 1981).

Bowes, Jr. & Selgestad, A Case of Fetal vs. Maternal

Rights - The Modern Obstetrical Dilemma, 58 Obstet.

& Gynecol. 209 (1981).

Harvey & Bowes, Jr., Maternal-Fetal Transport: Reflec-

tions on Experience at the University of Colorado Medi-

cal Center, Perinatology-Neonatology 53 (Nov.-Dec.

1981).

Bowes, Jr., Steps to Prevent Meconium Aspiration Syn-

drome, 19 Contemp. Ob/Gyn 135 (1982).

Bowes, Jr., A Review of Perinatal Mortality in Colorado,

1971-1978, and Its Relationship to the Regionalization

of Perinatal Services, 141 Am. J. Obstet. & Gynecol.

1045 (1981).

Clewell, Johnson, Meier, Newkirk, Zide, Hendee, Bowes,

Jr., Hecht, O’Keefe, Henry & Shikes, A Surgical Ap-

proach to the Treatment of Fetal Hydrocephalus, 306

New Eng. J. Med. 1320 (1982).

Quirk, Jr. & Bowes, Jr., Intrapartum Monitoring and

Management of Low Birth Weight Fetus, 9 Clinics Peri-

natology 363 (1982).

Fryer, Jr. & Bowes, Jr., Factors Attracting Physicians to

Rural Underserved Communities: The Case of Colorado,

57 J. Med. Educ. 716 (1982).

Moore, Hershey, Johnigen & Bowes, Jr., The Incidence

of Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension Is Increased

Among Colorado Residents of High Altitude, 144 Am. J.

Obstet. & Gynecol. 423 (1982).

. Fryer, Jr. & Bowes, Jr., In-State Experiences of Physi-

cians Serving Rural Underserved Communities: The

Case of Colorado, 57 J. Med. Educ. 716 (1982).

Meier & Bowes, Jr., Amniotic Fluid Embolus Like Syn-

drome Presenting in the Second Trimester of Pregnan-

cy, 61 Obstet. & Gynecol. 315 (1983).

45.

46.

48.

49.

51.

A-11

Bowes, Jr., Preventing Preterm Birth in the High-Risk

Patient, 8 Drug Therapy 33 (1983).

Bowes, Jr. & Fryer, Jr., Rural Physicians and Continu-

ing Education Programming, 80 Colo. Med. (Mar. 1983).

Bowes, Jr., Fryer, Jr. & Ellis, The Use of Standardized

Neonatal Mortality Ratios to Assess the Quality of Peri-

natal Care in Colorado, 148 Am. J. Obstet. & Gynecol.

1067 (1984).

Seeds, Cefalo, Herbert & Bowes, Jr., Hydramnios and

Maternal Renal Failure: Relief with Fetal Therapy, 61

Obstet. & Gynecol. 265 (1984).

Seeds, Cefalo & Bowes, Jr., Femur Length in the Esti-

mation of Fetal Weight Less than 1500 Grams, 149 Am.

J. Obstet. & Gynecol. 233 (1984).

Seeds, Herbert, Bowes, Jr. & Cefalo, Recurrent Idi.

opathic Fetal Hydrops: Results of Prenatal Therapy, 64

Obstet. & Gynecol. 305 (1984).

Herbert, Seeds, Cefalo & Bowes, Jr, Prenatal Detection

of Intraamniotic Bands: Implications and Management,

Obstet. & Gynecol. (forthcoming).

Chapters in Books:

1. Droegemueller & Bowes, Jr., Thrombophlebitis, in Cur-

rent Therapy (H. Conn ed. 1968).

2. Bowes, Jr., The Placenta, in Care of the Well Baby (K.

Shepard ed. 1968).

3. Bowes, Jr. & Droegemueller, Female Genitourinary Sys-

tem and Obstetrics, in Outpatient Surgery ch. 20 (G. Hill

ed. 1973).

4. Bowes, Jr. & Droegemueller, Identification and Manage

ment of Intrauterine Growth Retardation, in Controversy

in Obstetrics and Gynecology II 10 (D. Reid & C. Chris-

tian eds. 1974).

5. Droegemueller & Bowes, Jr., Thrombophlebitis, in Cur-

rent Therapy (H. Conn ed. 1974).

~

10.

11.

13.

14.

15.

A-12

Jaffe, Schruefer, Bowes, Jr., Creasy, Sweet & Laros, Ir.

High Risk Pregnancies: Maternal Medical Disorders, in

3 Prevention of Embryonic, Fetal and Perinatal Disease

27 (R. Brent & M. Harris eds. 1976) (DHEW Publica-

tion No. (NIH) 76-853).

Sever. Fuccillo & Bowes, Jr., Environmental Factors:

Infection and Immunizations, in 3 Prevention of Em-

bryonic, Fetal and Perinatal Disease 199 (R. Brent & M.

Harris eds. 1976) (DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 76-

853).

Robie & Bowes, Jr., Immediate Resuscitation of the

Newborn Infant, in Current Therapy in Obstetrics and

Gynecology 77 (E. Quilligan ed. 1980).

Bowes, Jr., Obstet - a Emergencies, in Emergency Care

ch. 11 (J. Boswick, Jr. ed. 1981).

Bowes, Ir. Pancreatitis, in Current Therapy in Obste-

trics and Gynecology (E. Quilligan ed. 1982).

Bowes, Jr., Biochemical Testing-Estriols and Medical-

Surgical Problems. Tuberculosis, in High Risk Pregnan-

cy Protocols (J. Queenan & J. Hobbins eds. 1982).

Bowes, Jr., Intensive Obstetric Management of the

Very-Low-Birth- Weight Infant, in Reid’s Controversy in

Obstetrics and Gynecology III F. Zuspan & C. Chris-

tian eds. 1983).

Peterson & Bowes, Jr., Drugs, Toxins and Environmen-

tal Agents in Breast Milk, in Lactation: Physiology,

Nutrition and Breast-Feeding (M. Neville & M. Neifert

eds. 1983).

Bowes, Jr. & Watson, Inversion of the Uterus, in Opera-

tive Perinatology, Invasive Obstetric Techniques (L. Iffy

& D. Charles eds. 1984).

Bowes, Jr., Intensive Obstetrical Management of the

Very-Low-Birth- Weight Infant, in Controversy in Ob-

stetrics and Gynecelogy (F. Zuspan & C. Christian eds.

forthcoming).

Revised 1/85.

A-13

3. Curriculum Vitae: Richard T. F. Schmidt

Vital Statistics:

Born Sept. 23, 1918, Cincinnati, Ohio, of John J. and

Elsa Wenning Schmidt

Married: Margaret Manchester 6-3-48

Children: Kristin Keye, 1950

Gregory John, 1952

Stephen Bruhl, 1956

John Joseph II, 1960

Education:

St. Xavier High School, graduated (first honors) 1936

Xavier University, B.S. cum laude 1940

Alpha Sigma Nu (national Jesuit college honorary

society)

University of Cincinnati, M.D. Dec. 1943

Postgraduate Training:

Internship - University Hospitals of Cleveland

(straight Ob-Gyn) 1944

Residency - University Hospitals of Cleveland, 1944-

46 and 1948-49

Fellowship - Western Reserve University (teaching

and Ob-Gyn liaison for major curriculum change)

949-50

Military Service:

Army of the United States 1946-48

Chief, Womens’ Division, Halloran General Hospi-

tal

Chief, Ob-Gyn Service, 183rd General Hospital

Specialty Board: 7

American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, certi-

fied 1953

Academic Appointments:

Demonstrator in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Western

Reserve University, 1948-50

Instructor, Gynecology, University of Cincinnati,

1951-62

A-14 120

Assistant Clinical Professor, Gynecology, ibid., 1962 Offices:

** Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecol- 9 — .

Pb ar Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecol- * — 3233 ane Cyncnstagioat

ogy, 1971-75 Executive Committee Central Association Obst. &

Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology,

1975—

Hospital Appointments:

Cincinnati General Hospital

Clinician, Gyn OPD, 1951—

Chief Clinician, Gyn OPD, 1965-69

Attending Gynecologist, 1962—

Good Samaritan Hospital

Courtesy Staff, 1950-51

Associate Attending Obstetrician & Gynecologist,

1951-56

Attending Obstetrician & Gynecologist, 1956

Director Residency Training in Ob-Gyn, 1963-66

Director Department of Obstetrics and Gynecolo-

gy, 1966—

Christ Hospital - Courtesy Staff, 1951-59

Associate Attending Obstetrician & Gynecologist,

1959-70

Consulting Staff, 1971—

Bethesda Hospital - Courtesy Staff, 1951-56

Associate Attending, 1956-66

Professional Societies:

AMA. Ohio State Medical Association, Cincinnati

Academy of Medicine - 1950

Cincinnati Obstetrical and Gynecological Society -

1953

Founding Fellow, American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists, 1952

Fellow, American College of Surgeons, 1954

Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecolo-

gists, 1955

Gynec., 1964-67

Vice-President, Central Association Obst. & Gynec.

1968-69

Executive Board, Good Samaritan Hospital - 1962-65

& 1966—

13 Good Samaritan Family Life Clinic - 1964.

Treasurer, American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, 1971-77

Executive Board, American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists, 1971-79

Executive Committee, American College of Obstetri-

cians & Gynecologists, 1971-79

President, American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, 1977-78

Major Councils and Committees:

8 Program Committee, ACOG, District -

Chairman, Program Committee, Central Association

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - 1965

* Program Committee, ACS, Ohio Section

Committee on Finance, ACOG - 1956-72, Chairman

1965-70

Committee on Professional Standards, ACOG -

1970—, Chairman, 1971-75; Editor, Standards for

Obstetric & Gynecologic Services, 1974

Committee on Biomedical Ethics, ACOG - 1974-77

Committee of Maternal and Child Care, AMA-1974-

77, Chairman, 1976-77

Council on Scientific Affairs, AMA 1976-83

9 Committee on Technology Assessment

A-16

Council of Medical Specialty Societies, 1978-82

Chairman, Committee on Health Care Delivery

Committee on Graduate Medical Education

Committee on Interspecialty Cooperation

Health Care Commission, ACOG - 1979-82

American Board of Medical Specialties, 1979-82

Chairman, Interdisciplinary Mammography Confer-

ence, (NCI, ACP, ACR, ACOG, ACS, AMA, AAFP,

CAP, AC Soc.) 1978

Panel on Alphafetoprotein Screening, AMA 1980

Health Policy Agenda, (AMA and 150 specialty and

allied health groups) 1983—

Chairman, Medical Science Work Group

Steering Committee

Federal! and Industrial:

DHEW, National Center for Health Statistics, Tech-

nical Consultant Panel, Revision of U.S. Standard

Certificates 1975

Chairman, Technical Advisory Committee,

AMA/DHEW, Surgical Criteria Project, Contract

No. HCFA-500-78-0011

Consultant, Proctor & Gamble (Paper Products Divi-

sion) 1980—

Panel On Reproductive Hazards in the Workplace,

AMA and Industrial Physicians, 1982—

Community Activities:

Hospital Liaison Committee, Cincinnati Hospital

Council - 1967

Cincinnati Health and Welfare Council - 1965

Budget Committee, Cincinnati Community Chest -

1959-61

Board of Trustees, Cincinnati Music Festival Asso-

ciatior - 1964-69

Board o: Trustees, Academy of the Sacred Heart -

1960-66

Board of Lay Advisors, St. Xavier High School -

1968-72

A-17

Board of Governors, Xavier University Alumni Asso-

ciation - 1960-63

Mens Symphony Committee - 1965-69

Executive Committee, Navy League Cincinnati

Council - 1960-64