Amicus Curiae Brief — Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania (Nos. 91-902, 91-744)

Supreme Court brief1991

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 91-744 =

No. 91-902

IN THE MAR 6

Supreme Court of the United States

OctToser TERM, 199]

U.§

c OF THE CLER|

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA,

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND COUNSELING CENTER,

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES, INC... WOMEN’S SUBURBAN

CLINIC, ALLENTOWN WOMEN’S CENTER, and THOMAS

ALLEN, M.D., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Petitioners,

ROBERT P. CASEY, N. MARK RICHARDS, and ERNEST D.

PREATE, JR., personally and in their official capacities,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

BRIEF OF THE STATES OF NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT,

DELAWARE, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MAINE, MARYLAND,

MASSACHUSETTS, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NORTH

CAROLINA, RHODE ISLAND, TEXAS AND VERMONT AND THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JOINED BY 13 GOVERNORS, 12 LIEU-

TENANT GOVERNORS AND 995 STATE LEGISLATORS FROM

FIFTY STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETTTIONERS

JOHN McKERNAN Rospert ABRAMS

Governor of the State | Attorney General of the State of New York

Of Maine 120 Broadway

New York, New York 10271

DerEK LANGHAUSER = (212) 341-2250

Chief Counsel JERRY BOONE

Office of the Governor Solicitor General

State House Station # |

Augusta, Maine 04333

(207) 289-3531

Mary E.LLen Burns

Chief Assistant Attorney General

SANFORD M. CoHEN*

Assistant Attorney General in Charge.

Civil Rights Bureau

Donna I. DENNIS

MARJORIE Fuyiki

SHELLEY B. MAYER

Assistant Attorneys General

( “Counsel of Record)

(Additional Counsel Listed Inside Cover)

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL FRANKIE SUE Det Papa

Attorney General of Connecticut Attorney General of Nevada

Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General

55 Elm Street Heroes Memorial Building

Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Capitol Complex

CHARLES M. OBERLY, III Carson City, Nevada 89710

Attorney General of Delaware Rosert J. Det Turo

Office of the Attorney General Attorney General of New Jersey

8th Floor Office of the Attorney General

820 North French Street Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex

Wilmington, Delaware 19801 25 Market Street

WanrrEN Price, III Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Attorney General of Hawaii Tom UDALL

Office of the Attorney General Attorney General of New Mexico

425 Queen Street Office of the Attorney General

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Post Office Drawer 1508

RoLANp W. Burris Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504

Attorney General of Illinois Lacy H. THORNBURG

Office of the Attorney General Attorney General of North Carolina

500 South Second Street Office of the Attorney General

Springfield, Illinois 62706 Department of Justice

BONNIE J. CAMPBELL P.O. Box 629

Attorney General of Iowa Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Office of the Attorney General JAMeEs E. O’NEIL

Hoover State Office Building Attorney General of Rhode Island

Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Office of the Attorney General

MicHaEL E. CARPENTER 72 Pine Street

Attorney General of Maine Providence, Rhode Island 02903

Office of the Attorney General DAN MORALES

State House Attorney General of Texas

Augusta, Maine 04330 Office of the Attorney General

]. JosepH Curran, Jr. Capitol Station, P.O. Box 12548

Attorney General of Maryland Austin, Texas 78711

Office of the Attorney General Jerrrey L. AMEsSTOY

200 Saint Paul Place Attorney General of Vermont

Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Office of the Attorney General

Scott HARSHBARGER Pavilion Office Building

Attorney General of Massachusetts Montpelier, Vermont 05602

Office of the Attorney General JOHN PAYTON

One Ashburton Place Corporation Counsel of the

Boston, Massachusetts 02108 District of Columbia

Office of the Corporation Counsel

District Building

Washington, D.C. 20004

)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE...............

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..................

Cree dicc see esedesecesecccce

I. OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

AND THE DOCTRINE OF STARE

DECISIS REQUIRE REAFFIRMANCE OF

ede ke sos cceccceescce

A. The Commands Of Stare Decisis, Always

Weighty, Are Especially Compelling In

The Case of Roe v. Wade..............

B. No Circumstances Exist That Justify A

Departure From Roe..................

1. Roe v. Wade Is Sound In Principle .. .

2. Changes In Society And In Law Since

Roe Was Decided Fortify, Not

Weaken, Its Validity ...............

3. Roe Ils Workable In Practice.........

Il. THIS COURT'S FAILURE TO REAFFIRM

THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS

A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MAKE

CHOICES ABOUT CHILDBEARING WILL

JEOPARDIZE THE HEALTH OF THE

NATION’S WOMEN .....................

A. Permitting States To Criminalize

Abortion Will Inflict Severe Harm On

Women Who Seek To Terminate Their

1. Travel Out-of-State.................

i oc cdencukcweccscwen

3. Carrying To Term ...............

B. States Where Abortion Remains Legal

Can Expect An Influx Of Non-residents,

Overburdening Abortion Providers In

Those States And Displacing Resident

Women From Securing Timely Abortion

SEE bo Whennou 60605000040 bb SbS4000

III. THIS COURT’S FAILURE TO PROTECT

THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ABORTION AS

A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WILL

UNDERMINE STATE LAW

ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS..............

IE Scien Kienchenunasietetesdcwens

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Application of Grand Jury, 143 N.Y.S. 2d 501

ee reer rs ca hG capud 6s 6

Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984) ........

Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979) ...........

Bering v. Share, 721 P.2d 918 (Wash. 1986), cert.

dismissed, 479 U.S. 1050 (1987) ..............

' Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987) ........

Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1872)

Brown wv. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483

Di tichen Atinnedishiedsdsthedeeasesekds

Pi cntvdiccavedhstdudnes viees tahenecess

Carey v. Population Services International, 431

a cia a wane

City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive

Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983) ............

Cleveland Board of Education v. La Fleur, 414

es pe cites edie await

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

CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp., 481 U.S. 69

NE re Coe aire es Se re re od ee wed

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 149 (1973).............

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) ........

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)............

Page

~“)

Cases

Florida Dep't of Health v. Florida Nursing Homes

Mae, GE Ge BEF GE ec oc cece ccccccnses.

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) ....

Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469

ee a le eh

Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) .....

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)...

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

Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106 (1940)... ....

Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways

Comm'n, 112 S.Ct. 560 (1991)...............

Hoffart v. State, 686 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1985),

cert. denied, 479 U.S. 824 (1986).............

Ingram v. Problem Pregnancy of Worcester, Inc.,

486 N.E.2d 408 (Mass. 1986).................

Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 (1861).......

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)...........

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

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) ........

Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S.

se oe is oa ee ee ea

Page

14, 16

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494

se eg te

Silesian eR ateeatt, Sh ihe OES

N.O.W. v. Operation Rescue, 914 F.2d 582 (4th

Cir. 1990), cert. granted, sub. nom. Bray v.

Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 111 S.Ct.

DT ci dnGchudenhelhonesueess oe seo

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262

SR re ne anne er (eee

New York State N.O.W. v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339

(2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 2206

te donned ede eh deed Gbeee Leh oes

Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979) ...............

Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164

DP ckiceavadtdekdwashenbaawucenne Ganka

People v. Barksdale, 503 P.2d 257 (Ca. 1972) ....

People v. Belous, 458 P.2d 194 (Ca. 1969), cert.

denied, 397 U.S. 915 (1970) .................

People v. Miller, 45 N.Y.S.2d 789 (App. Div.

Pbscctadsbenhtsatehsaksentiadases Ts xs 6

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) ..

Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S.

476 (1983) Si enwisiaachadskeesdbeenese ess

Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v.

Operation Rescue, No. 89-2487-F, 1991 WL

214047 (Mass. Super. 1991)..................

Page

28-29

Cases

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v.

Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976)................

Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) ............

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).....

Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987) ....

Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980).......

Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609

eae a cee eee

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

Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) .......

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) ......

South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) ..

Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975)...... are

State v. Evergreen Assoc., No. 41237/87 (N.Y.

Sup. Ct. judgment entered 1987).............

State v. Horn, 407 N.W.2d 854 (Wis. 1987) .....

State v. Mother and Child Services, Inc., No.

41236/87 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. judgment entered

RS eR ie PaO Pa ee Pee) A

State v. Mother and Unborn Baby Love, Inc.,

No. 412721/87 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. judgment

RC Aes dca Nenahoduseeanscikne sacs

State v. Scholberg, 412 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1987)

vii

Cases

The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 53 U.S.

SD GP ED a vec nvereetencveveceses

Thornburgh v. Am. College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986) ...........

United States v. Carolene Prod. Co., 304 U.S.

ED ee odd nC hbesUSEENPERESE NSCS eo

United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 81 (1978) .......

Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986).........

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109

ke hace wi weees es

Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways and Public

Transportation, 483 U.S. 468 (1987)..........

West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S.

ee ee eae eeab is 465s tant

Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) ............

Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).........

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)........

CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES AND ATTORNEY

GENERAL OPINIONS

to eR

I ces eeeeeee so?

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-101 (1986 & Supp. 1990) .

Page

Vili

Ind. Code Ann. § 35-1-58.5-2(3)(c) (West 1986) ..

SS ee

Model Penal Code § 230.3 (Proposed Official

ARRAS Bas er ee

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3211 (Supp. 1991) .........

Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-302(3) (Supp. 1991)......

74 Op. Md. Att’y Gen. No. 89-045 (Md. Nov. 30,

CES NNUWEE Cer ed caucus tv deesctul occu es

OTHER SOURCES

Alan Guttmacher Institute, Safe and Legal : 10

Years’ Experience With Legal Abortion in New

PI Sete igo

Alan Guttmacher Institute, Teenage Pregnancy:

The Problem that Hasn't Gone Away (1981). ..

Armstrong, Elizabeth, Center for Population

Options, Teenage Pregnancy and Too-Early

Childbearing: Public Costs, Personal

Consequences (5th ed. 1990). ................

Binken, Nancy, et al., Illegal Abortion Deaths in

the United States: Why Are They Still

Occurring?, 14 Fam. Plan. Persp. 163 (1982)...

Brotman, Barbara, Secret Abortion Group of ‘60s

Prepares for Return, Chi. Trib, Aug. 28, 1989 .

20, 21

18, 24

Bureau of Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,

Current Population Reports Consumer Income,

Series P-60, No. 175 in Poverty in the U.S.:

Be I ED Bt oa ove necewctecccccss

Cartoof, Virginia J. & Lorraine V. Klerman,

Parental Consent for Abortion: Impact of the

Massachusetts Law, 76 Am. J. Pub. Health 397

ERE Eady Pe dt een, res ee er er eee

Cates, Willard, Jr., Legal Abortion: The Public

Health Record, 215 Sci. 1586 (1982). .........

Cates, Willard, Jr. et al., Morbidity and

Mortality of Abortion in the United States in

Abortion and Sterilization: Medical and Social

Aspects (Hodgson, ed. 1981). ................

Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Dep't of

Health, Educ. and Welfare, Abortion Surveil-

lance, Annual Summary 1972 (April, 1974) ....

Darney, Philip D., et al., Abortion Training in

U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency

Programs, 19 Fam. Plan. Persp. 158 (1987). ...

Fetal Extrauterine Survivability, Report to the New

York State Task Force on Life and Law (1988).

Forrest, Jacqueline & Stanley K. Henshaw, The

Harassment of U.S. Abortion Providers, 19

Fam. Plan. Persp. 9 (1987). ..............-.-

Gold, Rachel Benson, Alan Guttmacher Institute,

Abortion and Women’s Health, A Turning

Point for America? (1990). ..................

Gorney, Cynthia, Abortion in the Heartland,

Page

16, 18,

19, 20

Wee. WME, GEOR, B, Fee oc ccc ccccccccess 18, 23-24

Grimes, David A., Second Trimester Abortions in

the United States, 16 Fam. Plan. Persp. 260

aah ee 4 usc Ss cu cuit odes rks ls eee

Hack, Maureen & Avroy A. Fanaroff, Outcomes

of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants

Between 1982 and 1988, 321 New Eng. J. of

Bee re

Hall, Mimi, Legal Abortions Tougher To Get.

oe SS ee

Harlap, Susan, et al., Alan Guttmacher Institute,

Preventing Pregnancy, Protecting Health: A

New Look at Birth Control Choices in the

Henshaw, Stanley K., et al., Abortion Services in

the United States, 1981-1982, 16 Fam. Plan.

FREI ee Rae ne ee

Henshaw, Stanley K., et al., Abortion Services in

the United States, 1984 and 1985, 19 Fam.

oe GO ee

Henshaw, Stanley K., et al., Characteristics of

U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1987, 23 Fam.

a GS ee

Henshaw, Stanley K., & Jennifer Van Vort,

Abortion Services in the United States, 1987

and 1988, 22 Fam. Plan. Persp. 102 (1990). ...

Institute of Medicine, Legalized Abortion and the

ES ee ae

Kaplan, John, Abortion as a Vice Crime: A

“What If” Story, 51 Law & Contemp. Probs.

SEER IE ay ain

, 24

Page

Mackinson, Carolyn, Health Consequences of

Teenage Fertility, 17 Fam. Plan. Persp. 132

SL Sh abun whundbedaceuthe nous enone ets 21

McFadden, Robert D., Abortion Mills Thriving

Behind Secrecy and Fear, N.Y. Times, Nov. 24,

| ae rey er errr ry yr re 25

Missouri Dept. of Health, Missouri Monthly Vital

Seatiotics (Jam. 1000). .. 2.2.2.2 ccc cece eeeeee: 22

Monaghan, Henry Paul, Stare Decisis and

Constitutional Adjudication, 88 Colum. L. Rev.

Ne Rs ccc euhndvaunidass 4, 8, 14

NARAL Foundation/NARAL, Who Decides? A

State-By State Review of Abortion Rights

—_” ar eA eae a PO 29

National Abortion Federation, American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Who Will

Provide Abortions? Ensuring the Availability of

Qualified Practitioners (1990). .............-. 23, 24

Niswander, Kenneth R., Medical Abortion

Practices in the United States in Abortion and

the Law (Smith ed. 1967). ............-..-.- 25, 26

Note, Too Close for Comfort: Protesting Outside

Medical Facilities, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1856 |

gS a nr Eile lyeos ; 29

Oversight Hearings on Abortion Clinic Violence,

Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights,

House Comm. on the Judiciary, 99th Cong.,

“yf. "arene 28, 29

Page

Pakter, Jean, et al., Two Years Experience in

New York City With the Liberalized Abortion

Law — Progress and Problems, 63 Am. J. Pub.

ee wee 20, 22

Pamuk, Elsie R., & W.D. Mosner, National

Center for Health Statistics 11 (1988). ........ 20

Placet & Taffel, Recent Patterns in Caesarean

Delivery in the United States, 5 Obstet. Gynec.

Clin. N.A. 607 (1988)....................... 19

Powell, Lewis F. Jr., Stare Decisis and Judicial

Restraint, 1991 Journal of Supreme Court

ss ok 5

President’s Comm'n on Law Enforcement and

Admin. of Justice, Task Force Report: The

ES I ae Ba: 16,

Pritchard, J., et al., Williams Obstetrics (17th ed.

I pero oh a re a 19

Regan, Leslie J., About to Meet Her Maker:

Women, Doctors, Dying Declarations, and the

State's Investigation of Abortion, Chicago,

1867-1940, J. of Am. Hist. 1240 (March 1991)... 28

Rosen, Harold, Psychiatric Implications of

Abortion: A Case Study in Social Hypocrisy in

Abortion and the Law (Smith ed. 1967). ...... 25

Shelton, James D., et al., Abortion Utilization:

Does Travel Distance Matter, 8 Fam. Plan.

ese 17

Stone, Rebecca, Center for Population Options,

Adolescents and Abortion, Choice In Crisis

ei, PM eer Be 21, 22

The Federalist No. 78 (H. Lodge ed. 1888) ...... 5

BB St

Page

Tietze, Christopher & Stanley K. Henshaw, Alan

Guttmacher Institute, A World Review 1986 P

GG Ga av ensd seen suse beneecvevanesscsces 16, 17,

Torres, Aida & Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, Why

Do Women Have Abortions?, 20 Fam. Plan.

Persp. 169 (1988).........---. eee eee e eens 17, 23

Trussell, James, et al., Impact of Restricting

Medicaid Financing for Abortion, 12 Fam.

Plan. Persp. 120 (1980)............-----5005: 19

van den Berg, Bea J., & Chin Long Chiang,

Maternal Mortality and Differentiation By

Cause of Death 239 (1986)..........----.-55. 17

Whalen, Robert P., New York State Dept. of

Health, Report of Selected Characteristics of

Induced Terminations of Pregnancy Recorded

in New York State, January - December 1975

with Five Year Summary. ..........----+++>> 22

Wilson, J., et al., Obstetrics and Gynecology (8th

SM cas vavedewosseernnenesesecorcce 23

Ziff, Harvey L., Recent Abortion Law Reforms

(Or Much Ado About Nothing), 60 J. Crim. L.

and Criminology and Police Sci. 13 (1969). .... = a

No. 91-744

No. 91-902

———

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Octroser Term, 1991

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENN-

SYLVANIA, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND COUNSELING

CENTER, WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES, INC., WOMEN’S

SUBURBAN CLINIC, ALLENTOWN WOMEN’S CENTER, and

THOMAS ALLEN, M.D., on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated,

Petitioners,

ROBERT P. CASEY, N. MARK RICHARDS, and ERNEST D.

PREATE, JR., personally and in their official capacities,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

BRIEF OF THE STATES OF NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT,

DELAWARE, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MAINE, MARYLAND,

MASSACHUSETTS, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO,

NORTH CAROLINA, RHODE ISLAND, TEXAS AND VER.

MONT AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JOINED BY 13

GOVERNORS, 12 LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS AND 995 STATE

LEGISLATORS FROM FIFTY STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN

SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE'

Amici are the chief legal officers of sixteen States and the District

of Columbia, thirteen Governors, twelve Lieutenant Governors and

995 legislators from the fifty states,’ who have a direct interest in the

' The parties have consented to the filing of this brief by letters that accompany

the brief.

A list of the amici appears in the appendix to this brief.

continued vitality of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Amici share

a commitment to the preservation of fundamental individual

rights and an abiding respect for the judiciary’s constitutional

role in securing those rights against infringement by the state and

national governments.

Our experience and duties provide a unique perspective on

governmental regulation of abortion. In our respective states,

amici enact legislation, direct executive agencies in implement-

ing legislation, and enforce state laws through criminal and civil

sanctions. Amici are also obligated to protect the health and well-

being of women in our states, which includes their right to safe

and appropriate health care and their right to decide whether

and when to bear children.

Amici have found the standard of review for the constitutional-

ity of abortion regulations described in Roe v. Wade to be a

workable and fair accommodation of state interests and individual

rights. In Roe, this Court correctly held that a state must have a

compelling interest to justify its regulation of a woman's fundamen-

tal right to choose whether to bear a child. That framework ac-

cords to states the necessary authority to regulate abortion in the

genuine interest of promoting health and preserving potential life

while also respecting the fundamental privacy rights of women.

As officials charged with enforcing laws, amici have a special

interest in promoting respect for the doctrine of stare decisis.

Adherence to stare decisis preserves stability in the law, prevents

relitigation of divisive issues, and endows our citizens with con-

fidence that laws will be interpreted consistently and fairly. A

retreat from the uniform national standard for regulation of abor-

tion provided by Roe will turn state legislatures into political battle-

grounds, and divert attention from a multitude of critical economic

and public policy issues that need to be addressed. The eviscera-

tion of a woman's fundamental constitutional right to choose abor-

tion after it has been exercised for almost twenty years also threatens

to jeopardize public faith in the legitimacy of our system of laws.

Because of our roles and responsibilities within the states, amici

are uniquely qualified, and in fact compelled, to address the ques-

tion of whether the Court should continue to protect a womans

deeply personal decision about childbearing as a fundamental

constitutional right. An abandonment by this Court of the fun-

damental right to choose and of the application of strict scrutiny

to state abortion regulations will undermine our interest in pro-

tecting the health and well-being of women in our states, and

in administering the law fairly and effectively.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In Roe v. Wade this Court properly recognized that a woman's

decision whether or not to bear a child is encompassed in the

fundamental constitutional right to privacy and that state in-

terference with that decision is subject to strict scrutiny. For

almost two decades, the states and millions of individuals have

relied on the framework established by Roe and its progeny in

structuring their affairs and lives. Like Brown v. Board of Educa-

tion, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Roe has become part of the political

and moral fabric of this country. A decision that turns back the

clock on women’s ability to control reproduction and shape their

futures would unjustifiably frustrate reasonable reliance upon

the Court's judgments. A break from a precedent of such im-

portance, particularly when it coincides with a shift in the

membership of the Court, also threatens to erode public faith

in the impartiality and legitimacy of law.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, reversal of a precedent

whose principles are deeply embedded in the national con-

sciousness, in the lives of individuals, and in governmental deci-

sionmaking can be justified only upon a demonstration that the

precedent is harmful. No evidence exists that Roe v. Wade causes

harm. But an abandonment of the fundamental right secured

by Roe would almost certainly inflict injury — both on individual

women and on the states.

Retreating from Roe and forcing states to determine the

parameters of the right to choose abortion will significantly

jeopardize the public health and welfare. Experience shows that

women seek abortion in substantial numbers regardless of the

state of the law. While women with money will often be able

to secure safe and legal abortions by traveling to other states,

recriminalization of abortion will drive women without suffi-

cient resources to back-alley abortionists, where they risk grave

harm to their health and even death. In addition, states that

continue to protect abortion will face a dramatic increase in the

number of women seeking abortions, which will severely strain

already overburdened health care systems and impede the delivery

of medical services.

A failure by this Court to protect a woman's fundamental right to

determine her reproductive destiny will also subvert law enforce-

ment efforts. The criminal anti-abortion laws that may arise will

be extremely difficult to enforce, and will divert resources from

protecting the public from other crimes. History teaches that the

attempt to enforce unpopular laws that are widely disobeyed and

easily evaded by the affluent undermines the integrity of the

criminal justice system and our institutions of government.

ARGUMENT

I. OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE DOC-

TRINE OF STARE DECISIS REQUIRE REAFFIRMANCE

OF ROE cv. WADE

A. The Commands Of Stare Decisis, Always Weighty, Are

Especially Compelling In The Case Of Roe v. Wade

Nineteen years ago, seven Members of this Court recognized

that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment secures

to women a fundamental right to choose whether or not to con-

tinue a pregnancy. Since Roe v. Wade, courts have scrutinized

regulation of abortion strictly, demanding that a state's encroach-

ment on that right serve a compelling interest and be narrowly

drawn. Those who now urge this Court to abandon protection

of the right to choose abortion and to thrust the issue back upon

the states invite disaster. As chief legal officers, chief executives,

and elected representatives of the people of our respective states,

amici therefore urge the Court to be steadfast in its application

of Roe v. Wade.

The doctrine of stare decisis requires strict adherence to past

ts “absent a showing of substantial countervailing con-

siderations.” Although sometimes accorded less weight in cases

> Henry Paul Monaghan, Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication. 85

Colum. L. Rev. 723, 757 (1988).

interpreting the Constitution,’ an examination of the doctrine’s

underlying purposes makes clear that it is especially compelling

in the case of Roe v. Wade.

“Perhaps the most important ... argument for stare decisis

is one of public legitimacy.” Powell, supra, at 16. It has long been

recognized that “[t]he rule of law depends in large part on

adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis,” Welch v. Texas Dep't

of Highways and Public Transportation, 483 U.S. 468, 478-79

(1987), and that it is the basis of “public faith in the judiciary

as a source of impersonal and reasoned judgments.” Moragne v.

State Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 403 (1970). By providing a check

against arbitrary and partial decisionmaking, stare decisis allows

citizens to “have confidence that the rules on which they rely

in ordering their affairs .. . are rules of law and not merely the

opinions of a small group of men who temporarily occupy high

office.” Florida Dep't of Health v. Florida Nursing Homes Ass'n,

450 U.S. 147, 154 (1981)(Stevens, J., concurring). Thus, the obliga-

tion of judges to be bound by the rules of cases already decided

“is a basic self-governing principle within the Judicial Branch,

which is entrusted with the sensitive and difficult task of fashion-

ing and preserving a jurisprudential system that is not based upon

‘an arbitrary discretion.” Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 49]

U.S. 164, 172 (1989) (quoting The Federalist No. 78, at 490 (H.

Lodge ed. 1888) (A. Hamilton)).

Adherence to precedent also promotes stability and consistency

in the law, “ensur{ing) that the law will not merely change erratical-

ly, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Vas-

quez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 265-66 (1986). As a result, stare decisis

permits citizens and governments alike to rely on the law in struc-

turing their activities and affairs. See, e.g., Williams v. Florida,

* See, e.g., Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 2610 (1991). Most Justices and

commentators, however, agree that its strictures apply even in constitutional!

cases. As former Justice Powell has remarked, “the elimination of constitu-

tional stare decisis would represent an explicit endorsement of the idea that

the Constitution is nothing more than what five Justices say it is. This would

undermine the rule of law.” Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Stare Decisis and Judicial

Restraint, 199] Journal of Supreme Court History 13, 16 (1991); see also Payne

v. Tennessee, 111 S.Ct. at 2618 (Souter, J., concurring) (“Even in constitutional

cases, [stare decisis} carries __ persuasive force”); Green v. United States, 355

U.S. 184, 215 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

399 U.S. 78, 127 (1970) (Harlan, J., dissenting in part and con-

curring in part); Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940)

(remarking upon “the psychologic need to satisfy reasonable

expectations”).

The need for stability and legitimacy in the law weighs heavily

in favor of abiding by the precedent of Roe v. Wade regardless

of individual views on how the case should be decided if it arose

res nova today.’ Like Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483,

Roe has become part of the political and moral fabric of this

country. Millions of women who have come of age in the last

twenty years have structured their identities, their families, and

their pursuits around the possession of a fundamental privacy

right to decide whether or not or when to bear a child. Roe has

also rooted itself in the practices and expectations of the States

as sovereign entities, which have relied on Roe over the last two

decades in developing a uniform statutory and regulatory

framework within which health planning decisions are made.

This Court has consistently held that when individuals and

governments have relied on a precedent, as they have on Roe, there

should be extreme reluctance to overrule it. Only recently, this

Court reaffirmed that “/s]tare decisis has added force when the

legislature, in the public sphere, and citizens, in the private realm,

have acted in reliance on a previous decision, for in this instance

overruling the decision would dislodge settled rights and expec-

tations. . ..” Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Comm'n,

112 S.Ct. 560, 564 (1991). See also Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S.Ct.

at 2610.* Stare decisis, after all, rests upon the “principle that the

settled practices and expectations of a democratic society should

generally not be disturbed by the courts.” Jd. at 2614 (Scalia, J.,

concurring). Yet if the Court were to abandon Roe now, it would

needlessly and unjustifiably frustrate the settled practices and

“reasonable expectations,” Helvering v. Hallock, 309 US. at 119,

of both vast numbers of women and governmental entities.

* See Green v. United States, 355 U.S. at 215 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

* The fundamental! personal freedom secured by Roe is clearly not a “mere

procedural or evidentiary rule,” which the Court views as carrying diminished

precedential weight. Payne, LL) S.Ct. at 2610. It is more akin to a “property or

contract nght” in that both categories of rights involve “strong reliance interests.” /d.

Because Roe v. Wade is so deeply embedded in both individual

and governmental decisionmaking, reversal or modification of

its holding would also substantially undermine the rule of law.

Never before has this Court overruled a case that recognized

a fundamental personal freedom. A departure from the

guarantee of a fundamental liberty that coincides with a shift

in the membership of the Court would run athwart the prin-

cipal objective the doctrine of stare decisis is intended to serve:

to enable citizens “to presume that bedrock principles are

founded in the law rather than the proclivities of individuals. . ..”

Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. at 265-66. It would thereby under-

' mine public confidence in “the wisdom of this Court as an in-

stitution transcending the moment,” Green v. United States, 355

U.S. at 215 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), with resulting damage

to citizens’ respect for the law.

Roe v. Wade's precedential status is entitled to great weight

in another respect. The constitutional terrain it describes is an

area which the Court long ago marked out as a “zone of privacy

created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485 (1965). A series of

historic decisions leading up to Roe extended autonomy to in-

dividuals in matters relating to childrearing, marriage, and pro-

creation.’ Since Roe, this Court not only has repeatedly reaffirmed

the existence of that zone of privacy when striking down restric-

tive abortion laws but also has relied upon it in reaching a variety

of decisions outside the abortion area.* A repudiation of Roe v.

Wade would therefore remove the constitutional girders of some

’ See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268

U.S. 510 (1925); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Prince v.

Massachusetts, 32] U.S. 158 (1944); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

* See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)(invalidating state laws

burdening the right to marry); Carey v. Population Services International,

431 U.S. 678 (1977) (invalidating prohibitions on distribution and advertise-

ment of contraceptives); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 43) U.S. 494 (1977)

(invalidating a zoning law that interfered with decisions as to family com-

position); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (recognizing right to informa-

tional privacy); Cleveland Board of Education v. La Fleur, 414 US. 632

(1974) (invalidating an employment rule burdening a woman's decision to bear

a child).

of the Court’s most important decisions in this century, and call

into question an entire field of constitutional law.*

Because of the “bedrock” nature of the right it recognizes, the

settled practices and expectations it has engendered, and its in-

tegral role in a foundational aspect of constitutional law, a reaf-

firmation of Roe commands exceptional consideration on stare

decisis grounds.” 3 :

B. No Circumstances Exist That Justify A Departure From Roe

The proponent of overruling a precedent always bears a “heavy

burden.” Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. at 266. “Even in constitu-

tional cases, [stare decisis] carries such persuasive force that we

have always required a departure from precedent to be supported

by some ‘special justification.’ ” Payne v. Tennessee, 11] S.Ct. at

2618 (Souter, J., concurring) (citing Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S.

203, 212 (1984)).

In our system of law, a belief that a case was wrongly decided

in the first instance is far from a sufficient justification for over-

ruling it." Because of the important policies advanced by stare

decisis, this Court does not abandon a precedent absent a special

showing that “changes in society or in the law dictate that the

values served by stare decisis yield in favor of a greater objec-

tive,” Vasquez, 474 U.S. at 266, that the precedent is “unsound

in principle,” Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469

U.S. 528, 546 (1985), that it is “unworkable in practice,” id. at

546, or that “the lessons of experience indicate that [a new rule}

... would significantly advance the public interest.” United States

v. Scott, 437 U.S. 81, 101 (1978).

* See Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Comm'n, 112 S.Ct. at 564 (if

overruling precedent would “throw into doubt previous decisions from this

Court,” that result weighs “in favor of adhering to stare decisis”).

* As one legal scholar has aptly explained, stare decisis serves “to prevent disrup-

tion of practices and expectations so settled, or to avoid the revitalization of

a public debate so divisive, that departure from the precedent would contribute

in some percentible way to a failure of confidence in the lawfulness of fun-

damental feacures of the political order.” Monaghan, supra note 3, at 750.

“ Under American notions of stare decisis, “[e]ven an ‘overriding conviction’

of prior error is not enough [to justify overruling]: the precedent must have

some palpable adverse consequences beyond its existence.” Monaghan, supra

note 3, at 758.

Roe does not suffer from any of the infirmities that justify the

overruling of a precedent. In fact, a reversion to the pre-Roe

regime would encourage divisive and inconsistent state regula-

tion of a woman's abortion decision, disserving the public interest.

See Points II and III, post. A healthy observance of restraint in

judging, an interest served by adherence to the doctrine of stare

decisis, counsels against overruling Roe v. Wade.

1. Roe v. Wade Is Sound In Principle

Almost twenty years ago, this Court held that the right of per-

sonal privacy — which finds its doctrinal sources in decisions

dating back to the nineteenth century — “is broad enough to

encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her

pregnancy.” Roe, 410 U.S. at 153. That holding was rooted in a

solid line of cases establishing that individuals enjoy a fundamen-

tal liberty interest in matters related to childrearing, marriage,

and procreation.” and it remains the governing law today.”

This Court has already found “especially compelling reasons

for adhering to stare decisis in applying the principles of Roe v.

Wade.” City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health,

Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 420 n.1 (1983). Among them were the special

consideration afforded the issues in Roe. the solid majority it com-

manded.” and the repeated adherence in subsequent cases to the

basic principles there announced. Indeed, the Court not only has

explicitly reaffirmed Roe, but has repeatedly relied on it to strike

down regulations impermissibly interfering with a woman's right

to have an abortion."

“ See cases cited supra note 7.

” Chief Justice Rehnquist's plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health

Services, 109 S.Ct. 3040 (1989), did not command a majority of the Members

of the Court and therefore its reasoning is not binding. See, e.g.. CTS Corp.

v. Dynamics Corp., 481 U.S. 69, 81 (1987). Justice O'Connor, along with the

four dissenting Justices, refused to question the validity of Roe. 109 S.Ct. at

3060-61 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).

“ Compare Payne, 11) S.Ct. at 2611 (justifying overruling of Booth v. Maryland.

482 U.S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 US. 805 (1989), in

part on the ground that they were “decided by the narrowest of margins”).

* See Thornburgh v. Am. College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S.

747 (1986) (striking down mandatory dissemination of information designed

(Footnote continued)

No doctrinal development has appeared since Roe v. Wade that

diminishes the conclusion of seven Members of the Court that the

liberty component of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Am-

endment protects as fundamental the right of a woman to choose

whether to terminate a pregnancy. On the contrary, Roe’s holding

has been relied on not only in abortion cases but in a variety of de-

cisions in the privacy area outside the abortion context” Because this

Court has repeatedly followed its decision, the right recognized in

Roe has become not only a part of our constitutional landscape, but

an element widely perceived to be part of the nation’s social fabric.

Roe v. Wade falls squarely within the historical and rational

traditions of this Court in elaborating the meaning of the due

process clause under which liberty is a “continuum which .. .

includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and

purposeless restraints.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961)

(Harlan, J., dissenting). Those who now urge that the issue be

remitted to fifty or more legislatures as a proper subject of ma-

joritarian rule fail to recognize that the majority, in adopting

the Fourteenth Amendment, endorsed the principle that the

judiciary is the guarantor of personal freedoms.

Under our Constitution, the judiciary is entrusted with the

critical task of safeguarding the most fundamental aspects of peo-

ple's lives — their personal sovereignty — from interference by

legislative bodies. As this Court has declared:

to discourage abortion, two-physician requirement for post-viability abortions,

and mandatory medical procedures for possibly viable fetuses): Akron, 462

U.S. 416 (1983) (invalidating 24-hour waiting period, mandatory dissemina-

tion of information designed to discourage abortions and hospitalization re-

quirement for second trimester abortions); Planned Parenthood Ass'n v.

Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983)(striking down requirements unrelated to maternal

health for second trimester abortions); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379

(1979) (striking down mandatory medical procedures for possibly viabic fetuses).

Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)(overturning parental consent require-

ment); Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 US. 52

(1976)(overturning parental and spousal consent requirements).

* See cases cited supra note 8. Cf. Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 US. 219, 227-30

(1987) (overruling Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 (1861), because the

holding of Dennison “is fundamentally incompatible with more than a cen-

tury of constitutional development” and “the basic consitutional principles

now point as clearly the other way”)

The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw

certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political con-

troversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities

and officials and to establish them as legal principles

to be applied by the courts. One's ... fundamental

rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on

the outcome of no elections.

West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).”

That the passions which attend the abortion debate make judicial

resolution difficult does not relieve this Court of its constitutional

duty. Rather, the Court’s duty reaches its zenith when the issue.

as here, is one of a “sensitive and emotional nature.” generating

heated public debate and controversy, “with vigorous opposing

views” and “deep and seemingly absolute convictions.” Roe, 410

U.S. at 116. For it is precisely then that majoritarian institutions

are the least reliable guarantors of individual rights and liber-

ties. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US. 483: United

States v. Carolene Prod. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938).

The federal structure of our government offers abundant-op-

portunities for states to serve as laboratories for new social and

economic ideas. See, e.g., Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 US. 429,

441 (1980); New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262. 31]

(1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). But there is a critical difference

between a state's experimentation within a sphere of power ceded

to government by the individual and the state's usurpation of those

powers and rights reserved to the individual. A state law in-

fringing a fundamental individual liberty protected by the Four-

teenth Amendment cannot be upheld on federalism grounds. See

New State Ice, 285 U.S. at 279-80. After all, “[t]here are limits

to the extent to which a legislatively represented majority may

conduct ... experiments at the expense of the dignity and per-

sonality” of the individual. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535,

546 (1942) (Jackson, J., concurring). Because “[f]ew decisions are

more personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic

" See also Garcia, 469 US. at 565 n.8 (“One can hardly imagine this Court

saving that because Congress is composed of individuals, individual rights

guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are amply protected by the political process.”)

(Powell, J.. dissenting, joined by Burger, C.J.. Rehnquist and O'Connor. J).):

Engel v. Vitale. 370 U.S. 421, 429-30 (1962).

to individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman’s decision

... whether or not to end her pregnancy,” Thornburgh, 476 U.S.

at 772, the Court correctly decided in Roe v. Wade that a woman's

right to control her reproductive destiny cannot be a candidate

for state-by-state experimentation.

2. Changes In Society And In Law Since Roe Was Decided

Fortify, Not Weaken, Its Validity

In the two decades since Roe was decided, society has witnessed

enormous changes in the status of women. Women, who have

entered the workforce in staggering numbers, demand and are

entitled to participate as equals in the social and economic life

of this country. Those changes, however, do not demonstrate that

the principles of Roe v. Wade must be rejected as “no longer suited

to contemporary life.” Cf. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. at 128

(Harlan, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part).* On the

contrary, women’s growing independence as citizens depends on

freedom from forced childbearing and on the ability to control

whether or when to have children. The advances women have

made toward equality do not support, let alone justify, reinstating

a rule of law that deprives them of reproductive autonomy and

consigns them purely to the domestic sphere.

Law has evolved to keep pace with the changing role of women.

Although at one time a distinguished Member of the Court con-

cluded that the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent a state

from denying women admission to the practice of law because

the “paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the

noble and benign offices of wife and mother.” Bradwell v. Illinois,

83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130, 141 (1872) (Bradley, J., concurring), such

views have fallen into serious disrepute” During the last two

decades, the Court has repeatedly recognized that the Constitu-

tion will not tolerate state actions that coerce women to fill

* Cf. The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 53 US. (12 How.) 443, 455-56 (1851)

(overruling 1825 precedent limiting admiralty jurisdiction to tida] waters on account

of changed boundaries of US. territory and concomitant increase in inland waters).

" “No longer is the fernale destined solely for the home and the rearing of the

family and only the male for the marketplace and world of ideas.’ “ Orr v. Orr,

440 U.S. 268, 280 (1979) (quoting Stanton v. Stanton, 42] US. 7, 14-15 (1975)).

stereotypical domestic or nurturing roles” and has acknowledged the

compelling governmental interest in eradicating sex discrimination.”

This Court's recognition of women’s right to autonomy and equality

under the law strongly support reaffirmance of Roe v. Wade”

3. Roe Is Workable In Practice

Roe provides a workable, predictable framework within which

states can regulate abortion and courts can review such regula-

tions. Although legislative responses have frequently required the

Court to delineate the fundamental right to choose and to define

the limits on the states’ authority to regulate abortions, the need

for the Court to furnish guidance in this area does not argue for

a doctrinal retraction of Roe v. Wade. Constitutional adjudica-

tion of rights secured by the Bill of Rights often involves com-

plicated tasks of definition and line drawing.

In comparison to other distinctions articulated by this Court

in constitutional cases, however, the Roe framework provides clear

guidance to state governments and lower courts. It guarantees that

the state may not regulate the abortion procedure prior to viability

unless the regulation is necessary to protect a woman’s health, pro-

vided that the state may not restrict abortions after viability in

a way that harms the woman's life or health.” See Roe, 410 U.S.

* See Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 725-26 (1982):

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684-85 (1973).

* See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 625-26 (1984) (noting

“the importance, both to the individual and to society, of removing the bar-

riers to economic advancement and political and social integration that have

historically plagued certain disadvantaged groups, including women”).

* Cf. Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. at 174 (deep national com-

mitment to eradicating race discrimination supports adherence to holding of

Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 applies to

private conduct whether holding was “right or wrong as an original matter”).

” Contrary to some predictions, changes in science and technology since Roe was

decided have not undermined its validity. No technology has appeared that lowers

the threshold during pregnancy at which a fetus can survive separate from the

woman. Medical authorities have concluded that viability exists — and is likely

to remain fixed — at the 24th week of pregnancy. See Maureen Hack & Avroy

A. Fanaroff, Outcomes of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants Between 1982 and

1988, 321 New Eng. J. of Med. 1642, 1647 (1989): see also Fetal Extrauterine Sur-

vivability, Report to the New York State Task Force On Life and Law 10 (1988).

at 163-64; Akron, 462 U.S. at 428-30. These basic guidelines have

neither proved unduly “confusing” nor “defied consistent applica-

tion.” Cf. Payne, 11] S.Ct. at 2611. The results of two decades

of their application in the courts have been largely consistent and

predictable.”

The opposition by some to the principle that a woman has a

constitutionally protected right to decide whether or not to con-

tinue her pregnancy should not be confused with any doctrinal

or practical deficiency of Roe. It “should go without saying that

the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed

to yield simply because of disagreement with them.” Brown v.

Board of Education, 349 U.S. at 300. Individuals, government,

and the medical profession all operate with the benefit of near-

ly twenty years of experience under Roe. Far from lessening litiga-

tion or dampening the controversy, a new standard would only

increase contention.

Furthermore, as discussed in Points II and III, post, “the lessons

of experience” teach us that overruling Roe would not “significant-

ly advance the public interest.” Cf. United States v. Scott, 437

U.S. at 101. On the contrary, modification or abandonment of

Roe would inflict harm on women, wreak havoc on public health

care systems, and undermine law enforcement efforts in the states.

Departure from precedents is rarely if ever defensible when “the

effects of the precedents are not harmful, and overruling the

precedents would produce exceptionally harmful results. As

representatives of state governments that will be deeply affected

by any reversal or erosion of Roe, amici submit that a concern

for the public interest demands reaffirmation of Roe’s principles.

* See cases cited supra note 15. This Court has also upheld certain kinds of

restrictive abortion legislation on the ground that they do not interfere with

the rights recognized in Roe. See, e.g., Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)

(upholding ban on public funding of abortions on the ground that ban did

not interfere with right recognized in Roe); Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977)

(same).

* Monaghan, supra note 3, at 760; ef. Payne, 11) S.Ct. at 2613 (Scalia, J. con-

curring) (abandonment of rule excluding victim-impact evidence in sentenc-

ing hearings justified when the precedent “significantly harms our criminal

justice system”).

Il. THIS COURT'S FAILURE TO REAFFIRM THAT THE

CONSTITUTION PROTECTS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT CHILDBEARING WILL

JEOPARDIZE THE HEALTH OF THE NATION'S WOMEN

The consequences for women’s health in this country will be

devastating if the Court jettisons Roe v. Wade. American women

will not abandon exercise of a right so long enjoyed and so basic

to their ability to control their destiny.* Some will seek to cir-

cumvent restrictive laws within their own states, increasing the

risk of abortion-related death, injury and illness. Others will flee

to states where abortion remains legal, taxing heavily burdened

health care systems and displacing residents of those states. Ex-

perience shows that women of color and poor women will suf-

fer the most. Overturning Roe v. Wade thus promises to restore

a brutal regime in many states which this Court properly ended

two decades ago.

A. Permitting States To Criminalize Abortion Will Inflict

Severe Harm On Women Who Seek To Terminate Their

Pregnancies

A return of abortion to a criminal status in some states will

not end abortion; women will find ways to circumvent the pro-

hibition just as they did before Roe. Women who live in states

* Legalization did not significantly increase the numbers of women obtain-

ing abortions. Rather it guaranteed that abortions that had been obtained

clandestinely could be secured under safe, legal conditions, thus reducing the

mortality and morbidity rate of women obtaining them. See Alan Guttmacher

Institute, Safe and Legal: 10 Years’ Experience With Legal Abortion in New

York State 17, 23 (1980) [hereinafter AGI. Safe and Legal). Statistics from other

states are similarly revealing. Jd. at 23; see also People v. Belous, 458 P2d

194, 201 (Ca. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 915 (1970) (prior to Californie’s

passage of Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, between 35,000 and 100,000

criminal abortions were performed annually in California); People v.

Barksdale, 503 P.2d 257, 265 nn. 7 & 8 (Ca. 1972) (by 1970, approximately

116,749 legal abortions were performed in California - a slight increase in the

number of abortions. adjusted for population growth, that occurred before

legalization) Similarly, only a 10% rise was reported for Oregon. AGI. Safe

and Legal. supra. at 23. The annual number of 1.6 million women obtaining

abortions remained relatively unchanged between 1980 and 1989 Stanle, K

Henshaw & Jennifer Van Vort, Abortion Services in the United States. 1987

and 1988. 22 Fam. Plan. Persp. 102 (1990)

that criminalize abortion and wish to terminate their pregnan-

cies will have three alternatives. First, if they have the financial

means, they can travel to a state that offers legal abortion. Se-

cond, they can attempt to obtain an illegal or self-induced abor-

tion in their own state. Third, they can carry the pregnancy to

term. Each option dramatically increases the risks to women’s

health. As there continues to exist a two-tiered health care system,

particularly with regard to abortion services,” poor women, a

disproportionate number of whom are women of color, will suf-

fer the greatest burdens of the recriminalization of abortion.”

1. Travel Out-of-State

Requiring a woman to travel out of state for an abortion causes

delay, and significantly increases the risk to her health. After the

first eight weeks of pregnancy, the risk of major complications

from abortion increases about 15 to 30 percent for each week

of delay.” A woman forced to travel faces not only the costs of

” Legitimate physicians willing to certify a medica! indication for abortion wil!

frequently be available to women with financial resources. Rachel Benson Gold.

Alan Guttmacher Institute, Abortion and Women’s Health. A Turning Point

for America? 3 (1990): President s Comm'n on Law Enforcement and Admin

of Justice, Task Force Report: Tie Courts 105 (1967) (hereinafter Task Force

Report). See also Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 330 n.4 (Brennan, J., dissenting)

* Women of olor are disproportionately affected because they constitute «

disproportionate percentage of the poor In 1990, 35.5% of Black women.

29.9% of Hispanic women, and 12% of white women lived in poverty.

although Blacks constituted |2 4% of the general population. Hispamics § 6%

and whites 83.9% (Hispanics can be of any race, tut for purposes of this discus.

sion they are included a “women of cofor” or ~nomwhite women”) Bureau

of Census, US Dept of Commerce, Current Population Reports Consumer

Income, Series P-60, No. 175 in Poverty tm the US 1990, (1990) (tables 1.5).

Because abortion rates are negatively associated with income. restriction on

abortion will disproportionately affect the poor. and thus. women of color

Stanley K Henshaw et al. Characteristics of () S Women Having Abortions.

1987, 23 Fam. Pian. Persp. 75, 77 (1991). Gold. supra note 27, at 19 (non-

white women are twice as likely as white women to utilize abortion services,

” Willard Cates, jr et al . Morbidity and Mortality of Abortion in the United

States in Abortion and Sterilization’ Medical and Social Aspects 155. 158

(Hodgson. ed 1981) However. the nsks of legal abortion never exceed the risks

of childbirth. Christopher Tietze & Stanley K Henshaw. Alan Guttmacher

Institute, A World Review 1996 110 (1986)

the abortion but the costs of travel, food and accommodations.”

Delays may be caused by difficulties in raising the funds necessary

to secure an abortion, in locating an out-of-state provider and

in arranging transportation." Women of color will be least like-

ly to be able to afford an out-of-state abortion.”

2. Illegal Abortions

Women intent on terminating their pregnancies but unable

to afford out-of-state abortions will be forced to back-alley abor-

tionists or to attempt self-abortion. Although the risk of death

from legal abortion is never higher than the risk of death from

childbirth, the mortality rate for illegal abortion is much higher

than that for legal abortion.” The mortality ratio for legal abor-

tions in 1981 was .4 deaths per 100,000 abortions and for child-

birth was 7.2 per 100,000 births; the ratio for illegal abortion

has been estimated to reach or exceed 1,000 deaths per 100,000

illegal abortions.”

* Almost 50% of women who obtained abortions after 16 weeks of preg

nancy attributed their delay to difficulty in making arrangements. the major

problem being raising the momev meeded Aida Torres & Jacqueline Darroch

Forrest, Why Do Women Have Abortions? 2) Fam. Plan. Persp. 169, 174

(1988)

“ Id. at 174-75. See infra note SB

™ The farther 2 woman has to travel for an wbortvon. the less likely she is to

obtain one Black women. and espewially Black teenagers. are least able to

surmount the barners imposed by travel requirements james D Shelton et

al. Abortion Utilization. Does Travel Distance Matter 8 Fam Plan Persp

260, 262 (1976)

” Tietze, supra note 29. at 109-10

" id at LL) (estimate for illegal abortions performed internationally) In

Romana. after restnctive aborbon legsistion was adopted in 1966. the numbe:

of deaths attributed to illegal abortion increased almost three-fold betwee:

1966 and 1968. in 197] there were more than four times as mam deaths a

in 1966 Institute of Medicine. Legalized Abortion and the Public Health 44

(1975) In 1980, 84% of maternal deaths in Romania were due to illegal abor

tion Beal van den Berg & Chin Long Chiang. Maternal Mortality and Dy/

ferentiation By Cause of Death 239. 250 (1986)

In the United States, “the number of reported deaths from [il-

legal or self-induced] abortions declined steadily as less restric-

tive abortion legislation was passed and implemented throughout

the country.”™ Before the legalization of abortion, twenty per-

cent of all deaths related to childbirth and pregnancy occurred

because of illegal abortion,” and complications from illegal abor-

tion were a major cause of hospital admission.” Just as was the

case before abortion was legalized, it is likely that women of color

will die or suffer health complications from illegal abortions at

a disproportionate rate.”

Some women not able to obtain an out-of-state abortion will

attempt self-abortion. Literature discussing illegal abortion op-

tions for women commonly cite examples of women dying from

attempts to self-abort using coat hangers or ingesting poisons.”

* Institute of Medicine. supra note 34, at 85. Legalization of abortion significant.

lv reduced abortion-related deaths and illness. Studies in California and New

York showed that criminal abortion was the leading cause of deaths related to

pregnancy. the most common victims were marned women with several children

who attempted to self-abort. Harvey L. Ziff, Recent Abortion Law Reforms

(Or Much Ado About Nothing), 60 |. Crim. L. and Criminology and Police

Sei. 13 (1969).

* Willard Cates, Jr. Legal Abortion: The Public Health Record, 215 Sci. 1586

(1982)

” Gold. supre note 27, at 6

* More than two-thirds of women who died from illegal abortions between

1972 and 1974 were women of color. the mortality rate from illegal abortions

for nonwhite women was 12 times the rate for white women. Jd. at 5

* See Nancy Bonken et al. Illegal Abortion Deaths in the United States Why

Are They Still Occwrring?, 14 Fam. Plan. Persp. 163, 164 (1982) (methods in-

cluded intrautenne inserbon of coat hangers. glass thermometers or meta! ob-

\ects. installabon of cleanung solutions into the uterine cavity). Cynthia Gorney

Abortion wm the Heartland. Wash Post. Oct. 2. 1990 at 13 (Health, A Weekly

| of Med. Se and Soc'y) (before legalization, a New York City woman tried

t unduee her aborbon by eating rat powon that irreversibly destroved al! her

orgar evttems “She dad abort” the phvecian attending her at the time recalled.

ug tetor she deed” Barbara Brotmarn. Servet Abornon Croup of Gla Prepares

tor Return Che Teh Aug 28 1989. at | Following the passage of the Hyde

Amenamen Mecicasd eugbie women unabie to afford aborvons smuar!y lost

‘Footnote continued

3. Carrying To Term

Women forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term will face

a higher risk of death or pregnancy-related complications than

those able to obtain legal abortions.“ The risk of incurring ma-

jor surgery as a result of carrying a pregnancy to term is almost

100 times the risk of surgery due to a legal abortion.“ Many

them more likely to experience complications giving birth.”

Pregnancy can seriously endanger a woman's health by exacer-

batumg medical conditions such as lupus, multiple sclerosis,

asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure and AIDS.“ The risk of

complications is stil] greater when the pregnancy is unwanted.“

Women with unwanted pregnancies are also less likely to

receive early prenatal care. In a 1988 study, 73 percent of wanted

births received first-trimester prenatal care, whereas only half

ice nen meeting t alicia, In Georgia, a

Mecbcaid-eligible wornan 12 previous to

induce her abortion with a glass thermometer Po a am

efforts, she died of a pulmonary embolism following a hysterectomy In Ohio.

4 pregnant teenage mother shot herself in the stomach, reportedly after being

demed an abortion by « public hospital because she lacked $600 in cash James

Trussell et al.. Jmpact of Restricting Medicaid Financing for Abortion, 12 Fam.

Plan. Persp. 120, 129 (1980).

* Susan Harlap eval. Alan Guttmacher Institute, Preventing Pregnancy. Protect-

ing Health: A New |.ook at Birth Control Choices in the United States 96 (1991).

see Tietze, supra note 29, at 110.

“ Cates, supra note 36, at 1587. Nearly 25% of term births occur by caesarean

section, a major surgical! procedure that subjects women to substantial nsks to

life and health. whereas 07% of first trimester aborbons entail intra-abdominal

operations, and second trimester abortions lead to major surgery in only | to

2% of cases. Id.; Placet & Taffel, Recent Patterns in Caesarean Delivery in

the United States, 5 Obstet. Gynec. Clin. N.A. 607 (1988).

* Gold, supra note 27, at 36.

* See |. Pritchard et al. Williams Obstetrics 597, 600, G09, 619-20 (17th ed. 1985).

~ Cates, supra note 36, at 1587 (women with unwanted pregnancies have higher

postpartum infecton and hemorrhage rates than women with favorable attitudes

toward their pregnancies)

i a an

of all unwanted births received such care. Numerous studies show

that women receiving prenatal care have better birth outcomes,

including fewer low birth weight babies, than women receiving

no care.“ It is likely that infant mortality rates and low birth

weight will increase in those states that re-criminalize abortion,

resulting in an increased need for neonatal intensive care, and

higher hospital costs. Because on average they have less money

and poorer health,” women of color will be less able than other

women to obtain legal abortions, more frequently required to

carry unintended pregnancies to term, and thus subject to the

greatest health risks for themselves and their infants.“

The implications of forcing teenagers to bear children are par-

ticularly disturbing. Of more than one million pregnancies to

teenagers every year, eighty-four percent are unintended. The

half who carry their pregnancies to term face detrimental health,

social and economic consequences.“

“ Elsie R. Pamuk & W.D. Mosner, National Center for Health Statistics 11

(1988). Prenatal care during the first trimester is important because it is at

that stage that counseling about nutrition, smoking, and alcohol and drug

consumption during pregnancy can make the greatest difference. The first

trimester is also the best stage to identify medical conditions that may com-

plicate pregnancy or endanger the woman's health. /d.

“ Id., Alan Guttmacher Institute, Teenage Pregnancy: The Problem that Hasn't

Gone Away 29 (1981) [hereinafter ACI, Teenage Pregnancy|. Low birth weight

is a major cause of infant mortality and a host of serious childhood illnesses.

birth injuries and neurological defects, including mental retardation. /d After

legalization of abortion in New York State, infant mortality rates declined to

record lows. Jean Pakter et al., Two Years Experience in New York City With

the Liberalized Abortion Law — Progress and Problems, 63 Am. J. Pub. Health

524 (1973).

“ See Gold, supra note 27, at 32.

“ See, e.g., AGI, Teenage Pregnancy, supra note 46, at 29 (health risks of

pregnancy, maternal mortality and other complications of giving birth are

Black infants are higher than among whites).

“ Elizabeth Armstrong, Center for Population Options, Teenage Pregnancy

and Too-Early Childbearing: Public Costs, Personal Consequences 2, 26, 29

(Sth ed. 1990).

Adolescents aged 15 to 19 are more than 24 times more likely

to die from childbirth than from an early legal abortion.” Dur-

ing pregnancy, teenagers are at a much higher risk of suffering

from serious medical complications, including anemia,

pregnancy-induced hypertension (toxemia), cervical trauma and

premature delivery, than older women. For those under 15 years,

the maternal mortality rate is 60 percent greater than it is for

women in their twenties."

Children born to teenage mothers are nearly twice as likely

to die in their first year of life as those born to mothers in their

twenties.” Teenage mothers are more likely than teenagers who

delay childbearing to have low-status, low-paying jobs or to be

unemployed. Children of teen parents are also more likely to

continue the cycle of poverty and early childbearing and to

become teen parents themselves.”

* Rebecca Stone, Center for Population Options, Adolescents and Abortion,

Choice In Crisis 7 (1990).

“ Armstrong, supra note 49, at 27. Medical complications frequently arise from

late or no prenatal care in teenage pregnancy. Carolyn Mackinson, Health

Consequences of Teenage Fertility, 17 Fam. Plan. Persp. 132, 134 (1985). In

1978, two-thirds of mothers under 15, and half of mothers aged 15-17, received

no prenatal care during the first three months of pregnancy, compared to 85%

of older women. AGI, Teenage Pregnancy, supra note 46, at 59. One-fifth

of those under 15 and one-eighth of those 15-17 received no prenatal care un-

til the last trimester of pregnancy. Mothers aged 15 and younger are twice

as likely as those aged 20-24 to have low birth weight babies. Among all teenage

mothers, the risk of having low birth weight babies is 39% higher than for

those aged 20-24. Id. at 29.

" AGI, Teenage Pregnancy, supra note 46, at 27.

“ Id. at 30. A national study that controlled for race, socioeconomic status.

academic achievement, and educational expectations found that mothers who

had given birth before they were 18 were only half as likely to graduate from

high school as those who postponed childbearing until after age 20 Id

“Id. at 35. In 1975, about half of the $9.4 billion invested in the federal Aid

to Families with Dependent Children programs went to families in which the

mother had given birth as @ teenager. Id. at 32.

B. States Where Abortion Remains Legal Can Expect An

Influx Of Non-residents, Overburdening Abortion Pro-

viders In Those States And Displacing Resident Women

From Securing Timely Abortion Services

Restriction of abortion services in a state will cause women who

can muster the resources to flee to states that continue to sateguard

a woman's right to choose. The increased demand for abortion

services in states that permit abortions will impose additional

burdens on the health care systems and residents of those states.

New York State, for example, was flooded with non-resident

women seeking abortion services after July 1, 1970, when it per-

mitted abortions for consenting women less than 24 weeks preg-

nant. In New York City, from July 1970 to June 1972, 65.7 per-

cent of abortions were provided to non-residents.“ Throughout

New York State, 61 percent of those obtaining abortions in 197]

and 1972 were non-residents.” After Roe, the proportion dropped

precipitately; by 1979 non-resident women obtained only about

7 percent of all abortions in New York State.’ The experiences

of other states demonstrate that the events in New York were not

aberrant.”

* Pakter, supra note 46, at 524.

“ Robert P- Whalen, New York State Department of Health, Report of Selected

Characteristics of Induced Terminations of Pregnancy Recorded in New York

State, January - December 1975 with Five Year Summary 37 (Table 27).

*" AGI, Safe and Legal, supra note 26, at 9.

* An exodus of minors to other states occurred in 1981] after Massachusetts passed

a parental consent law. At least 1,800 more Massachusetts minors traveled to

five surrounding states without parental consent laws during the 20 months

after enactment than had done so previously. Virginia G. Cartoof & Lorraine

V. Klerman, Parental Consent for Abortion: Impact of the Massachusetts Law,

76 Am. J. Pub. Health 397, 398 (1986). Nevertheless, Massachusetts minors con-

tinued to conceive, abort, and give birth in the same proportions as before the

law was implemented. /d. at 400. After Rhode Island passed its parental con-

sent law in 1982, 49% of minors who contacted clinics in their state obtained

abortions out of state. Stone, supra note 50, at 13. In 1988, three years after

Missouri began enforcing its parental consent law, there were 300 fewer teenage

abortions performed in the state, and almost half that number of teenagers went

to Kansas for abortions. Missouri Dept. of Health, Missouri Monthly Vital

Statistics (Jan. 1990).

The increased numbers of non-resident women seeking abor-

tions or related medical services in states where abortion remains

legal will strain already overburdened health care systems. Many

non-resident women will be delayed in obtaining abortions due

to their inability to obtain proper counseling in their home states

or a lack of resources.” As a result, abortion providers will be

faced with an increased number of late, more complicated and

more dangerous abortions, which tend to result in more frequent

hospitalizations.” It is likely that women who must travel to states

where abortion remains legal will compete with and displace a

number of residents of the states who also must be hospitalized.

This Court's failure to protect the right to choose abortion will

also increase the barriers to legal abortion that exist for resident

women by exacerbating the scarcity of physicians able and will-

ing to perform them. Many physicians able to provide abortion

services do not do so because they and their families will be

harassed by anti-abortion groups." If this Court were to permit

“ Non-residents obtaining abortions in New York, for example, have been more

likely to obtain abortions after twelve weeks than New Yorkers. AGI, Safe and

Legal, supra note 26, at 19. Inability to locate a provider and make ar-

rangements to obtain an abortion are significant factors le#ng to delay. Torres,

supra note 30, at 174-75. Delay also increases costs, thereby resulting in even

further delay. AGI, Safe and Legal, supra note 26, at 14; see also Stanley K.

Henshaw et al., Abortion Services in the United States, 1981-1982, 16 Fam.

Plan. Persp. 119, 126 (1984) (abortion fees are significantly higher for pregnan-

cies past 12 to 14 weeks); Stanley K. Henshaw et al., Abortion Services in the

United States, 1984 and 1985, 19 Fam. Plan. Persp. 63, 69 (1987).

” See generally J. Wilson et al., Obstetrics and Gynecology 207 (8th ed. 1987);

David A. Grimes, Second Trimester Abortions in the United States, 16 Fam.

Plan. Persp. 260, 263 (1984) (the risk of death from abortions performed at

16 or more weeks is 24 times greater than from abortions performed at 8 weeks

or earlier). This Court has recognized that “time, of course, is critical in abor-

tion.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 198 (1973); see also Akron, 462 U.S. at 450-51.

“ National Abortion Federation, American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, Who Will Provide Abortions? Ensuring the Availability of

Qualified Practitioners 8 (1990) [hereinafter NAF, ACOG). One doctor who

has had rocks thrown through the windows of his clinic and shots fired through

the waiting room walls characterizes his practice as “working in a war zone.”

Mimi Hall, Legal Abortions Tougher To Get, USA Today, May 1, 1991, at 7A.

Other harassment includes the use of picketers at physicians’ homes who

(Footnote continued)

states to enforce laws criminalizing abortion, anti-abortion harass-

ment will concentrate on states where abortion services remain

legal. That will serve further to discourage physicians from pro-

viding such services. At the same time, abortion training oppor-

tunities in residencies for obstetrics and gynecology are declin-

ing.” Although rural areas have been particularly affected by the

scarcity of physicians who perform abortions,” the shortage also

impairs access to abortion services in cities.”

A certain result of the heightened demand for abortion ser-

vices in states where abortion remains legal will be an increase

in illegal, health-endangering practices. Although abortion has

been legal in this country for almost twenty years, illegal abor-

tion mills continue to exist for a certain population of women.”

A dwindling in the number of legitimate physicians who per-

form abortions, together with an increased demand for their ser-

vices from out-of-state women, will likely result in a prolifera-

tion of abortion mills.” The inaccessibility of legal abortion will

force resident women, especially those who are poor, non-English

speaking, least educated, and least able to navigate bureaucracies,

distribute pictures of aborted fetuses, and physicians’ children being told at

school that their parents kill babies. Gorney, supra note 39, at 15.

® Philip D. Darney et al., Abortion Training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology

Residency Programs, 19 Fam. Plan. Persp. 158, 161 (1987) (the proportion of

programs offering training declined 22% from 1976 to 1985); NAF, ACOG,

supra, note 61, at 8.

South Dakota, have only one abortion provider. /d.

“ NAF, ACOG, supra note 61, at 4.

* In 1978, investigations in Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York un-

covered illegal clinics! practices where “abortion” procedures were performed

on non-pregnant women, operations were performed by unlicensed person.

nel, and facilities operated without licenses. Cates, supra note 36, at 1588-89.

Women of color vastly outnumber white women among those who die as a

result of illegal abortions. Between 1975 and 1979, 82% of the women who

died following illegal abortions were Black and Hispanic. Binken, supra note

39, at 166.

* See infra text accompanying note 80.

to utilize abortion mills.” Although many women will be attracted

to such abortionists because of the promise of short-term savings,

they and society will pay considerably more in the long term for

the illegal services they are forced to obtain.

Ill. THIS COURTS FAILURE TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO

CHOOSE ABORTION AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WILL

UNDERMINE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS

If this Court should eviscerate a woman's fundamental constitu-

tional right to make decisions about childbearing, a patchwork

of inconsistent state laws will replace the uniform system of laws

now in place. Experience demonstrates that laws criminalizing

abortion are unenforceable. Readopting them will breed cynicism

toward institutions of government and engender contempt for law

enforcement efforts. At the same time, new burdens will be imposed

on law enforcement authorities, diverting their limited resources

from the apprehension and prosecution of other criminals.

History teaches that citizens will engage in wide-scale disregard

of laws that prohibit abortion.” During the 1960's, between 300,000

and a million criminal abortions were performed each year in the

United States,” but an arrest was made at most in one case in

a thousand,” and conviction rates were extraordinarily low.” The

* See Robert D. McFadden, Abortion Mills Thriving Behind Secrecy and Fear,

N.Y. Times, Nov. 24, 1991, at Al (reporting the case of a 29-year-old Dominican

woman who went to a doctor whose name she obtained from a Spanish language

newspaper, largely because of his low fee; an incomplete abortion resulted and

four days later she was hospitalized with a high fever and parts of the fetus

that remained in her uterus had to be removed).

“ Ziff, supra note 35, at 5; Kenneth R. Niswander, Medical Abortion Practices

in the United States in Abortion and the Law 37 (Smith ed. 1967).

Ks Ziff, supra note 35, at 5; Harold Rosen, Psychiatric Implications of Abor-

- A Case Study in Social Hypocrisy in Abortion and the Law 72, 90 (Smith

. 1967).

” Task Force Report, supra note 27, at 105; Ziff, supra note 35, at 8 (“The abor-

tion statutes have been as unsuccessful in prohibiting abortions as the eighteenth

amendment was in eradicating drinking”).

" John Kaplan, Abortion as a Vice Crime; A “What If” Story, 51 Law & Con-

temp. Probs. 151, 165-67 (1988); Ziff, supra note 35, at 8.

" A ;

sheer number of illegal abortions, the ambiguity of out-dated

statutes, difficulties of proof, widespread opposition to the law,

and the absence of complainants made prosecutions of those who

violated anti-abortion laws the exception rather than the rule.”

A principal reason for the failure of enforcement efforts was

the vagueness of the “justifiable abortion” exceptions to laws

criminalizing abortion.” When prosecutors, physicians and

women can discern in such provisions little to guide their con-

duct, inconsistency results.” For example, when thirteen states

adopted the identical provisions of the Model Abortion Code,”

the rates of legal abortion for women aged 15 to 44 varied mar-

kedly — from 1.5 percent in South Carolina to 26.7 percent in

New Mexico.” If this Court restores to states the pre-Roe

” Kaplan, supra note 71, at 165-67; Ziff, supra note 35, at 8. See also Applica-

tion of Grand Jury, 143 N.Y.S.2d 501 (App. Div. 1955) (court rejected efforts

of the Brooklyn District Attorney, who surmised that “doctors have been repor-

ting only a small percentage of the cases in which the abortion or miscar-

riage has been induced by ‘criminal practice’”, to subpoena all hospital records

for persons treated for abortion or miscarriage (other than therapeutic) at

Kings County Medical Center in New York).

” See, e.g., People v. Barksdale, 503 P.2d 257, 263-66 (Ca. 1969) (that portion

of California statute which justified abortion where “continuation of pregnancy

would gravely impair” mother's health was void for vagueness, and language

establishing medical criteria failed to provide due process). See also People

v. Belous, 458 P.2d 194 (Ca. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 915 (1970).

" See Niswander, supra note 68, at 56 (citing study where 1] hypothetical cases,

considered typical applications for therapeutic abortion, were submitted in

a survey to 29 hospitals. In response to those applications clearly failing to

meet the statutory provisions for therapeutic abortion, 59% of the hospitals

participating in the survey would have agreed to abort).

”™ Model Penal Code § 230.3 (Proposed Official Draft 1962) (“A licensed physi-

cian is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes there is substantia!

risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impai: the physical or

mental health of the mother or that the child would be born with grave physical

or mental defect, or that the pregnancy resulted from rape. incest or other

felonious intercourse”).

™ Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Dep't of Health, Educ. and Welfare, Abor-

tion Surveillance, Annual Summary 1972 (April, 1974) (Table 22); Institute

of Medicine, supra note 34, at 28.

authority to prohibit abortion, states that criminalize abortions

will adopt different exceptions with varying degrees of vagueness.”

As a consequence, inconsistent applications will abound within

and among states, leading to selective prosecutions, inconsistent

jury verdicts and an impairment of amici’s efforts to foster uniform

law enforcement.”

A return of abortion to criminal status in some states wil] result

in even more prevalent flouting of the law than existed two decades

ago. Women will turn to sympathetic physicians, or worse, to

criminal enterprises, such as abortion rings. A reversal of Roe will

not deter abortion; it will instead transform millions of law-abiding

women and physicians into criminals. Furthermore, as before Roe,

women with financial resources will travel to other states or coun-

tries to circumvent the restrictions in their home states, leaving

only those of limited means to face criminal prosecutions.

Avoidance of restrictions by the affluent will breed cynicism about

the law among those less fortunate, and have a corrosive effect

on institutions of self-government.

In states that recriminalize abortion, the reallocation of resources

necessary to enforce such laws will divert the resources of the police

” Existing statutes indicate some of the possible variations and difficulties of

interpretation. See, ¢.g., Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-302(3) (Supp. 1991) (post-

viability abortion prohibited unless necessary to save the woman's life or to pre-

vent grave damage to her medical health); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-1-58.5-2(3)(c)

(West 1986) (post-viability abortion prohibited unless “necessary to prevent a

substantial permanent impairment of the life or physical health” of the mother);

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-101 (1986 & Supp. 1990) (enacted 1963) (abortion pro-

hibited unless hospital board certifies that continuation of pregnancy is likely

to result in the woman's death or “serious permanent impairment” of the mother's

physical or mental health); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3211 (Supp. 1991) (abortion

after 24 weeks prohibited unless necessary to preserve the womans life or to

“prevent a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function”).

” A retreat from Roe v. Wade would create particularly serious problems for

law enforcement in states that have abortion statutes stil! in place that are ur.

constitutional under the principles of Roe. In Maryland, for example, the law

repealing Maryland's pre-Roe restrictive statutes, 199] Md. Laws, ch.l, has been

petitioned to referendum. If Roe is overruled, Maryland's repealed pre-Roe

statutes will be effective at least until the Maryland General Assembly re-repeals

them as an emergency measure or until at least 30 days after the vote on the

referendum in November. Md. Const. art. XVI, §2: 74 Op. Att'y Gen. No.

89-045, at 271-72 (Md. Nov. 30, 1989).

from protecting the public from other crimes, and cause a “loss

of morale and self-esteem among police who are obligated to

engage in tasks which must seem to them demeaning or degrading

or of little relevance to the mission of law enforcement.”” Even

in those states that continue to permit abortion, officials will be

pressed to deal with a growing number of illegal abortion pro-

viders, The attraction of quick profits inevitably will cause some

unscrupulous abortion practitioners to emerge; preying on those

desperate for an affordable abortion, they will use advertisements

in newspapers and in phone books to lure women into unsafe

and illegal settings. Even where abortion remains legal, state con-

sumer protection agencies will need to step up enforcement of

deceptive advertising laws against those who would make

fraudulent promises.”

In states where abortion remains legal, law enforcement

authorities will also face an increase in illegal anti-abortion ac-

tivities. Some zealots, such as those in Operation Rescue, have

undertaken a national campaign of lawlessness aimed at abor-

tion providers.” See N.O.W. v. Operation Rescue, 914 F.2d 582

” Task Force Report, supra note 27, at 107. See also Leslie J. Reagan, About

to Meet Her Maker: Women, Doctors, Dying Declarations, and the Stoie’s

Investigation of Abortion, Chicago, 1867-1940, |. of Am. Hist. 1240 (March

1991) (describing efforts of law enforcement officials and some medica! per-

sonnel to force women who were dying from abortion-related complications

to provide the name of the person who performed the abortion because such

statements were admissable at trial as dying declarations). Police also frequently

used female decoys to gain incriminating evidence against illegal abortionists.

See, e.g., People v. Miller, 45 N.Y.S.2d 789 (App. Div. 1944).

” Ziff, supra note 35, at 5-6 (describing the operation of illegal abortion “mills”

and “rings” in New York); Kaplan, supra note 71, at 163-65; Task Force Report,

supra note 66, at 105 (describing a “black market” of abortions).

“ The New York Attorney General, for example, has vigorously prosecuted

clinics that advertise as providing “abortion services” but only provide anti-

abortion counseling. See, e.g., State v. Evergreen Assoc., No. 41237/87 (N.Y.

Sup. Ct. judgment entered 1987); State v. Mother and Unborn Baby Love,

Inc., No. 412721/87 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. judgment entered 1987); State v. Mother

and Child Services, Inc., No. 41236/87 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. judgment entered 1987).

“ Oversight Hearings on Abortion Clinic Violence, Subcomm. on Civil and

Constitutional Rights, House Comm. on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., Ist & 2nd

Sess. (1985) [hereinafter Oversight Hearings).

(4th Cir. 1990), cert. granted, sub. nom. Bray v. Alexandria

Women’s Health Clinic, 111 S.Ct. 1070 (1991). Federal and state

courts have enjoined their activities under civil rights, trespass

and public nuisance laws, but the campaign persists.” Some

states and cities have been forced to commence their own in-

junctive actions”; other jurisdictions have passed legislation to

secure access to health facilities blocked by anti-abortion op-

ponents.”

Those states will need to commit even greater enforcement

resources to ensure that their citizens continue to have access

to lawful medical services.” It is estimated that forty-seven per-

cent of the nation’s abortion providers experienced some form

of anti-abortion harassment in 1985.” Nineteen percent of abor-

tion clinics reported death threats against their staffs, and forty-

eight percent reported bomb threats.” If Roe v. Wade is over-

ruled, it is virtually certain that illegal anti-abortion activity

will increase in states where abortion remains legal.

® See State v. Horn, 407 N.W.2d 854 (Wis. 1987); State v. Scholberg, 412 N.W.2d

339 (Minn. 1987); Ingram v. Problem Pregnancy of Worcester, Inc., 486 N.E.2d

408 (Mass. 1986); Hoffart v. State, 686 S.\W.2d 259 (Tex. 1985), cert. denied.

479 U.S. 824 (1986). See also Bering v. Share, 721 P-2d 918 (Wash. 1986), cert.

dismissed, 479 U.S. 1050 (1987). See also Note. Too Close for Comfort: Pro-

testing Outside Medical Facilities, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1856 (1988) [hereinafter

Too Close For Comfort).

“ Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Operation Rescue, No.

89-2487-F, 1991 WL 214047 (Mass. Super. 1991) (sustaining state's standing

as plaintiff); New York State N.O.W. v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1349 (2d Cir.

1989) (granting City of New York's motion to intervene), cert. denied. 110 S.Ct.

2206 (1990).

“ States with laws protecting access to medical facilities include Maryland,

Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin. See NARAL Foundation/NARAL. Who

Decides? A State-By-State Review of Abortion Rights, 52, 77, 101, 136 (1991).

See also Too Close For Comfort, supra note 83, at 1857-59 (describing ordinance

adopted by Boulder, Colorado).

“ Oversight Hearings, supra note 82.

* Jacqueline Forrest & Stanley K. Henshaw, The Harassment of U.S. Abor-

tion Providers, 19 Fam. Plan. Persp. 9, 13 (1987).

“ Id. at 10.

In sum, this Court's failure to protect a fundamental right to

choose abortion and to apply strict scrutiny to abortion regula-

tions will undermine amici’s interest in uniform, effective law

enforcement, diminish the states’ ability to maintain public con-

fidence in the law and divert resources and attention from the

prosecution of other criminal conduct.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, amici respectfully request this Court

to continue to protect a woman’s decision whether or not to bear

a child as a fundamental constitutional right and to apply strict

scrutiny to state regulation of abortion under the uniform

guidelines of Roe v. Wade.

JOHN MCKERNAN ROBERT ABRAMS

Governor of the State Attorney General of the

of Maine State of New York

120 Broadway

DEREK LANGHAUSER New York, New York 10271

Chief Counsel (212) 341-2250

Office of the Governor

State House Station # | JERRY BOONE

Augusta, Maine 04333 Solicitor General

(207) 289-3531

MARY ELLEN BURNS

Chief Assistant

Attorney General

SANFORD M. COHEN*

Assistant Attorney General

In Charge

Civil Rights Bureau

DONNA I. DENNIS

MARJORIE FUJIKI

SHELLEY B. MAYER

Assistant Attorneys General

(*Counsel of Record)

APPENDIX

A-l

APPENDIX

The following amici, including 13 Governors, 12 Lieutenant

Governors, 16 Attorneys General, 995 State Legislators and the

Mayor and Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia,

submit this brief on behalf of petitioners.

ALABAMA

State Representative Demetrius C. Newton

ALASKA

State Senator Virginia M. Collins

State Senator Drue Pearce

State Senator Pat Pourchot

State Senator Patrick M. Rodey

State Senator Arliss Sturgulewski

Speaker of the House Ben F. Grussendorf

State Representative Mark Boyer

State Representative Kay Brown

State Representative Betty Bruckman

State Representative Shirley Craft

State Representative Bettye Davis

State Representative Dave Donley

State Representative Johnny Ellis

State Representative David Finkelstein

State Representative Max F. Gruenberg, Jr.

State Representative Niilo Koponen

State Representative Eugene Kubina

State Representative Georgianna Lincoln

State Representative Tom Moyer

State Representative Mike Navarre

State Representative Fran Ulmer

ARIZONA

State Senator Lela Alston

State Senator Gus Arzberger

A-2

State Senator Chuck Blanchard

State Senator John Dougherty

State Senator Karan English

State Senator Stan Furman

State Senator John Greene

State Senator Jaime P. Gutierrez

State Senator Nancy Hill

State Senator Cindy Resnick

State Senator Carol Springer

Senate Minority Leader Alan J. Stephens

State Representative Linda Beezley

State Representative George Brooks

State Representative Carmen F. Cajero

State Representative Chris Cummiskey

State Representative Catherine Eden

State Representative Ruth E. Eskesen

State Representative Susan Gerard

State Representative Peter Goudinoff

State Representative Sue Grace

State Representative Lisa Graham

State Representative Herb Guenther

State Representative Benjamin Hanley

State Representative Bev Hermon

State Representative Roger Hooper

State Representative Herschella Horton

State Representative Phillip Hubbard

State Representative Jack B. Jewett

State Representative Sandra Kennedy

State Representative John Kromko

State Representative Jo Eddie Lopez

State Representative Patricia Noland

State Representative Ruben F. Ortega

State Representative Mike Palmer

State Representative Marion Pickens

State Representative Eleanor Schorr

State Representative Ruth Solornon

A-3

ARKANSAS

Governor Bill Clinton

State Senator Jay Bradford

State Representative Jim Argue, Jr.

State Representative Myra Jones

CALIFORNIA

Lieutenant Governor Leo T. McCarthy

State Senator Alfred E. Alquist

State Senator Leroy F. Greene

State Senator Gary K. Hart

State Senator Patrick Johnston

Senate Majority Leader Barry Keene

State Senator Lucy Killea

State Senator Bill Lockyer

State Senator Milton Marks

State Senator Dan McCorquodale

State Senator Becky Morgan

State Senator Nicholas C. Petris

State Senator Herschel Rosenthal

State Senator Mike Thompson

State Senator Art Torres

State Senator Diane Watson

Speaker of the Assembly Willie L. Brown, Jr.

State Assemblywoman Dierdre Alpert

State Assemblywoman Marguerite Archie-Hudson

State Assemblyman Rusty Areias

State Assemblyman Tom Bane

State Assemblyman Tom Bates

State Assemblyman Xavier Becerra

State Assemblyman Bruce Bronzan

State Assemblyman John L. Burton

State Assemblyman Robert Campbell

State Assemblyman Sal Cannella

A-4

State Assemblyman Jim Costa

State Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin

State Assemblyman Dave Elder

State Assemblyman Sam Farr

State Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd

State Assemblyman Terry Friedman

State Assemblywoman Barbara Friedman

State Assemblyman Mike Gotch

Assembly Majority Leader Thomas M. Hannigan

State Assemblyman Dan Hauser

State Assemblyman Tom Hayden

State Assemblywoman Teresa P. Hughes

State Assemblywoman Tricia Hunter

State Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg

State Assemblyman Richard Katz

State Assemblyman Johan Klehs

State Assemblywoman Barbara Lee

State Assemblyman Ted Lempert

State Assemblyman Burt M. Margolin

State Assemblywoman Gwen Moore

State Assemblyman Willard Murray Jr.

State Assernblyman Jack O'Connell

State Assemblyman J. Stephen Peace

State Assemblyman Richard Polanco

State Assemblyman Charles Quackenbush

State Assemblywoman Lucille Roybal-Allard

State Assemblywoman Jackie Speier

State Assemblyman Curtis R. Tucker

State Assemblyman Tom Umberg

COLORADO

Governor Roy Romer

Lieutenant Governor C. Michael Callihan

State Senator Bonnie Allison

State Senator Donald J. Mares

State Senator Jana Wells Mendez

State Senator Ray E. Peterson

State Senator Dottie Wham

A-5

State Representative Celina Benavidez

State Representative Ken Chlouber

State Representative Lewis Entz

State Representative Renny Fagan

State Representative Faye Fleming

State Representative Daphne Greenwood

State Representative Tony Hernandez

State Representative Matt Jones

State Representative Peggy Kerus

State Representative Wayne N. Knox

State Representative Gerald Kopel

State Representative Michelle Lawrence

State Representative Dorothy Rupert

House Minority Leader Ruth Wright

CONNECTICUT

Governor Lowell Weicker

Lieutenant Governor Eunice Groark

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

Senate President Pro Tem John Barry Larson

State Senator Charles Allen III

State Senator W. Aniskovich

State Senator Lawrence Bettencourt

State Senator M. Adela Eads

State Senator Judith G. Freedman

State Senator George L. Gunther

State Senator Gary A. Hale

State Senator George C. Jepsen

State Senator Cynthia A. Matthews

State Senator William H. Nickerson

Senate Majority Leader Cornelius P. O'Leary

State Senator Lee Scarpetti

State Senator Kevin B. Sullivan

State Representative Joseph A. Adamo

State Representative George P. Avitabile

State Representative Reginald G. Beamon

State Representative Sally Bolster

A-6

State Representative Naomi K. Cohen

State Representative Joseph D. Courtney

State Representative Jefferson Davis

State Representative Doreen M. DelBianco

State Representative William R. Dyson

State Representative Juan Figueroa

House Majority Leader Robert F. Frankel

State Representative Josephine S. Fuchs

State Representative Margaret S. Gill

State Representative Robert Godfrey

State Representative Joseph Grabarz

State Representative Norma Gyle

State Representative Barbara M. Ireland

State Representative Alex A. Knopp

State Representative Geri W. Langlois

State Representative David Lavine

State Representative Michael P. Lawlor

State Representative Gary Le Beau

State Representative Peter M. Lerner

State Representative Janet K. Lockton

State Representative Vincent Loffredo

State Representative John G. Metsopoulos

State Representative Douglas C. Mintz

State Representative Paul Munns

State Representative Edna Negron

State Representative Ernest Newton II

State Representative James O'Rourke

State Representative Jonathan W. Pelto

State Representative Janet Polinsky

State Representative Janet Poss

State Representative David Pudlin

State Representative Miles Rapoport

State Representative Lee A. Samowitz

State Representative Americo Santiago

State Representative Pete Smith

State Representative Lydia Stevens

State Representative Irving J. Stolberg

State Representative Jessie Stratton

State Representative Lynn H. Taborsak

State Representative Craig P. Taylor

A-7

State Representative David O. Thorp

State Representative John S. Tiffany, III

State Representative Elinor F. Wilber

State Representative Lenny Winkler

State Representative Nancy S. Wyman

DELAWARE

Attorney General Charles M. Oberly, III

Senate Minority Leader Myrna L. Bair

State Senator James P. Neal

State Representative Marybeth T. Boykin

State Representative Ada Leigh Soles

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly

Corporation Counsel John Payton

FLORIDA

Senate President Gwen Margolis

State Senator Helen Gordon Davis

State Senator Jack D. Gordon

State Senator Carrie P. Meek

State Senator Eleanor Weinstock

State Representative Elaine Bloom

State Representative Mary Brennan

State Representative Susan Guber

House Majority Leader Anne Mackenzie

State Representative Philip Mishkin

State Representative Steve Press

State Representative Frank Stone

GEONGIA

State Senator Arthur Langford, Jr.

State Senator Cathey Steinberg

A-8

State Representative Kathy B. Ashe

State Representative Tom Bordeaux

State Representative Tom Cauthorn

State Representative Grace W. Davis

State Representative John Hammond

State Representative Michele Henson

State Representative Glynda B. King

State Representative Jim Martin

State Representative Cynthia McKinney

State Representative James E. McKinney

State Representative Mary Margaret Oliver

State Representative Nancy Orrock

State Representative Dorothy B. Pelote

State Representative William C. Randall

State Representative Frank L. Redding, Jr.

State Representative Douglas Teper

State Representative Mable “Able” Thomas

State Representative Nadine Thomas

State Representative Kiliaen V.R. Townsend

State Representative Henrietta Turnquest

State Representative Rita Valenti

HAWAII

Governor John Waihee

Lieutenant Governor Benjamin J. Cayetano

Attorney General Warren Price, III

State Senator Steve Cobb

State Senator Andrew Levin

State Senator Mamoru Yamasaki

State Representative Annelle C. Amaral

State Representative Duke Bainum

State Representative Clarice Y. Hashimoto

State Representative Barbara Marumoto

State Representative Wayne Metcalf

State Representative Michael O’Kieffe

IDAHO

State Senator Ron Beitelspacher

A-9

State Senator Michael Blackbird

State Senator Karl Brooks

State Senator Terry A. Haun

State Senator Mary Lou Reed

State Senator Cynthia Scanlin

State Senator Sally Snodgrass

State Representative Barbara Chamberlin

State Representative Janet Jenkins

State Representative Pattie Nafziger

ILLINOIS

Attorney General Roland W. Burris

State Senator Arthur L. Berman

State Senator Howard W. Carroll

State Senator John Cullerton

State Senator Penny L. Severns

State Senator Ann Stepan

State Representative Clement Balanoff

State Representative Barbara Flynn Currie

State Representative Mary E. Flowers

State Representative Lovana “Lou” Jones

State Representative James M. Kirkland

State Representative Louis Lang

State Representative Robert LeFlore, Jr.

State Representative Ellis B. Levin

State Representative Gary Marinaro

State Representative David B. McAfee

State Representative Geoffrey S$. Obrzut

State Representative Lee S. Preston

State Representative Alfred G. Ronan

State Representative Michael Rotello

State Representative Helen Satterthwaite

State Representative Janice D. Schakowsky

State Representative Jeffrey Schoenberg .

State Representative Terry A. Steczo

State Representative Grace M. Stern

State Representative Donne E. Trotter

A-10

INDIANA

State Senator Betty Lawson

State Senator Louis J. Mahern

State Representative Brad Bayliff

State Representative M. Tracy Boatwright

State Representative Anita Bowser

State Representative Rolland L. Webber

IOWA

Lieutenant Governor Joy Corning

Attorney General Bonnie J. Campbell

State Senator Florence Buhr

State Senator Beverly A. Hannon

State Senator Jean Lloyd-Jones

State Senator Ralph Rosenberg

State Senator Elaine Szymoniak

Speaker of the House Robert C. Arnould

State Representative Linda L. Beatty

State Representative Eugene Blanshan

State Representative Philip E. Brammer

State Representative Joel Brown

State Representative Dorothy F. Carpenter

State Representative Kay Chapman

State Representative John H. Connors

State Representative Minnette Doderer

State Representative Robert E. Dvorsky

State Representative John Groninga

State Representative Josephine Gruhn

State Representative James F. Hahn

State Representative Johnie Hammond

State Representative Jack Hatch

State Representative Daniel J. Jay

State Representative Glen Jesse

State Representative Ray Lageschulte

State Representative Janet Metcalf

All

State Representative Mary C. Neuhauser

State Representative Joyce Nielsen

State Representative Mark Shearer

State Representative Don Shoultz

State Representative Jane Teaford

State Representative Philip Wise

KANSAS

State Senator Bill Morris

State Representative Nancy Brown

State Representative Arthur W. Douville

State Representative Kathleen Sebelius

State Representative Joan Wagnon

State Representative Gwen Welshimer

KENTUCKY

State Representative Thomas J. Burch

State Representative Susan Stokes

State Representative Mike Ward

LOUISIANA

State Senator Dennis Bagneris

State Senator Marc Morial

State Representative Melissa Flournoy

State Representative Suzanne Mayfield Krieger

MAINE

Governor John McKernan

Attorney General Michael E. Carpenter

State Senator John Baldacci

State Senator Stephen M. Bost

State Senator Joseph C. Brannigan

State Senator Beverly Minor Bustin

A-12

State Senator Pamela Lee Cahill

Senate Majority Leader Nancy Randall Clark

State Senator John Cleveland

State Senator Gerald Conley Jr.

State Senator Stephen C. Estes

State Senator Paul Gauvreau

State Senator Muriel D. Holloway

State Senator Dale McCormick

State Senator Bonnie L. Titcomb

State Representative Herbert C. Adams

State Representative Rose Aikman

State Representative Cushman D. Anthony

State Representative Priscilla Attean

State Representative Wendy L. Ault

State Representative Alvin Barth

State Representative Bradford Boutilier

State Representative Joseph Carleton

State Representative Donnell P. Carroll

State Representative Mary R. Cathcart

State Representative Margaret Pruitt Clark

State Representative James Reed Coles

State Representative Virginia Constantine

State Representative Constance D. Cote

State Representative Beverly C. Daggett

State Representative Susan E. Dore

State Representative Susan Dubay Duplessis

State Representative Phyllis R. Erwin

State Representative Susan Farnsworth

State Representative Donald Gean

State Representative Tracy Goodridge

State Representative Nason S. Graham

State Representative Glenith Gray

State Representative Christopher S. Gurney

House Majority Leader Dan A. Gwadosky

State Representative Mona Walker Hale

State Representative James R. Handy

State Representative Peter G. Hastings

State Representative Conrad Heeschen

State Representative Annette M. Hoglund

A-13

State Representative Maria Glen Holt

State Representative Ruth Joseph

State Representative Harriet Ketover

State Representative Marge L. Kilkelly

State Representative Carol Kontos

State Representative Leslie Kutasi, Jr.

State Representative Anne M. Larrivee

State Representative Sumner H. Lipman

State Representative Harold M. Macomber

State Representative B. Carolyne T. Mahany

State Representative Francis C. Marsano

House Majority Whip Joseph W. Mayo

State Representative Elden McKeen

State Representative John M. Michael

State Representative James B. Mitchell

State Representative Elizabeth Mitchell

State Representative Hugh Morrison

State Representative Guy R. Nadeau

State Representative John M. Nutting

State Representative John O’Dea

State Representative James V. Oliver

State Representative David Ott

State Representative Joan Pendexter

State Representative Peggy A. Pendleton

State Representative Sophia D. Pfeiffer

State Representative Basil Powers

State Representative Anne M. Rand

State Representative Fred Richardson

State Representative Charlene B. Rydell

State Representative Richard Simonds

State Representative Madonna Soctomah

State Representative Patricia Stevens

State Representative George A. Townsend

State Representative Richard H. C. Tracy

State Representative Sharon Anglin Treat

State Representative Jason Wentworth

MARYLAND

Lieutenant Governor Melvin A. Steinberg

A-14

Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

State Senator Barbara A. Hoffman

State Senator Paula C. Hollinger

State Senator Julian L. Lapides

State Senator Gloria G. Lawlah

State Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr.

State Senator Janice Piccinini

State Senator Ida G. Ruben

State Delegate Michael Arrington

State Delegate Rosa Lee Blumenthal

State Delegate Gerry L. Brewster

State Delegate James W Campbell

State Delegate Dana Lee Dembrow

State Delegate Peter Franchot

State Delegate Leslie Hutchinson

State Delegate Delores J. Kelley

State Delegate Nancy K. Kopp

State Delegate Pauline H. Menes

State Delegate Kenneth C. Montague, Jr.

State Delegate Anne Perkins

State Delegate Paul Pinsky

State Delegate Samuel I. Rosenberg

State Delegate Christopher Van Hollen, Jr.

MASSACHUSETTS

Governor William Weld 7

Lieutenant Governor Argeo Paul Cellucci

Attorney General L. Scott Harshburger

State Senator Michael J. Barrett

State Senator Bill Owens

State Senator Lois G. Pines

State Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg

State Senator Nancy Achin Sullivan

State Senator Jane Swift

State Representative John A. Businger

State Representative Paul E. Caron

State Representative Forrester A. Clark, Jr

A-15

State Representative Carol C. Cleven

State Representative David B. Cohen

State Representative Marc Draisen

State Representative Hasty Evans

State Representative Barbara Gardner

State Representative Mary Jane Gibson

State Representative Leonard Gonsalves

State Representative Barbara E. Gray

State Representative James Henry

State Representative Patricia Jehlen

State Representative Sally Kerans

State Representative David Lionett

State Representative J. James Marzilli

State Representative John E. McDonough

State Representative Nelson Merced

State Representative Mary Rogeness

State Representative Susan D. Schur

State Representative Warren Tolman

MICHIGAN

State Senator Jack Faxon

State Senator John F. Kelly

State Senator Lana Pollack

State Senator Debbie Stabenow

State Representative Lyn Bankes

State Representative Justine Barns

State Representative Maxine Berman

State Representative Mary C. Brown

State Representative Perry Bullard

State Representative Barbara Dobb

State Representative Agnes Dobronski

State Representative Jan Dolan

State Representative Robert L. Emerson

State Representative Sharon L. Gire

State Representative David M. Gubow

State Representative Charlie J. Harrison

State Representative David C. Hollister

State Representative Shirley Johnson

A-16

State Representative Lynn Jondahl

State Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick

State Representative Mickey Knight

State Representative Susan Grimes Munsell

State Representative Nelson W. Saunders

State Representative Alma G. Stallworth

MINNESOTA

State Senator Linda Berglin

State Senator Richard J. Cohen

State Senator Carol Flynn

State Senator John J. Marty

State Senator Sandra L. Pappas

State Senator Jane Ranum

State Senator Allan H. Spear

State Senator Judy Traub

Speaker of the House Dee Long

State Representative Andrew Dawkins

State Representative Lee Greenfield

State Representative Howard Orenstein

State Representative Myron Orfield

State Representative Gloria M. Segal

State Representative Wesley J. Skoglund

State Representative Kathleen Vellenga

State Representative Linda Wejcman

MISSISSIPPI

State Senator Alice Harden

State Representative Edward Blackmon, Jr.

State Representative Alyce Clarke

State Representative Linda F. Coleman

State Representative Leslie D. King

MISSOURI

Lieutenant Governor Mel Carnahan

A-l7

State Senator William Clay Jr.

State Representative Chet Boeke

State Representative Paula J. Carter

State Representative Kenneth B. Jacob

State Representative Joseph S. Kenton

State Representative Sheila Lumpe

State Representative Karen McCarthy

State Representative Jacqueline T. McGee

State Representative Annette N. Morgan

State Representative Sandra Reeves

State Representative O. L. Shelton

State Representative Charles Shields

State Representative Beth M. Wheeler

State Representative Connie Wible

MONTANA

State Senator Don Bianchi

State Senator Chet Blaylock

State Senator Judy H. Jacobson

State Senator Thomas Towe

State Senator Eleanor L. Vaughn

State Representative Arlene Becker

State Representative Jan Brown

State Representative Mary Ellen Connelly

State Representative Gary Forrester

State Representative Mike Kadas

State Representative Ed McCaffree

State Representative Scott McCulloch

State Representative Linda J. Nelson

State Representative Angela Russell

State Representative Ted E. Schye

State Representative Jessica Stickney

State Representative William S. Strizich

A-18

NEBRASKA

Lieutenant Governor Maxine Moul

State Senator Brad Ashford

State Senator David Landis

State Senator Spencer W. Morrissey

State Senator Arlene Neslon

State Senator Jessie Rasmussen

State Senator DiAnna R. Schimek

State Senator William R. Wickersham

State Senator Eric Will

NEVADA

Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner

Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa

State Senator Diana M. Glomb

State Assemblyman Bernie Anderson

State Assemblyman Rick Bennett

State Assemblywoman Vivian L. Freeman

State Assemblyman Jim ‘Gibbons ,

State Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani

State Assemblyman Joseph Johnson

State Assemblyman John L. Norton

State Assemblyman Robert M. Sader

NEW HAMPSHIRE

State Senator Burt Cohen

State Senator Wayne D. King

State Senator Susan McLane

State Senator Richard Russman

State Representative Eleanor H. Amidon

State Representative Eleanor M. Anderson

State Representative Frederick Andrews

State Representative Lowell D. Apple

A-19

State Representative James E. Appleby

State Representative Deborah A. Arnesen

State Representative Pamela B. Bean

State Representative Juanita L. Bell

State Representative Thea G. Braiterman

State Representative Channing T. Brown

State Representative Julie M. Brown

State Representative Patricia B. Brown

State Representative Raymond C. Buckley I]

State Representative Dan Burnham

State Representative Albert Caswell, Jr.

House Minority Leader Mary P. Chambers

State Representative Richard L. Champagne

State Representative Eugene W. Clark

State Representative Martha Fuller Clark

State Representative Jane Clemons

State Representative Marion L. Copenhaver

State Representative Arthur B. Corte

Asst. Majority Leader Garret P. Cowenhoven

State Representative Art Ferlan

State Representative Joseph N. Feuer

State Representative Martin Feuerstein

State Representative Paul R. Fillion

State Representative John W. Flanders, Sr.

State Representative Edward J. Flynn

State Representative Patricia H. Foss

State Representative Katherine D. Foster

State Representative Robert W. Foster

State Representative Scott E. Green

State Representative Robert H. Guest

State Representative Elizabeth Hager

State Representative Betty B. Hall

State Representative Douglas E. Hall

State Representative Patricia Hambrick

State Representative Jane A. Harland

State Representative Robert S. Hawkins

State Representative John B. Hunt

State Representative Karen K. Hutchinson

State Representative Peter M. Jankowski

State Representative Lionel W. Johnson

A-20

State Representative Mary Jordan

State Representative William W. Joscelyn

State Representative Sandra B. Keans

State Representative Paula J. Kinney

State Representative Ervin R. Lachut

State Representative Mary Ann Lewis

State Representative Elizabeth D. Lown

State Representative Joseph A. MacDonald

State Representative W. Kent Martling

State Representative William F. McCain

State Representative Bonnie Lou McCann

State Representative Cynthia Ann McGovern

State Representative Deborah McIlwaine

State Representative Amanda A. Merrill

State Representative Elizabeth Millard

State Representative Mary Molner

State Representative Elizabeth A. Moore

State Representative Avis B. Nichols

State Representative Sharon L. Nordgren

State Representative Joe B. Parks

State Representative Robert H. Porter

State Representative Irene A Pratt

Asst. Majority Whip Alice Record

State Representative William A. Riley

State Representative James R. Rosencrantz

State Representative George R. Rubin

State Representative Roland A. Sallada

State Representative Merle W. Schotanus

State Representative Merilyn P. Senter

State Representative Leonard A. Smith

State Representative Lee Anne S. Steiner

State Representative Charles L. Vaughn

State Representative Karen O. Wadsworth

State Representative Mary Jane Wallner

State Representative Robert R. Walsh

State Representative John F. Weeks

State Representative Katherine W. Wheeler

State Representative Paul R. White

State Representative Allen R. Wiggin

State Representative Deborah Woods

A-21

State Representative Charles B. Yeaton

State Representative Alice S. Ziegra

NEW JERSEY

Governor James Florio

Attorney General Robert J. Del Tufo

State Senator John H. Adler

State Senator John O. Bennett

State Assemblywoman Maureen Ogden

State Assemblyman George F. Geist

State Assemblyman David Kronick

NEW MEXICO

Attorney General Tom Udall

State Senator Ken Kamerman

State Senator Victor R. Marshal]

State Senator Janice Paster

State Senator Thomas T. Rutherford

State Representative Thomas Atcitty

State Representative E. Shirley Baca

State Representative Max Coll

State Representative Robert M. Hawk

State Representative Ramon Huerta

State Representative Gary King

State Representative Marty Lambert

State Representative Cisco McSorley

State Representative Rick Miera

State Representative Kip Nicely

State Representative Danice Picraux

State Representative William E. Porter

State Representative Shannon Robinson

NEW YORK

Lieutenant Governor Stan Lundine

Attorney General Robert Abrams

A-22

State Senator Roy M. Goodman

State Senator Donald M. Halperin

State Senator Franz S. Leichter

State Senator Martin Markowitz

Senate Minority Leader Manfred Ohrenstein

State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer

State Senator David A. Paterson

State Senator Ada L. Smith

State Senator Martin M. Solomon

State Senator Jeremy S. Weinstein

State Assemblyman Frank J. Barbaro

State Asseblyman Richard Brodsky

State Assemblyman Thomas Catapano

State Assemblyman John C. Cochrane

State Assemblywoman Vivian E. Cook

State Assemblyman Thomas P. DiNapoli

State Assemblywoman Eileen C. Dugan

State Assemblyman Ralph J. Eannace, Jr.

State Assemblyman Anthony J. Genovesi

State Assemblymember Deborah Glick

State Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried

State Assemblyman Alexander Gromack

State Assemblyman Alan G. Hevesi

State Assemblyman Morton C, Hillman

State Assemblyman William B. Hoyt

State Assemblywoman Susan John

State Assemblyman G. Oliver Koppell

State Assemblyman Martin A. Luster

State Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn

State Assemblyman John Brian Murtaugh

State Assemblyman Jerrold Nadler

State Assemblywoman Audrey I. Pheffer

State Assemblyman John Ravitz

State Assemblywoman Cecile D. Singer

State Assemblyman Robert Sweeney

State Assemblyman David R. Townsend

State Assemblywoman Helene E. Weinstein

State Assemblyman Gregory P. Young

State Assemblyman Vivian E. Cook

A-23

NORTH CAROLINA

Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg

State Senator William N. Martin

State Senator Helen R. Marvin

State Senator Kenneth C. Royall

State Senator Russell Walker

State Representative Marie W. Colton

State Representative Peggy Stamey

NORTH DAKOTA

State Senator Barbara Evanson

State Senator Jay Lindgren

State Representative Sarah A. Carlson

State Representative Judy L. DeMers

State Representative Henning Jacobson

State Representative August Ritter

OHIO

State Senator Eric Fingerhut

State Senator Linda J. Furney

State Senator Jeffrey D. Johnson

State R-presentative Jane L. Campbell

State Representative Dean Conley

State Representative Robert L. Corbin

State Representative Robert H. Doyle

State Representative Robert F. Hagan

State Representative David Hartley

State Representative William J. Healy

State Representative Joan W. Lawrence

State Representative C.]. Prentiss

State Representative Helen Rankin

State Representative Judy Sheerer

A-24

OKLAHOMA

State Senator Cal Hobson

OREGON

Governor Barbara Roberts

Senate Majority Leader Bill Bradbury

State Senator Ron Cease

State Senator Joyce Cohen

State Senator Wayne Fawbush

State Senator Shirley Gold

State Senator Jeannette Hamby

State Senator Jim Hill

State Senator Grattan Kerans

State Senator Frank Roberts

State Senator Bob Shoemaker

State Senator Tricia Smith

State Senator Dick Springer

State Senator Clifford Trow

State Representative Lee L. Beyer

State Representative Tom Brian

State Representative Kate Brown

State Representative Mike Burton

State Representative Ted Calouri

State Representative Margaret L. Carter

State Representative Jim Edmunson

State Representative Mary Alice Ford

State Representative Avel L. Gordley

State Representative Carl Hosticka

State Representative Bruce Hugo

State Representative Delna Jones

State Representative Tim Josi

State Representative Vera Katz

State Representative Tom Mason

State Representative Dave McTeague

State Representative Lisa Naito

State Representative Tom Novick

A-25

State Representative Bob Pickard

State Representative Hedy Rijken

State Representative Gail R. Shibley

State Representative Robert Shiprack

State Representative Beverly Stein

State Representative Jackie Taylor

State Representative Antone Van Vliet

PENNSYLVANIA

State Senator Roy C. Afflerbach

State Senator James C. Greenwood

State Senator Roxanne H. Jones

State Senator H. Craig Lewis

State Senator Jeanette F. Reibman

State Senator Allyson Schwartz

Speaker of the House Robert W. O'Donnell

State Representative Ralph Acosta

State Representative Louise Williams Bishop

State Representative Alan Butkovitz

State Representative Andrew J. Carn

State Representative Pat Carone

State Representative Roy W. Cornell

State Representative William DeWeese

State Representative Dwight Evans

State Representative Robert Freeman

State Representative Ellen Harley

State Representative Ruth B. Harper

State Representative David W. Heckler

State Representative Ivan Itkin

State Representative Harold James

State Representative Babette Josephs

State Representative Allen G. Kukovich

State Representative Gordon J. Linton

State Representative Frank L. Oliver

State Representative David P. Richardson

State Representative Karen A. Ritter

State Representative James R. Roebuck

State Representative Ruth C. Rudy

A-26

State Repesentative Stephen Stetler

State Representative Mike Sturla

State Representative W. Curtis Thomas

RHODE ISLAND

Governor Bruce Sundlun

Attorney General James E. O'Neil

State Senator James M. Donelan

State Senator June N. Gibbs

State Senator Ann H. Hanson

State Senator Paul S. Kelly

State Senator John Lyle, Jr.

State Senator Rhoda Perry

State Senator Charles D. Walton

State Senator Myrth York

State Representative Sandy Barone

State Representative Christine H. Callahan

State Representative Sandra Campbell

State Representative David W. Dumas

State Representative Francis A. Gaschen

State Representative William Greene III

State Representative Patrick J. Kennedy

State Representative Linda J. Kushner

State Representative Joan Quick

SOUTH CAROLINA

State Representative Harriet H. Keyserling

State Representative Candy Y. Waites

SOUTH DAKOTA

State Senator Scott N. Heidepriem

State Senator R. Lars Herseth

State Senator Dorothy M. Kellogg

State Senator Carol Maicki

Senate Minority Leader Roger D. McKellips

A-27

State Senator Pamela A. Nelson

State Senator Judith R. Olson

State Senator Roberta Rasmussen

State Senator Linda Stensland

State Representative Jean T. Beddow

State Representative Robert Caselli

State Representative Janet Good

State Representative Jim Hood

State Representative Dale L. Howlett

State Representative Patrick Kane

State Representative Janice Nicolay

State Representative Patricia Ann Pilcher

State Representative Craig D. Schaunaman

State Representative John L. Timmer

State Representative Mary Vanderlinde

TENNESSEE

State Senator Stephen I. Cohen

Sneaker Pro Term Lois M. DeBerry

State Representative Larry Turner

TEXAS

Governor Ann Richards

Attorney General Dan Morales

State Senator Gonzalo Barrientos

State Senator Chet Brooks

State Senator Rodney Ellis

State Senator Bob Glasgow

State Senator Peggy Rosson

State Representative Debra Danburg

State Representative Ernestine V. Glossbrenner

State Representative Sherri Greenberg

State Representative Christine Hernandez

State Representative John Hirschi

State Representative James Hury

State Representative Libby Linebarger

State Representative Glen Maxey

A-28

State Representative Elliott Naishtat

State Representative Sue Schechter

State Representative Jeff Wentworth

UTAH

State Senator Millie M. Peterson

State Senator Bob Steiner

State Senator Karen Shepard

State Representative Max Young

VERMONT

Governor Howard Dean

Attorney General Jeffrey L. Amestoy

State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

State Senator Sally Conrad

State Senator Althea Kroger

State Senator Richard McCormack

State Senator Elizabeth M. Ready

State Representative Linda L. Almy

State Representative Alice C. Bassett

State Representative Terry Bouricius

State Representative Louvenia Dorsey Bright

State Representative Sean P. Campbell

State Representative Nancy Chard

State Representative Nancy W. Chioffi

State Representative Andrew W. Christiansen

State Representative Paul A. Cillo

State Representative Wendell L. Coleman

State Representative David Deen

State Representative Alice M. Emmons

State Representative Sally G. Fox

State Representative John Freidin

State Representative Barbara L. Grimes

State Representative Donald Hooper

State Representative Karen Kitzmiller

A-29

State Representative Ronald R. Knapp

State Representative Doris Lingelbach

State Representative Vi Luginbuhl

State Representative Peter Mallary

State Representative Margaret F. Martin

State Representative Virginia Milkey

State Representative Lisa O’Neil

State Representative Carl Powden

State Representative Helen S. Riehle

State Representative Charles R. Ross. Jr.

State Representative Ann Seibert

State Representative Ruth S. Stokes

State Representative Mary Sullivan

State Representative William B. Talbott

State Representative Val Vincent

State Representative Carolyn Yarnell

State Representative Peter D. Youngbaer

VIRGINIA

Governor Douglas Wilder

Lieutenant Governor Donald S. Bever

Attorney General Marv Sue Terry

State Senator Edward M. Holland

State Senator Janet Howell

State Senator L. Louise Lucas

State Senator Elliot S. Schewel

State Senator Robert C. Scott

State Delegate James F. Almand

State Delegate Leslie L. Byrne

State Delegate Mary T. Christian

State Delegate Bernard S. Cohen

State Delegate Judy Connally

State Delegate Shirley F. Cooper

State Delegate Jean W. Cunningham

State Delegate Karen Darner

State Delegate George W. Grayson

State Delegate G. C. Jennings

A-30

State Delegate Jerrauld C. Jones

State Delegate Gladys B. Keating

State Delegate Joan H. Munford

State Delegate Kenneth R. Plum

State Delegate Linda T. Puller

State Delegate William P. Robinson, Jr.

State Delegate Marian A. Van Landingham

State Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres

WASHINGTON

Governor Booth Gardner

State Senator Patrick R. McMullen

State Senator Dwight Pelz

State Senator Al Williams

State Representative Jean Marie Brough

State Representative Dennis Dellwo

State Representative Rob Johnson

State Representative Richard King

State Representative Jeanne Kohl

State Representative June Leonard

State Representative Louise Miller

State Representative Maryann Mitchell

State Representative Dick Nelson

State Representative Valeria Ogden

State Representative Margarita Prentice

State Representative Wes Pruitt

State Representative Georgette Valle

State Representative Art Wang

WISCONSIN

President of the Senate Fred A. Risser

State Senator Charles J. Chvala

State Senator Russell D. Feingold

State Senator Joanne Huelsman

State Senator Barbara K. Lorman

A-31

State Representative Spencer Black

State Representative Frank Boyle

State Representative David E. Clarenbach

State Representative Alberta Darling

State Representative Louis G. Fortis

State Representative Joseph C. Hisrich

State Representative Shirley Krug

State Representative Gwendolynne Moore

State Representative Barbara Notestein

State Representative Kimberly M. Plache

State Representative Rosemary Potter

State Representative David M. Travis

State Representative Robert L. Turner

State Representative Rebecca Young

WEST VIRGINIA

State Senator Sondra Moore Lucht

State Senator Martha G. Wehrle

State Senator J.M. “Mike” Withers

State Delegate Robert C. Beach

State Delegate Bonnie L. Brown

State Delegate Brenda Brum

State Delegate Ramona Gail Cerra

State Delegate Mary Pearl Compton

State Delegate Stephen L. Cook

State Delegate Charles H. Damron

State Delegate Vicki V. Douglas

State Delegate Joseph H. Farris

State Delegate Brian A. Gallagher

State Delegate David Grubb

State Delegate John C. Huntwork

State Delegate Nancy Kessel

State Delegate Charlotte R. Lane

State Delegate Perry E. Mann

State Delegate Dale Manuel

State Delegate Jerry L. Mezzatesta

State Delegate James Hanly Morgan

State Delegate Deborah F. Phillips

A-32

State Delegate Greg Sayre

State Delegate Barbara Sims

State Delegate John R. Taylor

State Delegate Martha Y. Walker

State Delegate Patricia H. White

State Delegate Stephen T. Williams

WYOMING

State Senator Dell Herbst

State Representative Sheila Arnold

State Representative Samuel E. Blackwell

State Representative Mark O. Harris

State Representative Harry B. Tipton

State Representative Carol Jo Vlastos

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.