Connecticut v. Menillo
46 L. Ed. 2d 152, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 92, 423 U.S. 9 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may prohibit and criminally prosecute non-physicians for performing abortions because the constitutional right to an abortion, as established in Roe v. Wade, is predicated on the procedure being performed by a medically competent physician.
Facts:
- Patrick Menillo was not a physician and had no medical training.
- In 1971, Menillo attempted to procure an abortion for a woman.
- Menillo's actions were in violation of a Connecticut statute that criminalized attempted abortions.
- The Connecticut statute applied to "any person" who attempts to procure an abortion, unless necessary to save the woman's life.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1971, a jury in a Connecticut trial court convicted Patrick Menillo of attempting to procure an abortion.
- Menillo appealed his conviction.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court, the state's highest court, overturned Menillo's conviction, holding that the state's criminal abortion statute was unconstitutional and void under Roe v. Wade.
- The State of Connecticut, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the constitutional right to an abortion, as recognized in Roe v. Wade, prevent a state from criminally prosecuting a non-physician for performing an abortion?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The constitutional right to an abortion does not prevent a state from prosecuting a non-physician for performing the procedure. The Connecticut Supreme Court misinterpreted Roe v. Wade, which did not grant an unqualified right to an abortion but rather a right to an abortion performed by a competent, licensed physician under safe, clinical conditions. The Court's rationale in Roe, particularly for the first trimester, was based on the fact that a medically supervised abortion was safer for the woman than childbirth. This rationale does not apply when the procedure is performed by a non-physician. Therefore, a state's significant interest in protecting maternal health provides a sufficient basis to prohibit abortions performed by individuals without medical training.
Concurring - Justice White
Concurred in the judgment without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of Roe v. Wade, establishing that the right to an abortion is not absolute but is fundamentally linked to the context of medical safety. By distinguishing between the protected decision to terminate a pregnancy and the unprotected act of a non-physician performing the procedure, the Court affirmed the states' police power to regulate the practice of medicine and protect public health. The ruling effectively closed a potential loophole from Roe, ensuring that states could continue to prosecute 'back-alley' abortions performed by unlicensed individuals. It reinforces that the right to an abortion is a right to a medical procedure, subject to reasonable health and safety regulations.
