Summary
In National Educ. Ass'n of Rhode Island v. Garrahy, 779 F.2d 790 (1st Cir.1986), the First Circuit agreed with a district court ruling that such a law violated the right recognized in Roe v. Wade. The district court, relying upon detailed evidence concerning the effect of the law on the cost and availability of health insurance, and applying strict scrutiny analysis, found the law would have a significant impact on many women's right to choose abortion.
Summary of this case from American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas & Western Missouri v. PraegerOpinion
No. 85-1157.
Argued November 14, 1985.
Decided January 2, 1986.
Richard B. Woolley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Arlene Violet, Atty. Gen., Providence, R.I., was on brief for defendants, appellants.
Lynette Labinger with whom Roney Labinger, Providence, R.I., was on brief for plaintiffs, appellees.
Marsha Levick, New York City, Sally F. Goldfarb, Emily J. Spitzer, New York City, on brief amici curiae for Now Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, American Jewish Congress, Equal Rights Advocates, Nat. Abortion Rights Action League, Nat. Women's Health Network, Northwest Women's Law Center, Women's Equity Action League, Women's Law Project and Women's Legal Defense Fund.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island; Raymond J. Pettine, Judge.
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, BOWNES and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges.
The only issue raised by this appeal is whether two statutes enacted by the Rhode Island General Assembly, R.I.Gen. Laws 1956, § 27-18-28, and R.I.Gen. Laws 1956, § 36-12-2.1, restricting the availability of insurance coverage in that state for the performance of induced abortions, runs contrary to the precepts of Roe v. Wade, et al., 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), and its progeny. The district court ruled that they did and issued a permanent declaratory judgment and injunction against their enforcement. See National Educ. Ass'n of R.I. v. Garrahy, 598 F. Supp. 1374 (D.R.I. 1984). After careful consideration of the briefs and record and after hearing argument, we find we are in overall agreement with the conclusions reached by the district court. Without necessarily endorsing every particular therein, we affirm substantially for the same reasons provided by the lower court in its well-reasoned opinion.
Affirmed.