TABLE OF CONTENTS


Overview of the Collection

Historical Note

Scope and Content

Arrangement

Restrictions

Index Terms

Related Material

Administrative Information

Bibliography

Container List

Series 1. Legal Documents 1966-1973

Series 2. Exhibits 1971-1972

Series 3. Correspondence 1970-1980

Series 4. Subject Files 1947-1981

Series 5. Legislative Files 1971-1975

Series 6. Press Files 1971-1974

Series 7. Publications 1965-1978

Series 8. Duplicates 1971-1973


RG 009:006, Abele vs. Markle

Inventory of Records

Finding aid prepared by Allen Ramsey.

Copyright © 2010 by the Connecticut State Library


Overview of the Collection

Repository: Connecticut State Library
Creator: Connecticut. Office of the Attorney General. Special Litigation Department
Title: Abele vs. Markle records
Dates: 1947-1981
Dates: bulk 1970-1975
Quantity: 4.75 cubic feet
Abstract: The records consist of legal documents, exhibits, correspondence, subject files, legislative files, press files, and publications. The New Haven women's liberation activist group with 858 plaintiffs' on March 2, 1971 filed a lawsuit against the state of Connecticut challenging the anti-abortion law. The case was heard by a three-judge District Court panel. On April 18, 1972 the court ruled 2-1 that Connecticut's anti-abortion law was unconstitutional. Governor Thomas J. Meskill in May 1972 by proclamation called the Connecticut General Assembly into special session to pass a new law against legal abortions. The three-judge panel on April 26, 1973 ruled 2-1 the new law was unconstitutional. The Connecticut General Assembly's Regulations Review Committee did not vote for or against Department of Health regulations governing legal abortions. In taking no action the regulations took effect by default on February 25, 1974.
Identification: RG009_006
Accession: 1991-012
Language: The records are in English.

Historical Note

The Abele vs. Markle court case challenged whether Connecticut's anti-abortion law was constitutional. The civil case was argued before the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court from March 2, 1971 to April 26, 1973. The following historical note is split into four sections: Connecticut's Anti-Abortion Legislation, Laws, and Reform Efforts, 1821-1969; Civil Action No. 14291, 1971-1972; Civil Action No. B-521, 1972-1973; and Final Court Ruling and Aftermath of Abele vs. Markle, 1973-1977.

Connecticut's Anti-Abortion Legislation, Laws, and Reform Efforts, 1821-1969

The Abele vs. Markle abortion case was one part of the women's liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Prior to the 1960s and 1970s several anti-abortion laws had been enacted by the Connecticut General Assembly. In 1821 the state legislature enacted a law that prohibited the causing of a miscarriage by "poison." The law only applied in cases "when a woman died or suffered grievous harm through the abortionist's recklessness or negligence."1 The law was amended in 1830 to also include "administering any medicine or using any instrument with intent to cause the miscarriage of a woman quick with child."2 In 1860 the state legislature passed one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the United States. The law permitted the prosecution of women who solicited abortions; allowed an abortion to be performed on her; or performed an abortion on herself. The penalty if convicted under the anti-abortion law of 1860 was a felony punishable up to two years in prison and/or a $1,000 fine.3 The Connecticut anti-abortion law was enforced until ruled unconstitutional on April 26, 1973.

The repeal and reform of anti-abortion laws started to gain momentum in the early to mid-1960s. In 1965, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Griswold v. Connecticut that Connecticut's law banning contraceptive devices "infringed on married couples' right to privacy."4 The Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill (SB) 69 on February 21, 1967. SB 69 would have reformed the anti-abortion law to allow women to legally have an abortion if they became pregnant due to rape. The committee heard from two speakers during the hearing and tabled the bill on March 2, 1967. The Judiciary Committee on April 14, 1969 held a public hearing on House Bill (HB) 5490 to consider a bill promoted by the Connecticut Medical Society that "would have allowed abortions when the mental or physical health or live of the mother is threatened by pregnancy; when an infant might be born with incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency; or in cases of incest and rape."5 The Connecticut House of Representatives, after two hours of debate, on May 9, 1969 voted 89 to 69 against considering the abortion reform legislation.

Civil Action No. 14291, 1971-1972

New Haven women's liberation activists group, which had been meeting since 1968, began to follow the abortion debates both in the Connecticut General Assembly and around the country. The women's liberation activists soon realized that a lawsuit could be a good organizing vehicle around the issue of abortion. The group enlisted lawyer Catherine Roraback; set out to recruit plaintiffs; began holding open discussions about abortion with other women; and started preparing their arguments.6 During the recruitment of plaintiffs the "legislatures of New York and Hawaii had legalized abortion, and federal courts in Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., had found anti-abortion laws unconstitutional."7 In 1971, the United States Supreme Court heard the first round of oral arguments in Roe v. Wade which challenged Texas's anti-abortion law.

The Abele vs. Markle lawsuit was filed with 858 plaintiffs' on March 2, 1971. Originally titled Women vs. Connecticut the case was known after initial filing with the United States District Court District of Connecticut as Abele, for the first listed plaintiff Janice Abele, and Markle, for State's Attorney Arnold Markle.8 In the lawsuit the plaintiffs' requested a three-judge District Court panel hear the case. United States District Court Judge T. Emmett Clarie on May 14, 1971 ruled the plaintiffs' lacked standing to bring suit, denied the request for a three-judge District Court panel, and dismissed the lawsuit because the Connecticut Supreme Court was hearing two criminal cases on the constitutionality of performed abortions. The case was appealed by the plaintiffs' to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 13, 1971 the appeals court "affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings" the District Court's dismissal finding that pregnant women and medical personnel who counsel or perform abortions had Article III standing to bring suit. The court remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings before a three-judge panel.

The case was heard before Circuit Court Judge J. Edward Lumbard, District Court Judge Jon O. Newman, and District Court Judge T. Emmett Clarie. In February 1972 lawyers for the plaintiffs' filed several affidavits on behalf of pregnant women seeking temporary restraining orders for "interlocutory relief against the enforcement of the [abortion] statute." On April 18, 1972 the three-judge court ruled 2-1 that Connecticut's anti-abortion statutes unconstitutional. Judge Lumbard wrote the opinion for the majority finding "the statutes unconstitutional in violation of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."9 Judge Newman concurred with the opinion of the majority but wrote a separate opinion. Judge Clarie dissented arguing the majority opinion "leaves the State of Connecticut with no law or control in this area of human relationships."10 The State of Connecticut appealed the ruling of the three-judge District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Court of Appeals on May 9, 1972 granted the State of Connecticut a temporary stay of execution. The case was then sent back to the three-judge District Court which on May 10 granted the plaintiffs' an injunction "halting any arrests or prosecution under the state's 112-year old abortion laws."11 The granting of the injunction to the plaintiffs' allowed the state to appeal directly to the United States Supreme Court. However, Governor Thomas J. Meskill on May 13, 1972 signed a proclamation convening a special session of the Connecticut General Assembly because "It is essential to the public interest that new legislation be promptly enacted so that the rights of unborn children be protected."12

The Connecticut General Assembly at the time was considering several abortion bills from giving women the power of choice; to protecting the mother's life; and a complete ban on abortions. Governor Meskill backed a bill that contained much of the same language as the law which had been ruled unconstitutional by the District Court. The Joint Committee on Public Health and Safety on May 19, 1972 held a public hearing on the abortion bills before the legislature. Representative Francis Collins spoke before the committee on his and Governor Meskill's behalf. Collins urged the committee "to strongly reaffirm the most basic right of all human beings - the right to be."13 After eight hours of testimony the committee met in closed session for another hour. The committee recommended a new anti-abortion bill be passed. The new bill was based off the previous anti-abortion law which was found unconstitutional by the court in April. The only new language added was a preamble which discussed the legislative intent of the law. The state legislature debated; added no amendments; and passed the bill on May 22, 1972. Governor Meskill signed the anti-abortion bill into law, Public Act No. 1, on May 23, 1972.

Civil Action No. B-521, 1972-1973

The plaintiffs' lawyers filed on May 26, 1972 a motion for contempt, to enforce injunction and for other relief against the new law. On May 31, 1972 the Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court convened the same three-judge court that heard the previous case.14 The three-judge court ruled 2-1 on September 20, 1972 that the new anti-abortion law was unconstitutional. Judge Jon Newman wrote the opinion for the majority finding "that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment."15 Judge Clarie wrote the dissenting opinion in which he argued it was not the decision of the court but the legislature in deciding the legality of abortion in Connecticut. The three-judge District Court on September 22, 1972 denied the State of Connecticut's petition to stay the execution of the judgment. On September 27, 1972 the state appealed the decision of the District Court to United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall who denied the request on October 3.16 The state then requested Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger review Justice Marshall's ruling.17 The stay was granted by the Chief Justice on October 16, 1972.

The United State Supreme Court in October 1972 was hearing oral arguments in abortion cases from Georgia and Texas. In November and December the plaintiffs' asked the Supreme Court to vacate the stay and filed a motion for an expedited appeal. On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Roe v. Wade (Texas) and Doe v. Bolton (Georgia) that both states anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court on February 26, 1973 vacated the Abele vs. Markle judgment in Civil No. B-521 and remanded the case back to the District Court "for further consideration in light of Roe v. Wade."18 The earlier case, Civil No. 14291, was remanded back to the District Court "for consideration of the question of mootness." The State of Connecticut then requested a rehearing before the Supreme Court. Attorney General Robert K. Killian on the reason for requesting a rehearing said, "The abortion question is in a state of considerable confusion…because there is no precedent in the history of the case before the Supreme Court."19 The state filed a petition for rehearing before the Supreme Court on March 21, 1973. Attorney General Killian on the filing of the petition said, "We filed the petition for a rehearing because we feel strongly that the Supreme Court has not yet considered the impressive amount of medical and scientific evidence present in the Connecticut case."20 The appeal by the State of Connecticut was supported by 14 other states and did not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade but instead put forward the argument that life began at conception. On April 16, 1973 the Supreme Court denied the State of Connecticut's petition for rehearing and remanded the case back to the District Court.

Final Court Ruling and Aftermath of Abele vs. Markle, 1973-1977

On April 26, 1973 the three-judge District Court held a hearing and issued a final ruling on the case. The court in its ruling stated, "To avoid any misunderstanding as to the meaning of our decision and to bring finality to this controversy, the judgment of this court will declare Public Act No. 1 to be unconstitutional and will enjoin the defendants from enforcing it. This means that Public Act No. 1 is null and void. This litigation is ended."21 On May 14, 1973 Attorney General Killian in a letter to Governor Meskill about the case said, "It is our opinion that the United States Supreme Court has already made its position irrevocably clear on the issues involved. For this reason, and subject to your concurrence or disapproval, we do not intend to file a further appeal."22 In early October of 1973 the Public Health Council passed regulations drafted by the Department of Health governing legal abortions.23 On February 22, 1974 the Connecticut General Assembly's Regulations Review Committee did not approve or reject the regulations on abortion therefore allowing them to be approved by default.24 The regulations took effect on February 25, 1974.

Two months after the District Court ruling in Abele vs. Markle the women's liberation movement, that originally launched the anti-abortion lawsuit in 1971, filed a lawsuit against the Connecticut Welfare Department. The lawsuit challenged the welfare department's new policy, which eliminated payments to doctors that requested special approval to perform abortions, to only paying if it saved the life of the mother. The case, known as Maher v. Roe, was argued from 1973 to 1977 when the United States Supreme Court ruled that states did not have to pay for the abortions of welfare recipients "except in cases of medical need."25

Endnotes
1 N.E.H. Hull and Peter Charles Hoffer, Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2001), 20.
2 Memorandum of Decision - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil No. 14291, box 1, folder 47, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG 009:006, Connecticut State Library.
3 Amy Kesselman, "Women Versus Connecticut: Conducting a Statewide Hearing on Abortion," in Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggles, 1950-2000, ed. Rickie Solinger (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 44. See also: Laura M. Pope, The Connecticut Abortion Statutes: Legislative History, Case Law Development, Comparative Analysis, Some Recommendations: A Report to the Connecticut Criminal Law Revision Commission, October 5, 1966 (Hartford: Law Revision Commission, 1966), 7-9, 65-67.
4 Rickie Solinger, ed. Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggles, 1950-2000 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), xii.
5 Jean Tucker, "House Vote Kills Abortion Measure," Hartford Courant, May 10, 1969.
6 The New Haven women's liberation activist group enlisted a total of six lawyers who agreed to work on the lawsuit. The six lawyers were: Catherine "Katie" Roraback, Barbara Milstein, Kathryn Emmett, Marjory Gelb, Marilyn P.A. Seichter, and Nancy Stearns. Kesselman, 49 and 52.
7 Kesselman, 49.
8 The case was assigned Civil Action No. 14291.
9 Memorandum of Decision - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil No. 14291, box 1, folder 47, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG 009:006, Connecticut State Library.
10 Memorandum of Decision - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil No. 14291, box 1, folder 47, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG 009:006, Connecticut State Library.
11 Thomas D. Williams, "Court Injunction Halts Abortion Law Arrests," Hartford Courant, May 11, 1972.
12 Proclamation by Governor Thomas J. Meskill, May 13, 1972, box 3, folder 30, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG 009:006, Connecticut State Library.
13 Remarks of Representative Francis Collins on Behalf of Governor Thomas J. Meskill before the Committee on Public Health & Safety - Abortion Legislation, May 19, 1972, box A-904, folder Abortion, Office of the Governor: Thomas J. Meskill Records, RG 005:035, Connecticut State Library.
14 Civil Action No. 14291.
15 Memorandum of Decision, United States District Court District of Connecticut, box 1, folder 48, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG 009:006, Connecticut State Library.
16 Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioners Application for Stay of Execution, box 1, folder 42, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG009:006, Connecticut State Library.
17 "First Legal Abortion Clinic Predicted Soon," Stamford Advocate, October 4, 1972, box 4, folder 18, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG 009:006, Connecticut State Library.
18 369 F. Supp. 807.
19 "State to File Appeal on Abortion Issue," Norwich, March 16, 1973, box 4, folder 17, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG009:006, Connecticut State Library.
20 Ann Gibbons, "Court Given Petition on Abortion Rehearing," Catholic Transcript, March 23, 1973, p. 1, box 4, folder 17, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG009:006, Connecticut State Library.
21 369 F. Supp. 809.
22 Attorney General Robert K. Killian letter to Governor Thomas J. Meskill, May 14, 1973, box 2, folder 57, Office of the Attorney General: Abele vs. Markle Records, RG009:006, Connecticut State Library.
23 Ken Cruickshank, "State Abortion Rules Established," Hartford Courant, October 4, 1973, p. 29.
24 "Abortion Rules for State Win Nod by Default," Hartford Courant, February 22, 1974, p. 37.
25 Kesselman, 67. See also: Elissa Papirno, "Court Upholds State Refusal to Fund Welfare Abortions," Hartford Courant, June 21, 1977, p. 1.

Return to the Table of Contents


Scope and Content

The records were arranged into eight series which document the Abele vs. Markle abortion court cases. The series include Legal Documents, Exhibits, Correspondence, Subject Files, Legislative Files, Press Files, Publications, and Duplicates.

Series 1. Legal Documents, 1966-1973, consist of court filings in the case which includes: transcripts, pleadings, affidavits, answers, bill of costs, briefs, complaints, judgments, memorandums in support or opposition, memorandums of decisions, motions, notices, objections, orders, petitions, rulings, stays, subpoenas, and summons.

Series 2. Exhibits, 1971-1972, include a copy of a report on statistics on induced abortions in New York State; a report from the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; a list of exhibits; and copies of clippings presented as plaintiffs' exhibit 1.

Series 3. Correspondence, 1970-1980, include twenty six folders of correspondence between the Attorney General's Office and other state attorney general's; attorneys; constituents; other state legislatures; interest groups; state departments; and courts.

Series 4. Subject Files, 1947-1981, consist of materials related to the case on various topics such as abortion advice; abortion cases; legal documents; case history; case notes; related cases; related state actions on abortion; reports; and reference and research materials used during the case. The miscellaneous files contain newsletters from groups such as Americans United for Life and the Value of Life Committee; United States and Connecticut statistical data reports on infant mortality, natality, maternal mortality, and stillbirths; and general research information related to the case.

Series 5. Legislative Files, 1971-1975, include general research materials; legislative history; excerpts from proceedings of the Connecticut House of Representatives; copies of bills; and rules and regulations.

Series 6. Press Files, 1971-1974, contain a brochure, newspaper clippings, and articles about the case. The brochure of Life or Death contains photographs of abortions.

Series 7. Publications, 1965-1978, consist of two books on abortions; bound copy of pleadings from the Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation abortion case; two registration reports; a copy of the Connecticut public health code and regulations; The John Marshall Journal of Practice & Procedure; and a Catholic Church program booklet.

Series 8. Duplicates, 1971-1973, include duplicate Life or Death brochures, legal documents, and legislative files. The brochures of Life or Death contain photographs of abortions.

Return to the Table of Contents


Arrangement

Series 1. Legal Documents, 1966-1973

Series 2. Exhibits, 1971-1972

Series 3. Correspondence, 1970-1980

Series 4. Subject Files, 1947-1981

Series 5. Legislative Files, 1971-1975

Series 6. Press Files, 1971-1974

Series 7. Publications, 1965-1978

Series 8. Duplicates, 1971-1973

Return to the Table of Contents


Restrictions

Restrictions on Access

See the Rules and Procedures for Researchers Using Archival Records and Secured Collections policy.

Restrictions on Use

See the Reproduction and Publications of State Library Collections policy.

Return to the Table of Contents


Related Material

RG 005:035, Office of the Governor: Thomas J. Meskill Records, Connecticut State Library.

RG 016, Department of Public Health Records, Connecticut State Library.

RG 069:133, Marilyn P.A. Seichter Collection, Connecticut State Library.

Return to the Table of Contents


Index Terms

Subjects:

Abortion -- Law and legislation -- Connecticut
Abortion -- United States
Abortion United States History 20th century
Connecticut. Office of the Attorney General

Places:

Connecticut

Persons:

Abele, Janice
Cannon, Raymond
Clarie, T. Emmet, 1913-1997
Emmett, Kathryn
Gelb, Marjorie
Hirtle, Robert L., Jr.
Killian, Robert K., 1919-2005
Lumbard, J. Edward (Joseph Edward), 1901-1999
Markle, Arnold
Milstein, Barbara
Newman, Jon O. (Jon Ormond)
Roraback, Catherine G.
Schaefer, Daniel R.
Seichter, Marilyn P.A.
Stearns, Nancy
Stoughton, George D.

Document Types:

Briefs (legal documents)
Brochures
Clippings
Correspondence
Legal Documents
Publications
Reports

Return to the Table of Contents


Administrative Information

Provenance

The records were transferred to the State Library in 1990

Processing Information

Allen Ramsey processed the records in September-October, 2010

Return to the Table of Contents


Bibliography

Books

Hull, N.E.H. and Peter Charles Hoffer. Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2001. [CSL call number KF228.R59 H85 2001]

Kesselman, Amy. "Women Versus Connecticut: Conducting a Statewide Hearing on Abortion," in Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggles, 1950-2000, ed. Rickie Solinger. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. [CSL call number HQ767.5.U5 A2825 1998]

Mersky, Roy M. and Jill Duffy. A Documentary History of the Legal Aspects of Abortion in the United States. Griswold v. Connecticut. Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman Publications, 2001. [CSL call number KF228.G75 D63 2001]

Rubin, Eva R. The Abortion Controversy: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1994. [CSL call number KF3771.A7 A26 1994 ]

Government Publications

Pope, Laura M. The Connecticut Abortion Statutes: Legislative History, Case Law Development, Comparative Analysis, Some Recommendations: A Report to the Connecticut Criminal Law Revision Commission, October 5, 1966. Hartford: Law Revision Commission, 1966. [CSL call number Conn Doc L522p]

Articles

Hurwitz, Andrew D. “Jon O. Newman and the Abortion Decisions: A Remarkable First Year.” New York Law School Law Review 46 (2002-2003): 231-247.

Newspapers

Hartford Courant, 1965-1980.

Stamford Advocate

Return to the Table of Contents


Container List

Series 1. Legal Documents, 1966-1973
Box Folder
Abortion transcripts, undated 1 1
Affidavits, 1972-1973
Doe, Jean, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 May 28 1 2
Gibbons, John M. Jr., M.D., Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 June 8 3
Killian, Robert K., Attorney General, Stay of Execution, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 May 4 4
Poe, Dorothy, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 June 7 5
Poe, Patricia, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 June 7 6
Roe, Steven, 1972 June 7 7
Roe, Susan, 1972 June 7 8
Shettles, Landrum B., Civil Action No. B-521, 1973 9
Index; A-F, circa 1972, undated 10
G-M, circa 1972 11
N-Z, circa 1972 12
Answer presenting defense under rule 12(b), Civil Action No. B-521, undated 13
Answer - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 14
Appearances, 1972 15
Appellees extension of time & motion to dismiss, 1972 16
Appellees' renewal of their motion for an expedited appeal, No. 72-730, 1972 December 13 17
Application for stay of execution of judgment of three-judge District Court for the District of Connecticut - Supreme Court of the United States, Civil Action No. B-521, circa 1972 18
Bill of costs, Case Nos. 72-730 & 72-56, 1972-1973 19
Bond for costs on appeal, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 May 4 20
Brief for the appellees, No. 71-1605, 1971 21
Brief RE: defendants' motion to quash, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 June 8 22
Brief - draft, crica 1971-1972 23
Briefs - printed and typed, 1971-1972 24
Certificate of counsel; complaint; exhibits; and affidavits, Civil Action No. 14291, 1971 25
Coercive effect of the present judgment - supplemental memorandum of defendants, Docket No. MR-5241, 1972 May 8 26
Decision of United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1972 May 27
Defendants' Memorandum, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 July 28 28
Defendants' pleadings, Civil Action No. 14291, 1966-1972 29
Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Objections, Civil Action No. B-521, circa 1972 30
Denial of Application for Stay of Execution, A-360, 1972 October 3 31
Denial of Stay - United States Supreme Court, No A-1187, 1972 May 12 32
Deposition - Nelson, Frieda, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 July 25 33
Drafts, circa 1971-1972, undated 34
Index to record on appeal; index to supplement to record on appeal, Civil Action No. B-521, 1971-1972 35
Judgment; Joint Notice of Appeal; Order; Bond for Costs on Appeal, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 April-May 36
Judgment file, Civil Action Nos. 14291 and B-521, 1973 May 17 37
Judgment - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 April 26 38
Jurisdiction - supplemental memorandum of defendants, Docket No. MR-5241, 1972 May 8 39
Jurisdictional statement of appellants, 1972 40
List of affidavits and articles, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 July 28 41
Memorandum in opposition to pettitioners application for stay of execution, 1972 October 10 42
Memorandum in support of motion to intervene on behalf of Connecticut Citizens Right to Life Committee, Inc., Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 June 9 43
Memorandum in support of motion for stay of execution, Civil Action No. 14291, undated 44
Memorandum of appellants in support of stay of execution - United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Civil No. 14291, 1972 May 4 45
Memorandum of costs and disbursements, Case Action No. 14291, 1971 46
Memorandum of decision - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil No. 14291, 1972 April 18 47
Memorandum of decision, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 September 20 48
Memorandum of petitioners in support of stay of execution - statement of the case, No. MR-5241, 1972 May 11 49
Motions, Civil Action No. 14291, circa 1972 50
Motion for contempt, to enforce injunction and for other relief; motion for immediate hearing; order to show cause to Meskill, Thomas J., Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 May 26 51
Motion for enlargement of time, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 July 20 52
Motion for extension of time, Docket No. 71-1605 and Civil Action No. 14291, 1971-1972 53
Motion for leave to file offer of proof, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 August 16 54
Motion for leave to file supplemental affidavit, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 August 10 55
Motion for ordering the names to be put under seal, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 July 31 56
Motion for re-argument, 1972 June 6 57
Motion to affirm, No. 72-730, circa 1972 58
Motion to dismiss appeal, 1972 59
Motion to file further offer of proof concerning children aborted alive, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 August 10 60
Motion to quash, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 June 8 61
Motion to strike, Civil Action No. 14291, 1971 April 7 62
New York Hospital - Cornell Medical Center subpoena, affidavit, and notice of deposition, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 63
Notice of appeal to Supreme Court of the United States, 1972 May 11 64
Notice of deposition and amendment to notice of deposition, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 65
Notice of hearing - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil No. 14291, 1972 April 26 66
Notice of motion for stay of execution pending appeal; motion for stay of execution; Affidavit - Killian, Robert K., Civil No. 14291, 1972 May 4 67
Objection to motion for summary judgment, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 August 4 68
Opinion - United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No. 71-1605, 1971 December 13, undated 69
Order - Supreme Court of the United States, 1972-1973 70
Order - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 May 2 71
Order and judgment, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 May 10 72
Order and judgment; memorandum of decision - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 14291, 1972 73
Original complaint - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 14291, 1971 March 2 74
Per Curiam, Docket No. MR-5241, 1971 75
Petition for rehearing, No. 71-1605, 1971-1972 76
Plaintiffs' pleadings, 1972 77
Plaintiffs - appellants' brief and appendix, No. 71-1605, 1971 September 30 78
Plaintiffs - appellants' brief and appendix, No. 71-1605, 1971 September 30 2 1
Pleadings, Civil Action No. 14291, 1971, undated 2
Pleadings, Civil Action Nos. B-521 and 14291, 1972 3
Pleadings, Civil No. 14291, 1972 June 9 4
Pleadings - Supreme Court of the United States, No. A-1187, 1971-1972 5
Pleadings - United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1971, undated 6
Pleadings - United States District Court District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 14291, circa 1972 7
Pre-Trial Order, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 June 12 8
Proofs of briefs, circa 1972 9
Request to clerk to certify and transmit entire record, Civil Action No. B-521, 1972 October 20 10
Ruling on plaintiffs' motion to convene a three-judge District Court and for equitable relief; and defendants' motion to dismiss, Civil Action No. 14291, 1971 May 12 11
Statement of the case, Civil No. 14291, 1972 May 4 12
Subpoenas, 1972 13
Summons, Civil Action No. 14291, 1971 March 3 14
Supersedeas bond - Supreme Court of the United States, No. MR-5241, 1972 May 11 15
Supplemental brief for appellees, Docket No. 71-1605, 1971 16
United States Supreme Court has granted stays in abortion cases - supplemental memorandum of defendants, Docket No. MR-5241, 1972 May 8 17
Series 2. Exhibits, 1971-1972
Box Folder
Exhibit H - New York abortion situation, circa 1971, undated 2 18
List of exhibits, Civil Action No. B-521, undated 19
Plaintiffs' exhibit 1 for identification, circa 1972 20
Series 3. Correspondence, 1970-1980
Box Folder
Correspondence - Archdiocese of Hartford, 1975 2 21
Correspondence - Attorney General, 1970-1980 22-23
Correspondence - Attorney General of Louisiana, 1973-1974 24
Correspondence - Attorney General of New Hampshire, 1972 25
Correspondence - Attorney General of Rhode Island, 1973 26
Correspondence - Attorney General of Tennessee, 1972 27
Correspondence - Attorney General of Texas, 1971-1974 28
Correspondence - Attorney General of Utah, 1974 29
Correspondence - Center for Disease Control, 1972 30
Correspondence - Connecticut Catholic Conference, 1974 31
Correspondence - Constituents, 1971 32
Correspondence - Florida Senate, 1972 33
Correspondence - Georgia Department of Law, 1972 34
Correspondence - Health Department, 1973 35
Correspondence - Hiltz Publishing Company, "Life or Death", circa 1972 36
Correspondence - The New York Legal Defense and Education Fund for the Unborn, 1972 37
Correspondence - Pro-Life Council of Connecticut, 1973 38
Correspondence - Roraback, Williams & Avery, 1971 39
Correspondence - Senator Canulla, Guido J. (Rhode Island), 1977 40
Correspondence - Office of the State's Attorney at Waterbury, 1971 41
Correspondence - State Welfare Department, 1970 42
Correspondence - Sweetman, Randy, 1974 43
Correspondence - United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit, 1971 44
Correspondence - United States District Court District of Connecticut, 1971 45
Correspondence - United States Supreme Court, 1972 46
Correspondence - The Value of Life Committee, 1973-1974 47
Series 4. Subject Files, 1947-1981
Box Folder
Abortion - medical articles submitted to the court, circa 1972, undated 2 48
Abortion advice - General Assembly, 1973 49
Abortion advice - Health Department, 1973 50
Abortion cases - Hall M.D., et al. vs. Lefkowitz, et al.; depostion of George W. Corner, M.D., 1970 51
Abortion cases - Roe, et al. vs. Wade; Doe, et al. vs. Bolton, et al., 1971-1972 52-53
Abortion cases from other jurisdictions, circa 1970-1972 54
Affidavits of non-physicians, undated 55
Affidavits of physicians, undated 56
After Supreme Court decision in Georgia and Texas cases , circa 1973 57
Aftermath of abortion decision, 1973-1974 58
Appeal file - decision & judgment, undated 59
Assistant Attorney General opinions from various states, 1973-1975 60
Byrn brief - abortion, circa 1972 61
Byrn brief - abortion, circa 1972 3 1
Calendars, 1972 2
Case history, undated 3
Case notes, undated 4
Compelling state interests test, Virginia Law Review, circa 1972, photocopies 5
Connecticut vs. Menillo, 1971 6
Connecticut abortion statutes, undated 7
Doe v. Bolton, circa 1971 8
Doe vs. Randall, 1970 9
Eisenstadt case, 1972 June 16 10
Expense vouchers - abortion, 1972 11
Experimentation with human beings, circa 1973-1974 12
Hanrahan vs. Doe, et al.; Hefferman vs. Doe, et al., 1971 13
Indiana abortion case, circa 1972 14
Klein abortion case, U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, circa 1972 15
Liley, Dr. A.W., undated, photocopies 16
Miscellaneous - abortion, 1947-1981, undated 17
Miscellaneous - abortion material, circa 1970-1980 18-19
National Doctors Brief; Bart Hefferman, M.D. (Illinois); amicus curiae, circa 1972 20
New Jersey abortion case, circa 1967 21
New York application for temporary restraining order, circa 1972 22
North Dakota abortion legislation, 1975 23
North Dakota referendum, 1973 24
Official records & reports, 1972, undated 25
Oral argument & reference material, circa 1971 26
Petitions protesting relaxation of abortion laws, undated 27
Photographs from Handbook on Abortion, circa 1972 28
Poe vs. Norton, Civil No. 15712, 1973 29
Proclamation of Special Session by Governor Meskill, 1972 May 13 30
Reference materials, undated 31
Research material & drafts - United States Court of Appeals, circa 1971-1972, undated 32
Rhode Island abortion case & miscellaneous abortion material, circa 1972-1973 33
Saine vs. Mulvey, 1971 34
Shettles, Landrum B., undated 4 1
State of Connecticut vs. Maximino Villafane, 1972 June 19 2
State of Connecticut Circuit Court, 1971 3
State of North Dakota vs. H. Benjamin Munson, M.D., 1972 4
Telephone numbers, undated 5
Tennessee Woman vs. Pack, circa 1972 6
United States vs. Vuitch, 1971 7
Weekly Bulletins on Abortion Program, 1971-1972 8-9
Wisconsin abortion appeal, 1972-1973 10
Wisconsin abortion case, 1971-1972 11
Series 5. Legislative Files, 1971-1975
Box Folder
Abortion - legislative history, circa 1972 4 12
Excerpts from H-110 Connecticut General Assembly, House Proceedings, Vol. 14 Part 3, 974-1450, circa 1971 13
House Bill No. 6002 Public Act No. 1, 1972 May, photocopy 14
Legislation - abortion, 1972 15
Proposed regulations concerning abortions, 1973-1975 16
Series 6. Press Files, 1971-1974
Box Folder
Clippings, circa 1971-1974 4 17-18
Life or Death, circa 1972 19
Series 7. Publications, 1965-1978
Box Folder
Nilsson, Lennart and C. Wirsen. A Child is Born the Drama of Life before Birth. New York: Delacorte Press, 1965 4 20
Hilgers, Thomas W. and Dennis J. Horan. Abortion and Social Justice. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1972 21-22
The John Marshall Journal of Practice & Procedure. volume 9, number 2 Spring, 1976 23
One Hundred and Twenty-Second Registration Report. State of Connecticut, 1969 24
One Hundred and Twenty-Third Registration Report. State of Connecticut, 1970 25
Prof. Robert M. Byrn's Challenge to the New York Abortion Law on Behalf of a Class of Unborn Children. Complete Motions and Briefs in Supreme Court of the United States., circa 1972 26
The Public Health Code of the State of Connecticut and Other Department Regulations, 1978 April 27
Respect Life Program: A Catholic Community Experience, 1973 28
Series 8. Duplicates, 1971-1973
Box Folder
Hiltz Publishing Company, Life or Death, circa 1972 4 29
Legal documents, circa 1971-1972 30
Legal documents, circa 1971-1973, undated 5 1-5
Legislative files, 1971-1973 6 1-2
Proceedings - Supreme Court of the United States, No. A-1187, MR-5241, 1972 3