About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

7 Cap. U. L. Rev. 117 (1977-1978)
A Constitutional Right of Sterilization: Ponter v. Ponter

handle is hein.journals/capulr7 and id is 129 raw text is: A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF STERILIZATION: PONTER V. PONTER INTRODUCTION There has been an increased recognition of women's fundamental rights by the courts of this country in the last several years. One of these fundamental rights is that of a woman to decide whether or not to bear children. The New Jersey Superior Court in Ponter v. Ponter,' (hereinafter cited as Ponter) recognized such a right when it held that a woman may obtain a voluntary nontherapeutic sterilization without the consent of her husband. The court relied upon the landmark cases of Roe v. Wade' (hereinafter cited as Wade) and Doe v. Bolton3 (hereinafter cited as Bolton) to establish a starting point for its analysis. The precedent set by the two abortion cases, Wade and Bolton, was that a woman has a constitutional right, emanating from the Bill of Rights, to control her reproductive functions. In examining the abortion-related decisions, the Ponter court stated that a hierarchy of rights is developing: the paramount rights of the mother, followed by the rights of the father, and finally, the rights of the fetus. The court concluded that, since it has been held that a woman has a right to an abortion and other operations without her husband's consent, a logical and natural extension of those rights is the constitutional right to be sterilized without her husband's consent. I. BACKGROUND-FACTS AND HOLDING OF PONTER Plaintiff Judith Ponter and defendant John Ponter were married but had been separated since 1969. Three children were born during the period they cohabitated. While Judith was pregnant and due to give birth to another child not fathered by her husband, she unilateral- ly decided that she wished to be sterilized after the birth of her fourth child. The other plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action were Judith's gynecologists and the professional association with which they were affiliated, Westwood Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates. Judith wished to have one of the doctors perform the sterilization one day after her delivery, the most economical and efficient time to have it performed. The doctors refused to perform the sterilization opera- tion unless she obtained the consent of her husband, John Ponter. However, he refused to consent. Gynecologists and obstetricians in New Jersey generally required spousal consent prior to a sterilization 1. 135 N.J. Super. 50, 342 A.2d 574 (1975). 2. 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 3. 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most