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

22 Rutgers L. Rev. 415 (1967-1968)
Law, Morality, and Abortion

handle is hein.journals/rutlr22 and id is 421 raw text is: LAW, MORALITY, AND ABORTION Editor's Note: On March 27, 1968, the Rutgers Law Review presented a symposium entitled Law, Morality, and Abortion, which was moder- ated by the Dean of Rutgers Law School, Willard Heckel. We intended to entertain a discussion of the relevant issues from the varied stand- points of law, medicine, and religion; and we particularly hoped to gain a better understanding of the role that the lawyer can and should play in formulating public policy with regard to abortion. Thus we present here the prepared statements and subsequent exchange of ideas of our distinguished panel with the hope that a serious consideration of the problems of abortion might be stimulated. JUSTICE JOHN J. FRANCIS:* Since our discussion tonight was prompted by the present form of the New Jersey abortion statute' and the many questions that have been raised about its serviceability as an instrument of social justice or or- der in our contemporary society, it seems advisable for purposes of per- spective to outline briefly the basic provisions of the act. It is a very short statute, as you probably know. In substance it says: Any person who, maliciously or without lawful justification, with intent to cause or procure the miscarriage of a pregnant woman, administers . . . any poison, drug, medicine, or noxious thing, or uses any instrument or means whatever, is guilty of a high misdemeanor.2 As you probably know also, a high misdemeanor in New Jersey can mean seven years in: State Prison. The Statute goes on to say: If as a consequence the woman or child shall die, the offender shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both.8 The act will be 120 years old very soon, and yet, there has been little change in its phraseology since it was adopted early in 1849. The statute contains no definition of the phrase without lawful justification. It does not say what fact-medical, sociological, or economic-shall con- stitute lawful justification. For that reason some of our judges believe the law to be unconstitutional.4 They claim that without legislative definition the phrase is so vague or ambiguous that no one can tell spe- * Associate Justice, New Jersey Supreme Court. 1. N.J. REv. STAT. § 2A:87-1 (1953). 2. Id. 3. Id. 4. See Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 49 N.J. 22, 49-65, 227 A.2d 689, 694-712 (1967) (Jacobs, J., dissenting; Weintraub, C.J., dissenting in part).

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