Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
I bet they'll also outlaw tubal ligations and hysterectomies, but...
... not vasectomies.
Does anyone still think we don't need the ERA?
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
My mother had a hysterectomy in 1972 and was required to get my father's "permission" (as a medical sign off) for the procedure. I.e., some states and medical providers interpreted a "hysterectomy" as a form of "sterilization" (no matter what the REAL reason was), and was thus "forbidden without consent" by some other party based on their fantastical made-up belief of a "state mandate" that didn't exist. I.e., they were "afraid of being sued". 
There were actual court cases back then that were predicated on stare decisis, including and referencing the decision for Roe v Wade as being in effect, in order to protect women from this nonsense -
Ponter v. Ponter
135 N.J. Super. 50 (1975)
342 A.2d 574
JUDITH PONTER, R.P. GOTCHEL, M.D.; R. KESSLER, M.D.; R.A. RODGERS, JR., M.D.; J.P. BURNS, JR., M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AS ASSOCIATES OF THE WESTWOOD OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.A., A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFFS, v. JOHN PONTER AND AETNA CASUALTY AND LIFE CO., DEFENDANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.
June 9, 1975.
(snip)
The facts in the instant case are not disputed and are as follows: Plaintiff Judith Ponter and defendant John Ponter are married but have been living separate and apart since 1969. During the period they co-habited three children were born. Judith is due to give birth to another child fathered by someone other than her husband. She has unilaterally decided that she no longer desires to utilize her capacity to procreate and wishes to effectuate this end by the means of sterilization. Throughout the term of her present pregnancy and for some ten years preceding it, Judith Ponter has received obstetrical and gynecological care from Drs. R.P. Gotchel, R. Kessler, R.A. Rodgers, Jr., and J.P. Burns, all being affiliates of Westwood Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, P.A. These individual doctors and the professional association are also plaintiffs herein. Judith Ponter planned to have one of these doctors perform the sterilization within one day subsequent to the delivery of her expected child. Such an operation can be performed most economically and efficiently within the time period.
However, the doctors will not perform such an operation unless Judith obtains the consent of her husband John Ponter, which she is unable to procure. Plaintiff doctors, as well as other doctors engaged in similar practices through the State, require spousal consent prior to the performance of sterilization operations. By this means the doctors seek to protect themselves against potential civil liability which might arise at the behest of the nonconsenting spouse. In light of the fact that there has never been a declaration as to the law in New Jersey on this point, such a precaution is not without basis. In this action Judith Ponter seeks to have this court determine whether a married woman has a constitutional right to be sterilized without spousal consent. The doctors and professional association further seek to enjoin John Ponter from instituting any action against them for the performance of the operation without his consent.
Plaintiffs' action is based in large measure on the theory of law established in the landmark cases of Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S. Ct. 739, 35 L. Ed. 2d 201 (1973), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973). These cases establish a new era in women's continuing struggle for the establishment of their individual rights. *53 In Bolton and Wade the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of a woman's right to an abortion. It held that at least in the first trimester of a pregnancy such a right emanates from the Bill of Rights and is protected against unwarranted state interference by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further established that within that term only state restrictions which were related to the state's interest in "safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards and in protecting potential life" Roe v. Wade, supra 410 U.S. at 154, 93 S. Ct. at 727, would pass constitutional muster.
The decision for or against the operation is left to the woman and her doctor alone. The precedent established by Bolton and Wade, although controversial from the moralists' and theologians' viewpoint, is required to be followed by all lower courts. The Supreme Court by these decisions sanctioned the ideology that a woman has a right in most circumstances to control her reproductive functions. Indeed, the ideology was raised from the "bandwagon" of various women's rights movements to constitutional proportions. Having thus established the major thesis which binds all courts, we now must look to the application of this theory as delineated and expanded by other courts.
(snip)
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1975/135-n-j-super-50-0.html
135 N.J. Super. 50 (1975)
342 A.2d 574
JUDITH PONTER, R.P. GOTCHEL, M.D.; R. KESSLER, M.D.; R.A. RODGERS, JR., M.D.; J.P. BURNS, JR., M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AS ASSOCIATES OF THE WESTWOOD OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.A., A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFFS, v. JOHN PONTER AND AETNA CASUALTY AND LIFE CO., DEFENDANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.
June 9, 1975.
(snip)
The facts in the instant case are not disputed and are as follows: Plaintiff Judith Ponter and defendant John Ponter are married but have been living separate and apart since 1969. During the period they co-habited three children were born. Judith is due to give birth to another child fathered by someone other than her husband. She has unilaterally decided that she no longer desires to utilize her capacity to procreate and wishes to effectuate this end by the means of sterilization. Throughout the term of her present pregnancy and for some ten years preceding it, Judith Ponter has received obstetrical and gynecological care from Drs. R.P. Gotchel, R. Kessler, R.A. Rodgers, Jr., and J.P. Burns, all being affiliates of Westwood Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, P.A. These individual doctors and the professional association are also plaintiffs herein. Judith Ponter planned to have one of these doctors perform the sterilization within one day subsequent to the delivery of her expected child. Such an operation can be performed most economically and efficiently within the time period.
However, the doctors will not perform such an operation unless Judith obtains the consent of her husband John Ponter, which she is unable to procure. Plaintiff doctors, as well as other doctors engaged in similar practices through the State, require spousal consent prior to the performance of sterilization operations. By this means the doctors seek to protect themselves against potential civil liability which might arise at the behest of the nonconsenting spouse. In light of the fact that there has never been a declaration as to the law in New Jersey on this point, such a precaution is not without basis. In this action Judith Ponter seeks to have this court determine whether a married woman has a constitutional right to be sterilized without spousal consent. The doctors and professional association further seek to enjoin John Ponter from instituting any action against them for the performance of the operation without his consent.
Plaintiffs' action is based in large measure on the theory of law established in the landmark cases of Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S. Ct. 739, 35 L. Ed. 2d 201 (1973), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973). These cases establish a new era in women's continuing struggle for the establishment of their individual rights. *53 In Bolton and Wade the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of a woman's right to an abortion. It held that at least in the first trimester of a pregnancy such a right emanates from the Bill of Rights and is protected against unwarranted state interference by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further established that within that term only state restrictions which were related to the state's interest in "safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards and in protecting potential life" Roe v. Wade, supra 410 U.S. at 154, 93 S. Ct. at 727, would pass constitutional muster.
The decision for or against the operation is left to the woman and her doctor alone. The precedent established by Bolton and Wade, although controversial from the moralists' and theologians' viewpoint, is required to be followed by all lower courts. The Supreme Court by these decisions sanctioned the ideology that a woman has a right in most circumstances to control her reproductive functions. Indeed, the ideology was raised from the "bandwagon" of various women's rights movements to constitutional proportions. Having thus established the major thesis which binds all courts, we now must look to the application of this theory as delineated and expanded by other courts.
(snip)
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1975/135-n-j-super-50-0.html
The above further referenced a case specifically dealing with a "hysterectomy' -
In Murray v. Vandevander, supra, a husband who did not consent to his wife's hysterectomy sued the physician and the hospital for loss of consortium and deprivation of the right to reproduce another child. The court declined to grant relief, finding that a married woman had a right to her health and such right could not be qualified by the requirement of spousal consent. The court found that the right of a competent person to control his or her body to be paramount to his or her spouses' desires. In accord with this principal is Karp v. Cooley, 493 F.2d 408 (5 Cir.1974).
Here is a link to that case's appeal - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10637171409785708740&q=Murray+v.+Vandevander,&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39&as_vis=1
J.C. MURRAY, Appellant,
v.
D.C. VANDEVANDER et al., Appellees.
No. 46159.
Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.
April 16, 1974.
Released for Publication May 9, 1974.
Booth & Jay, Frank R. Hickman, Tulsa, for appellant.
T. Austin Gavin, Jones, Givens, Brett, Gotcher, Doyle & Atkins, Inc., Tulsa, for appellee St. John's Hospital.
Rogers, Rogers & Jones by Dan A. Rogers, Tulsa, N. Franklyn Casey, Tulsa, on the brief, for appellee Hillcrest Medical Center, an Okl. Corp.
Released for Publication by the Court of Appeals May 9, 1974.
303
*303 BOX, Presiding Judge:
After the trial court sustained the appellees' demurrers to the appellant's petition, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial. This appeal is brought from the order of the trial court denying appellant's motion for new trial.
This action was commenced by appellant, hereafter called plaintiff, against appellees D.C. VanDevander, St. John's Hospital, and Hillcrest Medical Center. Plaintiff alleged in his petition that VanDevander was an agent of the other two defendants, St. John's and Hillcrest. It is further alleged that VanDevander performed a hysterectomy on Artie V. Murray, wife of plaintiff, without her husband's consent. There was no allegation that the operation was unsuccessful or that VanDevander was negligent. Plaintiff alleged that the actions of the defendants had interfered with the marital rights of the plaintiff and his wife. The petition further states that VanDevander "induced, and by the means of overreaching and unprofessional medical advice, prevailed upon the wife of plaintiff to submit to such surgery, ..." The petition further states that "the plaintiff had warned and specifically notified said defendant that he did not approve, but in fact, strenuously objected to the performance of such surgery." As a result of the damage alleged to have been incurred by appellant to his right of consortium and "the right to reproduce another child", plaintiff sought recovery in the amount of $100,000.00.
v.
D.C. VANDEVANDER et al., Appellees.
No. 46159.
Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.
April 16, 1974.
Released for Publication May 9, 1974.
Booth & Jay, Frank R. Hickman, Tulsa, for appellant.
T. Austin Gavin, Jones, Givens, Brett, Gotcher, Doyle & Atkins, Inc., Tulsa, for appellee St. John's Hospital.
Rogers, Rogers & Jones by Dan A. Rogers, Tulsa, N. Franklyn Casey, Tulsa, on the brief, for appellee Hillcrest Medical Center, an Okl. Corp.
Released for Publication by the Court of Appeals May 9, 1974.
303
*303 BOX, Presiding Judge:
After the trial court sustained the appellees' demurrers to the appellant's petition, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial. This appeal is brought from the order of the trial court denying appellant's motion for new trial.
This action was commenced by appellant, hereafter called plaintiff, against appellees D.C. VanDevander, St. John's Hospital, and Hillcrest Medical Center. Plaintiff alleged in his petition that VanDevander was an agent of the other two defendants, St. John's and Hillcrest. It is further alleged that VanDevander performed a hysterectomy on Artie V. Murray, wife of plaintiff, without her husband's consent. There was no allegation that the operation was unsuccessful or that VanDevander was negligent. Plaintiff alleged that the actions of the defendants had interfered with the marital rights of the plaintiff and his wife. The petition further states that VanDevander "induced, and by the means of overreaching and unprofessional medical advice, prevailed upon the wife of plaintiff to submit to such surgery, ..." The petition further states that "the plaintiff had warned and specifically notified said defendant that he did not approve, but in fact, strenuously objected to the performance of such surgery." As a result of the damage alleged to have been incurred by appellant to his right of consortium and "the right to reproduce another child", plaintiff sought recovery in the amount of $100,000.00.
So yes this was a "thing", which is why some states like Iowa were trying to codify it into law so that there was no question.
If Roe goes, then just like what happened to the VRA with the striking down of Section 4, so too went Section 5 ( "pre-clearance" requirement for certain states) and in this case, so too would go Ponter v. Ponter.
