1. Running head: Chosen Case Study 1
Case Study - Unit 5
Kiana Webb
November 25, 2014
Kaplan University

2. Chosen Case Study 2
Case Study Explanation
The case chosen will briefly be discussed as it relates to the issues of privacy
within a relational setting. Information pertaining to the case issue is noted in summation
along with final thoughts.
In this case trial involving United States v. Vuitch (1971), the physician under
examination of law had practiced abortion in the District of Columbia and was found to
be in violation of the D.C. code § 22-201, for performing intentional and future
intentional abortion procedures. The legal actions against the doctor was immediately
dismissed by the District Court who came to an agreement that cleared up any wrongs
relative to abortion procedures due to lack of sufficient evidence. The court concluded
that “the abortion statute laws originally applied to D.C. fall into place within other
jurisdictional district appeals and decisions found at section 3731” (Justia, 2014). The
legal issue found in Vuitch (1971), falls under all criminal cases in which an indictment
may be dismissed if no fault can be validated with good reason and proof that crime
took place so as to compare it to the statute’s validity of indictment. Enforcement of the
statute law is constitutional in a court setting and cannot be effectively useful until the
Court decides whether or not the case issue is qualified for an appeal carried out by a
jury in the Court of Appeals. (Justia, 2014) (402 U.S. 67-73). In the end, the case was
reversed and remanded by the Court, because nothing or no one could prove that
Doctor Vuitch intentionally performed an abortion without the consent of the mother or
for reasons other than a life threatening health risk to the mother (Justia, 2014) (pp. 402
U.S. 69-71).

3. Chosen Case Study 3
The case importance focused primarily on the safety and health of the woman for
whom the proceeding was performed upon by the doctor who was medically licensed at
the time to take part in the act. The District Judge of D.C. again summed up the
dismissal treatment of case, by stating that “the physician is not found guilty of action
relating to the performance of abortion because there is no supporting facts to prove he
did so for reasons other than to preserve the lifetime of mom”, who could have lost her
life during the procedure (Justia, 2014) (p. 402 U.S. 68). The Court also based their final
decision to dismiss indictment of Doctor Vuitch, through use of supportive cases which
validated the dismissal as a voice to clear Vuitch of any wrongdoing. As in Williams v.
United States (1943), “the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, states that proof
of prosecution was not needed to expose any lack of good reason to preserve the life of
mother during an abortion procedure although other reasons could have been
investigated but known could be brought forth to the jury of court: (Justia, 2014). And in
the case Lanzetta v. New Jersey (1939), “the issue of health can have so many
meanings that it does not clearly define the legal burden of the guilty party leaving the
District of Columbia’s abortion statutes out of the Courts conversation” although
constitutional issues can arise (Justia, 2014).
In short, the significance of this case has pointed towards statutes, clauses, and
rights outlined within it that can highly have an effect on a case dealing with abortion
issues and family law in whole. Not all protections granted to persons of every
background are guaranteed nor promised when faced with trials of life such as that
found within a community of women dedicated to having control over their own rights as
gendered beings. They are often faced with the decision to procreate or limit their need

4. Chosen Case Study 4
and/or choice to do so without the influence of lawmakers who interfere. Physicians take
on a similar plight when faced with the need to expose their patient in the public
populous after being confronted with performing a procedure which has ended an
innocent life and has placed another life in danger pending a legal investigation. The
privacy of the patient or any other person involved with the legal issue/issues pertaining
to family law, specifically the members of a family starting with mother and child, can be
exposed to all sorts of other issues affecting the health of mother, whether or not the
father who conceived with the mother helped to make the abortion decision and if the
doctor performed the procedure thoroughly or carelessly according to the medical
guidelines/ethics he was supposed to follow as a licensed physician.
If I was the judge in this case ruling, I would decide based on the facts and
testimony of the birthing mother, to determine if she had approved the procedure to be
done and if she gave specific reason for why the procedure had to be done. Also, I
would cross examine the physician and his medical team with the help of the jury to
figure out whether or not he made false statements at any time during the trial, such as
why he chose to perform the procedure and for what reasons if any? If he was found to
be deceitful throughout the trial I will decide in care of the patient mother to indict the
doctor and order him to pay legal fees along with settlement dues to be awarded to
patient and the medical board for malpractice crime involving abortion.

5. Chosen Case Study 5
References
Justia (2014). United States v. Vuitch 402 U.S. 62 (1971). Retrieved from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/402/62/case.html