Poelker v. Doe
Significance, Another Reversal, Complicated Issues
John H. Poelker, et al.
Jane Doe, et al.
That the city of St. Louis, in electing as a policy choice to provide publicly financed hospital services for childbirth but not for nontherapeutic abortions, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Eugene P. Freeman
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Date of Decision
20 June 1977
Upheld that the city of St. Louis did not violate Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, thereby reversing the judgement of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).
- Wulff v. Singleton, 428 U.S. 106 (1976).
- Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977).
- Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979).
- Mahoney, Hildegarde Marie. "National Health Care Legislation and the Funding of Abortion." America, October 16, 1993, p. 8.
- Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Significance, The State's Constitutional Guarantee Of Free Speech, The First Amendment Concerns, Related Cases
- Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth - Decision, A Question Of Viability, Three Issues Of Consent, Three Other Provisions, Concurrence And Dissent
- Poelker v. Doe - Significance
- Poelker v. Doe - Another Reversal
- Poelker v. Doe - Complicated Issues
- Other Free Encyclopedias