{"schema":"abhortion.org/case.v1/v1","id":"united-states-v-vuitch-1971","type":"case","case_name_short":"United States v. Vuitch","case_name_full":"United States v. Milan Vuitch","citation":"402 U.S. 62 (1971)","docket_number":"84 (1970 term)","status":"Historical predecessor","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_argued":"1971-01-12","date_decided":"1971-04-21","vote":"Mixed (5-4 on jurisdiction; different alignment on merits)","question_presented":"Whether D.C.'s abortion statute (permitting abortion only when 'necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or health') is unconstitutionally vague.","holding":"The D.C. statute is not unconstitutionally vague. 'Health' includes psychological as well as physical well-being. The prosecution bears the burden of proving abortion was not medically necessary.","reasoning_summary":"Justice Black narrowly interpreted 'health' expansively and shifted the burden to prosecution. Justice Douglas's dissent was the first Supreme Court articulation of a general privacy-based abortion right.","practical_effect":"First abortion case at the Supreme Court. Cited as precedent in Roe two years later. Effectively decriminalized much of D.C. abortion practice.","opinions":[{"role":"majority","author":"Black, J.","joined_by":"Burger, C.J.; Harlan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, JJ. (varied by issue)","summary":"The D.C. statute is not unconstitutionally vague. 'Health' includes psychological as well as physical well-being. The prosecution bears the burden of proving abortion was not medically necessary."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Harlan, J.","joined_by":"Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, JJ.","summary":"Dissented on jurisdiction but joined merits."},{"role":"dissent","author":"Douglas, J.","summary":"First Justice to suggest a general right to abortion as part of privacy."},{"role":"dissent","author":"Stewart, J.","summary":"Joined Brennan and Marshall in dissent."}],"key_quotes":[{"quote":"In our view, the term 'health' includes psychological as well as physical well-being.","speaker":"Black, J. (majority)","location":"402 U.S. at 72"}],"perspectives":{"abolitionist":"Rarely cited by abolitionists but historically notable as the first abortion case at the Court.","mainstream_prolife":"Historically important as the origin of the 'psychological health' broadening that Doe v. Bolton later formalized.","prochoice":"Early precedent for broad 'health' interpretation."},"significance":{"overall":3,"legal_precedential_weight":4,"practical_impact_on_access":3,"movement_relevance_abolitionist":2,"enduring_relevance_2026":2,"rationale":"First abortion case at the Court; foreshadowed Roe's broad 'health' construction."},"sources":{"primary":[{"name":"law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/402/62","href":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/402/62"},{"name":"caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/402/62.html","href":"https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/402/62.html"}],"secondary":[{"name":"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Vuitch","href":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Vuitch"},{"name":"embryo.asu.edu/pages/united-states-v-milan-vuitch-1971","href":"https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/united-states-v-milan-vuitch-1971"}]},"related_cases":{"cited_by_later":["Roe v. Wade (1973)","Doe v. Bolton (1973)"]},"notes":"Norman Dorsen (ACLU General Counsel) argued for Vuitch. The day after Vuitch was announced, the Court voted to hear Roe and Doe.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/united-states-v-vuitch-1971.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/united-states-v-vuitch-1971.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/united-states-v-vuitch-1971.json"}}