---
title: "United States v. Vuitch"
description: "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."
type: "case"
court: "U.S. Supreme Court"
decided: "1971-04-21"
citation: "402 U.S. 62 (1971)"
docket: "84 (1970 term)"
status: "Historical predecessor"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/united-states-v-vuitch-1971.html"
---

# United States v. Vuitch

_Full caption: United States v. Milan Vuitch_

**Citation:** 402 U.S. 62 (1971) · **Docket No.** 84 (1970 term)

**Status:** Historical predecessor

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Argued | January 12, 1971 |
| Decided | April 21, 1971 |
| Vote | Mixed (5-4 on jurisdiction; different alignment on merits) |
| Majority author | Black, J. |
| Joined by | Burger, C.J.; Harlan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, JJ. (varied by issue) |

## 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

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.

## Opinions

### Majority — Black, J.

_Joined by Burger, C.J.; Harlan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, JJ. (varied by issue)_

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.

### Concurrence — Harlan, J.

_Joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, JJ._

Dissented on jurisdiction but joined merits.

### Dissent — Douglas, J.

_Not joined by any other justice_

First Justice to suggest a general right to abortion as part of privacy.

### Dissent — Stewart, J.

_Not joined by any other justice_

Joined Brennan and Marshall in dissent.

## Key quotes

> "In our view, the term 'health' includes psychological as well as physical well-being."
> — Black, J. (majority) · 402 U.S. at 72

## 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.

## Perspectives

The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case.

### Abolitionist framing

Rarely cited by abolitionists but historically notable as the first abortion case at the Court.

### Mainstream pro-life framing

Historically important as the origin of the 'psychological health' broadening that Doe v. Bolton later formalized.

### Pro-choice framing

Early precedent for broad 'health' interpretation.

## Significance

First abortion case at the Court; foreshadowed Roe's broad 'health' construction.

| Measure | Score |
| --- | --- |
| Overall significance | 3 / 10 |
| Legal precedential weight | 4 |
| Practical impact on access | 3 |
| Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 2 |
| Enduring relevance, 2026 | 2 |

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/402/62](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/402/62)
- [caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/402/62.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/402/62.html)

### Secondary sources

- [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Vuitch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Vuitch)
- [embryo.asu.edu/pages/united-states-v-milan-vuitch-1971](https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/united-states-v-milan-vuitch-1971)

## Related cases

**Cited by later cases:**

- [Roe v. Wade (1973)](roe-v-wade-1973.md)
- [Doe v. Bolton (1973)](doe-v-bolton-1973.md)

## Notes

Norman Dorsen (ACLU General Counsel) argued for Vuitch. The day after Vuitch was announced, the Court voted to hear Roe and Doe.