Summary
In Vuitch v. Hardy, 473 F.2d 1370 (4 Cir. 1973), the Fourth Circuit affirmed per curiam the grant of habeas corpus because of the retroactive effect of Roe, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. 414 U.S. 824, 94 S.Ct. 126, 38 L.Ed. 2d 57 (1973).
Summary of this case from United States ex Rel. Williams v. PreiserOpinion
No. 72-1890.
Argued January 10, 1973.
Decided February 20, 1973.
Francis X. Pugh, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. on brief), for appellant.
Roy Lucas, Washington, D.C. (E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Washington, D.C., Timothy J. Bloomfield, Oxford, Md., and Randall C. Coleman, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
The district court held that petitioner had exhausted his available state remedies prior to filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus and that the writ should issue because the Maryland Therapeutic Abortion Act, 4B Ann. Code of Maryland, Art. 43, §§ 137 et seq. (1971 Repl. Vol.), under which petitioner was convicted, was unconstitutional, because of the limitations which it placed upon the performance of an abortion. We agree that petitioner had exhausted his available state remedies. Subsequent to the argument before us, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, ___ U.S. ___, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, ___ U.S. ___, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973). These cases make clear that the district court correctly decided the case, and we affirm on their authority.
Affirmed.