OCR Text |
Show MONDAY. JUNE 12. 1972 THE PAGE FOUR DAILY RECORD In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah and nothing is said in those statutes which refers to conciude Aat Ae of anyone else. It thus seem, reasonable mean Section 12. under scrutiny " that is, sterilisation op described in this Susan H. Parker. Dana Schack, J. Rand Hirichi, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Respondents, Ufn4ito v. chapter, ai fhorfaed b "class of defectives" dealt with therein, must be of this chapter"; and that it is the failure to comply with ma requirements ng that chapter, by giving notice, having a hearing, a is that proscribed tion of the facts by the board of each institution, No. 12494 FILED Honorable Calvin L. Rampton, Governor of the State of Utah; and Honorable Vernon B. Romney, Attorney General of the State of Utah, Defendants and Appellants. May .17, 1972 L. M. Cummings, Clerk on There is another aspect of said Chapter 10 wmcn has Section 12, the problem we are concerned with. The section following which is the point of focus in this case, states in part! The word mean any indi"person" when used in this chapter shall an idiot, vidual by a district court to be insane, Word "person" defined 64-10-- . CROCKETT. Justice; adjudged an imbecile, feeble-minde- d, $ Plaintiffs allege: that each is the parent of two children; that each has sought sterilization from their physicians, who have refused because of U. C. A. 1953. They seek forebodings as to the effect of Sec. an adjudication declaring that this section does not apply to them,- but prohibits sterilization only as to persons whom we refer to herein as the "class of defectives. " The subject is dealt with in Chapter 10, Title 64, U. C. A. 1953, which provides for procedures to be followed by officials of certain state institutions for the sterilization of persons who are inmates therein or are afflicted with certain named defects. 64-10-- 12, - For the reasons stated: that the statute here under scrutiny, is directed only to the subject of sterilization of the "class Sec. U. C. A. 1953, and the fact that of defectives" described in Sec. there is no other statute which deals with sterilization, it is our opinion that our law places no restriction upon the right of individuals to have such a sterilization operation if they so desire. , ; Authorization in general-- - . . . Whenever the superintendent of the Utah State Hospital, or of the Utah State Training School, or of the State Industrial School, or the warden of the state prison, shall be of the opinion that it is for the best interests of the inmates or of society that any inmate or of any person adjudged to be insane, an idiot, an imbecile, feeble-minde- d, or epileptic shall be sexually such sterilized, superintendent or warden is authorized to to cause be performed by some capable surgeon the operation of sterilization or asexualization on any such inmate or person . . . provided, that such superintendent or warden shall have first complied with the requirements of this 1. , I chapter. Sec. 64-10-- That I desire to undergo a sterilization operation is Unlawful destruction of power to procreate, a 'felony. as authorized by this chapter, every person who performs, encourages, assists in or otherwise promotes the performance of any of the operations described in this chapter for the purpose of destroying the power to procreate the human species, unless the same shall be a medical necessity, is guilty of a felony. r After having made appropriate findings the trial court stated in conclusions of law: its That the legislative history and codification of the Sterilization Act, Chapter 10 of Title 64, Utah Code Annotated 1953. reauires that Section Utah Code Annotated 1953, be construed to apply only to institutionalized per oons and said statute does hot prohibit a person who is not institutionalized i. e. , anyone else from voluntarily undergoing an operation for the purpose of being sterilized, that is, destroying the power to procreate. 64-10-- . . That I have been advised . . . that if I do obtain a sterilization operation, I may be guilty of . . . felony upon which adjudication 12, 2." The affidavit of each plaintiff states: sought provides: And as 64-10-1- ... The statute referred to, Sec. 1, With respect to the issue presented in the dissent: whether there exists a justiciable controversy between the parties, we do not see this action as an effort to obtain an "advisory opinion in a nonadversary action" in which "the plaintiffs do not assert that they might be prosecuted under ... h 12, 64-10-- The subject of sterilization is dealt with in Chapter 10, Title 64, U. C. A. 1953, which commences: 64-10-- or epileptic. word "person" as used Setting forth the restrictive definition of the in that chapter emphasizes that it is concerned only with the "class of defectives" enumerated therein. If any idea is projected of giving the wof d one just quoted, that would "person" a broader meaning than the restrictive result in such uncertainty and confusion as to make the statute unenforceable 64-10-- j "Jge of 12, . . . . Plaintiffs each state that they have applied to their physicians, each of whom has refused to perform the sterilization because of his fear that he might be guilty of a felony if he did so, as advised by attorney John Snow, counsel for the Utah Medical Association. The plaintiffs' affidavits are uncontradicted. ThuS'the genuineness of the fear of themselves and their physicians that they might render themselves subject to prosecution stands uncontested; and that is the basis upon which the issue was presented to and decided by the trial court. 0 1. To be convicted of crime one's conduct must be plainly and unmistakably-prohibited by the statute, see State v. Pigge, 322 P. 2d 703, 79 Idaho S. Law Sec. 17 and authorities therein cited. Criminal J. 529;G. 2. That whole law making power is vested in the Legislature see Art. VI, Sec. 1, Utah Constitution; State v. Mason, 94 Utah 501, 78 P.2d 920, 117. A. L.R. 330; State ex rel. Stain v. Christensen, 84 Utah 185, 35 P. 2d 775. 3. See Henrie v. Rocky Mountain Packing Corp. , 113 Utah 444, 202 P. 2d 727; State v. Packard, 122 Utah 369, 250 P. 2d 561; and Skaggs Drug Centers, Inc. v. Ashley, 26 Utah 2d 38, 484 P. 2d 723. 4. MaBich v. United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Co., 113 Utah 101, 191 P. 2d 612, appeal dismissed 335 U. S. 866, rehearing denied 335 U.S. 905: Western Auto Transport v. Reese, 104 Utah 393, 140 P. 2d 348. 5. See cases footnote 2 above. 6. As to the genuineness of the fears expressed, it should be had in mind that under our law, Sec. 4, U.C.A. 1953, all persons concerned with the commission of a crime, whether acting directly, or aiding and abetting, are guilty as principals. See State v. Johnson, 6 Utah 2d 29305 P 2d 488-anState v. Ervin, 22 Utah 2d 216, 451 P.2d 3?2. Appellant's brief cor- B1tte8 I14 ther ha been confusion as to our Utah statute in that our statute been commonly understood to " and quotes several texts which declare that:prohibit voluntary sterilization three "Only states Cmm.rH cut, Kansas and Utah have statutes which prohibit voluntary sterilization " citing, 3 J. Family L. 103, 118 (1963); 1 U.San Francisco L R v 7 (19661: 1R DePaul L. Rev. 560. 561 (1969); IV 378 Family L. Q. 76-1-4- part of the decree: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, AND DECREED: d ADJUDGED '?tlr That the named defendants . . , and all other law enforcement officers of the state of Utah, should be and are hereby enjoined from enforcing the provisions of Sec. U. C. A. 1953, except as said statute is applied to state institutions and the inmates and patients therein. 64-10-- 12, 533055 d In connection with the problem which arises in this statute there is to be kept in mind the principle, essential to aanalyzing free society, that each individual should be free to choose his own course of and to conduct, take the consequences thereof, except only as restricted This by law. should be especially true of matters relating to one's own person. It is recognized of course that in various phases of conduct, which may interfere writh others, or conflict with the interests of society generally, there must be some restrictions. But such regulations and restrictions are for the legislature to determine;2 and they should be set forth in the statutory law with sufficient certainty and clarity that persons of ordinary intelligence who desire to obey the law can understand what the are in order to requirements conduct themselves in conformity with it. 3 Correlated to the foregoing is the proposition that if there is any doubt or as to uncertainty any such by law, its origin, history and purpose can be examined to determine its correct interpretation and re-strict- application. d d d B $500,000 INVENTORY SALE D 3 5 BRAND NEW brand new chargers COLTS $2095 to prevent the procreation of habitual sexual criminals, idiots, epileptics, imbeciles and insane and providing penalties for the violation thereof. think it unnecessary to set forth in detail the entire act, but an examination of the original act and all subsequent amendments, now comWe to 14, inclusive, U. C.. A. prising fourteen sections, reveals that they deal only with the matter of sterilization of inmates of1953, state institutions or those who are "adjudged to be insane, idiot, imbecile, feebleminded, or epileptic, " whom we refer to herein as the "clfiss of defectives, " 1 $2997 gj quaranteed as long as you own it quaranteed as long as ( An Act (1970) HINCKLEYS ion The statutes with which we are 10 of Title 64 reconcerned, to ferred above, are the only provisions in our law Chapter to sterilization. The original enactment was Chapter 82, S. L. U. relating 1925, and was entitled: 64-10- -1 d m 373, BRAND NEW DARTS you own it BRAND NEW P01ARAS $2298 $3655 3 quaranteed as long as you own it. Quaranteed as long Si! THI GOOD GUYS HINCKLEYS 10th So. end Main 359-76- 55 mi as you own It ; |