The opinion of the court was delivered by: NORDBERG
JOHN A. NORDBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court is the parties' joint motion under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for approval of a proposed settlement and consent decree. For the reasons stated below, the court grants the motion and enters the consent decree.
Plaintiffs brought this action on June 28, 1985, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the enforcement of portions of three Illinois statutes, the Medical Practice Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111, §§ 4433 (1)(a)-(e) (later recodified as §§ 4400-22 (1)(a)-(e)), the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2, §§ 157-8.1 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder, and the Health Facilities Planning Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2, §§ 1152 et seq.
Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of these statutes and regulations, contending that they form a scheme which in effect requires all abortions to be performed in a hospital or its functional equivalent. Plaintiffs charged that this scheme violated the equal protection rights of Illinois physicians who perform or desire to perform abortions, and the privacy rights of Illinois women who desire or may desire to obtain an abortion. This court agreed, and on November 27, 1985, granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
On March 10, 1988, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the injunction, except for one portion which it vacated as moot.
Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. On July 3, 1989, the Supreme Court entered an order accepting the case for oral argument but postponing the question of jurisdiction until the hearing on the merits. Before the date scheduled for oral argument, the parties negotiated the proposed consent decree now before this court. The decree seeks to resolve all claims for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by plaintiffs and reserves their claim for attorney's fees, costs and expenses. On December 1, 1989, the Supreme Court granted the parties' joint motion to defer proceedings there pending this court's decision to approve or disapprove the proposed decree.
Following the Supreme Court's order, the parties gave notice of the proposed settlement to the plaintiff and defendant classes, with this court's approval.
The court allowed any class members objecting to the proposed settlement to file submissions by February 9, 1990, with responses due the following week. During this period, the court received 326 telephone calls, two telegrams, and 1,266 letters. The court read every single letter in its entirety.
On February 23, 1990, the court conducted a hearing to assess the fairness of the proposed settlement. The parties explained their reasons for negotiating the settlement; afterward, the court heard objections from amici who had filed briefs with the court.
Finally, the court permitted individuals attending the hearing -- who filled the largest courtroom in the courthouse -- to express their views if they wished. After reviewing the prior findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by this court, reviewing the opinion of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court, examining the briefs filed by the parties and objectors, and hearing and considering all of the written and oral presentations made in connection with the fairness hearing,
the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In deciding whether to approve a proposed consent decree, "a district court must determine whether [it] is lawful, fair, reasonable, and adequate." E.E.O.C. v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., 768 F.2d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 1985). The court does not draw on a clean slate, however. Deference must be given to the settlement, since it embodies a negotiated compromise between the parties. A district court should therefore "be chary of disapproving a consent decree." Id., p. 890. Indeed, the court "may not deny approval of a consent decree unless it is unfair, unreasonable, or inadequate." Id., p. 889.
The consent decree introduces a new scheme which identifies two types of surgical facilities: those that perform abortions beyond 18 weeks gestational age, or with general, epidural, or spinal anesthesia, or with incisions exposing the patient to a risk of infection; and those that perform abortions within 18 weeks gestational age, under local anesthesia. The former are made subject to a panoply of licensing provisions under the ASTCA and Health Facilities Planning Act. The latter, while still obliged to obtain a license, are required to comply with a new set of regulations tailored to those facilities.
This scheme is neither unfair, unreasonable, or inadequate. As counsel for both parties noted during the fairness hearing, the settlement addresses each side's principal concern. To plaintiffs' satisfaction, the decree preserves their constitutional right to have or provide abortions; to defendants' satisfaction, it permits the Department of Public Health to regulate outpatient clinics devoted to abortions and abortion-related procedures. The decree reflects "the essence of settlement," which is "compromise . . . Each side gains the benefit of immediate resolution of the litigation and some measure of vindication for its position while foregoing the opportunity to achieve an unmitigated victory." Hiram Walker, 768 F.2d at 889.
Various objectors insist that the proposed consent decree compromises too much. Family Planning Associates Medical Group (FPA), a major provider of abortion services in Chicago and elsewhere, objects to the provision that subjects an abortion-only surgical facility to full ASTC regulatory requirements if it uses general anesthesia. "That provision," says FPA, "permits the imposition of burdensome and medically unnecessary regulations that would impermissibly infringe on the rights of the physician class to provide abortion services . . ." FPA brief, p. 2.
FPA's argument is unavailing. General anesthesia is more hazardous than local anesthesia, a fact to which Doctors Ragsdale and Hern, plaintiff and plaintiffs' expert, respectively, testified. State Defendants' Response, p. 8. Indeed, the Abortion Standards and Guidelines of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. provide that "general anesthesia may not be used in out-of-hospital settings." Id. In view of this distinction between local and general anesthesia, the court cannot conclude that the provision challenged by FPA renders the settlement unfair or unreasonable.
Similarly, mere speculation that the Supreme Court might uphold the provisions challenged here in light of Webster will not invalidate the consent decree.
In deciding whether to approve a settlement, "the district court should refrain from resolving the merits of the controversy or making a precise determination of the parties' respective legal rights." Hiram Walker, 768 F.2d at 889. Settlement proceedings are not an appropriate occasion for resolving the merits of undecided legal issues. The court declines the invitation of some objectors to do so.
Other objectors insist that the consent decree endangers the health and safety of women seeking abortions. There is no evidence to support this contention. To the contrary, in their briefs and at the fairness hearing, counsel for both parties made clear what their intentions were during settlement negotiations: to assure safe and sanitary conditions for abortion procedures while permitting women the opportunity to exercise their constitutional rights. Toward that end, the parties consulted with obstetricians, gynecologists, and other medical and public health experts in drafting the terms of the settlement.
Far from leaving women unprotected, the settlement creates a network of statutes and rules regulating the provision of abortion services. Facilities that provide abortions beyond 18 weeks gestational age or use general anesthesia must comply with the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Licensing Requirements. Facilities that offer abortion services within 18 weeks gestational age, using local anesthesia, must abide by the requirements set forth under subpart G of the ASTCA, "Limited Procedure Specialty Centers." Like any other provider of medical services, abortion providers must comply with standards of conduct generally applicable to the medical profession.
Finally, the Clinical Laboratory Act -- and any other present or future legislation not contrary to the consent decree -- may be applied to providers of abortion services.
Taken together, these statutes and regulations provide the state with ample authority to safeguard the health and safety of women seeking abortions. That is certainly the view of the Department of Public Health, which is charged with regulating health care in the State of Illinois: "it is the judgment of the medical doctors with the Department of Public Health that the remaining regulations provide a sufficient mechanism by which the Department can regulate and inspect these facilities in order to minimize the risk of harm to patients undergoing surgery at these facilities. This judgment, as well as the goal of regaining regulatory authority is consistent with the stated purpose of the ASTC Act to 'promote safe and adequate treatment.'" State Defendants' Response, p. 7 (citation omitted).
Their charge is without merit. On November 8, 1989, this court ordered the State's Attorney of Cook County, or his representative, to participate in settlement negotiations. Assistant State's Attorney Harold E. McKee, III, was assigned to the case. At the fairness hearing, plaintiffs and defendants alike attested to the vigor and frequency of Mr. McKee's participation in the negotiations. He "attend[ed] and participate[d] in all settlement negotiations . . . participated in drafting the proposed settlement and consent decree, represented the class interest in maintaining the ability to prosecute future violations under the settled acts, and also participated in the briefings held for the benefit of the news media . . ." State's Attorney Partee's Response, p. 4. The court finds his representation adequate and denies the Motion for Leave to Take Discovery brought by Dennis Schumacher, Greg McClintock, Samuel Naylor, and Stephen L. Reed, state's attorneys for Ogle, Warren, Hancock, and Henderson counties, respectively.
Finally, some objectors challenge the consent decree because it would expose defendants to a claim for attorney's fees. But the consent decree expressly reserves the issue of attorney's fees for resolution at a later date:
The plaintiffs' entitlement to, and the amount of, any counsel fees and reimbursement of disbursements and expenses to be paid by the defendants shall be determined by the District Court upon proper application by the plaintiffs after the entry of the Consent Decree and final Judgment.
Settlement Agreement, p. 5. Any objections regarding fees made at this time are premature.
The parties' Stipulation discusses this and nearly every other aspect of these settlement proceedings. Although far too detailed for full discussion here, some elements of the Stipulation deserve mention. Beginning with page 7, for instance, the Stipulation comprehensively reviews the procedural history behind the consent decree. The court incorporates that review in this opinion. Further, the Stipulation identifies several factors which may be used to decide whether a settlement is fair, including the strength of plaintiffs' case versus the settlement offer; the complexity and expense of further litigation; the reaction of class members to the settlement; the opinion of competent counsel; and the stage of proceedings and amount of discovery completed. Stipulation, p. 27.
Without launching into full analysis of these factors here, the court notes that it considered them all in reaching its holding today. The consent decree offers plaintiffs, by their own admission, "permanent injunctive relief similar . . . to that which they sought in this litigation . . ." (Stipulation, p. 28); further litigation could prove lengthy and expensive; few class members objected to the settlement; counsel were clearly well-informed and represented their clients zealously; and the settlement agreement arose late in the proceedings, after thorough discovery had been completed. These and other factors considered by the court are more fully explained by the parties in the Stipulation.
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds the proposed consent decree lawful, fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the court grants the parties' joint motion for approval of the settlement, and enters the consent decree herewith.
I. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION
This class action litigation was commenced as a civil rights case on June 28, 1985, by named Plaintiffs Richard M. Ragsdale, M.D., Margaret Moe, R.N., the Northern Illinois Women's Center, Sarah Roe and Jane Doe, under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988, and 28 U.S.C. sections 2201 et seq. Plaintiffs claimed that the challenged Illinois statutes and regulations, which included (1) the Medical Practice Act, ("MPA") Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. Ill. section 4433 (1)(a)-(e) (since recodified at Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 section 4400-22(1)), (2) the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act ("ASTC Act"), Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2 sections 157-8.1 to 157-8.16 and regulations promulgated thereunder, and (3) the Health Facilities Planning Act ("HFP Act"), Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2 sections 1151 to 1168, impermissibly restricted the performance of first and second trimester abortions and thus allegedly violated rights secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff Richard M. Ragsdale, M.D., is a physician, licensed to practice in Illinois, who is the Director of the Northern Illinois Women's Center. At the time the complaint was filed and at the present, Dr. Ragsdale performs abortions for his women patients who seek such medical care. Plaintiff Margaret Moe is a registered nurse and the sole owner and executive director of a medical facility in Cook County, Illinois. Ms. Moe employs licensed physicians and she sought to offer abortion services at her facility. Plaintiffs Sarah Roe and Jane Doe are patients of Dr. Ragsdale who had sought and received an abortion from Dr. Ragsdale and who may need or desire another abortion in the future.
The named plaintiffs brought this lawsuit on their own behalf, on behalf of a class of physicians who perform or desire to perform abortions in the State of Illinois, and on behalf of a class of Illinois women who desire abortion services. In orders issued on November 27, 1985 and on December 11, 1985, this Court certified the following plaintiff classes pursuant to Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(a) A plaintiff class consisting of all physicians and surgeons who perform or desire to perform abortions in the State of Illinois; [and]
(b) A plaintiff class consisting of all Illinois women of child-bearing age who desire or may desire an abortion sometime in the future[.]
Defendant Bernard J. Turnock, M.D., is the Director of the Department of Public Health of the State of Illinois and was sued in his official capacity. He is responsible for the enforcement of the ASTC Act and for the promulgation and enforcement of regulations under that ...