the Supreme Court of Florida that the death sentence was imposed in accordance with the requirements of Florida law as well as those of the United States Constitution, and it has been the conclusion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that there was no federal constitutional error in the process by which applicant was sentenced to death. Three times this Court has refused to review the determinations of these state and federal courts. I do not believe that the claim presented in the present application would be any more successful than the claims presented in the preceding three petitions for certiorari. The application for stay of execution of John A. Spenkelink, presently scheduled for Wednesday, May 23, 1979, at 7 a. m., e. d. t., is accordingly Denied. 442 U.S. Opinion in Chambers SPENKELINK v. WAINWRIGHT ET AL. ON REAPPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION No. A-1016. Decided May 23, 1979 A reapplication for stay of execution of a death sentence under a Florida murder conviction, following the denial of earlier applications, see ante, p. 1301, is granted until further action by the entire Court. MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL. John A. Spenkelink, who is scheduled to be put to death at 7:00 a. m. on May 23, 1979, has applied to me for a stay of his execution. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS have both denied the application, and the pertinent facts are set forth in MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST's opinion, ante, p. 1301. Given the Court of Appeals' divided vote on whether to grant a certificate of probable cause, the irrevocable nature of the penalty to be imposed, and the ability of the full Court to consider this case within 36 hours at our regular Conference, I believe it appropriate to grant the application for a stay until further action by the entire Court. Granted. Opinion in Chambers WILLIAMS v. ZBARAZ ON APPLICATION FOR STAY No. A-958. Decided May 24, 1979* Applications for a stay, pending appeal to this Court, of the District Court's order enjoining the State of Illinois from refusing to fund under its medical assistance programs "medically necessary" abortions performed prior to viability of the fetus are denied. The District Court, in an action where the plaintiffs are a class of certain pregnant women and a class of certain physicians, held that an Illinois statute under which only "life-preserving" abortions were funded was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. The applications do not present the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to justify a stay. A stay is not necessary to preserve the issue for decision by this Court; and in light of the competing equities, applicants, the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid and physicians who intervened as defendants below, have failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that the risk of irreparable harm to them if the injunction remains in effect outweighs the risk of irreparable harm to plaintiffs if a stay of that injunction is granted. MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, Circuit Justice. Applicants seek a stay of an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois enjoining the State of Illinois from refusing to fund under its medical assistance programs medically necessary abortions performed prior to viability. The plaintiffs in this action are a class of pregnant women eligible for Illinois medical assistance programs for whom an abortion is medically necessary and a class of physicians who perform such procedures and are certified to receive reimbursement for necessary medical services. Their complaint alleged that the Illinois statute, 1977 Ill. Laws, Pub. Act 80-1091, § 1, denying reimbursement for medically necessary abortions vio *Together with No. A-967, Quern v. Zbaraz, also on application for stay of the same order. Opinion in Chambers 442 U.S. lated their rights under both the Social Security Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. After the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court's initial decision to abstain, 572 F. 2d 582, the District Judge held that the Illinois statute violated the federal Social Security Act and its implementing regulations, since Illinois' funding of only "life-preserving" abortions fell short of the federal statutory responsibility to "establish reasonable standards" for providing medically necessary treatment. The court rejected the argument that the Hyde Amendment's prohibition of federal funding of certain categories of abortions limited the State's statutory responsibility, and entered an injunction requiring Illinois to fund medically necessary abortions. The Court of Appeals, after denying a stay of the injunction pending appeal, reversed the District Court decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Hyde Amendment was not simply a limitation on the use of federal funds for abortions, but was itself a substantive amendment to the obligations imposed upon the State by Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1396 et seq. The court recognized the constitutional questions raised by its interpretation and remanded to the District Court with instructions to consider the constitutionality of both the Illino's statute and the Hyde Amendment. The District Court held both provisions to be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. While rejecting the argument that strict scrutiny was appropriate, Judge Grady 1 Public Law 95-480, § 210, 92 Stat. 1586, commonly known as the Hyde Amendment, provides: "None of the funds provided for in this Act shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or except for such medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape or incest, when such rape or incest has been reported promptly to a law enforcement agency or public health service; or except in those instances where severe and long-lasting physical health damage to the mother would result if the pregnancy were carried to term when so determined by two physicians." concluded that the statute's distinction between indigent women in medical need of abortions and those in need of other surgical procedures failed to further any legitimate, articulated state purpose. He was not persuaded by the State's argument that its interest in "fiscal frugality" supported the classification, since the costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and postpartum care were established to be substantially higher than the cost of abortions. As to the State's asserted interest in the encouragement of childbirth, the court recognized that while this interest was clearly legitimate in certain circumstances, see Maher v. Roe, 432 U. S. 464; Poelker v. Doe, 432 U. S. 519, the State does not have a legitimate interest in promoting the life of a nonviable fetus in a woman for whom an abortion is medically necessary. The United States had intervened as a defendant on remand, when the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment was called into question. The District Court's injunction, however, was directed solely to the State of Illinois, which was ordered to fund medically necessary abortions prior to viability. The District Court refused to stay this order, and applicants-the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid and two physicians who intervened as defendants below-now seek a stay from me in my capacity as Circuit Justice, pending their appeal to this Court. The standards governing the issuance of stays are well established. "Stays pending appeal to this Court are granted only in extraordinary circumstances. A lower court judgment, entered by a tribunal that was closer to the facts than the single Justice, is entitled to a presumption of validity." Graves v. Barnes, 405 U. S. 1201, 1203 (POWELL, J., in chambers). "To prevail here the applicant must meet a heavy burden of showing not only that the judgment of the lower court was erroneous on the merits, but also that the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the judgment is not stayed pending his appeal." Whalen v. Roe, 423 U. S. 1313, 1316 (MARSHALL, J., in chambers). In my view, the applica |