Petitioners
Irving Rust, et al.
Respondent
Louis W. Sullivan, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Petitioners' Claim
That federal regulations forbidding family planning clinics from providing their clients with information about abortion violate both the right to freedomof speech and a woman's right to abortion.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Laurence H. Tribe
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Kenneth W. Starr, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 May 1991
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the new federal regulations.
Significance
Rust proved to be an indicator of the Court's shifting attitudes toward abortion, as well as a major pronouncement about the doctrine of unconstitutional spending, which holds that federal funds may only be spent on those purposes for which they are allocated.
In 1988, Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis W. Sullivan issued regulations preventing family-planning services which received federal funds under the Public Service Act's Title X from dispensing any information about abortion. Irving Rust was just one of the clinic directors and doctors who filedsuit to prevent the regulations from going into effect. These plaintiffs challenged the "gag rule" as both a violation of the First Amendment guarantee offree speech and an unconstitutional attempt to interfere with the right to abortion upheld in Roe v. Wade (1973). After these suits failed in thefederal district courts and were similarly defeated on appeal, Rust and others petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and decided them as one.
Roe v. Wade has proven to be one of the most controversial decisions ever handed down by the Court. Much of the legal wrangling has centered on control of the federal funds which Congress allocated in 1970 to support familyplanning clinics. The Public Health Service Act stipulated that none of thesefunds could be used to support programs where abortion was used as a methodof birth control. Between 1971 and 1986, government regulations prevented theclinics from providing abortions. In 1986, new rules strictly divided thoseclinics receiving federal funds from abortion providers. Then in 1988, towards the end of President Ronald Reagan's second term, his conservative administration imposed the "gag rule."
Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to the "Gag Rule" on Federally Funded Family Planning Clinics
The Supreme Court divided sharply over the issues presented by Rust. Writing for the one-vote majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist declared that the 1988 regulation was an acceptable interpretation of the 1970 statute. Becauseit provided funds for family planning while prohibiting assistance for abortion, the statute was ambiguous. But it was the Department of Health and HumanServices' job to administer the law, and their regulation did not violate Congress' mandate. The courts, wrote Rehnquist, should defer to legislative intent.
Adding to this line of argument, Rehnquist went on to justify the regulationby citing the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, which holds that government can impose conditions--even seemingly unconstitutional ones--on recipients of federal funds. The goal of such conditions is to insure that the monies are spent solely for the intended purposes:
Just as Title X does not prohibit fund recipients from performing abortions elsewhere, the new regulation does not prevent clinic professionals from giving abortion advice in other locations. Rehnquist conceded that it would be simpler for women to decide whether or not to choose abortion if information were available at their family planning clinics. But the constitutionally granted right to abortion did not, he maintained, require the government to changethe mandate of its program.
On its face, Rust seemed to be another step in the Court's progress towards overturning Roe v. Wade. Justice Souter, who was participating in an abortion-related case for the first time, cast his vote with the usual anti-abortion coalition voting to uphold the gag rule. However, the closenessof the vote owed a great deal to the fact that Justice O'Connor, often considered a member of the Court's conservative wing, had dissented. The future ofa woman's right to abortion remained in doubt.
Related Cases
Irving Rust, et al.
Respondent
Louis W. Sullivan, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Petitioners' Claim
That federal regulations forbidding family planning clinics from providing their clients with information about abortion violate both the right to freedomof speech and a woman's right to abortion.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Laurence H. Tribe
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Kenneth W. Starr, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 May 1991
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the new federal regulations.
Significance
Rust proved to be an indicator of the Court's shifting attitudes toward abortion, as well as a major pronouncement about the doctrine of unconstitutional spending, which holds that federal funds may only be spent on those purposes for which they are allocated.
In 1988, Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis W. Sullivan issued regulations preventing family-planning services which received federal funds under the Public Service Act's Title X from dispensing any information about abortion. Irving Rust was just one of the clinic directors and doctors who filedsuit to prevent the regulations from going into effect. These plaintiffs challenged the "gag rule" as both a violation of the First Amendment guarantee offree speech and an unconstitutional attempt to interfere with the right to abortion upheld in Roe v. Wade (1973). After these suits failed in thefederal district courts and were similarly defeated on appeal, Rust and others petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and decided them as one.
Roe v. Wade has proven to be one of the most controversial decisions ever handed down by the Court. Much of the legal wrangling has centered on control of the federal funds which Congress allocated in 1970 to support familyplanning clinics. The Public Health Service Act stipulated that none of thesefunds could be used to support programs where abortion was used as a methodof birth control. Between 1971 and 1986, government regulations prevented theclinics from providing abortions. In 1986, new rules strictly divided thoseclinics receiving federal funds from abortion providers. Then in 1988, towards the end of President Ronald Reagan's second term, his conservative administration imposed the "gag rule."
Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to the "Gag Rule" on Federally Funded Family Planning Clinics
The Supreme Court divided sharply over the issues presented by Rust. Writing for the one-vote majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist declared that the 1988 regulation was an acceptable interpretation of the 1970 statute. Becauseit provided funds for family planning while prohibiting assistance for abortion, the statute was ambiguous. But it was the Department of Health and HumanServices' job to administer the law, and their regulation did not violate Congress' mandate. The courts, wrote Rehnquist, should defer to legislative intent.
Adding to this line of argument, Rehnquist went on to justify the regulationby citing the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, which holds that government can impose conditions--even seemingly unconstitutional ones--on recipients of federal funds. The goal of such conditions is to insure that the monies are spent solely for the intended purposes:
The condition that federal funds will be used only to further the purposes of a grant does not violate constitutional rights . . . By requiring that the Title X grantee engage in abortion-related activity separately from activity receiving federal funding, Congress has . . . not denied it the right to engage in abortion-related activities. Congress has merely refused to fund such activities out of thepublic fisc . . . The same principles apply to petitioners' claim that the regulations abridge the free speech rights of the grantee's staff.
Just as Title X does not prohibit fund recipients from performing abortions elsewhere, the new regulation does not prevent clinic professionals from giving abortion advice in other locations. Rehnquist conceded that it would be simpler for women to decide whether or not to choose abortion if information were available at their family planning clinics. But the constitutionally granted right to abortion did not, he maintained, require the government to changethe mandate of its program.
On its face, Rust seemed to be another step in the Court's progress towards overturning Roe v. Wade. Justice Souter, who was participating in an abortion-related case for the first time, cast his vote with the usual anti-abortion coalition voting to uphold the gag rule. However, the closenessof the vote owed a great deal to the fact that Justice O'Connor, often considered a member of the Court's conservative wing, had dissented. The future ofa woman's right to abortion remained in doubt.
Related Cases
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
- Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).
- Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983).
- Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,476 U.S. 747 (1986).
- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989).
Further Readings
- LaMarche, Gara, ed. Speech & Equality: Do We Really Have to Choose? New York, NY: New York University Press, 1996.
- Reagan. Leslie J. When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Lawin the United States, 1876-1973. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
- Yarnold, Barbara M. Abortion Politics in the Federal Courts: Right Versus Right. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995.
User Comments Add a comment…