Harris v. McRae

Before reconsidering the merits of the case, Dooling gave permission for a number of additional plaintiffs to intervene. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that any state participating in the Medicaid program must provide the means for medically necessary abortions, whether or not they would be reimbursed by the federal government. The plaintiffs also challenged the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, claiming that it violated both the religion clause of the First Amendment (because its views coincided with the Catholic Church) and the Fifth Amendment. (The Courts have interpreted the Fifth Amendment as containing implied Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Thus, the federal government must grant equal protection to its citizens in the same manner as the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to grant equal protection to their citizens.)

Dooling, although dissolving his earlier injunction, held a trial on the merits of McRae's claims. He released a 214-page ruling finding that Title XIX would have required states to make medically necessary abortions available to poor women but that the Hyde Amendment, if constitutional, would remove that responsibility.

The judge ruled that the federal government had not violated the First Amendment's prohibition against a state-sponsored religion. However, the amendment did violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by prohibiting an affected woman from seeking a medically necessary abortion in accordance with "her religious beliefs under certain Protestant and Jewish tenants."

Finding that the amendment also violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Dooling ruled that all versions of the amendment were invalid. He ordered Harris to "authorize the expenditure of federal matching funds" for medically necessary abortions.