Rust v. Sullivan

This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (April 2014)

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), was a case in the United States Supreme Court that upheld Department of Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting employees in federally funded family-planning facilities from counseling a patient on abortion . The department had removed all family planning programs involving abortions. Physicians and clinics challenged this decision in the Supreme Court , arguing that the First Amendment was violated due to the implementation of this new policy. The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 opinion, allowed the regulation to go into effect, holding that the regulation was a reasonable interpretation of the Public Health Service Act , and that the First Amendment is not violated when the government merely chooses to "fund one activity to the exclusion of another".

Contents

• 1 Background

  • 1.1 Legislative and regulatory history

  • 1.2 Procedural history

• 2 Supreme Court

  • 2.1 Briefs

  • 2.2 Majority

    • 2.2.1 First Amendment

    • 2.2.2 Fifth Amendment

    • 2.2.3 Chevron deference

  • 2.3 Dissent

• 3 Impact

• 4 See also

• 5 Further reading

• 6 Works cited

• 7 References

• 8 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rust_v._Sullivan&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Legislative and regulatory history

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rust_v._Sullivan&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Legislative and regulatory history")

When Congress passed Title X of the Public Health Service Act (hereinafter "the Act") in 1970 §1008 states that Title X funds could not be used "in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." The funding restriction was implemented "in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may promulgate." The funds were authorized "only to support preventive family planning services".

For around 20 years Title X clinics were permitted to provide referrals and abortion counseling to pregnant patients. Between 1974 and 1978 Congress rejected three amendments that would have prohibited publicly-funded clinics from providing abortion counseling services. A GAO report in 1982 found "no evidence that title X funds had been used for abortions or to advise clients to have abortions".

The audit also found that some clinics did not inform patients of alternatives to abortion and provided informational materials describing abortion as a back-up method of family planning. Some of the women who underwent abortion procedures after receiving counseling at title X clinics reported that they later regretted terminating their pregnancies.

Based on the GAO's recommendation that the HHS clarify §1008 regulations the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed amendments in 1987 "to set specific standards for compliance with the statutory requirement". Clinics were required to refer pregnant patients to prenatal care providers that did not offer abortion planning or procedures. Physicians were directed to tell pregnant patients requesting information about abortion that the clinic did not consider abortion "an acceptable method of family planning".

They were not allowed to offer any abortion counseling and could not make referrals to licensed abortion providers. The new regulations also required that Title X clinics be physically and financially separate from facilities that provide abortion counseling.

Around 4,000 Title X clinics serving 4.3 million mostly low-income patients were effected. Supporters of the regulations argued that abortion counseling at Title X projects directly channeled federal funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics contrary to the intention of providing public funds for preventive family planning services. Planned Parenthood said there was no evidence supporting the accusation that federal funds were being used to improperly promote abortion.

Procedural history

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rust_v._Sullivan&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Procedural history")

These regulations were challenged by the recipients of Title X funds on the grounds that they exceeded the Congressional intent of the statute and violated the free speech rights of doctors counseling patients.

The family planning clinics requested declaratory judgements in federal courts. before the rules went into effect.

The petitioner Irving Rust was the director of a family planning clinic. Reagan's term had ended while the first federal appeals were still being decided. President George H. W. Bush decided to keep the new regulations. His administration's Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan became was the respondent in the case.

Circuit courts were divided. Two courts of appeal ruled the regulations were unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the regulations. The Second Circuit decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rust_v._Sullivan&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Supreme Court")

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a broadly worded opinion for the 5-4 majority upholding the regulations against statutory and constitutional challenges. Justice David Souter , new to the Court, voted with the majority to uphold the new regulations in a 5–4 decision. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented.

Briefs

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rust_v._Sullivan&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Briefs")

Petitioners argued that the government could not impose unconstitutional conditions on the receipt of public benefits: "The government cannot exact adherence to any orthodoxy through the imposition of viewpoint-based conditions on its largess".

The government's position was that "the government is not obligated to provide the means to exercise" the abortion right.

Majority

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rust_v._Sullivan&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: Majority")

First Amendment

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rust_v._Sullivan&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: First Amendment")

The Court said that the arguments put forth by the Title X clinics "ultimately boil down to the position that if the government chooses to subsidize one protected rights, it must subsidize analogous counterpart rights". Relying on prior precedents the Chief Justice added that "the Court has soundly rejected that proposition". This argument had been rejected by the Court in _[Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington](https://e

…