Rust v. Sullivan
| Rust v. Sullivan | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 30, 1990 Decided May 23, 1991 |
|
| Full case name | Irving Rust, et al., Petitioners v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services; New York, et al., Petitioners v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services |
| Citations | 500 U.S. 173 (more)
111 S. Ct. 1759; 114 L. Ed. 2d 233; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 2908; 59 U.S.L.W. 4451; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3713; 91 Daily Journal DAR 6006
|
| Prior history | Summary judgment for defendant, 690 F. Supp. 1261 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); affirmed, 889 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 1989). |
| Holding | |
| Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting recipients of government funds from advocating, counseling, or referring patients for abortion were a permissible construction of Title X of the Act, nor did they violate the First or Fifth Amendments. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by White, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Marshall; Stevens (parts II, III); O'Connor (part I) |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | O'Connor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, V; Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300–300a-8 | |
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that found restrictions on funding with regard to abortion counseling to be constitutionally permissible.
The case concerned the legality and constitutionality of Department of Health and Human Services regulations on the use of funds spent by the U.S. federal government to promote family planning (Title X). With Title X of the Public Health Service Act, Congress prohibited the funds from being "used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." In 1988, the Republican-appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services issued new regulations that prohibited projects receiving these funds from not only providing abortions, but also counseling, advising, or promoting the idea that a woman seek an abortion. These regulations were challenged on the grounds that they were not permissibly within the scope of the statute and that they violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Rust v. Sullivan (1991) was a challenge to Title X regulations of Health and Human Services that indicated how a certain program adopted by Congress, passed by Congress, were going to be implemented. Planned Parenthood and the state and city of New York sued on the grounds that not receiving government funding meant that abortions in turn would not be funded.
Rust v. Sullivan began on the issue of abortion counseling. In February 1988, the Reagan administration added regulations that focused specifically on discussing abortion practices. Planned Parenthood and the state and city of New York said that these regulations infringed on doctors’ First Amendment rights, interfered with a woman’s privacy right when it comes to abortion, and prevented a woman from being able to hear competent and sound medical advice. Arguers protested that if a facility receives government funding, it does not mean that the government can regulate the services in that facility. For example, a library that receives funds through the Library Services and Construction Act does not permit the Federal Government to say that the books in that library can or cannot have certain books. Additionally, universities that receive Federal funds do not have their curriculum dictated by the Federal Government.
...
Wikipedia