Reproductive News from Washington

Source for this section: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "What's Up"

International Family Planning Bills Advance in Congress Free Of the "Global Gag Rule"

The House Appropriations Committee approved its Foreign Operations bill without the "global gag rule" that would prohibit international family planning funds from going to non-governmental organizations that provide abortion services or discuss abortion overseas. The bill, however, caps international family planning funding at $385 million. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) was expected to offer an amendment when the bill reached the House floor the week of July 21. It would reinstate the global gag rule and deny U.S. support to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) unless it ends it participation in China's family planning program. The Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations bill passed the Senate on July 17 "clean" -- without the gag rule. The Senate bill sets a funding level for international family planning of $435 million.

Title X Family Planning Programs Fare Well In Congressional Appropriations Committees

The House Appropriations Subcommittee narrowly turned back (by a 30-27 vote) an attempt by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) to amend the Labor-Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill to require that minors get the consent of a parent before obtaining contraceptive services at a clinic funded under the Title X family planning program. This bill includes funding for the Title X family planning program as well as the Social Services Block Grant which funds family planning programs in several states. The President's budget proposal called for a $5 million increase in funding for Title X, from $198 million to $203 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill without restrictions on access Title X services. The Title X funding level in the Senate bill is $208.45 million, $5 million more than the House level and $10 million higher than current funding levels.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Restrictions in Montana Law

On June 16, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in MAZUREK V. ARMSTRONG. The Ninth Circuit ruled that a Montana law prohibiting physician assistants from performing abortions probably was invalid because it was enacted with the unconstitutional purpose of making abortions more difficult to obtain. The Supreme Court's unsigned majority opinion said that the appeals court had misread precedent, and that those who challenged the law had not demonstrated that requiring that only doctors perform abortions was "a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion or that it had the purpose of preventing abortions."

The opinion suggests that, even when all evidence indicates that an abortion regulation does not promote health, the Court will not presume the purpose of a law is to restrict access to abortion. The opinion also indicates that so long as a regulation does not substantially burden a woman's access to abortion, the Court will allow the states quite broad latitude to regulate abortion. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented in this case.

Supreme Court Refuses to Review Lower-Court Decision on Utah Abortion Law

Also on June 16, the Court refused to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in LEAVITT V. JANE L. In LEAVITT, the Court refused to review a holding of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that a Utah statute was unconstitutional. The Utah statute limited the circumstances under which a woman could obtain an abortion before viability, but after 20 weeks gestation. The Tenth Circuit had held that a state does not have the power to limit the circumstances under which a woman obtains an abortion before viability.

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Challenge to Clinic Access Act

On June 9, without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court again refused to review an appeals court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). The suit was filed by Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, Patrick Mahoney and others on May 26, 1994, the day President Clinton signed the bill into law. The suit claimed that Congress had exceeded its authority by enacting the law. It also maintained that the law discriminates against abortion opponents and violates their freedom of speech and assembly. This argument was rejected by a lower court and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In its December, 1996, opinion, the appeals court said that the law "prohibits conduct, not speech," and "further[s] the government's legitimate interest in providing safe access to reproductive health services."

Hyde Amendment Hidden in Budget Reconciliation Bill

The Budget Reconciliation bill that passed the Senate July 31 included the anti-choice "Hyde Amendment," which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services except in a few tragic circumstances. The measure would restrict the provision of abortion services to women receiving insurance coverage through the Child Health Initiative and would make the restrictive Hyde language permanent law. Another component of the bill would prohibit the use of federal funds to purchase health care plans that include abortion services. This is expected to create problems for the 20 states that provide abortion using their own state funds.

Last Modified October 26, 1997