Rust v. Sullivan
Rust v. Sullivan is a significant Supreme Court case that arose from regulations implemented in 1988 regarding the use of federal funds for family planning services, particularly in relation to abortion. Under the Public Health Service Act of 1970, federal funds were already prohibited from supporting abortion services. The new regulations expanded this by prohibiting clinics from recommending or providing information about abortion, thus mandating that clinics focus solely on childbirth options. The clinics challenged these regulations, arguing they infringed on free speech rights and interfered with women's rights established in Roe v. Wade. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the regulations in a narrow 5-4 decision, stating that the government had the right to define the parameters of its funding programs and that it could choose to favor childbirth over abortion without violating the First Amendment. This ruling highlighted the Court's willingness to impose significant restrictions on abortion rights and underscored the government's authority in determining the conditions for public funding. The decision has had lasting implications for reproductive health services, particularly affecting low-income women who rely on federally funded clinics for care.
Rust v. Sullivan
Date: May 23, 1991
Citation: 500 U.S. 173
Issues: Abortion; freedom of speech
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld a “gag rule” that imposed restrictions on abortion counseling in federally funded birth control clinics.
The Public Health Service Act of 1970 specified that no federal funds could be used to support abortion services as a form of family planning. In 1988 the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued three new regulations for the use of funds under the program: First, funded clinics were prohibited from recommending or encouraging abortions; second, clinics were prohibited from giving a pregnant woman any information about where to obtain an abortion; and third, clinics were required to provide pregnant women with a list of “providers that promote the welfare of the mother and the unborn child.” The clinics argued that the regulations were not authorized by Congress, that they violated the freedom of speech rights of the personnel in the clinics, and that they interfered with the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, as established under Roe v. Wade (1973).
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the regulations. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that “when the government appropriates public funds to establish a program it is entitled to define the limits of that program.” The government could make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and the First Amendment did not require it to subsidize all points of view. The gag rules did not require individuals to give up all abortion-related speech, but the rules only required that such speech must occur outside government-funded programs. The fact that the rules had a disproportionate effect on poor women was irrelevant. In regard to abortion rights, the government had no constitutional obligation to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected. Finally, Rehnquist found that the 1988 regulations did not contradict the broad purposes of the relevant statute.
The Rust decision demonstrated that the Court was increasingly willing to accept major restrictions on the right to abortions. In addition, Rehnquist’s discussion of governmental conditions for the use of public funds was relevant to a large number of controversial programs.