The HHS page describing the final draft of a new rule for the Title X family planning program states:
"The final rule ensures compliance with statutory program integrity provisions governing the program and, in particular, the statutory prohibition on funding programs where abortion is a method of family planning."
HHS Releases Final Title X Rule Detailing Family Planning Grant Program
Then it reveals:
"Key elements of the final rule include . . . [p]rohibiting referral for abortion . . . ".
But as the link to the statute clearly shows, the statute does not prohibit healthcare professionals from communicating to their patients information about or referrals to facilities that include abortion. The new rule does not establish compliance with the statute. The statute says:
"None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” PHS Act § 1008, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6.
Thus, the above lie on our government webpage raises several questions in my mind:
(1) Is there any reason to conclude that this new rule that restricts the speech between healthcare professionals and their patients is constitutional? There is ample case law where the Court has held that, short of a compelling governmental purpose and the presence of other elements necessary to meet strict scrutiny, content-based and speaker-based restrictions on speech are unconstitutional. The new Title X rule is definitely both a content- and speaker-based restriction on speech.
(2) Is there any laudable purpose for the new rule?
In 2011, Texas enacted a law that had a similar, but less drastic, effect as the new HHS rule will have, i.e., the law greatly reduced state funds available to family planning clinics where doctors were allowed to refer patients to facilities that included abortion; these funding cuts particularly affected impoverished areas. Governor Rick Perry boasted at the time that he “was really proud to be able to sign into legislation to defund Planned Parenthood,” and that his goal for the state was to continue to “pass laws to ensure abortions are as rare as possible under existing law”.
Just the opposite happened. A study by Analisa Packham of Miami University found that the legislation led to an increase in teen birth rates by 3.7-4.7% two years after the funding cuts, and 10.3-11.2% three years afterward, accompanied by an increase in abortion rates of 4.9% two years after, and 3.1% over three years: Family Planning Funding Cuts and Teen Childbearing
(3) Do you support executive actions or laws that are likely to result in higher birth rates among teens and higher abortion rates especially among low-income persons?
(4) Have you adopted or fostered any unwanted children and provided a loving home for them? If so, how many?
"The final rule ensures compliance with statutory program integrity provisions governing the program and, in particular, the statutory prohibition on funding programs where abortion is a method of family planning."
HHS Releases Final Title X Rule Detailing Family Planning Grant Program
Then it reveals:
"Key elements of the final rule include . . . [p]rohibiting referral for abortion . . . ".
But as the link to the statute clearly shows, the statute does not prohibit healthcare professionals from communicating to their patients information about or referrals to facilities that include abortion. The new rule does not establish compliance with the statute. The statute says:
"None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” PHS Act § 1008, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6.
Thus, the above lie on our government webpage raises several questions in my mind:
(1) Is there any reason to conclude that this new rule that restricts the speech between healthcare professionals and their patients is constitutional? There is ample case law where the Court has held that, short of a compelling governmental purpose and the presence of other elements necessary to meet strict scrutiny, content-based and speaker-based restrictions on speech are unconstitutional. The new Title X rule is definitely both a content- and speaker-based restriction on speech.
(2) Is there any laudable purpose for the new rule?
In 2011, Texas enacted a law that had a similar, but less drastic, effect as the new HHS rule will have, i.e., the law greatly reduced state funds available to family planning clinics where doctors were allowed to refer patients to facilities that included abortion; these funding cuts particularly affected impoverished areas. Governor Rick Perry boasted at the time that he “was really proud to be able to sign into legislation to defund Planned Parenthood,” and that his goal for the state was to continue to “pass laws to ensure abortions are as rare as possible under existing law”.
Just the opposite happened. A study by Analisa Packham of Miami University found that the legislation led to an increase in teen birth rates by 3.7-4.7% two years after the funding cuts, and 10.3-11.2% three years afterward, accompanied by an increase in abortion rates of 4.9% two years after, and 3.1% over three years: Family Planning Funding Cuts and Teen Childbearing
(3) Do you support executive actions or laws that are likely to result in higher birth rates among teens and higher abortion rates especially among low-income persons?
(4) Have you adopted or fostered any unwanted children and provided a loving home for them? If so, how many?
