Were the regulations a permissible interpretation of Section 1008?;The regulations were a permissible interpretation of Section 1008. Section 1008 of Title X of the Public Health Service Act says that no Title X funds can be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. In interpreting Section 1008, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was right in prohibiting abortion as a method of family planning, referrals for abortion as a method of family planning, and activities amounting to encouragement or advocacy of abortion as a method of family planning. In short, these regulations issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services disallow referrals to abortion providers and required financial and physical separation of abortion-related activities from Title X activities. This regulation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services was challenged in court. In Rust v. Sullivan, the regulation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services was adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the regulations are a permissible construction of Title X. The judgment says that Title X's broad language allows regulations on abortion, counseling, referral and advocacy. The Secretary of Health and Human Services contention that there should be program integrity is not inconsistent with the language of Title X.;Constitutional guarantees violated? According to Supreme Court the regulations do not violate the First Amendment free speech right of Title X fund receivers. Also the regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services do not violate the woman's Fifth Amendment right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy. The Supreme Court held that the government was not under obligation to subsidize abortion because it was constitutionally protected.
Paper#33458 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $27