Spencer Platt / Getty Images
Public lawyers and female health professionals who want to block the new Trump administration rules for Title X, the federal family planning program, are one of the main obstacles: The Supreme Court maintained very similar rules in 1991.
These rules were summed up after the change of administration. But the court is undoubtedly more conservative than 28 years ago.
Still, those who oppose the rules of the Trump government say the earth has shifted. They expect this time they will be successful in court, saying – pointing out the protection provided by the 2010 Law on Affordable Care and the changes made by Congress in the mid-1990s under Title X. t
"I'm not going to sue unless I'm sure we're going to rule," said Bob Ferguson, a Washington state prosecutor, at a press conference on Monday when he announced he was planning to sue Trump for managing the program changes. "We have filed 17 cases against the administration," said Ferguson. "We haven't lost the case yet."
The new rules of Title X, published by the Ministry of Health and Human Services on Friday, are primarily aimed at evicting planned parenting – the long-term goal of abortion opponents. Currently, there is no money for the abortion for title X. But conservative groups claim that since many of the planned parent companies have received Title X support, they also provide abortions, and federal family planning money may be mistakenly mixed with the funds used for the procedure.
The planned parent partner companies account for about 40 percent of the 4 million patients in the program.
The rules of Trump specifically prohibit family designers in almost every case from referring abortion to pregnant patients. It would also remove the former regulation that requires service providers to give "non-guiding" advice to women with unintended pregnancy about their full potential. "Non-guiding" counseling meant that service providers could not encourage or deter women from taking any specific action. Women's health advocates, including planned parental life, argue that changing this provision, as the Trump administration wants, would obstruct doctors and other service providers to give women impartial advice on what is said to be a violation of medical ethics. .
The new regulation would also require that providers of abortion be physically and financially separated from their clinics receiving federal funds.
The planned parental life did not expressly claim to sue, but Dr. Leana Wen, president of the organization, was clear last week in a report to reporters that "the planned parent should not participate in a program that would force service providers to endanger their ethics. "
And there are many other litigation procedures before the official texts of the Code appear in the federal register, which are expected next week.
The American Association of Civil Liberties has announced that it will sue the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents state-funded family planning service providers and administrators, and Cedar River clinics in Washington. The Center for Reproductive Rights claimed that it would sue on behalf of Maine Family Planning Service Providers.
Many other government officials said they would sue, including officials from New York, Oregon and California.
Steps of Administration in the Supreme Court of 1991 Rust v. Sullivan evidence that the rules are constitutional. According to the Court's ruling 4-4, the Reagan government's very similar rules in 1988 are acceptable executive powers and do not violate the underlying law or the United States Constitution.
Although the rules have been adopted, subsequent legal steps meant that they were only valid for one month before President Clinton resigned in 1993, and then terminated.
The Freedom Association, a law firm that opposes abortion, issued a statement on Trump's new Title X, in part: "The United States Supreme Court's Protected Life Rule Prevents Organizations such as the nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parental Life , on the financing of abortion activities in X.
But the opponents of the new rules insist that the situation has changed in the years since the Supreme Court's decision. On the one hand, several members of the Congress discussed in a letter sent to HHS at the beginning of the month that the department may have violated the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates the development of rules.
For example, according to the letter, HHS "rejected the fact that the Title X rule was economically significant – without taking full account of the significant health costs that the rule would require – and did not carry out a comprehensive regulatory impact assessment."
And while the Supreme Court is more conservative than it was in 1991, "there are two new developments," said Jeff Sprung, Washington Attorney General. "two statutes adopted by two congresses that lay down new requirements."
One of these statutes includes the HHS-funded expense account for 1995 and renewed in the following years. Reiterates the ban on the use of family planning funds for abortion, but also stipulates that "not all pregnancy counseling is applicable."
In 2010, the Law on Affordable Nursing added a language that, among other things, prevents HHS from issuing regulations that “interfere with communications that affect the full range of treatment options available to the patient and the provider” or “restrict” his ability. full disclosure of healthcare providers to patients making health decisions. "
Leah Litman, Director of Law at the University of California, Irvine, said that now the more conservative Supreme Court does not necessarily accept these arguments and others who are likely to be raised.
But there is no question, he said, "is the basis [the Title X program] changed since 1991.
Julie Rovner Director General of Washington Kaiser Health News, is a nonprofit news service that is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation and is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.