iONGRESS|ONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LLLLL RY OF nun:fitfliigyjifinijzgiwmuflfiifiwiiwttwml ABORTION: JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE CONTROL ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB74019 AUTHOR: Lewis, Karen American Law Division Rosenberg, Morton American Law Division Hall, James Porter, Allison American Law Division American Law Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED Qgggggzg DATE UPDATED lggggggg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 1229 CRS- 1 IB7uo19 UPDATE-12/22/80 I§§E1.3...12EE_I;E£$IQ.! The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 39g v. gage, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Qge v. Bolton, 410 0.3. 179, which held generally that a State could no longer prohibit abortions prior to viability of the fetus, caused several House and Senate members to move for an abortion prohibition. To this end, many bills and constitutional amendments were proposed in both Houses of the 94th, 95th, and 96th Congresses. Rather than having settled the abortion question conclusively, the Supreme Court decisions have kindled a national protest movement. BEAQEEEQQEDEAED P0LICY_A!ALZ§I§ It is generally acknowledged that, at common law, abortion performed before guickening (the first recognizable movement of the fetus ;n_g§g;g) was not an indictable offense. Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law is still disputed. The later and predominant view, however, is that abortion of a quick fetus was, at most, a minor offense. In this country, the law in all but a few States until the mid—19th century was the pre-existing English common law. It was not until after the Civil War that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after guickening but ‘ere lenient with it before quickening. The typical law permitted an abortion where necessary to save the mother's life. Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century, the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States. By the end of the 1950s, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother- The exceptions, Alabama and the District of Columbia, permitted abortion to preserve the mother's health. Three States (Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) permitted abortions that were not "unlawfully performed" or that were not "without lawful justification,“ leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts. Prior to the Supreme Court's 1973 decisions, about one-third of the States had adopted, either in whole or in part, the Model Penal Codes provisions allowing abortions in instances other than where the mother's life is in danger, i.e., where continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother; or where the child would be born with a grave physical or mental defect; or where the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or other felonious intercourse. By the end of 1970, four States (Alaska, Hawaii, N.Y., and Wash.) had repealed criminal penalties for abortions performed in early pregnancy by a licensed physician, subject to stated procedural and health requirements. Beginning with the successful challenge to California's pre—1967 restrictive abortion statute, gegplg v. Bglggg, 71 Cal.2d 950, R58 P.2d 194 7969), cert. denied, 397 0.5. 915 (1970), abortion proponents in the early .9705 were successful in having abortion statutes declared unconstitutional in several States. Wielding arguments that (1) abortion statutes’ invade a woman's privacy and (2) that statutes prohibiting abortions except "where necessary to save the life of the mother" are unconstitutionally vague, CRS- 2 1374019 UPDATE-12/22/80 abortion proponents successfully argued that abortion statutes in Texas (ggg v. gage, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970)); Georgia (Qgg v. ggltgg, 319 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1970)); Wisconsin (ggggggg v. gggggg, 310 F. Supp. 293 (E.D. His. 1970)): Illinois (ggg v, gggtg, 321 F. Supp. 1385 (N.D. Ill. 1971)); Connecticut (gbglg v- gaggle, 342 F. Supp. 800 and 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn- 1972)); New Jersey (X:E:g:A= v. ggglgg, 342 F. Supp. 1048 (N.J. 1972)); Kansas (ggg v. gggghipi, 339 F. Supp. 986 (Kan. 1972)), and Florida (gtagg v. gaggggt, 262 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1972)) were unconstitutional. However, State abortion statutes were sustained in Louisiana (ggggg v. L922’.-§i2ne-§.1;a2e.§2ar§. 9£-I1§i2el..§za.niner§. 318 F. Supp- ‘I217 (E-D- La- 197o)); Ohio (§§§igQg;g v. §;ggg§;, 321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ohio 1970)): Utah (Qgg v. ggmptgg, _ F. Supp._ (D. Utah. 1971)): Kentucky (gggsggn v. gttorngy General, 344 F. Supp. 587 (E.D. Ky. 1972)); North Carolina (gggggy v. gdgaggg, 322 F. Supp. 1248 (W.D. N.C. 1971)); Indiana (ghggggy v. §tate, 257 So.2d 876 (Hiss. 1972)); and South.Dakota (gtgtg v. gggggg, _ S.D. _, 2013 N.i.2d 123 (1972)). Indeed, even the 0.5. Supreme Court denied a vagueness challenge to the District of Columbia abortion statute, g;§; v. ggitgh, 402 U.S. 62 (1971). The net effect of the ggitgh decision, however, was to expand the availability of abortions under the D.C. statute's section allowing abortions where "necessary for g the preservation of the mother's...health." Finally, on Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding appeals from the invalidation of Texas and Georgia abortion statutes held that a State may no longer prohibit abortions prior to viability, i.e., approximately the first 6 months of pregnancy (ggg v. gage, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)). Neither may the State encumber the abortion right with certain statutory procedural requirements (gge v. ggltgg, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), companion case with gage). Ruling that a woman has a fundamental personal right, encompassed by a Fourteenth Amendment right of privacy, to terminate her pregnancy, the Court in Egdg held the following: 3 1 (1) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (2) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, until the fetus attains viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (3) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State, in promoting this interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. (4) The State may define "physician" to mean only a physiciani currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. The ggltgn decision effectively prohibits a State from processing an abortion patient in a manner more burdensome than for other patients. ggltgg struck down Georgia statutory procedural requirements that an abortion bent performed in a hospital accredited by the joint Commission on Accreditatiox of Hospitals, that the procedure be approved by the hospital staff Vabortion committee, and that the performing physician's judgment be confirmed by CBS- 3 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 independent examinations of the patient by two other licensed physicians. Additionally, a requirement that a woman must be a bona fide residet of Georgia before she could have an abortion in that State, was struck down. The Supreme Court's decisions in 39g v. gage and Qge v. ggltgn left a number of important abortion-related issues unresolved. Two of the major questions remaining were clarified by the Supreme Court in glanngd Parenthood g§_g§gt;al_Mi§§Qugi v. Qagggrth 428 0.3. 52 (1976). The Court held that spousal and parental consent requirements during the first trimester of pregnancy, which amount to a veto of the decision to abort a pregnancy, violate the standards of Egg and Qgg. The Court also held that a section of the Missouri abortion statute which prohibits the most commonly used safe available abortion procedure (saline amniocentesis) was not a reasonable protection of maternal health- In addition, the Court struck down an entire) section of the Missouri abortion statute which required a physican to exercise a standard of care, without regard to stage of pregnancy, that would opreserve the life and health of the fetus. Sections of the Missouri abortion statutes involving a flexible definition of viability, written consent, and confidential report and recordkeeping requirements were upheld. On June 20, 1977, the Supreme Court ruled on the question of whether the Medicaid statute or the Constitution requires public funding of nontherapeutic abortion for indigent women or access to public facilities for the performance of such abortions. The Court held that the States have neither a statutory or a constitutional obligation in this regard (figal v. 299. 432 U-S- 438 (1977); Ashe: V- 29s. 432 U-S- 46“ (1977); Beelter V- 29s. X32 U.S. 519 (1977)). ‘ In geal v. Qgg, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether Title XIX of the Social Security Act required the funding of nontheraputic abortions as a condition of participation in the Medicaid program established by the Act. In that case, the Court reviewed a Third Circuit decision holding that Pennsylvania's refusal to reimburse the costs of lawful nontherapeutic abortions performed for women who otherwise qualify from the Title XIX Medicaid program is, in light of reimbursement of full term deliveries and therapeutic abortions, violative of the provisions of the Social Security Act. The Court held that nothing in the language or legislative history of Title XIX requires a participating State to fund every medical procedure falling within the delineated categories of medical care. Each State is given broad discretion to determine the extent of medical assistance that is "reasonable" and "consistent with the objectives" of Title XIX. The Court ruled that it was not inconsistent with the Act's goals to rrefuse to fund unnecessary) medical services. The Court recognized the state's interest in encouraging normal childbirth and found no congressional intent to undercut that interest by subsidizing the costs of nontherapeutic abortions. The Court also made clear that Title XIX leaves a State free to include coverage for nontherapeutic abortions. Prior to the Court's decision in gggl, lower courts which had considered the statutory construction issue alone had been divided. In ggg v. yggtgn, 522 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1975) and Bee V- Eerggggg, 515 F.2d 279 (6th Cir. 1975), the courts held that Title XIX of the Social Security Act does not prevent a State from excluding elective ‘hortion from Medicaid coverage. Qge v. gggl, 523 F.2d 611 (3rd Cir. 1975), Ad Qgg v. figgggg, No. 75-206 (D.N.H., May 8, 1976), held that a State could not exclude abortions from coverage. 9 In gage; v. ggg, the Supreme Court resolved a constitutional challenge to Connecticut's refusal to reimburse Medicaid recipients for abortion ‘expenses ovnon+ where the attendina nhvsician certifies the abortion to have been cns- 4 1374019 UPDATE-12/22/80 medically or psychiatrically necessary. The Court held that the equal protection clause does not require a State participating in the nedicaid program to pay expenses incident to nontherapeutic abortions for indigent women simply because the State has made .a policy choice to pay expenses incident to childbirth. More particularly, Connecticut's policy of favoring childbirth over abortion was held not to impinge upon the fundamental right of privacy recognized in gag v. gagg, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which protects a women from undue interference in her decision to terminate a pregnancy. The State's choice does not disadvantage an indigent woman desiring an abortion since she can continue, as before, to look to private abortion services and private source of funding. There is no absolute bar for an indigent women seeking an abortion. Prior to the Court's decision in gahgg v; gag, gapga, all but one court facing the issue of State denial of Medicaid benefits for elective abortions; held such denial s unconstitutional. (gaiii v. giagiaiga, 508 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1975), reversed on procedural grounds by the Supreme Court, an U.S.L.W. 35213 (July 1, 1976) Dag v. gggg, 493 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir. 1975); gigia v. §a§§aa_§ounty Hedicai Centag, 397 F. Supp. 496 (E.D.N.Y. 1972), vacated and remanded, H12 U.S. 925; Dag v. gaipiga, 366 F. Supp. 189 (D. Utah 1973); Qgg v. flgaiggaaih, 376 F. Supp. 173 (D.C.W.D. Pa. 1975), aff'd. on, other grounds, 522 F.2d 611 (3rd Cir 1975); Dag v. flaaiby, 383 F. Supp. 11u3 (D.S.D. 1974) vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court on Mar. 17, 1976, for consideration of statutory issue. ggaiiat Dag v. giggagi, No. 7n-3197 (E.D. La., Jan. 26, 1976)). « The Court emphasized in gage; and gaai that the decisions of the Court did not proscribe government funding of nontherapeutic abortions. The Court, noting that Congress must decide whether to require provision of Medicaid benefits for nontherapeutic abortions as a condition to participation in the Medicaid program, concluded that the Constitution does not require a jaiigiaiiy imposed resolution of the issues involved in the funding of nontherapeutic abortions under Title XIX. Finally, in gggiggg v. Dag, No. 75—uu2, the Supreme Court held that the policy of the City of St. Louis in refusing to allow the performance of nontherapeutic abortions in its public hospitals, and of staffing those hospitals with personnel opposed to the performance of abortions, did not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Prior to the Court's decision in ggaiiai, lower court rulings had consistently held that public hospitals could not refuse to permit the use of their facilities for abortions- (See flethezgx v- E2£2e§t2;-§itz.§9§2it2l. 495 F-2d 1342 (8th Cir- 1975): 222 v. §el§-fl9§Pi:2l. 500 F.2d 1uu (1st cir. 1975): 222 v. Quail. 51a F.2d 1179 (7th Cir. 1975); Qgg v. gggiigg, 515 F.2d 5&1 (8th Cir. 1975); gig v. ggaiggi, 377 F. Supp. 673 (D. Neb. 197fl)). One State court had ruled to the contrary, gag v. i;iigaa_§ga;g_9i_§agagi§, 12143-PR (Sup.Ct. Ariz., May 11, 1976), reversing 534 P.2d 285 (Ariz. Ct.App. 1975). The 1977 Supreme Court decisions left open the question whether federal law, such as the Hyde Amendment, or similar state laws, icould validly prohibit governmental funding of therapeutic abortions. Several federal courts held that such laws were unconstitutional. g;gga;i‘_iag. v. Qagagis, 591 F-2d 121 (1st Cir- 1979); Eenredusiize §§2lih_§e;zi2e§ v- Ereenen. No- 79-1275. 8th Circuit. Jan. 9. 1980: !9n§n1§.fl§2lih_§9;2i§e§i-ln2- V- deter. Civil No. H-79-H05, D. Conn., Jan. 7, 1980; ibaiag v. Qaaga, 469 F.Supp.‘121° (N-D. Ill. ED 1979); gggiag v. gaiiiaag, 76 C 1804, E.D.N.Y., Jan. 15,; 1980 The District Court in the ggggaa case issued a nationwide injunction; against the current version of the Hyde Amendment but stayed the effectiveness of the CRS- 5 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 injunction pending the processing of an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court. On June 30, 1980, in a five to four decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Hyde Amendment's abortion funding restrictions were constitutional. The Court's majority found that the Hyde Amendment neither violated the due process or equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment nor the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Court also upheld the right of a State participating in the Medicaid program to fund only those medically necessary abortions for which it received Federal reimbursement. Haggis v. McCrae=, No. 79-1268. In companion cases raising similar issues, the Court held that a State of Illinois statutory funding restriction comparable to the Federal Hyde Amendment also did not contravene the constitutional restrictions of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “"22 - flilligms v. Zbaraez, No. 79-H; gilleg v. gbagag, No. 79-5; and g.s- v. * gbgggg, No. 79-#91. The Court's rulings mean that there is no statutory or On July 25, 1980, the pro—abortion groups who had originally challenged the Hyde Amendment in gggag and gbagag asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling. Their filing of a petition for rehearing had the effect, under the Court's rules, of automatically postponing the formal order until the justices ruled on the rehearing request. On Sept. 17, 1980, the Supreme Court officially refused to reconsider its June 30 decision upholding for poor women. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which had continued to finance all Medicaid abortions pending the Court's decision, stated that it would promptly halt funding except in those cases allowed by he current Hyde Amendment, i.e. where the pregnancy endangered the life of the mother or was the result of rape or incest. Action by Congress with respect to the funding of abortion occurred on Oct. 1, 1980, when the House and Senate agreed to a conference report and resolved amendments in disagreement respecting the question of the circumstances under which public funding of abortion could occur. This legislative action can be found in Public Law 96-369 incorporating the joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1981 possible. This continuing resolution basically contains the Hyde Amendment provisions allowing for public funding where the woman's life would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term and in cases of rape or incest. A minor change from the current Hyde restriction is the provision that the rape must be reported to a law enforcement agency or public health service within 72 hours of its occurrence. See P.L. 96-369, Sec. 101 (5) (c). In addition, the continuing resolution continues to permit payment for drugs or devices to prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum and for medical procedures necessary for the termination of an ectopic pregnancy. restrictive antiabortion spending rules than Congress has approved. See P.L. 96-369, Sec. 101 (5) (c). In other words, under this continuing resolution, unlike under the Hyde Amendment itself, "...the several States are and shall remain free not to fund abortions to the extent that they in their sole tis'“etion deem appropriate." Prior to the passage of this measure, the ‘ta ;s at the very minimum had to fund the abortions which were allowed under he Hyde Amendment. 9 CRS~ 6 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 P.L. 96-369 was a stopgap measure intended to continue funding the government at current or slightly increased levels through December 15. On Dec. 15, 1980, Congress extended the deadline for interim funding until June 6, 1981. This continuing resolution, P.L. 96-536 (H.J.Res. 644), contains the same provision with respect to abortion funding as its predecessor, P.L. 96-369. P.L. 96-536 is an umbrella continuing resolution for the financing of the Government generally. The funding for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is just one of the agencies involved; (however, the restrictions with respect to paying for abortions relate to its appropriations. 8 There are other individual appropriation measures pending in Congress, aside from the continuing resolution passed by Congress on October 1, which contain provisions restricting public funding of abortions. None of these, - .however, have yet passed both the House: and Senate and become. actual: effective law. However, they will all be considered again when Congress returns after the November 4 Election. 3 8 A summary of the legal status of other prominent issues, still unresolved by the Supreme Court, follows. Be9u;ati2n-9f- Ahertien- Bzesedhrei The courts have in a number of instances struck down State and local regulations on the ground they were overbroad and unconstitutionally restricted a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy- Friend§hi2_hedi9a;_§ente;i-Ltd; v- Qhisaqe §9ard_9:- health. 505 F.2d 1141 (7th Cir. 1974); floga v. Poolgog, 495 F.2d 1349 (8th Cir. 1974); 292 V- Eesiser. 515 F.2d 541 (8th Cir-. 1975: Eelfie V- §-h£9§£;Q9. 388 F- Supp. 631 (W.D. Ky. 1974). Ah9£ti92§-i2_£rizat§-§9§2ita;§- Eeeiher did not deal with the obligations (of private nondenominational and denominational hospitals in this area. Two . Federal appeals court decisions have held that a private nondenominational hospital, even though it has received substantial State and Federal funding, and is subject to extensive public regulation, may refuse to permit or perform elective abortions (goo v. §ol;;a_goao;ia;_ aosoiaal, 479 F.2d 756 (7th Cir- 1973): E2399 v- Qrahge.!em9rie;-fl9§2i:a;-Q9r92rati9h. 513 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1975)). On the other hand, another Federal appeals court and a State supreme court have ruled to the contrary, ordering private hospitals to make their facilities available for abortion procedures (goo v. gharlestoa Area_hedise;_§e2tsr. 529 F-2d 638 (4th Cir. 1975): 299 v- hridgeten. Eeeeitei a§§;ao_;ao:, 71 N.J. 478 (1976), cert. denied June 27, 1977 (U.S. Ct.)). All cases, Federal and State, which have considered the responsibility of private denominational hospitals to utilize their facilities to perform abortion or sterilization procedures, contrary to their religious or moral scruples, have upheld the rights of the hospitals to deny access (ghgiaaaa v. §i§t2r§-9f §t;-Q2§22h-2£-Bs2se. 596 F.2d 308 (94th Cir- 1974): letting v- §o§oy_aodical Cent§E» 520 F.2d 895 (9th Cir. 1975); Taylo; v. §§;_go§oph, 361 F. Supp. 1212 (N.D. Texas 1973), dismissed as moot, 490 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1974): Ham v- E2;z_§9§a£1-§9§2ital. 529:9-2d 361 (1974)). §poo§al_aag_§agaa§al_goaoaago Host courts have invalidated requirements of spousal and parental consent. goo v- C_;_o;:_§§a_i_I_1_, 376 F. Supp. 695 (S.D. Fla. (1973), cert. denied, 42 U.S.L.H. 3666; Dog v. gaapgoa, 366 F. Supp. 189, 19? (D. Utah 1973); Dog v. §ol;;g_§g!Q§;Q; §9§E;§a;, 479 F.2d 756, 759 (7th vcir 1973); goo v. gaagoghoff, No. 74—F 418 (D. Colo., Feb. 5, 1975); goaog v. gaggg, 278 So. 2d 339 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973), poo v. Egg. 314 N.E.g 2d 128 (Mass- 1978); and 2;a2ned-Ee;enthood of 092222;- hiééeuri v- Denierth. 428 CRS- 7 IB7fl019 UPDATE-12/22/80 U.S. 52 (1976). However, the Court, in glanggQ_ga§gn§hggd, while declaring unconstitutional State statutes providing absolute parental veto over a minor's decision to terminate a pregnancy, left undecided issues involving parental notice/consultation and the rights of a mature minor. Pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1980-81 Term is a case involving a variation of the parental consent issue, g:é: v. ggthgggn, 79-5903. The gathgsgn case was orally argued before the Court on Oct. 6, 1980. Under review is a Utah statute that requires a physician who is requested by a minor woman to perform an abortion on her t9_ ngtify her parents prior to performing the abortion. Criminal sanctions may be imposed on doctors who violate this law. Utah courts upheld the law in a challenge brought by a fifteen year old unmarried woman who sought an abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy without parental notification. In the L ‘appeal to the Supreme Court, the minor attacks the Utah statute on the ground that it is an infringement of her Fourteenth Amendment right of privacy, which encompasses the right to obtain an abortion without unwarranted state regulation. In addition, she argues that the statute unlawfully interferes with a minor's right to secure medically necessary treatment from her doctor who, in the exercise of his best medical judgment, does not believe the minor's parents should be notified. The State of Utah presents several arguments in its brief filed in gatheggn to justify the Utah statute: (1) that the law does not unduly burden either the minor or her doctor; (2) that the law safeguards a reserved right which parents have to know of the important activities of their children; and (3) in so doing the latter, the law furthers the important :tate interests of maintaining family integrity as the basic social unit -- encouraging parental consultation with a minor contemplating an abortion, and enforcing state laws against improper sexual activity with minors. The Supreme Court attempted to provide further clarification of the parental consent issue in its decision in ggllgtti v. gaigg, uu3 U.S. 622 (1979) decided July 2, 1979. There the Court held unconstitutional a Massachussetts statute that required parental consultation or notification in every instance without affording the pregnant minor an opportunity to receive an independent judicial determination that she is mature enough to consent or that an abortion would be in her best interests. 9 The Court also found unconstitutional a statutory provision which permitted judicial authorization for an abortion to be withheld from a minor who is found by the court to be * mature and fully competent to make the decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy independently. However, in an effort to provide some future guidelines the Court, in dicta, suggested that if a State wishes to utilize —parental notification, it must afford the minor the option of proceeding directly to court, without parental notification, where she must show that she is a mature minor or that, if she is found not able to make the decision independently, the desired abortion is in her best interests. Four of the eight justices objected to this suggestion on the ground that it was an advisory opinion. iggz: See cns mini brief, nB782uu, ABORTION AND VIABILITY: gggl v. of an abortion or abortion-related services in another State. CRS- 8 IB7uo19 UPDATE-12/22/80 The 93d Congress enacted antirabortion amendments to the following laws: (1) Health Service Extension Act of 1973, P.L. 93°fl5, approved June 18, 1973, contains a conscience clause which prohibits compelling institutions and individuals that receive Federal funds to perform or participate in abortion or sterilization procedures. (2) Foreign Assistance Act of 1973, P.L. 93-189, approved Dec. 17, 1973, was amended to prohibit use of funds to pay for the performance of abortions or to coerce any person to practice abortions. A (3) Legal Services Corporation Act, Palm 93-355, enacted July 25, 1974, contains an amendment which limits the participation of Legal Services attorneys in abortion litigation. In addition to the preceding anti-abortion riders, the 93d Congress addedi provisions to the National Research Act of 197a (P.L. 93-348) and National ‘(Science Foundation Authorization Act of 197% (P.L. 93-96), which prohibit the use of funds for research on human fetuses. [For more information on_ fetal research, see IB74095.] 3 The principal legislative activity in the 9uth Congress on the abortion issue involved Federal funding of abortion legislation protecting freedom of choice, and proposed constitutional amendments seeking to overturn the Supreme Court's decisions in Egg v. gage, 410 0.5. 113. (1973), and 29g v. Qgltgg, H10 U.S. 179 (1973). Proposed constitutional amendments introduced during the 94th Congress took two forms: (1) those maintaining the rights of the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories to pass laws allowing, regulating, or prohibiting the practice of abortion and (2) those guaranteeing a "right to life." The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, after holding hearings, rejected all proposed. constitutional amendments on abortion, including S.J.Res. 6 and S.J.Res. 178 (Helms et al.), S.J.Res. 10 (Buckley et al.), and S.J.Res. 91 (Scott). Senator Helm's proposal for immediate consideration by the entire Senate of proposed constitutional amendment S.J.Res. 178, a “right to life" amendment, was tabled on Apr. 28, 1976, by a vote of #7 to #0. The Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Judiciary Committee also held and concluded hearings on proposed constitutional amendments on abortion. The Committee did not make any recommendations to the full House. An amendment related to abortions was passed with the enactment of the Special Revenue Sharing Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-63, July 29, 1975). The law makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine of not more than $1,000 for any Federal employee, any State employee supervising any program receiving Federal assistance, or any person who receives Federal compensation for services "who coerces or endeavors to coerce any’ person to undergo an abortion" ... by threatening loss of Federal benefits. After several attempts to ban or restrict the use of Federal funds for domestic abortions, the 94th Congress adopted the so-called Hyde amendment tr H.R. 14232, the Departments of Labor and HER Appropriation Act, 1977 (P.L 9u—u39). The Hyde Amendment, which became law on Sept. 30, 1976, provides that: "None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to; perform abortions except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus CRS- 9 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 were carried to term." Immediate court challenges were instituted against the Hyde amendment. A U.S. district court judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., ruled that the Hyde amendment was unconstitutional and issued an order blocking enforcement of the amendment on a nationwide basis. Senators Buckley and Helms requested immediate consideration of the judge's order by ythe Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1252. The Supreme Court denied the request for an application staying the enforcement of the district court's order. However, on Aug. a, 1977, the district court's order blocking nationwide enforcement of the Hyde qamendment was lifted after remand to the U.S. District for the Eastern District, Brooklyn, for reconsideration in view of the Court's decision in gghgg v. ggg, No. 7u-1uuo (June 20, 1977); and gee; v. Qge, No. 7u—55u (June 20, 1977)., During the 95th Congress, abortion restrictions were attached to each of iiithe yearly Labor/HEW appropriations bills. The restrictions provide, in pertinent part, as follows: "None of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to performt abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus is carried to term...." 9 However, the Labor/HEW abortion funding issue still provides an annual controversy. The FY79 appropriations bill (H.R. 12929) for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare contains the same restriction as that found in the FY78 appropriations bill (H.R. 7555). Prior to the passage of H.R. 12929 (P.L. 95-430), Senate conferees had insisted on language in the bortion amendment that would have allowed Federal funds to pay for abortions only where "medically necessary," in contrast to the position of the House, which supported funding for abortions only in instances where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus was carried to term. The Department of Defense supplemental appropriations bill for FY79 (H.R. 13635), now P.L. 95-457, was amended to restrict the use of military appropriations for abortions. The restrictions in P.L. 95-457 apply to military personnel and their dependents. The language of the amendment is identical to that of the Labor/HEW amendment. P.L. 95-555, signed by the President on Oct. 31, 1978, amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting sex discrimination on the basis A of pregnancy in areas of employee benefits (i.e., health and insurance benefits, seniority, etc.). With respect to abortions, the law requires coverage only where the procedures is necessary to save the mother's life. Another interesting development that received some attention during the 95th Congress was the alleged controversial use by private agencies of family planning funds under Title X of the Public Health Services Act to advertise or promote abortions. Section 1008 of Title X States: "None of the funds appropriated under this Title shall be used where abortion is a method of family planning." The 96th Congress enacted a continuing resolution providing temporary /propriations to the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and welfare for FY80, after reaching agreement on a temporary abortion limitation. The resolution, P.L. 96-86, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution except CBS-10 IB7fl019 UPDATE-12/22/80 section 102, none of the Federal funds provided by this joint resolution for the District of Columbia, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and welfare, or the Department of Defense shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or except for such medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape or incest, vwhen such rape or incest has been reported promptly to a law enforcement agency or public health service; The continuing resolution did not allow appropriated funds to be used for abortions in those instances where severe and long~lasting physical health damage would result if the pregnancy were carried to term as was the case for the measures from the previous two fiscal years. This restriction expired Nov. 20, 1979. The 96th Congress also attached temporary abortion restrictions to~ appropriated funds for the District of Columbia, the Foreignv Assistance Administration, and the Department of Defense. The District of Columbia appropriations has been approved for the entire fiscal year, P.L. 96-93. on Nov. 20, 1979, both Houses approved another continuing resolution (H.J.Res. #40) to fund the Departments of Labor.and Health, Education, and Welfare for FY80. H.J.Res. 440 contains the same abortion restriction found in P.L. 96-86 (H.J.Res. 412). The continuing appropriations for FY80 were approved on Nov. 20, 1979, with the same abortion restriction. Also, an abortion restriction was attached to the District of Columbia appropriations. The House, on Dec. 11, 1979, passed an amendment to the Child Health Assurance Act of 1979 (H.R. 4962), which would restrict the use of Federal funds appropriated under the Act to exclude all abortions except those needed to preserve the life of the mother and would specify that nothing in Title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act shall require State funds to be used to pay for abortions. The major policy guestions involved in the abortion issue are as follows: (1) How may Congress, if it so determines, override the Supreme Court's abortion decisions speedily and with precision? By statute? By constitutional amendment? (2) Does section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution authorize Congress to enact a statute which would prohibit abortions? (3) Should Congress exercise its authority over the jurisdiction of inferior Federal courts and enact a statute which would prohibit Federal courts from hearing abortion cases? Would such a law be constitutional? (4) what would be the collateral, and perhaps undesirable, effects, if any, of a constitutional amendment which invests the unborn with certain constitutional "due process" and "equal protection" guarantees? (5) Does Congress have the constitutional authority to fud a religious-affiliated hospital and at the same time insulate, by statute, that facility from being compelled by a court to provide its facilities for an abortion? 6 (6) May an individual or a private or public hospital be compelled t’ perform an abortion? . CRS-11 IB7fl019 UPDATE-12/22/80 (7) Should the device of a discharge petition be used to disgorge anti-abortion legislation from committees which plan no hearings on same? LE.§£.5.LA'££Q.! P.L. 96-86, H.J.Res. #12 Continuing resolution providing funds for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies for FY80. The resolution, which remained effective until Nov. 20, 1979, contained compromise language governing abortions. Passed House and Senate Oct. 12, 1979. Signed into law on same day. P.L. 96-88, S. 210 Provides for the creation of a Department of Education. Contains. abortion amendments which would limit the authority of the Secretary of Education to allow certain activities if abortion were performed except where ‘the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.. H.R. znua introduced Feb. 27, 1979; referred to Committee on Government Operations. S. 210 introduced Jan. 24, 1979; referred to Committee on Governmental Affairs. H.R. ZQH4 laid on table in House July 11, 1979. S. 210 passed in lieu. Abortion restrictions dropped in conference. Signed into law Oct. 17, 1979. P.L.’96-93, H.R. 4580 Makes appropriations for the District of Columbia for FY80. After lengthy negotiations between conferees, the Senate agreed, on Oct. 22, 1979, .o compromise language governing the limitation of abortions. Provides as follows: None of the Federal funds provided in this Act shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or except for such medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape or incest when such rape or incest has been reported promptly to a law enforcement agency or public health service. Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures necessary for termination of an ectopic pregnancy. Signed into law Oct. 30, 1979. POLO HoJ.ReSo Continuing resolution providing funds for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare for FY80. Contains provision restricting the — use of Federal funds for abortions, except to save the life of the mother, and for medical procedures necessary for victims of rape and incest, when such rape or incest has been reported promptly to a law enforcement or public ,health service agency. Passed House and Senate Nov. 20, 1979. Signed into law Nov. 20, 1979. P.L. 96-536, H-J.Res. Sflfl Provides continuing appropriations for FY81. Contains compromise language governing abortions. Approved by Congress and signed by President Dec. 16, 1980. H.R. 4962 (Waxman et al.)/S. 120a (Ribicoff et al.) Child Health Assurance Act of 1979. Amends Title XIX (Medicaid) of them icial Security Act to provide medical assistance to eligible individuals under the age of 21 and to eligible women during and after pregnancy. Establishes a national child health assurance program QCHAP) income standard and a national maternal income standard. H.R. #962 passed House Dec. 11, 1979, with amendment offered by Representative Bauman that would amend Title CBS-12 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 XIX as follows: "None of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this title shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term; g;9g;ggg,u hgggggg, that nothing in this title shall be construed to require any State funds to be used to pay for any abortion." H.R. 4962 and S. 1204 placed on Senate calendar Dec. 13, 1979. Failed to pass Senate. §EABlE§§ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. Proposed constitutional ‘ amendments on abortion. Hearings, 94th Congress, 2d session. Feb. 4, 5; Mar. 22-27, 1976. [Not yet published] U.S.i Congress.. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. Abortion. Hearings, 93d Congress, 2d session, on S.J.Res. 119 and S.J.Res. 130. Part 1. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. off., 1974. 729 p. Hearings held Mar. 6 and 7, Apr. 10, 1975. ----- Abortion. Hearings, 93d Congress, 2d session, on S.J. Res. 119 and S.J. Res. 130. Part 2. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. Hearings held Apr. 25, May 7, June 4 and 26, July 24, Aug- 21, Sept. 12, and Oct. 8, 1974. Abortion. Hearings, 93d Congress, 2d session, on S.J.Res. 119 and S.J.Res. 130. Part 3. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 475 p. LRS75-22721 ~---- Abortion. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session, on S.J.Res. 6, S.J.Res- 10 and 11, and S.J.Res. 91- Part 4. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off-, 1976. 1001 p. Hearings held Mar. 10, Apr. 11, May 9, June 19, and July 8, 1975. EEBQQQLQGY OF EVE!1§ 12/16/80 -- P.L. 96-536 (H.J.Res. 644) was passed by Congress and subsequently signed by the President. It contains the same provisions as its predecessor continuing resolution, P.L. 96-369, concerning abortion funding. P.L. 96-536 will expire June 6, 1981. approved by both Houses of Congress. The measure contains the same abortion language contained in H.J.Res. 610. « 10/O1/80 - President signed P.L. 96-369 (H.J.Res. 610), Continuing Resolution. Prohibits funds for the performance of abortions except where the mother's life is endangered, or except for such medical procedures necessary for victims of rape or incest, when such rape has been reported within 72 hours to a law enforcement agency or public health service. Allows payments for drugs or devices to prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical pocedures necessary for the termination of an ectopic pregnancy. The states .are free not to fund abortions to the extent that they in 09/17/80 09/16/80 09/03/80 08/27/80 08/20/80 06/30/80 01/16/80 12/11/79 11/20/79 10/22/79 CRS-13 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 their sole discretion deem appropriate. Supreme Court refused to reconsider a June 30 decision upholding Congressional restrictions on the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions. The House version of H.R. 8105, Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal year 1981, limits abortion funding to cases where the mother's life is endangered or in cases of rape or incest when reported promptly to law enforcement or public health officials. A The House passed H.R. 8061, D.C. Appropriations, prohibiting federal funding except in cases of life endangerment, rape and incest. An amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated under the bill to pay for abortions was rejected 182-192 (Roll Call No. 510). House passed H.R. 7998, Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Department Appropriations for fiscal year 1981. The House bill allows federal Medicaid funding only to save the life of the mother, prohibits courts from overriding Congressional spending limitations, and allows states to decide whether to fund abortions. H.R. 7583, Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations passed the House which prohibits funds to pay for abortions or the administrative expenses of any plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program that provided coverage for abortions (Roll Call No. 466). The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Hyde Amendment abortion restrictions are constitutionally valid. The annual abortion restriction to Labor/HEW appropriation bills was held unconstitutional by a U.S. district court in Brooklyn. N-Y- (asaae v- §s2£e2a£xi_§§E)- House passed H.R. #962 after attaching an anti-abortion amendment. Both Houses passed H.J.Res. H40, which contains identical language to P.L. 96-86 with regard to abortion. The Senate agreed to compromise language governing the abortion limitation in H.R. H580, which provides as follows: None of the Federal funds provided in this act shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or except for such medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape or incest when such rape or incest has been reported promptly to a law enforcement agency or public health service. Nor are payments prohibited for drugs or devices to prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum, or for medical procedures necessary for termination of an ectopic pregnancy. 10/12/79 09/13/79 08/02/79 01/30/79 07/27/79 07/20/79 07/17/79 07/11/79 07/02/79 06/27/79 on/30/79 .09/27/78 O8/16/78 cRs—1u IB74019 UPDATE—12/22/80 The House approved H.J.Res. 412, continuing appropriations for FY80, and agreed to a temporary compromise’ governing abortions. The Senate passed H.J.Res. H12. (P.L. 96-86). S. 210/H.R. zuuu - restrictive abortion limitations which were passed by the House were dropped in conference. House by voice vote insisted on its restrictive abortion language. A conference committee reached agreement (H.Rept. 96-n00) on all items in FY80 Labor/HEW appropriations bill, except on abortion funding.) H.R. #389 sent to conference. Senate passed H.R. H580 and defeated Helms‘ amendment to conform funding under D.C. appropriations to those funded under Medicaid (Roll call no. 228). H.R. 4389 passed Senate with an abortion amendment which, in addition to the House language, provided other instances when abortion could be performed with appropriated funds. During debate on H.R. #580, the District of Columbia appropriations bill for FY80, the House adopted Mr. Dornan's amendment to prohibit denial of funds for medical expenses necessary for saving the life of a pregnant woman entitled to receive medical benefits under this Act (Roll call no. 3&3). Also, the House adopted Dornan amendment which prohibits the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions (Roll call no. 345). The bill passed the House. S. 210 (H.R. 2444), a bill creating a separate Department of Education, passed the House with many controversial amendments including a restrictive abortion amendment. announced an important involved when minors seek to §e.l.;;-21.2; V - Iéeird. The U.S. Supreme Court decision on procedures abort pregnancies (see No. 78-329). H.R. 4389, the Labor/HEW appropriations bill for FY80, passed the House with a restrictive abortion rider. 5. 210, creating a separate Department of Education, passed the Senate. H.R. 12929 was passed by the Senate. H.R. 12929 was reported to the Senate (S.Rept. 95-1119)i 08/09/78 07/18/78 06/13/78 06/01/78 12/07/77 12/06/77 09/16/77 09/04/77 09/02/77 CBS-15 IB7fl019 UPDATE-12/22/80 by the Appropriations Committee. H.R. 13635, DOD Supplemental Appropriations for FY79, was approved by the House. The bill included an amendment, offered by Rep. Dornan, to restrict the use of Federal funds for abortions unless the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus was carried to term. H.R. 6075 (S. 995), a bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, was passed by the House and a conference committee was appointed to resolve differences with the Senate-passed version of the bill. H.R. 12929 passed the House. The measure contains a restrictive abortion rider. An amendment that sought to strike the language in H.R. 12929 restricting the use of Federal funds for abortions was defeated by a vote of 287 to 122. H.R. 12929, the FY79 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor and HES, was introduced. The measure contains a very restrictive abortion rider. H.R. 12929 reported by the House Committee on Appropriations. Both the House and Senate agreed upon an abortion compromise, contained in H.J.Res. 662, which bars the use of public funds to perform abortions y except where the life of the mother is endangered, where medically necessary in promptly reported cases of rape or incest, or where two physicians certify that permanent health damage would result. House rejected an amendment that sought to add compromise language to version of the so-called Hyde amendment, by vote of 200 to 170. S. 995, a bill amending title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196a to prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, was passed by the Senate. Injunction against enforcement of the Hyde amendment to the FY78 Labor-HEW appropriations bill, contained in P.L. 9fl+439, Sec. 209, was lifted by the United States District Court, Eastern District, Brooklyn, N.Y. Senate rejected (59-34) a House amendment which would permit spending public funds for abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered. House adopted (238-182) an amendment to the FY78 Labor/HEW appropriations bill which would permit 06/29/77 06/17/77 09/30/76 09/29/76 09/10/76 08/23/76 08/10/76 08/03/76 06/28/76 06/24/76 CRS-16 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 spending public funds for abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered. Supreme Court remanded to the district court the decision in galifang v. ggggg, No. 76-113, for reconsideration in view of Court's decision in gage; v. ggg, No. 74-1440 (June 20, 1977) and Qggl v. Qgg, No. 74-554 (June 20, 1977). Senate approved and passed its version of Labor/HEW Appropriations bill for FY78 with an abortion restriction which allows funding for abortions A where the life of the mother is endangered, in cases of rape or incest, or in certain other cases of medical necessity. House approved and passed its version of Labor/HEW Appropriations bill for FY78 with an amendment prohibiting the funding of abortions without exceptions. The Presidential veto of H.R. 14232 was overridden by the Congress, and the bill was enacted as P.L. 94-439. The President vetoed H.R. 14232, the Departments of Labor-Health, Education and Welfare appropriations bill, which contains a measure prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for or to promote or encourage abortions. The House accepted a compromise amendment to the Departments of Labor-HEW appropriations bill for FY77, which provides that "none of the funds contained in this Act shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term." The Senate voted against accepting the House position on the Hyde amendment to H.R. 14232. The House voted, 223 to 150, to prohibit the use of funds for abortions under the FY77 Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations bill. The conference committee appointed to resolve differences between the House and Senate on H.R. 14232 failed to reach agreement on the Hyde amendment, which would ban the use of funds appropriated under the FY77 Labor-DHEW Appropriations bill for abortions. The senate voted, 58 to 28, to strike from H-R. 14232 an amendment prohibiting the use of funds for abortions or to promote or encourage abortions. The House voted in favor of an amendment offered by Rep. Hyde (R—Ill.) to H.R. 14232, which provides that none of the funds appropriated under this Act [Departments of Labor-HEW Appropriations Bill, FY77] OH/28/76 O3/15/76 O2/OH/76 09/17/75 06/29/75 06/19/75 05/05/75 04/10/75 11/26/74 11/21/74 09/18/7n 09/17/7H O7/25/74 CRS-17 IB7fl019 UPDATE“12/22/80 shall be used to pay for or to promote or encourage abortions. The Senate defeated a proposal for immediate consideration of S.J.Res. 178, a proposed "right to life" amendment to the Constitution. Senator Helms moved for immediate consideration by the Senate of S.J.Res. 178 (identical to S.J.Res. 6), a proposed amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right of life to the unborn. Objection was heard and the amendment was placed on the Senate calendar. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights began hearings on proposed constitutional amendments on abortion. Testimony was heard from Prof. Cyril Means, New York Law School; and Prof. Joseph Hitherspoon, University of Texas Law School. The Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments voted not to report to the full Committee on the Judiciary S.J.Res. 6, S.J.Res. 10, S.J.Res. 11, and S.J.Res. 91 that propose amendments to the Constitution relative to abortion. 5. 66 was passed by the Congress (P.L. 9n-63) over a Presidential veto. The House agreed to a conference to resolve the differences between S. 66 and H.R. 4925. The House passed H.R. #925, a companion bill to S. 66. The Senate passed S. 66 with the Bellmon amendment, which provides for freedom of choice regarding abortion or sterilization in federally assisted progams. The House and Senate agreed to H.R. 15580 as reported out of conference committee (subsequently became P.L. 93-517). Conference committee reported out H.R. 15580 without the Bartlett amendment. The Senate passed H.R. 15580, as amended, and adopted the Buckley amendment (No. 1881), which broadens protection for human participants in research and experimental programs. The the Senate adopted a sweeping amendment to H.R. 15580, Bartlett amendment (No. 1859), which places a total ban on the use of funds alloted to Labor and HEW "to pay for or encourage" abortion except in instances when necessary to save the life of a mother. The President signed into law H.R. 7824, the Legal Services Corporation Act of 197M (P.L. 93-355), which contains an amendment limiting the availability of Legal Services. attorneys for participation in abortion litigation. 07/12/74 06/28/74 06/27/74 12/17/73 12/05/73 12/04/73 11/30/73 11/29/73 11/27/73 10/09/73 10/02/73 10/01/73 09/11/73 08/16/73 08/03/73 07/27/73 CBS-18 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 The H.R. 7724 was enacted as P.L. 93-348. The the and House agreed (311-10) to conference report on H.R. 7724, National Biomedical Research Fellowship, Traineeship, Training Act. The House defeated an anti-abortion rider (247-123) when it approved H.R. 15580, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations Act. President signed 5. 1443, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973, which contains Helms amendment prohibiting the spending of funds for abortions (P.L. 93-189; 87 Stat. 714). The Senate agreed to S. 1443 as reported out of conference with modified Helms amendment. The House agreed to S. 1443 as reported out of conference, with modified Helms amendment. Senator Buckley proposed an amendment to H.R. 3153 to prohibit Medicaid funds from being used to pay for abortions. The Buckley amendment was adopted. Senator Church submitted an amendment to H.R. 3153, the Social Security Amendments of 1973, providing that recipients of certain Federal aid need not perform abortions if contrary to religious or moral beliefs (amendment was iadopted). The Conference modified Helms committee on S. 2335 reported out 5. 1443 with amendment (H.Rept. 93-664 (1973)). Rep. Froehlich introduced H.Res. 585, intended to create a House Select Committee to study the impact and ramifications of the Supreme Court abortion decision. The Helms amendment to S. 2335 was adopted by Senate. Senator Helms proposed to amend S. 2335, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973, to prohibit Federal funds from being used in abortions. Senator Buckley proposed to amend H.R. 7724 to prohibit research on fetuses. (The Senate version of H.R. 7724, as reported from the Committee on Labor and Public welfare, omitted the Roncalio amendment; the Buckley amendment, as amended, was adopted by the Senate.) The President signed H.R. 8510, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1974, with Roncalio amendment, which prohibits fetal research. The House agreed to H.R. 8510 as reported out of conference with Roncalio amendment. The Senate agreed to H.R. 8510 as reported out of conference 07/26/75 07/10/73 06/29/73 ,o5/22/73 06/21/73 06/18/73 06/05/73 05/31/73 05/25/73 03/27/73 03/13/73 02/26/73 CRS-19 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 with Roncalio amendment. The conference committee on H.R. 8510 reported out bill with Roncalio amendment reinstated (H.Rept. 93-408 (1973)). Rep. Hogan presented motion to discharge Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Judiciary Committee from consideraton of H.J.Res. 261, a proposed consitutional amendment intended to negate the Supreme Court abortion decisions.) The Senate rejected the House version of H.R. 8510 and completely rewrote the bill, omitting Roncalio amendment. Rep. Roncalio proposed to amend H.R. 8510, the National Foundation Authorization Act, to prohibit fetal research (amendment was adopted). Rep. Hogan proposed to amend H.R. 7824, the Legal Services Corporation Act, to prohibit Legal Services attorneys from participating in abortion litigation (amendment was adopted). The President signed S. 1136, the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973, containing Church amendment (P.L. 93-45; 87 Stat. 91). The Senate agreed to H.R. 7806 and passed same as S. 1136, including Church amendment. Rep. Roncalio proposed to amend H.R. 7724, the National Biomedical Research Fellowship, Traineeship, and Training Act of 1973, to prohibit research on human fetuses (amendment was a adopted). Senator Buckley introduced S.J. Res. 119, a proposed constitutional amendment intended to negate the Supreme Court abortion decisions. The House passed H.R. 7806 (companion bill to S. 1136) with modified Church amendment. The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce reported on H.R. 7806 (companion bill to S. 1136) and included modified form of Church amendment (H.Rept. 93-227 (1973)). Senator Church proposed to amend S. 1136, the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973, to prohibit ig§§§_a;ig a court from compelling a private hospital to perform an abortion because it receives funds (amendment was adopted). Rep. Whitehurst introduced H.J. Res. 427, a proposed constitutional amendment to return the authority to regulate abortions to the States. The 0.5. Supreme Court declined to reconsider pro-abortion decisions of gage and ggltgg, 410 U.S. 959. . CR5-20 IB74019 UPDATE-12/22/80 O1/30/73 —— Rep. Hogan introduced H.J. Res. 261, a proposed constitutional amendment intended to negate Supreme Court abortion decisions. O1/22/73 —— The U.S. Supreme Court announced pro-abortion decisions of gee v. gage, H10 U.S. 113, and gee v. Bolton=, H10 U.S. 179. Abortion: campaign to upset Supreme Court ruling. Congressional quarterly weekly report, v. 31, Nov. 10, 1973: 2973-2976. rysuckley, James L. A human life amendment. Human life review, v. 1, winter 1975: 7-20. ,Byrn, Robert M. An American tragedy: the Supreme Court on abortion. Fordhan law review, v. Q1, no. H, 1973: 807-862. LRS73-17896 The clash of symbols in the abortion debate: choosing one good at the expense of another good, by Daniel Callahan. (Courses by newspaper) The Washington post. Feb. 17, 1977. Part of a series, "Moral Choices in Contemporary Society," developed by University Extension, University of California, San Diego, and funded by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities- Distributed by the National Newspaper Association. Ely, John Hart. The wages of crying wolf: a comment on gee v. gage, Yale law journal, v. 82, April 1973: 920-949- LBS73-5607 Lee, Francis G. What about an abortion amendment? America, v. 132, Mar. 8, 1975: 166-168. ’ LRS75-2956 gee v. gage (93 S.Ct. 705) and the traditional legal standards concerning pregnancy. Temple law quarterly, v. 37, Summer 197a: 715-738. A Schardt, Arlie. Saving abortion. Civil.liberties (monthly report of the American Civil Liberties Union), September 1973: p.1.