Rust V. Sullivan: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Deleted Sandbox text |
m Added wikilinks |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Rust v. Sullivan,''' 111 U.S 1759 (1991),<ref>Freyer, Tony. "Rust v. Sullivan." ''Dictionary of American History'', edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 3rd ed., vol. 7, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003, p. 216. ''U.S. History in Context'', <nowiki>http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3401803671/UHIC?u=mcc_pv&sid=UHIC&xid=0bde1c67</nowiki>. Accessed 23 Mar. 2019.</ref> is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court where petitioner Erving Rust et al. claimed that federal regulations created under Title X were in violation of the first and fifth amendments. Title X is a federal grant program passed in 1970 designed to offer prenatal and sexual healthcare to impoverished families and women.<ref>{{Cite journal|last={{!}}last1= Coleman {{!}}last2= Jones|first={{!}}first1= Clare {{!}}first2= Kirtly Parker|date=September 2011|title=Title X: a proud past, an uncertain future|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/contraception|journal=Contraception|volume=84|pages=209-211|via=Elsevier}}</ref> The federal regulations stated that Family Planning Clinics could not provide counseling or education on abortions.<ref>"''Rust v. Sullivan''." ''Great American Court Cases'', edited by Mark Mikula and L. Mpho Mabunda, vol. 3: Equal Protection and Family Law, Gale, 1999. ''Opposing Viewpoints in Context'', <nowiki>http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2303200568/OVIC?u=mcc_pv&sid=OVIC&xid=8a71deef</nowiki>. Accessed 23 Mar. 2019.</ref> According to the plaintiffs this was a clear violation of the constitution and of a women's right to abortion. The court ruled 5-4 that the federal regulations were not in violation of either amendment because the language used in Title X is generic and allows such constructions to be put in place.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/500/173|title=Rust v. Sullivan|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2019-03-24}}</ref> |
'''Rust v. Sullivan,''' 111 U.S 1759 (1991),<ref>Freyer, Tony. "Rust v. Sullivan." ''Dictionary of American History'', edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 3rd ed., vol. 7, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003, p. 216. ''U.S. History in Context'', <nowiki>http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3401803671/UHIC?u=mcc_pv&sid=UHIC&xid=0bde1c67</nowiki>. Accessed 23 Mar. 2019.</ref> is a ruling of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] where petitioner Erving Rust et al. claimed that federal regulations created under [[Title X]] were in violation of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|first]] and [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|fifth amendments]]. Title X is a federal grant program passed in 1970 designed to offer prenatal and sexual healthcare to [[Poverty|impoverished]] families and women.<ref>{{Cite journal|last={{!}}last1= Coleman {{!}}last2= Jones|first={{!}}first1= Clare {{!}}first2= Kirtly Parker|date=September 2011|title=Title X: a proud past, an uncertain future|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/contraception|journal=Contraception|volume=84|pages=209-211|via=Elsevier}}</ref> The federal regulations stated that [[Family planning|Family Planning Clinics]] could not provide counseling or education on [[Abortion|abortions]].<ref>"''Rust v. Sullivan''." ''Great American Court Cases'', edited by Mark Mikula and L. Mpho Mabunda, vol. 3: Equal Protection and Family Law, Gale, 1999. ''Opposing Viewpoints in Context'', <nowiki>http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2303200568/OVIC?u=mcc_pv&sid=OVIC&xid=8a71deef</nowiki>. Accessed 23 Mar. 2019.</ref> According to the plaintiffs this was a clear violation of the constitution and of a women's right to abortion. The court ruled 5-4 that the federal regulations were not in violation of either amendment because the language used in Title X is generic and allows such constructions to be put in place.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/500/173|title=Rust v. Sullivan|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2019-03-24}}</ref> |
||
Revision as of 17:49, 29 March 2019
Rust v. Sullivan, 111 U.S 1759 (1991),[1] is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court where petitioner Erving Rust et al. claimed that federal regulations created under Title X were in violation of the first and fifth amendments. Title X is a federal grant program passed in 1970 designed to offer prenatal and sexual healthcare to impoverished families and women.[2] The federal regulations stated that Family Planning Clinics could not provide counseling or education on abortions.[3] According to the plaintiffs this was a clear violation of the constitution and of a women's right to abortion. The court ruled 5-4 that the federal regulations were not in violation of either amendment because the language used in Title X is generic and allows such constructions to be put in place.[4]
- ^ Freyer, Tony. "Rust v. Sullivan." Dictionary of American History, edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 3rd ed., vol. 7, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003, p. 216. U.S. History in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3401803671/UHIC?u=mcc_pv&sid=UHIC&xid=0bde1c67. Accessed 23 Mar. 2019.
- ^ |last1= Coleman |last2= Jones, |first1= Clare |first2= Kirtly Parker (September 2011). "Title X: a proud past, an uncertain future". Contraception. 84: 209–211 – via Elsevier.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "Rust v. Sullivan." Great American Court Cases, edited by Mark Mikula and L. Mpho Mabunda, vol. 3: Equal Protection and Family Law, Gale, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2303200568/OVIC?u=mcc_pv&sid=OVIC&xid=8a71deef. Accessed 23 Mar. 2019.
- ^ "Rust v. Sullivan". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2019-03-24.