Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 

Supreme Court of the United States

1977

Chapter

6

Title

Implied Fundamental Rights

Page

855

Topic

Substantive Due Process:  No benefits for Indigent Non-therapeutic Abortion.

Quick Notes

Connecticut had a State regulation granting Medicaid benefits for childbirth but denying such benefits for non-therapeutic abortions (i.e., abortions that are not medically necessary).

Rule

o         A state may constitutionally deny funding for non-therapeutic abortions for indigent women even if it fully funds childbirth.

Court - In this case - This is State Encouragement

o         There is a basic difference between direct state interference with a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activity consonant with legislative policy

Court - Rational Review

o         The State unquestionably has a "strong and legitimate interest in encouraging normal childbirth.

o         Nor can there be any question that the Connecticut regulation rationally furthers that interest.

o         The medical costs associated with childbirth are substantial.

o         Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social and economic ill.

Court - Holding

o         The Connecticut statute here placed no obstacles in the pregnant woman's path, but merely failed to alleviate a pre-existing obstacle (her poverty).

o         The fact that Connecticut may have made the alternative to abortion more attractive by subsidizing it was not at all the same thing as placing a direct obstacle in the path to abortion

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether a regulation that grants Medicaid for child birth, but does not grant Medicaid for non-therapeutice abortions impinges upon a fundamental right protect by the Constitution?  No, because the regulation is not a direct obstacle to get an abortion, rather it is encourage for childbirth.

Procedure

Trial

o         District court's judgment held that the regulation violated the equal protection clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Supreme

o         Reversed.

o         There was no suspect class involved as an indigent woman desiring an abortion did not come within the limited category of recognized disadvantaged classes, and the fact that the impact of the regulation fell upon those who could not pay did not lead to a different conclusion.

o         The regulation placed no obstacle to obtaining an abortion and did not create the indigency that made it difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion. The funding scheme did not involve a suspect class or the impingement of a fundamental right. The regulation rationally furthered the state's legitimate interest in encouraging normal childbirth and it was not unreasonable to insist upon a prior showing of medical necessity to insure that state money was being spent only for authorized purposes.

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl -   Maher

Df -   Roe

Description

o         Connecticut had a State regulation granting Medicaid benefits for childbirth but denying such benefits for non-therapeutic abortions (i.e., abortions that are not medically necessary).

Justice Powell

Constitution - No obligation to pay medical expenses of indigent women

o         The Constitution imposes no obligation on the States to pay the pregnancy-related medical expenses of indigent women, or indeed to pay any of the medical expenses of indigents.

If alleviate hardships by providing medical care, THEN subject to constitution limitations.

o         But when a State decides to alleviate some of the hardships of poverty by providing medical care, the manner in which it dispenses benefits is subject to constitutional limitations.

Maher claim - equal treatment to both abortion and childbirth

o         Connecticut must accord equal treatment to both abortion and childbirth, and may not evidence a policy preference by funding only the medical expenses incident to childbirth.

Court - Equal Protection Clause Challenge

o         This challenge to the classifications established by the Connecticut regulation presents a question arising under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Court - In this Case - No discrimination against a suspect class

o         An indigent woman desiring an abortion does not come within the limited category of disadvantaged classes so recognized by our cases.

o         Nor does the fact that the impact of the regulation falls upon those who cannot pay lead to a different conclusion.

Whether the regulation "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution?

Roe v. Wade

o         Roe involved a Texas law prohibiting abortion, except to save the life of the mothers.

o         We held that only a compelling state interest would justify such a sweeping restriction on a constitutionally protected interest, and we found no such state interest.

Court - The regulation places no obstacle

o         The regulation imposed no restriction on access to abortions that was not already there.

o         The regulation does not impinge upon the fundament right to recognize in Roe.

Maher Claim - Regulation penalizes women

o         Regulation penalizes the womans decision to have an abortion by refusing to pay for it.

Court - In this case - This is State Encouragement

o         There is a basic difference between direct state interference with a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activity consonant with legislative policy

Court - Rational Review

o         The State unquestionably has a "strong and legitimate interest in encouraging normal childbirth.

o         Nor can there be any question that the Connecticut regulation rationally furthers that interest.

o         The medical costs associated with childbirth are substantial.

o         Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social and economic ill.

DISSENT - Justice Brennan

o         It is difficult if not impossible for an indigent woman to access a competent licensed physician.

No other choice

o         The indigent woman will feel that they have no choice but to carry the baby to term because the State will pay for the medical expenses.

Coerce, Force, and Inhibits

o         The disparity in funding clearly operates to coerce the indigent pregnant women to bear children they would not other choose to have.

o         The regulation puts financial pressures on the indigent woman that force them to bear child they would not otherwise have.

o         States have inhibited their fundamental right to make the choice free from state interference.

Sherbert v. Verner

o         Struck down a statute that denied unemployment compensation to a woman who for religious reasons could not work on Saturday.

o         Sherbert held that "the pressure upon her to forgo [her religious] practice [was] unmistakable," and therefore held that the effect was the same as a fine imposed for Saturday worship.

Dissent - Withholds benefits that discourages the exercises of a fundamental right

o         Here, though the burden is upon the right to privacy derived from the Due Process Clause and not upon freedom of religion under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the governing principle is the same, for Connecticut grants and withholds financial benefits in a manner that discourages significantly the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.

DISSENT - Justice Marshall

o         This statute imposes a moral viewpoint that no State may constitutionally enforce.

Rules

Rule

o         A state may constitutionally deny funding for non-therapeutic abortions for indigent women even if it fully funds childbirth.

Class Notes