The Court ruled that such restrictions violated the due process clause, the equal protection clause and the equal rights amendment of the constitution of the State of Connecticut. That decision was not appealed by the state. First, Title XIX is an entitlement program and Title XXI is not. While funding must be made available to provide Medicaid benefits to eligible participants, Title XXI benefits may be terminated if the funding allotted to the program is depleted. Second, Title XIX assists only poor people.
Eligibility is granted only if the individual or family is indigent.
By contrast, Title XXI is available to all children, regardless of the families' income levels. State benefits under Husky B range from full subsidization of the premium to no subsidization at all. As discussed below, we conclude that, despite these differences, the constitutional analysis in Doe is applicable to the Title XXI Husky B program. Doe v. Maher Doe was a class action brought by a Medicaid recipient and her physician, challenging the legality and constitutionality of the state regulation restricting abortion to those necessary because the woman's life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. The first constitutional claim was that the regulation was a violation of due process rights because it impinged on the Medicaid recipients' right of privacy guaranteed by the state constitution.