Opinion ID: 421802
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Congressional policy of encouraging family involvement.

Text: 41 Our detailed examination of Title X's pre-1981 legislative history indicates that, far from signifying a shift in congressional opinion, the 1981 amendment simply raised to the statutory level pre-existing policy on this issue. For years earlier Congress had evinced its strong interest in encouraging family involvement in a teenager's family planning decisions; the legislative history is replete with references to this goal. What is particularly striking is the extent to which the various committee report references to this policy track, almost verbatim, the language of the 1981 Conference Committee report. 42 In 1975, for example, the Senate report accompanying the Title X reauthorization bill stated: 43 [T]he Committee believes that unmarried teenagers, where feasible, should be encouraged to involve their family [sic ] in their decision about use of contraceptives. 44 S.Rep. No. 29, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 55 (1975) (emphasis added). The Senate report accompanying that chamber's version of the 1978 Title X reauthorization bill also emphasized the encouragement of family involvement: 45 This policy    has been stressed in prior committee reports and is a reassertion of existing Federal policy. It is not intended to restrict or discourage the provision of voluntary family planning services to those adolescents who want them, but only to try to enhance communication within the family unit. 46 S.Rep. No. 822, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 40 (1978) (emphasis added). Finally, the House report accompanying its version of the bill subsequently enacted as the 1981 amendment noted past Committee concern that in the process of contraceptive counseling, unmarried teenagers, where feasible, should be encouraged to involve their families in their decision about use of contraceptives. H.R.Rep. No. 158, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 82 (1981) (emphasis added; footnote omitted). 47 In light of this consistent legislative history, we believe that the reasonable and correct interpretation of the 1981 amendment is that offered by appellees: the added statutory language merely served to emphasize existing congressional policy and thus provides no basis for the Secretary's radical departure in the means by which such family involvement is to be effectuated. 40 48