Court Opinion

ID: 9480129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:39:16.188634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:30.340290
License: Public Domain

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In the original panel decision of this case, I concurred in part and dissented in part, based on the assumption that the regulations at issue could be severed from the *79remainder of the legislation. Since that time, however, my views have been supplemented by the Supreme Court’s decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 3040, 106 L.Ed.2d 410 (1989), and by the Second Circuit’s opinion regarding these rules in New York v. Sullivan, 889 F.2d 401 (2d Cir.1989). I am now convinced that these regulations, irrespective of whether or not they are subject to severance, do not interfere with any constitutional right protected pursuant to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), or any First Amendment right as expressed in F.C.C. v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 82 L.Ed.2d 278 (1984). In my opinion, the Secretary has merely refused to fund an activity which the government is not constitutionally required to support, without imposing legal obstacles to a citizen’s choice of action in a protected area. Webster, supra; Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 65 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980); Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 97 S.Ct. 2376, 53 L.Ed.2d 484 (1977). Nor have plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights been inhibited in any constitutionally cognizable way. Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 103 S.Ct. 1997, 76 L.Ed.2d 129 (1983); Student Government v. Bd. of Trustees, 868 F.2d 473 (1st Cir.1989).
I believe that the challenged regulations are a valid exercise of executive power as authorized by Section 1008 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.