Hope v. Perales, 83 N.Y.2d 563 (1994)
A state’s decision to fund prenatal care services without funding abortion does not violate the state constitution’s due process clause or infringe upon the right to reproductive choice of women who are not indigent.
Summary
This case concerns the constitutionality of New York’s Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP), which provides prenatal care to women with incomes up to 185% above the federal poverty level but excludes funding for abortions. Plaintiffs argued that this exclusion violates the state constitution. The New York Court of Appeals held that PCAP is constitutional because it does not coerce women to choose childbirth over abortion, as PCAP-eligible women are presumed to have sufficient financial means to exercise their right to choose. The court found no evidence that PCAP infringes upon the right to reproductive choice.
Facts
New York established PCAP to combat high rates of low birthweight and infant mortality by providing prenatal care to low-income pregnant women. The program covers various pregnancy-related services, but not abortion. Jane Hope, a PCAP-eligible pregnant woman, was advised to have a medically necessary abortion but could not afford it. Jane Moe, also PCAP-eligible, was a carrier of a genetic defect and would need an abortion if she became pregnant. Plaintiffs argued that excluding abortion funding pressured women to choose childbirth over abortion.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs sued the Commissioners of Social Services and Health, seeking an injunction against implementing PCAP without abortion funding and a declaration that PCAP-eligible women are entitled to such funding. The Supreme Court granted the injunction, holding PCAP unconstitutional. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that the statute coerced low-income women into choosing childbirth. The defendants appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether New York’s Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP), which funds prenatal care services but excludes funding for abortions, violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, Aid to the Needy, or Public Health clauses of the New York State Constitution.
Holding
No, because PCAP does not directly infringe upon the right to reproductive choice, nor does it coerce women to choose childbirth over abortion, as PCAP-eligible women are presumed to have the financial means to exercise their right to choose.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that PCAP satisfies federal constitutional standards and is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality under state law. The court acknowledged the fundamental right of reproductive choice under the state constitution but emphasized that this right does not guarantee an entitlement to public funds to exercise that right. The court found no evidence that PCAP imposed a direct burden or made abortions less accessible or affordable for PCAP-eligible women, who are not considered indigent and are presumed to have the means to afford an abortion.
The court distinguished this case from cases involving indigent women, stating, “Unlike an indigent woman, whose option to choose an abortion is arguably foreclosed by her lack of resources, the PCAP-eligible woman — not ordinarily a recipient of State assistance — presumptively has the financial means to exercise her fundamental right of choice.”
The court determined that PCAP does not penalize women for exercising their right to choose because eligibility for the program does not terminate if a participant aborts her pregnancy. The court concluded that PCAP bears a rational relationship to the state’s interest in providing prenatal care to low-income women, thus satisfying the rational relationship test. The court also dismissed the claims under the Aid to the Needy and Public Health clauses, stating that the Legislature has discretion in promoting these interests.
The court quoted Tucker v. Toia, stating that Article XVII, Section 1 of the New York Constitution imposes an obligation on the Legislature to aid “those whom it has classified as needy”.