On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, the American Constitution Society, the Federalist Society, Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and Law Students for Life co-sponsored a debate on the use of federal funding through Title X. Representing the pro-choice side of the debate was Ms. Stephanie Toti, Staff Attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. Mr. William Saunders, Senior Counsel for Americans United for Life, debated against Ms. Toti from a pro-life prospective.
Title X of the Public Health Service Act is a federal grant program dedicated to provide people in need with family planning and related reproductive health services. Formed President Nixon signed the Public Service Act into law in 1970, and since then Title X has been a source of controversy. The "gag rule" refers to the federal doctrine that prevented Title X funds to be used to fund or promote abortions. The domestic gag rule was in effect under the Reagan and Bush administrations from 1988 until it was lifted under the Clinton administration in 1993. The gag rule was again reinstated by Former President George W. Bush and most recently repealed by President Obama.
Mr. Saunders argued that Americans' tax dollars should not be used to fund abortions. Mr. Saunder cited poll results that found a majority of Americans do not support federal funding being used to provide abortions. He also referred to Planned Parenthood as the "elephant in the room" for Title X debates. Mr. Saunders stated that while Title X funding goes to many clinics nationwide, a considerable amount goes to Planned Parenthood. He claimed that as an organization, Planned Parenthood is synonymous with abortion. Mr. Saunders felt that implementation of Title X under the Clinton and Obama administrations, which allows funding for preventative reproductive health measures as long as book keeping is kept separate from abortions, is too lax.
Ms. Toti argued the opposing side stating the federal government should not "gag" the use of tax and private dollars to fund a woman's right to choose. Ms. Toti referenced several of her real life clients who depended on Title X funding for their reproductive health. Ms. Toti claimed that to impose further restrictions on Title X funds would hurt impoverished women who needed reproductive health services the most. Ms. Toti responded to Mr. Saunders statements regarding Planned Parenthood. She explained that not all Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortions and it is one of many health services the clinics provide. Ms. Toti also argued that it was every woman's right to control the number and spacing of her children and Title X funding is necessary to protect that right.
Following the debate, students were invited to field questions to Mr. Saunders and Ms. Toti. While the Q & A session made it clear that the student attendees were divided on the issue, audience members left the debate with a better understanding of both sides of the Title X and the gag rule controversy.
Amy Weiss is a first year student at Richmond Law. Submit comments and letters to the editor via jurispub@richmond.edu .
| 
