Court Takes Up Funding for Churches’ Sex Counseling

The Supreme Court, entering a dispute that grew out of President Reagan’s anti-abortion agenda, said Monday that it would decide whether Congress may fund religious groups that counsel teen-agers against premarital sex.

Conservative Republicans, with the support of the White House, succeeded in 1981 in passing the Adolescent Family Life Act--dubbed the “chastity act” by its opponents--which provided federal funds to discourage teen-age promiscuity and abortion. One provision of the act funds the counseling of youths by “religious and charitable organizations” to discourage early sex and to promote discipline.

Challenge by ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Jewish Congress, citing concerns about the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state, challenged the law because they said it allows the government “to subsidize religious indoctrination.” In April, a federal judge here agreed and suspended the $14-million annual aid program.

On Monday, the justices heeded the Reagan Administration’s plea to review this “deeply flawed” ruling, which denies “vital benefits . . . to large numbers of unmarried teen-agers.” An estimated 1.1 million teen-age girls get pregnant each year and about 500,000 have abortions.

The key question that the high court must decide is whether government money provided under this law “advances religion” or merely supports a worthy and non-religious program. In earlier rulings, the court has declared that any law whose prime effect is to advance or hinder religion is unconstitutional.

Similar Laws Cited

The Administration argues that this law has no religious purpose and is similar to many others that provide aid for colleges and hospitals affiliated with churches. But the ACLU contends that the law goes one step further by enlisting church groups, in effect, to preach to young people about the need to maintain moral standards and avoid sex.

In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Richey ruled that the law covers religious views in calling for church organizations to discourage teen-age sexual involvement and in saying that they may “not advocate, promote or encourage abortion.”

“It is a fundamental tenet of many religions that premarital sex and abortion are wrong, even sinful,” Richey wrote. The case (Bowen vs. Kendrick, 87-431) will be argued early next year and a ruling can be expected by June.

In other actions, the court:

--Heard arguments in a case challenging the death penalty for juveniles. An attorney for William Wayne Thompson, an Oklahoma man who was convicted of a murder when he was 15, told the court that his client is too young to be put to death. Attorney Harry F. Tepker Jr. urged the court to prohibit capital punishment for anyone who commits a murder before the age of 18.

About 32 of the 2,000 persons on Death Row nationwide were convicted for crimes committed when they were 17 or under. Oklahoma Assistant Atty. Gen. David Lee argued that each crime should be judged individually and that the court should not set an arbitrary minimum age for capital punishment (Thompson vs. Oklahoma, 86-6169).

Disruptive Students

--Was urged by California school officials to allow some leeway in removing disruptive handicapped students from a classroom. A 1975 federal law requiring equal education for children with mental or physical disabilities says that a child may not be removed to another class until a committee of parents and school officials meets to decide on the matter. A federal appeals court ruled that the San Francisco schools violated this law by removing from class two students who had punched and choked other children.

In arguments heard Monday, attorneys for California said that the ruling should be reversed, but an attorney for the students said that school authorities should not be permitted to make “unilateral decisions” about the children’s education (Honig vs. Doe, 86-728).