Groups Assail Rules on Abortion Advice

A national coalition of medical groups and family planning organizations Tuesday launched a broad attack, including lawsuits, against new federal rules that prohibit clinics from advising women on abortions.

Under the new rules, issued by the Health and Human Services Department and published in the Federal Register, family planning organizations receiving federal funds cannot provide abortion referrals, cannot lobby for abortion rights and cannot take legal action in support of abortions. The rules are to take effect March 3.

Scott R. Swirling, executive director of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn., said the umbrella organization and 14 other plaintiffs had filed suit in U.S. District Court in Boston to block the new guidelines.

Called ‘Gag Rule’

At a Washington news conference, Swirling said the guidelines amount to “a gag rule” and expressed confidence that the courts “will strike down these outrageous and dangerous regulations.”

Earlier, several groups, including the American Medical Assn., called a news conference in the same Washington location to state their opposition to the rules, asserting that they unfairly discriminate against poor women and interfere with the relationship between patients and health care providers.

Meanwhile, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America filed suit in U.S. District Court in Denver against what Faye Wattleton, its president, called the Reagan Administration’s “final attempt” to eliminate family planning services. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a similar suit in New York.

Protracted Battle

Both supporters and opponents of women’s rights to choose abortion said the developments signal the beginning of a protracted legal battle that will be fought nationwide all the way to the Supreme Court. The battle raises issues that transcend medicine, embracing questions on freedom of speech and social policy.

Joining in the Boston suit were the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and family planning organizations in Los Angeles, Missouri, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

The suit says that implementing the regulations would “result in dangerous medical practices” because clinics will not be able to provide crucial information to clients. This is “contrary to legislative purpose and intent” of Title X of the 1970 Public Health Service Act, the suit charges.

Not for Ending Pregnancy

In discussing its final rules, the Health and Human Services Department asserted that the statute intended to permit “only activities related to facilitating or preventing pregnancy, not for terminating it.”

Current regulations already prohibit using Title X money for abortions, but clinics are required to provide counseling on abortions if requested and to make referrals.

More than 4,000 family planning clinics, including those in county health departments and hospitals, are funded under Title X. Last year, 4.3 million clients were served under the programs, and 85% of them were poor women.

Under the new rules, “the ultimate disadvantage will fall on the poorest and neediest individuals and families in our society,” said Dr. Harry S. Jonas of the AMA.

Dr. Lillian Beard of the American Academy of Pediatrics said the regulations will make it more difficult to counsel teen-agers who are sexually active or pregnant and “limit discussions between patient and doctor,” thus violating “legal, medical and ethical principles” that are part of high-quality health care.

‘Forced to Choose’

Swirling charged that the regulations “unconstitutionally interfere with the First Amendment” guarantee to freedom of speech. If the rules go into effect, he said, clinics “will be forced to choose between serving the health care needs of their patients or the political and ideological needs of the Reagan Administration.”

Gary L. Bauer, President Reagan’s chief domestic adviser, and a staunch foe of abortion, said: “If doctors want to recommend abortions, then they ought to do it with their own funds or with private funds.”

He said that critics of the new rules “want to force Americans who disagree with them to pay for something that is deeply offensive to them. We remain convinced that these are reasonable regulations.”