Stifled Squeal

Parents may not have to know

The so-called squeal rule was effectively muzzled last week. Two federal district judges, in New York and Washington, D.C., issued temporary injunctions blocking the Department of Health and Human Services from requiring, as of Feb. 25, that some 5,000 federally funded family-planning clinics notify parents within ten working days of the time that their children (age 17 or under) receive prescription contraceptives. In New York, U.S. District Court Judge Henry F. Werker called the Government's arguments defending the rule "fatuous" and "mere sophistry." He asserted that the proposed regulation "contradicts and subverts the intent of Congress," which was to provide funds to combat "the problems of teen-age pregnancy." And in a similar case initiated in Washington by Planned Parenthood, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas A. Flannery said, "It is abundantly clear . . . that many teen-agers will be deterred from attending these clinics as a result of the parental-notification requirement."

Groups that opposed the rule were delighted by the temporary injunctions. "We have always been confident the regulation would not go into effect," said Jeffrey Lubitz, spokesman for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. "It was totally contrary to the ideals of the family-planning program established by Congress." Foes of the rule have consistently maintained that parental notification would cause many teen-agers to boycott family-planning clinics but not abstain from sex. "The only effect the rule would have would be to keep kids from using reliable methods of birth control," said Peter Brownlie, executive director of Planned Parenthood in Fort Worth.

Conservatives, who had pressured the Reagan Administration to issue the regulation, were deeply distressed. "It was a good rule that didn't go far enough," said Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum, an organization that opposes abortion and the ERA. "In my opinion, it would have definitely helped reduce teenage sexual activity, pregnancies and abortions."

By week's end HHS was planning to send Mailgrams to its regional offices ordering them not to enforce the regulation. The Justice Department said the Government would appeal the rulings. But on the evidence of last week's unequivocal judgments, it would appear that Justice Department lawyers will have a tough case to make. The decisions are, said Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, "courageous and clearly correct." He added that the regulations appeared to violate the constitutional rights of minors and posed problems of "serious gender discrimination" because, in practice, they would have affected only teen-age girls. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.