Majority
OPINION OF THE COURT
At issue is the validity, under the State Constitution, of New York’s Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) (Public Health Law § 2520 et seq.). Plaintiffs claim that the statute is facially unconstitutional by reason of underinclusiveness, for its failure to include medically necessary abortions in a prenatal care public funding scheme for women with incomes up to 85% over the Federal poverty level (meaning annual income for a single pregnant woman of between $9,840 and $18,204).[1] We now reverse the Appellate Division order and declare the statute constitutional.
The Statute in Issue
New York’s PCAP statute is best understood against the backdrop of related programs.
Medicaid was created by Congress in 1965 to provide Federal reimbursement to participating States for a portion of the cost of all medically necessary services for qualified individuals. Medicaid eligibility is determined by financial need, ultimately assessed by reference to the Federal poverty level— currently annual income below $9,840 for a single pregnant woman. Federal Medicaid reimbursement is available for abortion only in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother (see, Pub L 103-112, §509). States may, however, at their own option and expense, offer services additional to those reimbursed under Medicaid, and New York has consis
1 Used throughout are the 1994 Federal poverty figures (59 Fed Reg 6277). Monthly income for PCAP-eligible single women would thus range from $820 to $1,517.
In 1987, Congress created PCAP to afford Federal reimbursement to States providing prenatal care and related services for needy pregnant women with household incomes exceeding the Medicaid eligibility standard (see, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub L 100-203, § 4101). Every State must offer PCAP to women with incomes at or below 133% of the poverty level, and may extend eligibility up to 185% of the poverty level, without regard to other resources these women may have (see, 42 USC § 1396a [l] [2] [A]).
Effective January 1, 1990, New York amended its Public Health and Social Services Laws to participate in PCAP,[2] offering the maximum coverage for which Federal reimbursement is authorized (L 1989, ch 584).[3] Thus, in New York, a single pregnant woman with annual income between $9,840 and $18,204 is eligible for PCAP, which covers enumerated pregnancy-related services: prenatal risk assessment, prenatal care visits, laboratory services, parental health education, referrals for pediatric care and nutrition services, mental health and related social services, transportation to and from appointments, labor and delivery, postpregnancy services such as family planning, inpatient care, dental services, emergency room services, home care and pharmaceuticals (Public Health Law § 2522 [1] [a]-[o]).
PCAP does not provide funding for an abortion, or transportation to or from an abortion.[4] An eligible woman who elects to have an abortion, however, may receive all other covered pregnancy and postpregnancy services. PCAP coverage continues, without regard to a change in income, for 60 days after the month in which the pregnancy terminates, even if by abortion (see, Public Health Law § 2521 [3]).
While Medicaid eligibility generally depends upon verifica
2 PCAP replaced New York’s pilot Prenatal Care Assistance Program, created in 1987, which authorized the Commissioner of Health to provide grants of State funds to prenatal care service providers (see, L 1987, ch 822). PCAP is funded and administered through the Medicaid program (see, Social Services Law § 366 [4] [n], [o]; § 368-a [1] [,l]).
3 In conjunction with PCAP, New York expanded its Medicaid program to provide Medicaid coverage for pregnant women with incomes at or below the Federal poverty level (see, Social Services Law § 366 [4] [m]).
4 New York City, at its own expense, provides abortions free of charge to PCAP-eligible women.
As was made explicit at the time of New York’s adoption of PCAP, the available benefits are tailored to the statutory objective of combatting the State’s "unacceptably high rate of low birthweight and infant mortality” — reportedly higher than the national average — and increasing healthy births by ensuring adequate prenatal care to pregnant women who, although not indigent, are deemed less likely to spend their available resources to obtain good prenatal care (see, Mem of State Exec Dept, 1989 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 2218). Studies have documented the correlation between infant mortality and neurological abnormalities on the one hand, and low birthweight and premature birth on the other —conditions ameliorated by proper care throughout pregnancy, which can be costly (see, e.g., House Report No. 99-727 to Pub L 99-509, at 99, reprinted in 1986 US Code Cong & Admin News 3689). PCAP unquestionably is highly effective in meeting its objective.
Proceedings Below
In September 1990, plaintiffs, led by PCAP-eligible women Jane Hope and Jane Moe,[5] commenced this action against the Commissioners of Social Services and Health seeking a preliminary injunction against implementation of the PCAP program to the extent it excludes funding for medically necessary abortions, and a declaration that PCAP-eligible women are entitled to such funding.
Citing evidence that abortions in New York cost between
5 The other plaintiffs are four obstetricians/gynecologists, a nurse-midwife, seven health care clinics serving low-income women, four reproductive rights advocacy organizations and two members of the clergy. Supreme Court determined that Moe and the clergy members lacked standing to bring this action, a conclusion not challenged on appeal.
Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment declaring the constitutionality of chapter 584. Supreme Court granted the injunction, holding that PCAP violates the Due Process (NY Const, art I, § 6), Equal Protection (NY Const, art I, § 11), Aid to the Needy (NY Const, art XVII, § 1) and Public Health (NY Const, art XVII, § 3) Clauses of the State Constitution by affirmatively and impermissibly pressuring women to choose childbirth over abortion. The court considered and rejected plaintiffs’ additional argument that PCAP impinges upon the free exercise of religion under the State Constitution (NY Const, art I, § 3), a holding not challenged on appeal. Instead of invalidating PCAP as underinclusive, Supreme Court enlarged the beneficial statute to include medically necessary abortions, staying its order pending appellate review. The Appellate Division affirmed (the Presiding Justice dissenting), agreeing with the trial court that the statute was unconstitutional because it coerced, steered or pressured low-income women into choosing childbirth, thus abridging their fundamental right to choose.
Because a substantial constitutional question is directly involved, defendants appeal as of right (see, CPLR 5601 [b] [1]). We granted leave to intervenor-respondent Alma Poindexter, a PCAP recipient.
Analysis
Analysis begins by articulating the common ground. Plainly, PCAP satisfies Federal constitutional standards (see, Harris v McRae, 448 US 297 , 316-318, and n 19; Maher v Roe, 432 US 464 , 474-475). Only the State Constitution is in issue. Moreover, no one disputes that, as every enactment of a coequal branch of government, PCAP is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality, and that plaintiffs bear the heavy burden of establishing the contrary beyond a reason
Similarly, it is undisputed by defendants that the fundamental right of reproductive choice, inherent in the due process liberty right guaranteed by our State Constitution, is at least as extensive as the Federal constitutional right (see, Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 , 153-154; Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485 , 493; see also, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v Casey, 505 US —, —, 112 S Ct 2791 , 2816-2817). Nor do defendants challenge New York’s long-standing commitment to fund abortions for poor women under the Medicaid program (see, Social Services Law § 365-a [2], [5] [b]; see also, Matter of City of New York v Wyman, 30 NY2d 537 , revg on dissent below 37 AD2d 700 ).
Finally, plaintiffs do not contend that the statute imposes any direct burden, that it makes abortions any less accessible or less affordable for PCAP-eligible women (see, Golden v Clark, 76 NY2d 618 , 626; Matter of Schulman v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 234 , 240). PCAP-eligible women (who have income above the poverty level and need not exhaust other resources to establish eligibility) are presumptively able to afford abortion, a legislative premise not rebutted on the record before us. As defendants point out, PCAP may even make abortion more affordable for these women as — irrespective of pregnancy outcome — the statute offers free testing for fetal abnormalities that may early in pregnancy indicate the need for (and thereby reduce the cost of) an abortion, mental health and social services, family planning and 60-day postpartum care.
Instead, the heart of plaintiffs’ challenge is that by funding certain childbirth services for these women, but not abortion, the Legislature has violated an obligation under the Due Process Clause not to influence the exercise of a fundamental right.[6] Plaintiffs recognize that the fundamental right of reproductive choice does not carry with it an entitlement to sufficient public funds to exercise that right, and that the
6 [2] While plaintiffs also assert a denial of equal protection, equal protection is at the core of their due process argument, and both challenges fail for much the same reasons.
Plaintiffs have failed to establish their contention that PCAP even indirectly infringes the right of reproductive choice. There is no evidence that eligible women are coerced, pressured, steered or induced by PCAP to carry pregnancies to term. Thus, even if we were to recognize a governmental obligation to stand neutral — an issue we need not and do not reach in this case — no violation of such a requirement has been demonstrated here.
Plaintiffs’ contention that a selective allocation of public funds in favor of childbirth over abortion can be an indirect burden on the fundamental abortion right arises from the dissenting opinions of the United States Supreme Court concerning Medicaid funding (see, Harris, 448 US, at 330 [Brennan, J., dissenting] [the "denial of funds for medically necessary abortions plainly intrudes upon this constitutionally protected (abortion) decision, for both by design and in effect it serves to coerce indigent pregnant women to bear children that they would otherwise elect not to have”]; see also, Maher, 432 US, at 484 [Brennan, J., dissenting]). Put succinctly, "[i]t matters not that * * * the Government has used the carrot rather than the stick” (see, Harris, 448 US, at 334 [Brennan, J., dissenting]).[7]
This principle has been embraced by several States as a matter of State constitutional law, invalidating Medicaid funding schemes that exclude medically necessary abortions from comprehensive medical care for the indigent (see, Moe v Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass 629 , 654-655, 417 NE2d 387 , 402 [1981]; Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v Myers, 29 Cal 3d 252 , 270, 284-285, 172 Cal Rptr 866 , 876, 885-886,
7 This principle may be traced to Sherbert v Verner ( 374 US 398 , 404), in which the Supreme Court invalidated a State provision denying unemployment benefits based on the refusal of a Seventh-day Adventist to accept Saturday work, holding that "the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege.” The Supreme Court itself has limited the neutrality obligation recognized in Sherbert to regulations that infringe on rights arising under the Establishment and Freedom of Religion Clauses of the First Amendment (see, Maher v Roe, 432 US, at 475, n 8 ).
The case before us is significantly different. 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. That the Legislature in these circumstances elects to subsidize certain prenatal services cannot, in and of itself, be deemed coercive, and no showing has been made that such a woman would be influenced by PCAP to carry a child to term.
Nor does the statute impermissibly penalize women for exercising their right to choose. In Regan v Taxation with Representation of Wash. ( 461 US 540 , 545), for example, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’ refusal to extend a tax deduction to charitable contributions made for lobbying activities, concluding that a mere failure to subsidize the exercise of plaintiffs’ right of free speech, even though the deduction was available to those who did not lobby, was constitutionally permissible. Like the regulation in Regan, PCAP simply fails to subsidize abortion. Eligibility for the program does not terminate if a participant aborts her pregnancy, nor does the statute require reimbursement for any services received before abortion. PCAP does not penalize the exercise of the right of choice, as it does not deny eligibility for any benefit to which participants choosing to abort would otherwise be entitled.
We thus conclude that PCAP does not in any sense burden a fundamental right, and accordingly the statute is valid if it bears a rational relationship to the State’s interest in providing much-needed prenatal care to low-income women (see, Golden v Clark, 76 NY2d, at 624 , supra). Because plaintiffs concede the laudable goals and effectiveness of PCAP in ameliorating infant mortality and morbidity, we conclude that it does satisfy the rational relationship test.
We briefly address plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claims, which arise from the Aid to the Needy (NY Const, art XVII, § 1) and Public Health (NY Const, art XVII, § 3) Clauses of the State Constitution. Plaintiffs urge that PCAP violates those provisions by excluding coverage for medically necessary
Moreover, both clauses expressly accord to the Legislature discretion to promote the State’s interest in aiding the needy and promoting public health "in such manner, and by such means as the legislature may from time to time determine” (NY Const, art XVII, §§ 1, 3). We cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that, by not including abortion funding in PCAP, the Legislature has transgressed its powers.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and judgment granted declaring valid chapter 584 of the Laws of 1989.
Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur; Judge Ciparick taking no part.
Order reversed, etc.
Cases cited
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey 112 S Ct 2791 at 2816-2817 p. 565, p. 567, p. 575
- Harris v. McRae 448 US 297 at 917, at 316-318 p. 565, p. 567, p. 570, p. 571, p. 574
- Maher v. Roe 432 US 464 at 474-475 p. 565, p. 567, p. 574
- Cooper v. Morin 49 NY2d 69 p. 565, p. 568, p. 569, p. 570, p. 571
- Klostermann v. Cuomo 61 NY2d 525 p. 565
- Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Ass'n v. Whalen 54 NY2d 486 p. 565, p. 566
- D'Angelo v. Cole 67 NY2d 65 p. 565
- Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co. 73 NY2d 487 p. 565
- People v. Liberta 64 NY2d 152 p. 565, p. 566, p. 567
- State Division of Human Rights v. New York State Department of Correctional Services 90 AD2d 51 p. 565
- Doe v. Coughlin 71 NY2d 48 p. 565, p. 567, p. 568, p. 570
- People v. Onofre 51 NY2d 476 p. 565, p. 570
- Rivers v. Katz 67 NY2d 485 at 493 p. 565, p. 566, p. 568, p. 570, p. 571, p. 575
- Schloendorff v. Society of the New York Hospital 211 NY 125 p. 565
- Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists 476 US 747 p. 565
- In re Klein 145 AD2d 145 p. 565
- Steinhoff v. Steinhoff 140 Misc 2d 397 p. 565
- In re Mary P. 111 Misc 2d 532 p. 565
- City of New York v. Wyman 30 NY2d 537 p. 565, p. 566, p. 568, p. 575
- Humphrey v. State 60 NY2d 742 p. 565
- Indig v. Finkelstein 23 NY2d 728 p. 566
- Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission 492 US 115 p. 566
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. 348 US 483 p. 566
- Phelan v. City of Buffalo 54 AD2d 262 p. 566, p. 571
- Dorsey v. Stuyvesant Town Corp. 299 NY 512 p. 566, p. 567, p. 569
- Dorsey v. Stuyvesant Town Corp. 339 US 981 p. 566, p. 567, p. 569
- Golden v. Clark 76 NY2d 618 at 626 p. 566, p. 567, p. 568, p. 575
- Tucker v. Toia 43 NY2d 1 at 8 p. 566, p. 568, p. 569, p. 571, p. 578
- Jones v. Blum 101 AD2d 330 p. 566
- Jones v. Blum 64 NY2d 918 p. 566
- Bernstein v. Toia 43 NY2d 437 p. 566, p. 567, p. 568
- Co-Pilot Enterprises, Inc. v. Suffolk County Department of Health 38 Misc 2d 894 p. 566, p. 569
- Conlon v. Marshall 185 Misc 638 p. 566, p. 569
- In re Jessie C. 164 AD2d 731 p. 566
- People ex rel. Vilella v. Warden, Sing Sing Correctional Facility 78 NY2d 907 p. 566
- Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez 476 US 898 p. 566
- People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp 230 NY 48 p. 566
- People v. Mancuso 255 NY 463 p. 566
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully 63 NY2d 191 p. 566
- United States v. Jackson 390 US 570 p. 566
- Alliance of American Insurers v. Chu 77 NY2d 573 p. 566
- Flushing National Bank v. Municipal Assistance Corp. 40 NY2d 731 p. 566
- Ginsberg v. Lomenzo 23 NY2d 94 p. 566
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 53 NY2d 124 p. 566
- Vantage Petroleum v. Board of Assessment Review 61 NY2d 695 p. 566
- Dumbleton v. Reed 40 NY2d 586 p. 566
- Harrison v. Mary Bain Estates, Inc. 2 Misc 2d 52 p. 566
- Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. 31 NY2d 194 p. 566, p. 567, p. 568, p. 570
- Gloria C. v. William C. 124 Misc 2d 313 p. 567
- Khan v. Hip Hospital, Inc. 127 Misc 2d 1063 p. 567
- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 492 US 490 p. 567
- Barie v. Lavine 40 NY2d 565 p. 567
- People v. Dietze 75 NY2d 47 p. 567
- In re Smiley 36 NY2d 433 p. 567
- Bright Homes, Inc. v. Wright 8 NY2d 157 p. 567
- People v. Strassner 299 NY 325 p. 567
- Tormey v. LaGuardia 278 NY 450 p. 567
- Childs v. Childs 69 AD2d 406 p. 567, p. 568
- International Paper Co. v. Ouellette 479 US 481 p. 567
- Maresca v. Cuomo 64 NY2d 242 p. 567
- Wiggins v. Town of Somers 4 NY2d 215 p. 567
- Ginsberg v. Purcell 51 NY2d 272 p. 567
- New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Steingut 40 NY2d 250 p. 567
- Bowers v. Hardwick 478 US 186 p. 567
- Michael H. v. Gerald D. 491 US 110 p. 567
- Burnham v. Superior Court 495 US 604 p. 567
- Moore v. City of East Cleveland 431 US 494 p. 567
- City of New York v. Wyman 66 Misc 2d 402 p. 568
- City of New York v. Wyman 37 AD2d 700 p. 568, p. 575
- Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. 38 AD2d 316 p. 568
- Evans v. People 49 NY 86 p. 568
- City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. 462 US 416 p. 568
- People v. Scott 79 NY2d 474 p. 568, p. 569, p. 570
- Turner v. Safley 482 US 78 p. 568
- Esler v. Walters 56 NY2d 306 p. 568
- Long Island Lighting Co. v. Assessor of Town of Brookhaven 154 AD2d 188 p. 568
- In re the Estate of Davis 57 NY2d 382 p. 568
- Dandridge v. Williams 397 US 471 p. 568
- Lee v. Smith 43 NY2d 453 p. 568
- Jiggetts v. Grinker 148 AD2d 1 p. 568
- Jiggetts v. Grinker 75 NY2d 411 p. 568
- Boreali v. Axelrod 71 NY2d 1 p. 568
- Engel v. Vitale 10 NY2d 174 p. 569
- Rivera v. Smith 63 NY2d 501 p. 569
- Holland v. Alcock 108 NY 312 p. 569
- O'Neill v. Hubbard 180 Misc 214 p. 569
- Brown v. McGinnis 10 NY2d 531 p. 569
- People v. Lewis 115 AD2d 597 p. 569
- People v. Lewis 68 NY2d 923 p. 569
- Overton v. Department of Correctional Services 131 Misc 2d 295 p. 569
- Overton v. Coughlin 133 AD2d 744 p. 569
- Fosmire v. Nicoleau 75 NY2d 218 p. 569
- Minino v. Perales 168 AD2d 289 p. 569
- Minino v. Perales 79 NY2d 883 p. 569
- Levine v. Whalen 39 NY2d 510 p. 569
- Hope v. Perales 150 Misc 2d 985 p. 569
- Hope v. Perales 189 AD2d 287 p. 569
- People v. Barber 289 NY 378 p. 569, p. 570
- People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. 68 NY2d 553 p. 569, p. 570
- People v. Bing 76 NY2d 331 p. 569
- Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co. 285 US 393 p. 569
- People v. Harris 77 NY2d 434 p. 569, p. 570
- Geduldig v. Aiello 417 US 484 p. 569
- General Electric Co. v. Gilbert 429 US 125 p. 569
- Elaine W. v. Joint Diseases North General Hospital, Inc. 81 NY2d 211 p. 569
- Union Free School District No. 6 v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board 35 NY2d 371 p. 569
- Board of Education v. New York State Division of Human Rights 42 AD2d 49 p. 569
- Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 2 v. New York State Division of Human Rights 35 NY2d 673 p. 570
- People v. Santorelli 80 NY2d 875 p. 570
- Greschler v. Greschler 71 AD2d 322 p. 570
- Greschler v. Greschler 51 NY2d 368 p. 570
- Thaler v. Thaler 89 Misc 2d 315 p. 570
- People v. Moss 80 Misc 2d 633 p. 570
- People v. Kohl 72 NY2d 191 p. 570
- Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Co. 201 NY 271 p. 570
- People v. West 81 NY2d 370 p. 570
- People v. Skinner 52 NY2d 24 p. 570
- People v. Alvarez 70 NY2d 375 p. 570
- People v. P. J. Video, Inc. 68 NY2d 296 p. 570
- Olmstead v. United States 277 US 438 p. 570
- People v. Hollman 79 NY2d 181 p. 570
- Thoreson v. Penthouse International, Ltd. 149 Misc 2d 150 p. 570
- Thoreson v. Penthouse International, Ltd. 179 AD2d 29 p. 570
- Brown v. Board of Education 347 US 483 p. 570
- O'Neill v. Oakgrove Construction, Inc. 71 NY2d 521 p. 570
- Tucker v. Toia 89 Misc 2d 116 p. 571
- Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County 415 US 250 p. 571
- In re the Claim of Klein 78 NY2d 662 at 666 p. 575
- Roe v. Wade 410 US 113 at 153-154 p. 575
- Schulman v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. 38 NY2d 234 at 240 p. 575
- Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers 29 Cal 3d 252 at 270, 284-285, 172 p. 576
- Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington 461 US 540 at 545 p. 577