# Doe v. Beal

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · July 21, 1975 · 523 F.2d 611

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8897449

## Case

- **Full name:** Ann DOE, in No. 74-1727 v. Frank S. BEAL, Individually and as Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in No. 74-1726
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** July 21, 1975
- **Citations:** 523 F.2d 611
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Adams
- **Judges:** Adams, Aldisert, Dusen, Garth, Gibbons, Hunter, Kalodner, Rosenn, Seitz
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed by Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8897449

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding Title XIX requires state funding of elective abortions

## Opinion text

ADAMS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent from the majority. In my judgment, the Pennsylvania *636 regulations are not incompatible with the scheme of medical aid to indigents envisaged by Congress in Title XIX of the Social Security Act. In addition, I do not believe that the Pennsylvania schedule for reimbursements, that includes only medically indicated abortions, violates the Constitution. 1
These conclusions are grounded on reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of Judge Kalodner here, and that of Judge Weis in the district court, and are based also on the various authorities referred to in those opinions.
. It would appear, however, that the Pennsylvania regulation may not be enforced insofar as it predicates eligibility for medical assistance payments on conditions that were specifically invalidated in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 , 93 S.ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), namely, a concurrence of two doctors and performance of the procedure in an accredited hospital.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8897449. Public record. Not legal advice.