REMUS ET AL.

v.

AMOCO OIL CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Planned Parenthood OF Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991)
  …strict scrutiny is not triggered. Therefore, it is not an unconstitutional conditions problem in the way that it would be if the Commonwealth prohibited a recipient of public funds from performing abortions at all. Cf. Babbitt v. Planned Parenthood, 479 U.S. 925, 107 S.Ct. 891, 93 L.Ed.2d 346 (1986), aff'g 718 F. 2d 938 (9th Cir.1983).32 Having concluded that this requirement does not unduly burden the abortion right, rationally relates to a legitimate state interest, and does not present an unconstitution…
• Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 885 F.2d 1276 (5th Cir. 1989)
  …S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. See also Nash v. Chandler, 848 F. 2d 567, 572-573 (1988); Conservation Law Found, v. Secretary of Interior, 790 F. 2d 965, 968-70 (1st Cir.1986); Planned Parenthood v. Arizona, 789 F. 2d 1348, 1352-53 (9th Cir.), aff'd, 479 U.S. 925, 107 S.Ct. 391, 93 L.Ed.2d 346 (1986); Aubin v. Fudala, 782 F. 2d 287, 291 (1st Cir.1986); Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manuf. Co. v. Sealy Inc., 776 F. 2d 646, 653 (7th Cir.1985); Goodson v. City of Atlanta, 763 F. 2d 1381, 1390 (11th Cir.1985); Redding v.…
• DKT Mem'l Fund Ltd. v. Agency FOR Int'l Dev., 887 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
  …nning to otherwise qualified domestic organizations that [*300] use their privately-raised funds for lawful abortion-related services. Planned Parenthood v. Arizona, 789 F. 2d 1348 (9th Cir.), aff'd mem. sub nom. Babbitt v. Planned Parenthood Fed’n, 479 U.S. 925, 107 S.Ct. 391, 93 L.Ed.2d 346 (1986). Government may demand only that public funds be segregated by the grantee so that they are used solely for the specified family planning services, and not for abortion-related activity. The same arrangement…