U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 6A— PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VIII— POPULATION RESEARCH AND VOLUNTARY FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS

42 U.S.C. § 300a

Formula grants to States for family planning services

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Authority of Secretary; prerequisites

The Secretary is authorized to make grants, from allotments made under subsection (b), to State health authorities to assist in planning, establishing, maintaining, coordinating, and evaluating family planning services. No grant may be made to a State health authority under this section unless such authority has submitted, and had approved by the Secretary, a State plan for a coordinated and comprehensive program of family planning services.

(b) Factors determining amount of State allotments

The sums appropriated to carry out the provisions of this section shall be allotted to the States by the Secretary on the basis of the population and the financial need of the respective States.

(c) “State” defined

For the purposes of this section, the term “State” includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(d) Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of making grants under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971; $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972; and $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title X, § 1002, as added Pub. L. 91–572, § 6(c), Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1506; amended Pub. L. 94–484, title IX, § 905(b)(1), Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2325.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1976—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–484 defined “State” to include Northern Mariana Islands.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesStudy of State Delivery of Services; Report to Congress

Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, § 931(c), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 570, directed Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study of possible ways of State delivery of services for which assistance is authorized by title X of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.] and to report to Congress on results of such study 18 months after Aug. 13, 1981.

Executive DocumentsTermination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

For termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, see note set out preceding section 1681 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367 (2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367 (2024). · cites it 3× “42 U. S. C. § 300a–7(c)(1). The plaintiffs have not identifed any instances where a doctor was re- quired, notwithstanding conscience objections, to perform an abortion or to provide other abortion-related treatment that violated the doctor's conscience since mifepristone's 2000…”
Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001). · cites it 2× “1506 , 1508, 42 U. S. C. §§ 300a, 300a—6, challenged the Act's restriction that provided that none of the Title X funds appropriated for family planning services could "be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”
Jackson Women's Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 300a–7(c). 6 Thus, when a state affords private hospitals the authority to grant Casey’s purpose inquiry as rational basis review.”
Pooh-Bah Enter., Inc. v. Cnty. of Cook, 905 N.E.2d 781 (Ill. 2009). “at 1765 , quoting 42 U.S.C. §300a — 6. Regulations later clarified that Congress intended Title X funds to be used only to support preventative family-planning services.”
Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 867 F.3d 338 (3rd Cir. 2017). “They argue that the Contraceptive Mandate violates the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 300a–7(d). They also argue that maintaining a health insurance plan that covers contraceptives through their employer violates their religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,…”
Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 901 N.E.2d 373 (Ill. 2008). “2809 (December 8, 2004); see also 42 U.S.C. §300a—7(b)(1) (2000); 42 U.S.C.”
FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367 (2024). · cites it 2× “See 42 U. S. C. §300a– 7(c)(1); see also H. R.”
Doe v. Beal, 523 F.2d 611 (3rd Cir. 1975). · cites it 4× “When Congress passed the Family Planning Services and Research Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300a et seq. providing funds to states opting to participate in creating comprehensive programs of family planning services, abortion was specifically excluded as a means of family planning…”
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (W.D. Wash. 2007). “Washington’s legislature has, on separate occasions, conferred upon health care providers, including pharmacists, a fundamental right to not participate in a health care service to which they have a moral or religious objection. Whether or not Plan B acts as an abortifacient or…”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 899 F.2d 53 (1st Cir. 1990). “” 42 U.S.C. § 300a(a) (1982). The requirement of physical separation runs contrary to this congressional emphasis on coordinated and integrated health care services.”
Cheskiewicz v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 843 A.2d 1258 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). “42 U.S.C. § 300a. Facts and Procedural History ¶ 3 A.”
Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. v. Bowen, 680 F. Supp. 1465 (D. Colo. 1988). “A purpose behind the reauthorization requirement contained in 42 U.S.C. § 300a(d) is to enable Congress to review the Title X program periodically and implement changes which it deems appropriate.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 300a(a) — 5 cases
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 899 F.2d 53 (1st Cir. 1990). “” 42 U.S.C. § 300a(a) (1982). The requirement of physical separation runs contrary to this congressional emphasis on coordinated and integrated health care services.”
Com. of Mass. v. Bowen, 679 F. Supp. 137 (D. Mass. 1988).
Anspach v. City of Philadelphia, 630 F. Supp. 2d 488 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Xavier Becerra, 117 F.4th 348 (6th Cir. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Xavier Becerra, 131 F.4th 350 (6th Cir. 2025).
— 42 U.S.C. § 300a(d) — 1 case
Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. v. Bowen, 680 F. Supp. 1465 (D. Colo. 1988). “A purpose behind the reauthorization requirement contained in 42 U.S.C. § 300a(d) is to enable Congress to review the Title X program periodically and implement changes which it deems appropriate.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.