Parks v. Harden

Fifth Circuit

Parks v. Harden

516 F.2d 972

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 1975

DocketNos. 73-1855, 73-3220

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 516 F.2d 972 (Parks v. Harden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parks v. Harden, 516 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

These appeals involved, inter alia, the question whether the term “dependent child” as used in § 406(a) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 606(a), comprehended unborn children. We held that it did, and that states receiving federal aid under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program were required therefore, to offer welfare benefits to pregnant women for their unborn children. Parks v. Harden, 5 Cir. 1974, 504 F.2d 861. The identical question of statutory construction came before the Supreme Court of the United States in Burns v. Alcala, 1975, 420 U.S. 575, 95 S.Ct. 1180, 43 L.Ed.2d 469. In that case the Supreme Court held that the term “dependent child” under § 406(a) of the Social Security Act did not comprehend the unborn, and that the states were not required to offer welfare benefits to pregnant women for their unborn children.

The opinion and judgment of this Court heretofore entered is therefore vacated to the extent that it requires the state to afford welfare benefits to pregnant women for their unborn children. The causes are remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, respectively, for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion and the opinion in Burns v. Alcala.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

These appeals involved, inter alia, the question whether the term “dependent child” as used in § 406(a) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 606(a), comprehended unborn children. We held that it did, and that states receiving federal aid under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program were required therefore, to offer welfare benefits to pregnant women for their unborn children. Parks v. Harden, 5 Cir. 1974, 504 F.2d 861. The identical question of statutory construction came before the Supreme Court of the United States in Burns v. Alcala, 1975, 420 U.S. 575, 95 S.Ct. 1180, 43 L.Ed.2d 469. In that case the Supreme Court held that the term “dependent child” under § 406(a) of the Social Security Act did not comprehend the unborn, and that the states were not required to offer welfare benefits to pregnant women for their unborn children.

The opinion and judgment of this Court heretofore entered is therefore vacated to the extent that it requires the state to afford welfare benefits to pregnant women for their unborn children. The causes are remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, respectively, for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion and the opinion in Burns v. Alcala.

Ruth Parks, Individually and for All Others Similarly Situated v. Richard Harden, Individually and as the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, Mrs. Alice L. Harris and Mrs. Mary E. Hood, Individually, on Behalf of Their Unborn Children, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare, Etc.

516 F.2d 972 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 F.2d 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-harden-ca5-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack