These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Ragsdale v. Turnock, 10 March 1988, as amended on 13 April 1988.
    Author: United States. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Journal: Annu Rev Popul Law; 1988; 15():44-5. PubMed ID: 12289569.
    Abstract:
    The plaintiffs, physicians and women seeking abortions, challenged licensing regulations imposed by the state of Illinois on abortion clinics. The Court found the following requirements to place unconstitutional burdens on a woman's right to obtain an abortion: 1) that separate licenses be obtained for facilities devoted primarily to performing first trimester abortions; 2) that a physician who was to perform an abortion also perform a pregnancy test, even if such a test had already been performed by another physician; 3) that persons undergoing abortions be given counseling which includes a discussion of alternatives, a description of procedures, and an explanation of risks and possible complications; 4) that physicians providing preabortion counseling not be involved financially in the woman's decision; 5) that facilities performing abortions comply with the physical plant and staffing provisions of the Illinois Ambulatory Surgery Treatment Center Act; and 6) "certificate of need" proceeding requirements of the Health Facilities Planning Act. In 1988, other US Courts reached the following decisions with respect to the licensing of abortion clinics: 1) a building inspector had violated the right of privacy of women to obtain abortions by classing an outpatient abortion clinic as a hospital, thereby forcing it to obtain a special-use permit to operate in the zone where it was to be sited (P.L.S. Partners, Women's Medical Center of Rhode Island, Inc. vs. City of Cranston, US District Court, D. Rhode Island, 28 June 1988 [696 F.Supp. 788]) and 2) a physician who is prevented from operating an abortion clinic by unconstitutional zoning ordinances can bring a personal civil rights action under federal law for monetary damages, and those who enacted the ordinances are not absolutely immune from liability if the purpose of the ordinances was to single out an individual and treat that individual differently from others (Haskell vs. Washington Township, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 20 December 1988 [864 F.2d 1266]).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]