Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Abortion Amendment Bill”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

71 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1973

Free contraceptives in Great Britain.

An amendment to the National Health Service (NHS) Bill has been submitted to the Parliament of Great Britain recommending free contraception within the NHS. Free contraceptive pills and devices for both men and women who would desire them, would cut down the number of unwanted pregnancies and would decrease the number of abortions presently performed under the Abortion Law of 1969. Many doctors resent the legalization of abortion since the patients seeking abortions crowd the hospitals and take away the physician's time and hospital bed availability from patients with diseases needing immediate attention. Also, a great number of young girls undergo abortions, the consequent trauma of which endangers their future emotional and physical health. Prevention rather than termination of pregnancy would be more desirable. Besides there is a need for population control. Parliament will most likely act favorably on this proposed amendment.

Contraception↗
PubMed1994

Colorado rejects regulations to limit Medicaid coverage for abortion.

In a 3-3 vote on May 19, (1994) the Colorado Social Services Board rejected proposed emergency regulations that would have limited Medicaid coverage for abortions to circumstances in which federal matching funds are available. The regulations were proposed in response to U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham's May 5 ruling, which permanently enjoined a state constitutional amendment and state statutes that prohibit public funds for abortion except where the life of the woman is endangered. Judge Nottingham found that the state measures are invalid because they conflict with the current Hyde Amendment, which provides federal Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. In the absence of any restrictive provisions, Colorado is required to fund all medically necessary abortions. CRLP (Center for Reproductive Law and Policy), which represented plaintiffs in Hern v. Beye, provided testimony against the proposed emergency regulations during a hearing before the Board vote. Meanwhile, some other states are moving toward complying with federal Medicaid law. The Nebraska Department of Social Services is considering regulations that would extend state funding for abortion to include pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. A May 19 public hearing was held on the proposal, which is awaiting final approval. When the Louisiana legislature convenes for a special session on June 6, Governor Edwin Edwards is expected to introduce a bill to authorize Medicaid coverage for abortions in cases of rape and incest. Finally, Indiana and Ohio are reportedly moving toward compliance with the federal mandate. In contrast, however, Missouri Department of Social Services Director Gary Stangler filed suit in federal court on May 24 against Health and Human Services officials for issuing the federal directive requiring compliance with the Hyde Amendment. Pennsylvania officials filed a similar action in mid-March. Lawsuits filed by CRLP against Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania for non-compliance are still pending; similar challenges were also filed by Planned Parenthood in Michigan and Montana.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1992

Mum's the word: the Supreme Court and family planning.

On May 23, 1991, the US Supreme Court upheld federal regulations that prohibit federally funded family planning programs from counseling about or referring for abortion. As a result, government benefits may now entail substantial costs. The regulations changed the nature of government-assisted family planning from comprehensive care and counseling to limited services and government-prescribed information. The reasoning in Rust v Sullivan allows government to limit freedom of speech in federally funded programs. The decision may have been influenced by antiabortion sentiment, but it does not affect the legality of abortion. Instead, it sets a precedent for government control of whether and how health care can be discussed wherever government pays some of the bills.

Abortion, Legal↗
PubMed1990

[Sterilization of the mentally handicapped according to section 1905 of the German Civil Code in relation to developing a patient management regulation].

Discussions on the sterilization of the mentally handicapped are still overshadowed to a great extent by the dire consequences of National Socialist policies which were only poorly concealed in the legislation of the period. These laws have meanwhile been rescinded but that has not eradicated the phenomenon itself. In fact, in recent years about 1,000 mentally handicapped persons have been sterilized--without their consent and without any firm legal basis for such action--shortly before reaching the age of 18. In most cases, the parents and the physicians involved joined forces in taking the matter into their own hands. Against this background there is a clear need for legislative action. Virtual agreement has been reached on this between the political groupings represented in the Bundestag and the organizations working for the welfare of the handicapped. Nonetheless, the recently submitted draft of a new bill is for the most part unacceptable. It is an improvement of earlier drafts in asmuchas the attempt to establish a close and often inappropriate link with Sect.218 a of the Penal Code (concerning abortion) has at least partly been given up. But the fact remains that handicapped women are still subjected to greater burdens than their male counterparts. Under the planned amendment to Sect.1905 Para. 1 (4) of the Civil Code, the act itself will define the requirements for a sterilization to be carried out "for medical reasons" (i.e. if life or health of the expectant mother are in jeopardy). Sect.1905 of the Civil Code contains no specific regulations as to when a sterilization is permissible "for eugenic reasons," but the fact remains that it can still be quite easily carried out under the general grounds. Pursuant to Sect.218a of the Penal Code an abortion can be exempt from punishment under special circumstances (i.e. on "social grounds") if the mother is at the time in a desperate situation which cannot be rectified in any other way. It certainly reflects very poorly on us if we do not succeed in giving the handicapped the help and support they need in their life situations which are so completely different from ours.

Child↗
PubMed1996

House again passes ban on abortions at military facilities.

Voting 192-225 on May 14, the House defeated an effort to reverse the current prohibition on privately funded abortions at military facilities except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. Introduced by pro-choice Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Jane Harman (D-CA), and Mike Ward (D-KY) and mixed record Representative Peter Torkildsen (R-MA), the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 3230) would have repealed restrictive language in the statute that governs the Department of Defense (DOD). Floor action on the provision of non-government-funded abortions mirrored Representative DeLauro's failed attempts to strike the onerous provision during the mark-up process for HR 3230, which received final House approval in a 272-153 vote on May 15. The House National Security Committee voted 26-20 against removing the abortion restriction on May 1, six days after a similar 11-5 vote by the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. The near ban on abortion services has been in effect since December of last year, when the DOD spending bill was implemented; President Clinton signed the legislation permanently encoding the restriction into law in February (see RFN IV/22, V/3-4). Upon taking office in January 1993, President Clinton had issued an executive memorandum directing the Secretary of Defense to reverse the ban on the performance of non-lifesaving, privately funded abortions at military facilities, which had been instituted through agency action in mid-1988 (see RFN II/3, IV/13). The DOD authorization statute has prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of life endangerment for more than a decade.

Abortion, Induced↗