Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “First Amendment”

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.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

[Legislation of ritual slaughtering in Germany since 1933].

The article surveys the development of legislation to the slaughtering of warm-blooded animals in Germany since 1933. It examines the ritual slaughtering of the Jews (Schechita) on the one hand, and of the Moslems (Dabh) on the other hand. While 1933 the legislation was coined by the political situation, after 1949, legal setting and decisions reflected the changing sensibility to animals' protection. Before 1945, Schechita was the matter of legal dispute, more recently, the discussion has centred on the ritual slaughtering of the Moslems, with different arguments. The "Law on the Slaughtering of Animals" of 21-04-33 was part and parcel of the Third Reich's policy against Jews implicating a nation wide practical inhibition of Schechita by decreeing a general obligation of stunning before slaughtering. In 1945, the inhibition of Schechita became invalid after the occupation of the Reich by the Allied Forces. For the first time, the "First Amendment to the Animal Protection Law" of 1986 permitted ritual slaughtering by the way of exception as long as it was covered by the religious obligations. In 1995 the Federal Administrative Court judged that an inhibition of the ritual slaughtering by Moslems could be possible, because there are no religious obligations for Moslems. Nowadays, the ritual slaughtering of the Moslems is, de facto, forbidden, Schechita is performed in some cities for the needs of the residential Jewish population.

Abattoirs↗

Rust v. Sullivan.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Abortion, Induced↗

Bowen v. Kendrick, 29 June 1988.

A group of taxpayers and religious leaders challenged the constitutionality of the Adolescent Family Life Act, which authorizes federal grants to public and nonpublic private organizations for services and research in the area of premarital adolescent sexual relations and pregnancy. They claimed that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution because the Act provides that the complexity of the problem requires the involvement of religious organizations, and funds had been given to institutions with ties to religious organizations. The Court held that the Act does not violate the Establishment Clause since 1) the passage of the Act was motivated primarily by the legitimate secular purpose of eliminating or reducing social and economic problems caused by teenage sexuality, pregnancy, and parenthood; 2) the Act does not have the primary effect of advancing religion because the services provided are not religious in character; and 3) the Act does not create excessive entanglement of church and state. It remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the Act was unconstitutional as applied to specific organizations.

Americas↗