Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Family Planning Programs--legal aspects”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1988

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development, 29 January 1988.

The plaintiffs were family planning (FP) organizations that challenged the lawfulness of the defendant's insertion into FP grants awarded by the US government of a standard clause precluding any assistance to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortions, even with separate funds. The Court held that the Foreign Assistance Act, which authorized the President to furnish assistance for FP did not prohibit the insertion of the clause. It also ruled, however, that the question whether recipient organizations' First Amendment right to free speech was violated was not a nonjustifiable political question and could be determined by the courts. The plaintiffs had argued, among other things, that the insertion of the clause precluded recipients from providing advice and information and from lobbying with respect to abortion. The Court remanded the case for a decision on this issue. This issue was litigated in 1 other case in 1988. In DKT Memorial Fund, Limited, vs. Agency for International Development (US District Court, District of Columbia, 1 July 1988 [691 F.Supp. 394]), the Court held that the Government's policy violated the First Amendment free speech rights of domestic FP, but not the rights of foreign organizations.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1988

Regulations on measures to promote the qualification of women in universities, colleges, and technical schools, 31 August 1988.

These Regulations of the German Democratic Republic, introduced on 1 October 1988, are intended to make it easier for certain categories of women--particularly those with heavy family responsibilities--to study at universities and technical colleges in the German Democratic Republic. The regulations apply to women who have either several children under age 16; a severely handicapped child under age 18; or a family member requiring continual care, supervision, or support. To benefit from the new scheme, women must be selected to sign a "training agreement" by an enterprise, which must have formal plans for promoting its female workforce. Once courses are completed, trainees must be integrated into jobs corresponding to their new skills. The new regulations make it easier to follow correspondence courses by allowing up to 100 days of paid time off each year for study and examination purposes. In following a full-time course, women will receive an allowance equalling 80% of the difference between a basic student allowance and her actual or average earnings prior to enrolling in the course. This will be paid by the employing enterprise. In addition to time off from work, enterprises must provide a support network which includes welfare services, reduced workload, use of the enterprise's training equipment and facilities, and the provision of work assignments linked to training. Steps must be taken to assist women to acquire the qualifications for access to executive and managerial functions. At the core of the new scheme is a whole new range of "specially tailored" correspondence and evening courses which have been introduced into universities and technical colleges. With an average course duration of four and half to five years, course participants will all be nominated by their employing enterprise. The scheme as a whole will be progressively extended to cover all branches of engineering, economic, and agrarian sciences, with special emphasis on information technologies.

Education↗
PubMed1988

R. v. Morgentaler, 28 January 1988.

The appellants, physicians who had set up a clinic to perform abortions, were charged with conspiracy with intent to commit abortions contrary to Section 251(4) of the Canadian Criminal Code. Section 251(4) prohibits abortions being performed upon women who have not obtained a certificate from a therapeutic abortion committee of an accredited or approved hospital. On appeal of a lower court decision ordering a new trial for the appellants after a jury had acquitted them, the Supreme Court held (two justices dissenting) that conditioning the performance of an abortion upon certification by an abortion committee violated the right of security of the person contained in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The five justices in the majority wrote three separate opinions which pointed out, variously, that Section 251 imposed unnecessary procedures and restrictions, restricted access to hospitals, caused delays, resulted in physical, psychological and emotional risk to the woman, and forced some women to carry a fetus to term against their will.

Abortion, Induced↗