District court finds proposed Iowa women's health facility does not need state approval.

Reproductive freedom news Pub Date : 1996-10-25
{"title":"District court finds proposed Iowa women's health facility does not need state approval.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>On October 18, the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ordered the Iowa Department of Health to withdraw its demand that Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa obtain a \"certificate of need\" in order to open a new facility in Davenport. Judge Charles R. Wolle found that state officials had deliberately misused the certificate of need requirement--a policy originally created to allow communities to influence health care standards at local facilities and prevent duplication of medical services--to block the clinic, which far from providing duplicative services would become the only provider of abortions in the Quad Cities. For at least 10 years, no family planning facility in Iowa has been required to obtain a certificate of need, in large part because the review standards are generally regarded as obsolete. The application process would have required Planned Parenthood to publicly disclose its sources of funding, identify the intended site of the facility, and pay a substantial fee; it would also have involved a public hearing at which members of the community could object to the clinic. The court concluded that state officials could not justify applying the requirements to a facility providing abortions when it had routinely failed to apply them to other clinics that offer the same services but do not provide abortions. Judge Wolle further ruled that the state's order for a certificate of need imposes a substantial obstacle to access to abortion that is unjustified by any government interest--and therefore unconstitutional under the standards established by the US Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is representing the plaintiffs in Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa vs. Atchison.</p>","PeriodicalId":85396,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive freedom news","volume":"5 17","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive freedom news","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On October 18, the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ordered the Iowa Department of Health to withdraw its demand that Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa obtain a "certificate of need" in order to open a new facility in Davenport. Judge Charles R. Wolle found that state officials had deliberately misused the certificate of need requirement--a policy originally created to allow communities to influence health care standards at local facilities and prevent duplication of medical services--to block the clinic, which far from providing duplicative services would become the only provider of abortions in the Quad Cities. For at least 10 years, no family planning facility in Iowa has been required to obtain a certificate of need, in large part because the review standards are generally regarded as obsolete. The application process would have required Planned Parenthood to publicly disclose its sources of funding, identify the intended site of the facility, and pay a substantial fee; it would also have involved a public hearing at which members of the community could object to the clinic. The court concluded that state officials could not justify applying the requirements to a facility providing abortions when it had routinely failed to apply them to other clinics that offer the same services but do not provide abortions. Judge Wolle further ruled that the state's order for a certificate of need imposes a substantial obstacle to access to abortion that is unjustified by any government interest--and therefore unconstitutional under the standards established by the US Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is representing the plaintiffs in Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa vs. Atchison.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
地方法院发现爱荷华州拟议的妇女健康设施不需要国家批准。
10月18日,美国爱荷华州南区地方法院命令爱荷华州卫生部撤销要求大爱荷华州计划生育协会获得“需要证明”以在达文波特开设新机构的要求。查尔斯·r·沃勒(Charles R. Wolle)法官发现,州政府官员故意滥用需求证明要求——这项政策最初是为了让社区能够影响当地设施的医疗标准,防止医疗服务的重复——来封锁这家诊所,而这家诊所非但不会提供重复的服务,反而会成为四城(Quad Cities)唯一一家提供堕胎服务的机构。至少10年来,爱荷华州没有任何计划生育设施被要求获得需要证明,这在很大程度上是因为审查标准通常被认为是过时的。申请程序要求“计划生育”公开披露其资金来源,确定设施的预定地点,并支付一笔可观的费用;它还将涉及一场公开听证会,社区成员可以在听证会上反对诊所。法院的结论是,州政府官员不能证明将这些要求适用于提供堕胎服务的机构是正当的,因为他们通常不能将这些要求适用于提供同样服务但不提供堕胎服务的其他诊所。沃勒法官进一步裁定,该州要求提供需求证明的命令对堕胎构成了实质性障碍,这是任何政府利益都无法证明的,因此,根据美国最高法院在计划生育与凯西案中确立的标准,这是违宪的。美国计划生育联合会在大爱荷华州计划生育联合会诉艾奇逊案中代表原告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Give choice a chance: new report on Guatemala. A crisis of confidence. Supreme Court to decide if pregnant women were unlawfully searched. New publication on female genital mutilation. Interviews with Nahid Toubia and Anika Rahman, co-authors of Female Genital Mutilation: a Guide to Laws and Policies Worldwide. Bag the gag rule. Poll indicates most Americans think global gag rule is wrong. Peruvian case submitted to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1