ejercicios resueltos de compuertas logicas pdf download
Informativo para los profesionales de balanceo quimica, Igualado y problemas resueltos, Colaboracion para licenciatura. The US Supreme Court today held that the Arizona law that makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court majority effectively struck down a portion of the Arizona Human Life Amendment. If the facts alleged in these cases are true, the Court held today, the doctors have run afoul of the womens constitutional rights. The Courts decision means that some or all of the 13 undue burden provisions currently on the books in 29 states will become invalid. This is a moment of great relief, says Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute. It gives us confidence that the Supreme Court will act when it confronts laws that impose undue burdens on womens ability to make reproductive decisions. The Arizona law in question is not without its problems. The requirements that doctors provide information about alternatives to abortion, that they perform an ultrasound before an abortion, and that they undergo a specialized counseling session are problematic in themselves. The requirement that physicians perform a second counseling session at least 48 hours after the first, on different days, is problematic because it doesnt allow for independent counselling. Whats more, the law provides only $200 in grant funding for women who choose to pay for their own ultrasound and counseling. But the Supreme Court did not question the Arizona laws basic message: that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus at 20 weeks of pregnancy. And in a world where many lawssuch as bans on abortion, or requiring parental consent before teens can get an abortionare so broadly written that they effectively criminalize young women, this is something we can all get behind. The Court also pointed out that as a factual matter, the physicians did not provide medical services to the women. Rather, they terminated a potential pregnancy. And even if they were providing medical services in the technical sense of the term, those services were performed on each of the women in order to facilitate a further abortion. In other words, these doctors were performing abortions. Thats something the Court said is unconstitutional in a footnote to its opinion. The Fourteenth Amendment does not permit a State to prohibit abortion, or the lack thereof, in the course of treatment for a medical condition. Thats a really important point, says Nash. Its the sort of thing that we might have worried about with a law like the one in Texas where women undergoing abortions were forced to carry the fetus to term. Its also the sort of thing that might come into play in a dispute over a law similar to Indianas that makes it a crime for a woman to have an abortion if she seeks the procedure based on fetal abnormalities. The Supreme Court also said that the challenged portions of the law were vague and could lead to conflicting obligationsi.e., a woman could be prosecuted for causing an abortion but her doctor for committing it. This is a moment of great relief. It gives us confidence that the Supreme Court will act when it confronts laws that impose undue burdens on womens ability to make reproductive decisions.