Regulations on the appointment of physicians for abortion or ligation procedures

These Regulations are made pursuant to Article 5 of the Eugenic Protection Law, 1984. They provide the following: a) physicians must undergo an examination of their qualifications at both the local and national levels; b) those applying to perform abortions must have specialized in gynecology and obstetrics for between two and four years, depending on the grade of hospital in which they have practised; c) those applying to perform ligations must have specialized in gynecology and obstetrics, surgery, or urology for between two and four years, depending on the grade hospital in which they have practised, or have signed a contract to perform ligations with a health department; d) physicians who have been approved to perform abortions or ligations will receive a certificate, which is to be placed in a conspicuous place at work; e) a certificate is not to be issued or, if issued, revoked, when a physician's licence has been suspended, when the licence is withheld for a penalty, or when the physician has not reported case records monthly as required by law.

Judgment, 15 January 1987

The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of a lower court that the refusal of the state of Baden-Wurttemberg to allow physicians to perform abortions in private clinics was lawful. It ruled that the state was not required to recognize a private clinic as an "institution" for the performance of abortions under Article 3, Paragraph 1, of the Fifth Amendment of the Criminal Code (provisions on abortion). It also concluded that such a refusal did not violate the right to exercise one's profession contained in the Constitution.

Sale of Condoms Act 1987 (No. 72 of 1987), 27 November 1987

This Act legalizes the sale of condoms in shops through vending machines installed by a licensed installer and by mail order. It also gives the Publications Classifications Board the right to consider the advertising of condoms and to approve or refuse to approve such advertising. It is to approve advertising only if it is "satisfied that there are medical, hygienic, or social benefits to be gained" from the advertising. Further provisions of the Act set forth licensing procedures and penalties for violation of the Act, among other things.

In vitro assessment of the structural integrity of the female condom after multiple wash, dry, and re-lubrication cycles

Since the introduction of the female condom in the early 90s, there have been numerous reports of reuse of the device. In response to these reports, studies were undertaken to evaluate the safety of female condom reuse. If reuse were shown to be safe, then programmatic costs of introduction of the female condom would be reduced allowing it to be more widely available. This article outlines the results of in vitro structural integrity testing of the female condom after multiple wash, dry, and re-lubrication cycles. Devices were tested up to 10 washes using water leakage, burst, and tensile seam testing. All results were compared to the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) standards for an unused female condom. The results of the structural integrity tests for all 6 washing procedures examined in this study were above the FDA minimum standards for seam strength and burst tests. For the water leakage test, 3 of 6 washing procedures tested passed the required FDA minimum standards (no holes detected). From the results of the study, it seems that washing, drying, and re-lubricating the female condom up to 10 times leads to some deterioration in the structural integrity of the device for specified washing procedures. Further studies are currently being conducted to establish the safety of female condom reuse with respect to microbial retention, structural integrity after in vivo use, and viral permeability.

Advantage 24 nonoxynol-9 product discussed at meeting. Contraception (spermicides)

Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Miami, Florida, reported safety data on the spermicidal product Advantage 24 that show it is safe even when administered four times a day, according to data from the UN Global Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The data were reported at a meeting of the Nonprescription Drugs, Reproductive Health Drugs, Anti-Infective Drugs, and Antiviral Drugs advisory committees of the US Food and Drug Administration. Because of its favorable safety profile, Advantage 24 was the only product that UNAIDS selected for testing to determine its effectiveness against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Therefore, in May 1996, Columbia Laboratories and UNAIDS announced the initiation of an international Phase III clinical study of Advantage 24 for the prevention of the heterosexual transmission of HIV and STDs in approximately 2000 women. Additionally, the NIH is performing similar testing in Africa. Advantage 24, which uses Columbia Laboratories' patented bioadhesive delivery system to deliver nonoxynol-9, currently is marketed in the US by Lake Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and in Canada by Roberts Pharmaceuticals, as a long-lasting, vaginally delivered spermicide, pursuant to strategic alliance agreements with Columbia Laboratories.

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

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.