Summary

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Mazurek v. Armstrong — Dissenting Opinion (1997)

The statute removed the only physician assistant in the State who could perform abortions, yet there was no evidence that her practice posed any greater health risks than those performed by doctors with the assistance of unlicensed personnel. When one looks at the totality of circumstances surrounding the legislation, there is evidence from which one could conclude that the legislature's predominant motive was to make abortions more difficult.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Mazurek v. Armstrong — Dissenting Opinion (1997)

Plaintiff Cahill must be supervised by a licensed physician and shall operate under the physician assistant-certified utilization plan previously approved by the Montana State Board of Medical Examiners that includes the performance of abortions pursuant to the provisions of Mont. Code Ann. Title 37, chapter 20. No other physician assistants-certified will be allowed to perform abortions in Montana under the terms of this stipulation or the Court's order.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Mazurek v. Armstrong — Dissenting Opinion (1997)

She is the only nonphysician in Montana who performs abortions.
Since 1974, Montana law has provided that an abortion could be performed only by a licensed physician. See Mont. Code Ann. §50–20–109 (1) (a) (1995) . Because the term "licensed physician," as used in that statute, was construed to include licensed physician assistants working under the direct supervision of a physician pursuant to a state approved plan, [1] it did not disqualify Cahill from continuing her work with Dr.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature