Annu Rev Popul Law. 1988;15:44-5.
The plaintiffs, physicians and women seeking abortions, challenged licensing regulations imposed by the state of Illinois on abortion clinics. The Court found the following requirements to place unconstitutional burdens on a woman's right to obtain an abortion: 1) that separate licenses be obtained for facilities devoted primarily to performing first trimester abortions; 2) that a physician who was to perform an abortion also perform a pregnancy test, even if such a test had already been performed by another physician; 3) that persons undergoing abortions be given counseling which includes a discussion of alternatives, a description of procedures, and an explanation of risks and possible complications; 4) that physicians providing preabortion counseling not be involved financially in the woman's decision; 5) that facilities performing abortions comply with the physical plant and staffing provisions of the Illinois Ambulatory Surgery Treatment Center Act; and 6) "certificate of need" proceeding requirements of the Health Facilities Planning Act. In 1988, other US Courts reached the following decisions with respect to the licensing of abortion clinics: 1) a building inspector had violated the right of privacy of women to obtain abortions by classing an outpatient abortion clinic as a hospital, thereby forcing it to obtain a special-use permit to operate in the zone where it was to be sited (P.L.S. Partners, Women's Medical Center of Rhode Island, Inc. vs. City of Cranston, US District Court, D. Rhode Island, 28 June 1988 [696 F.Supp. 788]) and 2) a physician who is prevented from operating an abortion clinic by unconstitutional zoning ordinances can bring a personal civil rights action under federal law for monetary damages, and those who enacted the ordinances are not absolutely immune from liability if the purpose of the ordinances was to single out an individual and treat that individual differently from others (Haskell vs. Washington Township, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 20 December 1988 [864 F.2d 1266]).
原告包括医生和寻求堕胎的女性，他们对伊利诺伊州对堕胎诊所实施的许可规定提出了质疑。法院认定以下要求给女性获得堕胎的权利带来了违宪负担：1）主要用于进行孕早期堕胎的设施需获得单独许可；2）进行堕胎手术的医生即使已由其他医生进行过妊娠测试，仍需再次进行；3）接受堕胎手术的人需接受咨询，内容包括讨论其他选择、描述手术过程以及解释风险和可能的并发症；4）提供堕胎前咨询的医生在经济上不得参与女性的决定；5）进行堕胎手术的设施需符合伊利诺伊州门诊手术治疗中心法案的实体设施和人员配备规定；6）健康设施规划法案中的“需求证明”程序要求。1988年，美国其他法院就堕胎诊所许可问题做出了以下裁决：1）一名建筑检查员将一家门诊堕胎诊所归类为医院，从而侵犯了女性获得堕胎的隐私权，迫使该诊所获得特殊用途许可才能在其选址区域运营（P.L.S. Partners、罗德岛妇女医疗中心诉克兰斯顿市，美国罗德岛地区联邦地区法院，1988年6月28日[696 F.Supp. 788]）；2）一名医生因违宪的分区条例而被阻止经营堕胎诊所，可以根据联邦法律提起个人民权诉讼要求金钱赔偿，如果条例的目的是针对个人并区别对待，那么制定这些条例的人并非绝对免于承担责任（哈斯克尔诉华盛顿镇，美国第六巡回上诉法院，1988年12月20日[864 F.2d 1266]）。
