Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Switzerland. Bundesgericht.
The Federal Court of Switzerland ruled that women excluded from voting by cantonal law have the right to challenge the law as a violation of the Constitutional right to equal treatment. It also held, however, that before they can challenge the constitutionality of the law in Federal Court, they must exhaust the remedies available to them in the cantonal courts.
The Swiss Federal Court ruled that the plaintiff's insurer had to pay the costs of her undergoing an amniocentesis if she was over 35 years old. It based its decision on expert medical opinion that the risk of bearing a child with chromosomal abnormalities increased rapidly after this age. It concluded that, in this case, the cost of the amniocentesis became an expense incurred in order to prevent harm threatening health rather than simply a prophylactic measure, and was thus covered by insurance.
The Court held that provisions of a law enacted by the canton Zug restricting access to abortion were invalid because they were in conflict with federal law provisions relating to abortion. The law in question required 1) that abortions could be performed only by specialists in gynecology and obstetrics; 2) that they be approved by a committee of experts; and 3) that authorization for abortions be given only to women who are residents of Zug.
The Court held that a cantonal law ensuring "equivalent" education for girls and boys did not violate Swiss constitutional provisions guaranteeing "equal" treatment. It ruled that this constitutional provision did not demand that boys and girls receive the same amount of mandatory classes in certain subjects, such as housekeeping, and that only concrete course schedules that restricted certain courses to boys or girls would be unconstitutional.