Canada – Right-wing extremism is connected to being anti-choice – but we can win on abortion rights

As we see the growing restriction of abortion in the US, it is important that we remain vigilant of a growing anti-choice movement on the right.

by Joyce Arthur, rabble.ca
February 8, 2024

Canada has done well without any abortion law or restrictions since 1988, leaving abortion care under the same medical regulations as other healthcare. Indeed, abortion care follows the same pattern around the world regardless of law – people who want abortions have them as early as possible, while a small number of later abortions will always be needed for compelling social or medical reasons. Laws trying to regulate abortion are redundant and restrictions are harmful.

Abroad, Canada has a reputation as a socially liberal western democracy that guarantees reproductive rights and minority rights such as for gender expansive people. The Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has a self-declared feminist foreign policy and has often spoken out in favour  of abortion rights.

Continued: https://rabble.ca/health/right-wing-extremism-is-connected-to-being-anti-choice-but-we-can-win-on-abortion-rights/


‘Turning a medical procedure into a political one’: Why a law protecting abortion in Canada would do the opposite

Opening the door to abortion legislation — regardless of how progressive — means opening the door to potential restrictions without any medical merit.

By Kelly Bowden, Tiffany Butler
Mon., Jan. 2, 2023

Recent polling data shows a majority of Canadians support access to abortion and want the government to ensure access to those services. But the way most Canadians want to see abortion services protected will have the opposite effect.

The November poll by Angus Reid shows three in five Canadians support the idea of a law to guarantee and improve access to abortion. While this might seem like a good idea, it’s a slippery slope toward creating the same situation we’re seeing in the U.S.

Continued: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2023/01/02/turning-a-medical-procedure-into-a-political-one-why-a-law-protecting-abortion-in-canada-would-do-the-opposite.html


Is abortion legal in Australia? It’s complicated

Is abortion legal in Australia? It's complicated

By health reporter Olivia Willis
May 25, 2018

Ireland has just voted on whether to lift the country's controversial ban on abortion.

But in Australia, whether or not abortion is legal depends on where you live — as does the cost and availability of the procedure.

And that's because abortion laws are made by state and territory governments, not the Federal Government.

Continued: http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2018-05-26/is-abortion-legal-in-australia/9795188


The 9 countries with the most draconian abortion laws in the world

The 9 countries with the most draconian abortion laws in the world

by Andree Gorman
Dec. 15, 2016, 11:05

LONDON — In November, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she would explore offering Northern Irish women a free and legal means to terminate their pregnancy.

Abortion is only legal in Northern Ireland when a pregnant woman's life is at risk, but the NHS has so far refused to pay for the procedure for those who travel to Britain seeking help.

Sturgeon's plan may offer a way around this. In doing so, she also cast light on abortion laws.

Around the world, 58 of 196 countries provide abortions on request, and 134 of 196 countries only allow abortions to preserve a woman's physical health.

Six countries — El Salvador, Malta, the Vatican, Chile, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua — still refuse abortions to women under any circumstances, even if it's to save her life. It means that under many circumstances, such as rape, incest, or if the fetus has a severe abnormality, women still must bring a pregnancy to term.

Developing countries, which have the strictest laws around ending a pregnancy, have the highest unsafe abortion rates. It is estimated that around the world, 78,000 deaths result from unsafe abortions every year. These are the countries with the strictest abortion laws around the globe.

[continued at link]
Source: Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-strictest-abortion-laws-2016-12/#in-the-philippines-women-are-technically-allowed-to-have-abortions-to-save-their-own-lives-but-the-law-does-not-explicitly-state-this-8


Sri Lanka: Two faces of abortion

September 1, 2016, 9:19 pm. The Island

Continued from last week

Last week we saw how contentious the issue of (induced) abortion is in our country. Well, this is the case to be expected in many countries around the world. As much as the health professionals and activists are willing to see that their proposal to amend the present abortion law will go through the parliament, the religious organisations will not give an inch to upset the apple cart with regard to the present status of abortion law in the country.

Last week, His Lordship Bishop Dr. Emmanuel Fernando of the Catholic Church, in no uncertain terms, remarked that the position of the Catholic Church regarding abortion in fact is even a step ahead of the present Sri Lankan law, and in no circumstance humans have right to end life of another human being, whether it be inside the womb of the mother or outside. Even Ven. Dr. Dambara Amila Thero, senior lecturer in archeology, University of Sri Jayawardenapura held a similar view regarding the subject.

[continued at link]
Source: The Island


Looking at Guam’s abortion laws

635787463549865534-pesch-bill

(Photo: PDN file)

A key question for us on Guam is whether our current abortion laws meet the terms and conditions set down by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Roe v. Wade and the recent decision of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

My guess is that they do, but the road to compliance has been bumpy, to say the least.

In 1978, the Guam Legislature enacted a criminal law that regulated abortions. The apparent goal was to bring Guam’s abortion laws into compliance with the Roe v. Wade decision.  Tracking the Supreme Court’s trimester approach to regulating abortions, the law provided that an abortion on Guam could be performed within the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.  Between the 14th and 26th weeks, an abortion was permitted if the unborn child faced a “grave physical or mental defect,” or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The law also permitted an abortion at any time during the pregnancy if there was substantial risk to the mother’s health.

[continued at link]
Source: Pacific Daily News


UN Human Rights Committee Recommendations on Abortion Law & Policy: Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Ghana

Family planning clinic in Burkina Faso (photo Burkina 24)

UN Human Rights Committee Recommendations on Abortion Law & Policy: Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Ghana

27 July 2016

Burkina Faso:  Santé reproductive : Le Burkina invité à éliminer les obstacles d’accès à l’avortement légal
(Reproductive health: Burkina invited to eliminate obstacles to accessing legal abortion)

L’une des recommandations majeures issues de la 117e Session du Comité des droits de l’Homme de l’ONU tenue à Genève et publiées ce 15 juillet 2016, concerne les interruptions volontaires de grossesse et accès aux moyens de contraception au Burkina.

(One of the most important recommendations of the 117th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva, published 15 July 2016, concerned abortion and access to the means of contraception in Burkina Faso.)

From the HRC report:

Interruptions volontaires de grossesse et accès aux moyens de contraception
(Voluntary termination of pregnancy and access to contraceptive methods)

19. Le Comité est préoccupé par les conditions contraignantes pour accéder à l’avortement légal en cas de viol ou d’inceste, à savoir l’obtention d’une décision de justice reconnaissant l’infraction et un délai légal de 10 semaines pour pratiquer une interruption volontaire de grossesse. Le Comité note avec préoccupation le recours par les femmes enceintes à des avortements à risque qui mettent en danger leur vie et leur santé en raison des obstacles légaux, de la stigmatisation et du manque d’information. Il est recommandé aux autorités burkinabè d’éliminer les obstacles pour accéder à l’avortement légal qui incitent les femmes à recourir à des avortements à risque qui mettent leur vie et leur santé en danger et de lever l’exigence d’une autorisation préalable du tribunal pour les avortements résultants d’un viol ou d’un inceste.

(The Committee is concerned by the conditions required for accessing a legal abortion in cases of rape or incest, namely obtaining a judge's decision recognizing the offence within the legal limit of 10 weeks of pregnancy. The Committee notes with concern the use by pregnant women of unsafe abortion methods, which endanger their life and health because of legal obstacles, stigma and lack of information. It is recommended to the authorities of Burkina Faso to eliminate the obstacles to accessing legal abortion which encourage women to resort to unsafe abortions that put their lives and health at risk, and to remove the requirement of prior authorization of a court for abortions resulting from rape or incest.)... FULL STORY

****************

Ecuador: Concerns about the criminalisation of abortion in the new Organic Integrated Criminal Code

According to the non-governmental organizations who attended the Committee hearings and presented shadow reports, the State did not answer the experts’ questions on issues such as freedom of expression, human trafficking, and women’s rights, among others. This information must be sent, in writing, by the Ecuadorian State to the Committee.

From the HRC report:

Interrupción voluntaria del embarazo (Voluntary termination of pregnancy)

15. El Comité observa con preocupación que el nuevo Código Orgánico Integral Penal criminaliza la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo, salvo cuando se practique para “evitar un peligro para la vida o salud de la mujer embarazada y si este peligro no puede ser evitado por otros medios” y cuando el embarazo haya sido consecuencia de la violación “en una mujer que padezca discapacidad mental”, lo que habría llevado a muchas mujeres embarazadas a continuar buscando servicios de aborto inseguros que pondrían en peligro su vida y su salud (arts. 3, 6, 7 y 17).

(The Committee notes with concern that the new Organic Integrated Criminal Code criminalises voluntary termination of pregnancy, except when it is to "prevent a danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman and if this danger cannot be avoided by other means" and when the pregnancy has been a consequence of the rape "of a woman who suffers from mental disability", which would lead to many pregnant women to continue to seek unsafe abortion services that endanger their life and health.) FULL STORY

****************

Ghana: Concerns that despite some legal grounds, safe abortion remains largely inaccessible

Voluntary termination of pregnancy

23. The Committee is concerned that, despite the legally available exceptions to the prohibition of abortion, safe abortion remains largely inaccessible due to the stigma associated to voluntary termination of pregnancy in the society and to its relatively high cost and the fact that it is not covered by the National Health Insurance Scheme. The Committee is concerned by the percentage of unsafe abortion-related maternal deaths (Arts.3, 6, 7 and 17). FULL STORY

****************

Source: International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion


Abortion law in India pays more attention to childbirth than it does childhood or motherhood

By Tanya Manglik

On Thursday, the Supreme Court began hearing a petition by a 26-year-old-woman seeking an abortion in the 24th week of her pregnancy, considered too late by Indian law. In her petition, the woman also sought to challenge the validity of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP), 1971, according to which a woman is allowed an abortion only up to the 20th week of her pregnancy. Her case is one that should be followed with interest, especially as recent cases seeking permission for late abortions from Indian courts have met with differing outcomes: While in some cases courts have granted permission for an abortion, in others, women have been forced to go through with the pregnancy, even if it took place as the result of rape.

Currently, Section 3 of the Act only allows for termination of a pregnancy up to the 20th week when there is a danger to the life or risk to physical and mental health of the woman, on humanitarian grounds, such as when pregnancy is the result of rape, or if there is “substantial risk” that the child will be born with serious mental or physical abnormalities. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who is representing the petitioner in the Supreme Court, said that the present case is urgent because the life of the woman is in danger. She has said that her ex-fiance raped her on the false promise of marriage. The foetus also has anencephaly, a birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the skull and brain.  The woman, who comes from a poor family, argued that her physical and mental health was at risk, and in the petition contended that the 20-week ceiling was, “unreasonable, arbitrary, harsh, discriminatory and violative of the right to life and equality.” The petition also sought an order to set up expert panels at hospitals that provide abortions to pregnant women and girls who are survivors of sexual assault and have passed 20 weeks.

There have been other cases of rape survivors asking courts to allow an abortion after 20 weeks. In 2015, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the plea of a 14-year-old rape survivor to terminate her 24-week pregnancy, saying going ahead with the abortion put her life at greater risk than continuing with the pregnancy. In another judgment the same year, the Gujarat High Court rejected the abortion plea of a 24-year-old who was abducted from her village in Botad and raped. She escaped after six months, but her husband and in-laws refused to take her back. The male judge presiding over her case said there was no question of allowing an abortion as the seven-month foetus had a high chance of survival, going on to say, “I know the pain, agony and stigma in this case…” Forced to give birth to her rapist’s child, the woman refused to keep it and handed over the newborn to the state government. In 2008, the Bombay High Court refused a petition by Niketa Mehta for abortion of a 26-week foetus with a serious heart defect.However, the same Gujarat High Court that denied the 24-year-old woman an abortion in 2015 agreed soon after to grant permission for the termination of pregnancy in a 14-year-old girl whose plea for abortion had already been rejected twice. The girl, a rape survivor, was in the 24th week of her pregnancy, and doctors stated in a report that the girl was “psychologically devastated” and “physically too weak to deliver a child.”

Some medical experts in India have been recommending that abortions be allowed beyond 20 weeks. This is in line with the law in some countries like the UK and Singapore, where abortions are legal up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. In fact, in 2014, after pushing from doctors, activists and the National Commission for Women, India’s Ministry for Health and Family Welfare proposed amending the MTP Act to allow abortion up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. At the time, a doctor told DNA, “We generally ask a patient to undergo tests around the 18th week to find abnormalities. Some reports take three weeks and we lose out on the MTP cut-off time. A little extension will be a boon to a lot of women.”

In 2009, a Mumbai-based doctor sought amendment of the MTP Act, a case that the Supreme Court is still hearing. In 2014, a bench of the Supreme Court admitted a petition by the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) which challenged the constitutional validity of the 20-week limit on behalf of two women who were identified as Mrs X and Mrs Y, Mrs X was informed by her doctors that the foetus would not survive, but the court rejected her plea at 26 weeks of pregnancy, and she was forced to carry the child who died three hours after birth, and after three days of excruciating labour pains. Mrs Y was told in her 19th week that some of the foetus’s brain tissue might have been missing and test results would only come out by the 20th week, so she was forced to terminate the pregnancy without full knowledge of the abnormality because of the deadline imposed by the MTP Act. HRLN argued that the 20-week limit violated Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to Freedom), and Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution of India.

Currently, the law on termination of abortion pays more attention to childbirth than it does childhood or motherhood. But here’s the part of the petition the Supreme Court is currently hearing that has wide significance: once more, it isn’t just asking that the woman in question be allowed an abortion. It’s challenging the very constitutional validity of the MTP Act, and asking that the section of the Act with 20-week limit be declared unconstitutional, or be read down.

The Ladies Finger is a leading online feminist magazine.