While Democratic candidates suffered major losses in this year’s U.S. elections, elsewhere on the ballot voters supported liberal positions. In the wake of tightening federal and state restrictions on abortion, historic ballot measures enshrining the right to an abortion passed in seven states, while other initiatives to raise the minimum wage and codify marriage equality also won by wide majorities. We’re joined by Chris Melody Fields Figueredo of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center to examine the role of ballot measures, a form of direct democracy, in elections, and why this “powerful tool” may be at risk as conservatives flood elected office. “Because we are resisting, we are winning on these progressive issues, they are trying to take that power away from us.”

Researchers find that medication abortion provided at home with a Zoom or text link to a medical provider is extremely safe and effective

Outside experts found that two studies cited in a federal case on medication abortion had serious design problems and that their authors had undisclosed conflicts of interest

The upcoming US presidential election will determine how the country regulates tech, combats the climate crisis and decides on access to abortion

Access to a popular medlinkabortion pill/medlink will continue, as the US Supreme Court has ruled the drug can remain on the market while a lower court lawsuit is underway.

Women take two types of pills for abortion during their pregnancy: medlinkmisoprostol/medlink, which causes the womb to contract, and medlinkmifepristone/medlink,

The practice of ending a pregnancy is becoming more widespread. Clinics and hospitals currently postpone medication abortion until an ultrasound confirms the pregnancy is inside the uterus.

The government’s proposal has drawn sharp criticism from medical associations

National Bureau of Economic Research

Harris has been criticized for not doing more media interviews

Lima, Peru, May 9, 2020 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- Peruvian congresswoman Luz Milagros Cayguaray Gambini has demanded the country’s health minister provide the legal and scientific basis for a directive that would allow abortion when a pregnant woman is infected with the novel coronavirus.

Abortion is illegal in Peru except when pregnancy would cause death or permanent harm to a pregnant woman.

On April 22, Peru’s Minister of Health Victor Zamora issued a directive calling for provision of emergency contraception in the country, and allowing abortion for pregnant women who test positive for the coronavirus.

In a May 5 letter, Cayguaray demanded Zamora to “Indicate what the legal basis” is for the directive that allows doctors to “end the pregnancy,” if the mother has contracted COVID-19.

The legislator also challenged Zamora to indicate “the scientific and medical basis the norm is based upon.”

At issue is whether a positive test for coronavirus is sufficient to establish that a pregnancy threatens the life of a woman. Gambini says that assertion is unproven and unfounded.

Cayguaray has also written to Dr. Enrique Guevara Ríos, director of the country’s Perinatal Maternal Institute, asking him to report how many pregnant women with COVID-19 have been treated to date, “how many have had their pregnancies terminated,” “on what grounds,” and “what current regulation has been applied to carry out the interruption of those pregnancies.”

The Arequipa Doctors for Life Association has criticized the health directive in a statement.

"At this time in which all our efforts as a nation should be aimed at improving our precarious health system to mitigate the serious impact of the pandemic, the circumstances are being used to dictate measures that threaten the lives of Peruvians in their most vulnerable stage, life in the womb,” the group said.

Regarding the “morning after pill,” the group expressed surprise and concern “that the Ministry of Health promotes the irresponsible and reckless use of this drug in the general population and particularly for minors, and even worse, dispenses with obtaining the person’s medical history, which is an essential tool for the responsible practice of medicine, thus seriously exposing the users to danger."

Aborting a child because the mother has COVID-19, the doctors said “is contrary to the principles that govern medical practice, which must always be based on the application of therapies that are based on rigorous scientific studies and with respect to elementary ethical principles” which guide medical science in providing the best strategies to protect patients.

When a woman is pregnant “we have two patients to take care of, the mother and the unborn child," the doctors association stressed.

Concerning the babies themselves, five newborns whose mothers have COVID-19 were recently discharged from a government hospital in Peru. A sixth, also born of a coronavirus patient who is in serious condition in the intensive care unit, was born prematurely and remains hospitalized. None of the babies have tested positive for COVID-19.

In a May 5 interview with the El Comercio daily, Dr. César García Aste, who heads the hospital’s neonatology department, explained that there are strict protocols as to how the baby is to be fed in order to avoid infecting it.

A doctor from the hospital is assigned to follow up daily by phone on the baby’s condition for an average of 14 days, and “so far we haven’t had a problem with any of the five babies,” Garcia said.

 

A version of this story was first published by ACI Prensa, CNA's Spanish-language news agency. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.

 

Lima, Peru, May 9, 2020 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- Peruvian congresswoman Luz Milagros Cayguaray Gambini has demanded the country’s health minister provide the legal and scientific basis for a directive that would allow abortion when a pregnant woman is infected with the novel coronavirus.

Abortion is illegal in Peru except when pregnancy would cause death or permanent harm to a pregnant woman.

On April 22, Peru’s Minister of Health Victor Zamora issued a directive calling for provision of emergency contraception in the country, and allowing abortion for pregnant women who test positive for the coronavirus.

In a May 5 letter, Cayguaray demanded Zamora to “Indicate what the legal basis” is for the directive that allows doctors to “end the pregnancy,” if the mother has contracted COVID-19.

The legislator also challenged Zamora to indicate “the scientific and medical basis the norm is based upon.”

At issue is whether a positive test for coronavirus is sufficient to establish that a pregnancy threatens the life of a woman. Gambini says that assertion is unproven and unfounded.

Cayguaray has also written to Dr. Enrique Guevara Ríos, director of the country’s Perinatal Maternal Institute, asking him to report how many pregnant women with COVID-19 have been treated to date, “how many have had their pregnancies terminated,” “on what grounds,” and “what current regulation has been applied to carry out the interruption of those pregnancies.”

The Arequipa Doctors for Life Association has criticized the health directive in a statement.

"At this time in which all our efforts as a nation should be aimed at improving our precarious health system to mitigate the serious impact of the pandemic, the circumstances are being used to dictate measures that threaten the lives of Peruvians in their most vulnerable stage, life in the womb,” the group said.

Regarding the “morning after pill,” the group expressed surprise and concern “that the Ministry of Health promotes the irresponsible and reckless use of this drug in the general population and particularly for minors, and even worse, dispenses with obtaining the person’s medical history, which is an essential tool for the responsible practice of medicine, thus seriously exposing the users to danger."

Aborting a child because the mother has COVID-19, the doctors said “is contrary to the principles that govern medical practice, which must always be based on the application of therapies that are based on rigorous scientific studies and with respect to elementary ethical principles” which guide medical science in providing the best strategies to protect patients.

When a woman is pregnant “we have two patients to take care of, the mother and the unborn child," the doctors association stressed.

Concerning the babies themselves, five newborns whose mothers have COVID-19 were recently discharged from a government hospital in Peru. A sixth, also born of a coronavirus patient who is in serious condition in the intensive care unit, was born prematurely and remains hospitalized. None of the babies have tested positive for COVID-19.

In a May 5 interview with the El Comercio daily, Dr. César García Aste, who heads the hospital’s neonatology department, explained that there are strict protocols as to how the baby is to be fed in order to avoid infecting it.

A doctor from the hospital is assigned to follow up daily by phone on the baby’s condition for an average of 14 days, and “so far we haven’t had a problem with any of the five babies,” Garcia said.

 

A version of this story was first published by ACI Prensa, CNA's Spanish-language news agency. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.

 

It's illegal, and certainly stressful, but more and more women -- faced with difficult decisions during a time of national crisis -- are going that route

Eliza Hittman’s coming-of-age story about a US teenager seeking a termination is heartbreaking and painfully authentic

From Eliza Hittman, the remarkable writer-director of It Felt Like Love and Beach Rats, comes another drama that manages to blend the gritty authenticity of a documentary with the poetic sensibility of pure cinema. In her impressively measured and beautifully understated third feature, Hittman tells an oft-hidden story of reproductive rights – an age-old issue that has urgent contemporary relevance. Yet Never Rarely Sometimes Always never feels polemical. On the contrary, it is perhaps best described as a perfectly observed portrait of female friendship; a coming-of-age story with road-movie inflections, piercingly honest and deeply affecting.

Feature first-timer (and accomplished musician) Sidney Flanigan is superb as Autumn, a 17-year-old from Pennsylvania who discovers that she cannot get an abortion in her home town without parental consent. Quietly desperate, Autumn reluctantly confides in her more outgoing cousin Skylar (rising star Talia Ryder, soon to be seen in Spielberg’s West Side Story), who agrees to accompany her across state lines to New York. The pair imagine that the trip will be brief but find themselves spending days and nights on the streets, waiting for the procedure that Autumn was denied in Pennsylvania.

Marie Stopes International (MSI) has received more than £7.5million from sex-toy salesman Phil Harvey, critics have now accused the charity of betraying its stated aims.

Marie Stopes International (MSI) has received more than £7.5million from sex-toy salesman Phil Harvey, critics have now accused the charity of betraying its stated aims.

Gynaecologists have noticed a sharp spike in cases of menstrual complications among young women who are repeatedly using OTC EC and abortion pills.

While legal abortions in the U.S. are safe, the likelihood that women will receive the type of abortion services that best meet their needs varies considerably depending on where they live, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order banning all elective medical procedures, including abortions, during the coronavirus outbreak. The ban extends to medication abortions.; Credit: Eric Gay/AP

Governors across the country are banning elective surgery as a means of halting the spread of the coronavirus. But in a handful of states that ban is being extended to include a ban on all abortions.

So far the courts have intervened to keep most clinics open. The outlier is Texas, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit this week upheld the governor's abortion ban.

Four years ago, Texas was also the focus of a fierce legal fight that ultimately led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the justices struck down a Texas law purportedly aimed at protecting women's health. The court ruled the law was medically unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Now Texas is once again the epicenter of the legal fight around abortion. In other states--Ohio, Iowa, Alabama, and Oklahoma--the courts so far have sided with abortion providers and their patients.

Not so in Texas where Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order barring all "non-essential" medical procedures in the state, including abortion. The executive order was temporarily blocked in the district court, but the Fifth Circuit subsequently upheld the governor's order by a 2-to-1 vote, declaring that "all public constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency."

"No more elective medical procedures can be done in the state because of the potential of needing both people ... beds and supplies, and obviously doctors and nurses," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an interview with NPR.

'Exploiting This Crisis'

Nancy Northrup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees things very differently. "It is very clear that anti-abortion rights politicians are shamelessly exploiting this crisis to achieve what has been their longstanding ideological goal to ban abortion in the U.S.," she said.

Paxton denies that, saying Texas "is not targeting any particular group."
The state's the "only goal is to protect people from dying," he said.

Yet the American Medical Association just last week filed a brief in this case in support of abortion providers, as did 18 states, led by New York, which is the state that has been the hardest hit by the coronavirus.

They maintain that banning abortion is far more dangerous,because it will force women to travel long distances to get one. A study from the Guttmacher Institute found that people seeking abortions during the COVID-19 outbreak would have to travel up to 20 times farther than normal if states successfully ban abortion care during the pandemic. The AMA also notes that pregnant women do not stop needing medical care if they don't get an abortion.

Northrup, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees this as more evidence that the ban is a calculated move by the state: what "puts the lie to this is the fact that they're trying to ban medication, abortion as well; that's the use of pills for abortion.

"Those do not need to take place in a clinic and they can be done, taken effectively by tele-medicine. So it shows that the real goal here, tragically, is shutting down one's right to make the decision to end the pregnancy, not a legitimate public health response."

'I Was Desperate'

Affidavits filed in the Texas case tell of harrowing experiences already happening as the result of the Texas ban. One declaration was filed by a 24-year-old college student. The week she lost her part-time job as a waitress, she found out she was pregnant. She and her partner agreed they wanted to terminate the pregnancy, and on March 20 she went to a clinic in Forth Worth alone; because of social distancing rules, her partner was not allowed to go with her.

Since she was 10 weeks pregnant, still in her first trimester, she was eligible for a medication abortion. Under state law, she had to wait 24 hours before getting the pills at the clinic, but the night before her scheduled appointment, the clinic called to cancel because of Abbott's executive order.

He partner was with her and we "cried together," she wrote in her declaration. "I couldn't risk the possibility that I would run out of time to have an abortion while the outbreak continued," and it "seemed to be getting more and more difficult to travel."

She made many calls to clinics in New Mexico and Oklahoma. The quickest option was Denver--a 12-hour drive, 780-mile drive from where she lives. Her partner was still working, so her best friend agreed to go with her. They packed sanitizing supplies and food in the car for the long drive and arrived at the Denver Clinic on March 26, where she noticed other cars with Texas plates in the parking lot, according to the affidavit.

At the clinic, she was examined, given a sonogram again, and because Colorado does not have a 24-hour waiting requirement, she was given her first abortion pill without delay and told she should try to get home within 30 hours to take the second pill.

She and her friend then turned around to go home. They were terrified she would have the abortion in the car, and tried to drive through without taking breaks. But after six hours, when it turned dark they were so exhausted they had to stop at a motel to catch some sleep. The woman finally got home and took the second pill just within the 30-hour window.

She said that despite the ordeal she was grateful she had the money, the car, the friend, and the supportive partner with a job, to make the abortion possible. Others will not be so lucky, she wrote. But "I was desperate and desperate people take desperate steps to protect themselves."

A 'Narrative' Of Choice

Paxton, the Texas attorney general, does not seem moved by the time limitations that pregnancy imposes, or the hardships of traveling out of state to get an abortion. He told NPR "the narrative has always been 'It's a choice' ... that's the whole narrative. I'm a little surprised by the question, given that's always been the thing."

On Thursday abortion providers and their patients returned to the district court in Texas instead of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit's ruling from earlier this week. The district court judge, who originally blocked the governor's ban, instead narrowed the governor's order so that medical abortions--with pills--would be exempt from the ban, as well as abortions for women who are up against the state-imposed deadline. Abortions in Texas are banned after 22 weeks.

In the end, though, this case may well be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And because of the addition of two Trump appointees since 2016--the composition of the court is a lot more hostile to abortion rights.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

President Ronald Reagan writes a brief essay on abortion.

Missouri’s Republican-led Senate passed a bill to ban abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy.

Weeks after being raped at a wedding — an experience already wrapped in feelings of self-blame and fear — the 18-year-old Eastern Washington University student realized something else was wrong.…

Abortion service providers are left with chartering private flights to regional Queensland, saying infrequent schedules and short-notice cancellations during the COVID-19 pandemic make flying commercial untenable.

At least eight US states are blocking health clinics from providing abortions, describing the procedure as non-essential during the pandemic.

MORNING BRIEFING: NSW Police arrest a man in Guildford over the shooting murder of Parramatta FC soccer player John Odisho, while Barnaby Joyce leads an anti-abortion rally in Martin Place.

DAILY BRIEFING: A promised lost-cost abortion service for southern Tasmania is on hold indefinitely, and the union says more immediate solutions are needed to address prison overcrowding.

MORNING BRIEFING: The serial sex offender who raped and killed Sydney woman Janine Balding will not be released for another two years, while the North Ryde RSL club cancels a conservative event on abortion over security fears.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action by a Virginia non-profit corporation organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide "accurate and truthful information about the public policy positions of Senator Barack Obama," contending that it was "chilled" from posting information about then-Senator Obama because of the vagueness of a Commission regulation, 11 C.F.R. section 100.22(b), and a Commission policy, published at 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007), relating to whether plaintiff has to make disclosures or is a "political committee" (PAC), the District Court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) neither the regulation nor policy are unconstitutionally broad and vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; and 2) it correctly applied the "exacting scrutiny" standard applicable to disclosure provisions.

Arkansas’s only in-clinic abortion provider, Little Rock Family Planning Services, is suing the state to challenge a rule requiring patients to get a COVID-19 test within 48 hours of their abortion procedure. This is the second time Arkansas abortion providers have had to fight a legal battle to protect abortion access during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing Little Rock Family Planning Services, argues that the Department of Health rule severely restricts abortion access, especially for patients who are close to Arkansas’s 20-week gestational limit. Little Rock Family Planning Services reports that it has been unable to find any COVID-19 testing location that will test asymptomatic people and provide results within 48 hours. “For women who cannot obtain access to COVID-19 NAAT testing within 48-hours of their procedures, the Directive entirely bars them from exercising their constitutional right to receive pre-viability abortion care in Arkansas,” wrote the ACLU in the lawsuit. Last month, Arkansas tried to halt all but “immediately medically necessary” abortions during the coronavirus pandemic. The ACLU challenged that order, and a federal judge issued a restraining order to allow abortion care to continue as normal. A week later, the Eighth Circuit Court of […]

Some states are using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to cut off abortion access. That's unacceptable.

Holcomb says order included abortion clinics to make medical resources available to fight COVID-19. But letter writing campaign preceded his decision

In Texas, abortions are resuming as virus restrictions ease - but for many, the damage has been done.

In an emotional interview with TMZ, the comedian said she canceled her show there because of the state's attempt to, in effect, ban abortion.

Interviews from the Women deliver conference in Copenhagen. Catrin Schulte-Hillen, co-ordinator of reproductive health and sexual violence care at Medecins Sans Frontieres, explains why the development community shouldn't conflate sexual violence and access to abortion.

A federal court on Thursday denied a motion to block an Arkansas directive preventing patients from receiving abortion care.

Greenwich, Conn. : Jai Press Inc., 1997.

CNA Staff, May 8, 2020 / 12:30 pm (CNA).- A federal judge in Arkansas on Thursday upheld the state’s requirement that women obtain a negative coronavirus test before having an abortion.

Calling the decision “agonizingly difficult,” Judge Brian Miller for the Eastern District Court of Arkansas said the state’s testing mandate—which applies to all elective surgeries and not just abortions—is “reasonable” during the public health emergency and was not done “with an eye toward limiting abortions.

The judge noted that “it is undisputed that surgical abortions have still taken place.”

The abortion clinic Little Rock Family Planning Services had requested a temporary injunction on the state health department’s requirement that elective surgery patients obtain a negative new coronavirus (COVID-19) test result within 48 hours before the procedure.

Previously, the health department ordered a halt to non-essential surgeries on April 3 to preserve resources for treating COVID-19.

The Little Rock abortion clinic performed abortions while claiming they were offering “essential” procedures, and after the health department ordered them to stop on April 10, the clinic challenged the state in court. The diocese’s Respect Life Office noted that women were traveling to the clinic for abortions from nearby states such as Texas and Louisiana.

The clinic won its case for a temporary restraining order at the district court level, but the Eighth Circuit appeals court subsequently overruled that decision and sided with the state.

The April 3 directive was updated April 24 to allow for some elective surgeries provided certain conditions were met. Elective abortions were included in the “non-essential” surgeries that were allowed to continue on April 24.

These conditions included no overnight stays, no contact with COVID-19 patients in the previous 14 days, and a negative COVID-19 test for patients within 48 hours of the surgery.

According to the clinic, which asked for a temporary injunction, three women were seeking to obtain “dilation and evacuation” abortions but were prevented from meeting the state’s testing requirmenet. One woman said she was unable to get a COVID-19 test; another said the lab could not guarantee she would receive results in 48 hours. The third woman was unable to get an abortion in Texas, and drove to the Little Rock clinic; she was told the results of her test would not be available for several days.

In response, the state’s health department said that four surgical abortions had still been performed at the clinic between April 27 and May 1, with COVID-19 test results having been obtained within 48 hours of the abortions, and thus the directive was not an “undue burden” on women seeking abortion.

In his decision on Thursday, Judge Miller said that the pandemic is a serious threat, noting that at the time of the opinion more than 70,000 people had died in the U.S. from the virus including more than 3,500 people in Arkansas.

He said the case “presents the tug-of-war between individual liberty and the state’s police power to protect the public during the existing, grave health crisis,” and noted that the three women as well as others “are very troubled. There is a strong urge to rule for them because they are extremely sympathetic figures, but that would be unjust.”

CNA Staff, May 8, 2020 / 12:30 pm (CNA).- A federal judge in Arkansas on Thursday upheld the state’s requirement that women obtain a negative coronavirus test before having an abortion.

Calling the decision “agonizingly difficult,” Judge Brian Miller for the Eastern District Court of Arkansas said the state’s testing mandate—which applies to all elective surgeries and not just abortions—is “reasonable” during the public health emergency and was not done “with an eye toward limiting abortions.

The judge noted that “it is undisputed that surgical abortions have still taken place.”

The abortion clinic Little Rock Family Planning Services had requested a temporary injunction on the state health department’s requirement that elective surgery patients obtain a negative new coronavirus (COVID-19) test result within 48 hours before the procedure.

Previously, the health department ordered a halt to non-essential surgeries on April 3 to preserve resources for treating COVID-19.

The Little Rock abortion clinic performed abortions while claiming they were offering “essential” procedures, and after the health department ordered them to stop on April 10, the clinic challenged the state in court. The diocese’s Respect Life Office noted that women were traveling to the clinic for abortions from nearby states such as Texas and Louisiana.

The clinic won its case for a temporary restraining order at the district court level, but the Eighth Circuit appeals court subsequently overruled that decision and sided with the state.

The April 3 directive was updated April 24 to allow for some elective surgeries provided certain conditions were met. Elective abortions were included in the “non-essential” surgeries that were allowed to continue on April 24.

These conditions included no overnight stays, no contact with COVID-19 patients in the previous 14 days, and a negative COVID-19 test for patients within 48 hours of the surgery.

According to the clinic, which asked for a temporary injunction, three women were seeking to obtain “dilation and evacuation” abortions but were prevented from meeting the state’s testing requirmenet. One woman said she was unable to get a COVID-19 test; another said the lab could not guarantee she would receive results in 48 hours. The third woman was unable to get an abortion in Texas, and drove to the Little Rock clinic; she was told the results of her test would not be available for several days.

In response, the state’s health department said that four surgical abortions had still been performed at the clinic between April 27 and May 1, with COVID-19 test results having been obtained within 48 hours of the abortions, and thus the directive was not an “undue burden” on women seeking abortion.

In his decision on Thursday, Judge Miller said that the pandemic is a serious threat, noting that at the time of the opinion more than 70,000 people had died in the U.S. from the virus including more than 3,500 people in Arkansas.

He said the case “presents the tug-of-war between individual liberty and the state’s police power to protect the public during the existing, grave health crisis,” and noted that the three women as well as others “are very troubled. There is a strong urge to rule for them because they are extremely sympathetic figures, but that would be unjust.”

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Apr 20, 2020 / 09:25 am (CNA).- On Friday, Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court will hold a virtual hearing to consider whether to decriminalize abortion for pregnant women infected with the Zika virus.

The legal intervention, called “Direct Action on Unconstitutionality-ADI 5581,” was filed with Brazil’s highest court by the National Association of Public Defenders. Supreme Court Justice Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha will present the legal action to the court, whose 11 members will have until April 30 to vote on the issue.

Several pro-life organizations have come out strongly against efforts to expand abortion, which is illegal in Brazil but is considered a “non-punishable crime” in cases of rape, a proven risk to life of the mother and, as of 2012, babies diagnosed with anencephaly.

“It’s a usurpation of powers because the Supreme Court does not have competency to rule on this matter,” said jurist José Miranda de Siqueira, president of the National Association of Citizens for Life. “This is a crime against the Federal Constitution of Brazil which in Article V guarantees the inviolability of the right to life.”

“We’re working with the Union of Catholic Jurists of Rio de Janeiro and will soon issue a strong statement on the issue,” continued Miranda, who is also a bioethics professor and authored a book on euthanasia, “O Poder sobre a Vida” (The Power over Life), which specifically addresses ADI 5581.

“Life is a preeminent right in the legal world. I’m asking people to pray and publicize this serious situation which is going on,” the lawyer added.

In an open letter to all Brazilians, the National Network for the Defense of Life and Family argued that the court challenge is “part of a strategy to introduce abortion in case of disabilities in general, or even abortion on demand, with the weak justification that the pregnant woman would be in a state of distress.”

“Eugenic abortion carries an enormous burden of prejudice and discrimination towards people with disabilities, sending an unseemly message that it would be better if they did not exist,” the pro-life organization added.

The Zika virus garnered international attention in 2015 after areas of Brazil noted a spike in cases of the birth defect microcephaly – a condition marked by abnormally small heads, brains, and developmental delays – following a recent outbreak of the virus in areas of northeastern Brazil.

Research on the virus suggested a link between Zika virus infection during pregnancy and severe neurological birth defects, including microcephaly and incomplete brain development.

A CitizenGo petition addressed to the Supreme Court justices called for the case to be removed from the docket and for the lives of the unborn to be respected. The petition was launched April 16. Within 24 hours, it had garnered 35,000 signatures and as of April 20 has 85,000.
 

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Apr 27, 2020 / 04:35 pm (CNA).- A majority of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal has voted against an intervention seeking to decriminalize abortion for expectant mothers diagnosed with the Zika virus.

The judges convened a virtual plenary session April 24 to hear arguments for and against the “Direct Action on Unconstitutionality-ADI 5581,” a legal intervention filed with the court by the National Association of Public Defenders.

While the court has until April 30 to vote on the matter, 7 of its 11 members have already voted in opposition, effectively rejecting the measure.

Abortion is illegal in Brazil but previous Supreme Court rulings have declared it a “non-punishable crime” in cases of rape, a proven risk to life of the mother and, as of 2012, babies diagnosed with anencephaly.

The Zika virus garnered international attention in 2015 after areas of Brazil noted a spike in cases of the birth defect microcephaly – a condition marked by abnormally small heads, brains, and developmental delays – following a recent outbreak of the virus in areas of northeastern Brazil.

Research on the virus suggested a link between Zika virus infection during pregnancy and severe neurological birth defects, including microcephaly and incomplete brain development.

However, some experts criticized what they described as technical and scientific flaws of the premise behind ADI 5581.
The Union of Catholic Jurists of Rio de Janeiro issued an official statement arguing that a causal relationship was never established between Zika virus and the microcephaly outbreak that occurred in Brazil.

Raphael Câmara, an obstetrician at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said that when an attempt was made in 2016 to allow abortion in Zika cases, little was known about the virus.

“Since then, we have answers to many of the issues raised in ADI-5581 in support of allowing abortion,” Câmara said. “The first fact is that recent studies show that fetuses of infected mothers are affected only 5 to 14% of the time, with the majority having mild problems, as shown by research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

“In addition, a study recently released by the CDC showed that 73% of Brazilian labs have a low accuracy rate for diagnosing the Zika virus, so the request is meaningless because we cannot talk about someone 'infected with Zika', but rather 'maybe infected by Zika.’ Is it based on this inaccuracy that we will kill fetuses?” the obstetrician continued.

Ahead of the Supreme Court ruling, pro-life groups in Brazil had spoken out against efforts to expand abortion in the country. A CitizenGo petition against the legal action drew more than 184,000 online signatures.

The Brazilian Bishops’ Conference had also opposed the attempt, calling on Catholics to defend life and oppose abortion. The conference wrote an open letter and also wrote privately to the Supreme Court, reiterating the duty to value the inviolable gift of life.

In 2017, the conference stated, “It does not belong to any public authority to selectively recognize the right to life or who will live or die. This discrimination is evil and exclusionary.”

 

This article was originally published by our sister agency, ACI Digital. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.

 

Arti Zodpe is from the Tamasha (folk dance-drama) theatre in Sangli, in India’s Maharashtra state. After evening performances, some of the singers and dancers offer sex work services to the audience. “We [Tamasha sex workers] live outside of the city as people feel disturbed by the sound of our ghunghroo [anklet bracelets with bells] and […]

The post India’s Liberal Abortion Law, Nullified by Social Stigma appeared first on Inter Press Service.

A 14-year old girl sitting for her Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) in Samburu County died tragically on Wednesday after she complained of stomach cramps.

The urgent intervention was sought after appeal courts twice ruled that special coronavirus laws meant only women who might not be able to receive an abortion before the state's 22-week limit could receive a waiver.

These policies restricting abortion are unlikely to conserve PPE, and more importantly, they mischaracterize the nature and importance of abortions.

The post The Harms of Abortion Restrictions During the COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on Bill of Health.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has ordered that Jo Ann Scott be permanently enjoined from using force, threat of force or physically obstructing any person because that person is or has been obtaining or providing reproductive health services.

A teenager bonds awkwardly with her cousin as they take the bus from a rural community to New York so that she can have a termination

The four words in this title are the four possible replies to bureaucratic tick-box questions about the frequency of your various sexual experiences. A young woman here must answer them, before she is allowed to have an abortion. However rigid and blandly routine it seems, the four-part answer grid is cleverly designed to get information about vulnerability: it is so easy instinctively and evasively to deny a difficult question structured as a yes/no, but much harder to check the “never” box, when “rarely”, “sometimes” and “always” are coolly offered as equivalently non-judgmental options.

The lead character in Eliza Hittman’s tough, realist drama is confronted with this central, four-part inquisition about her life in one brilliantly controlled, enigmatic scene. Theoretically, it is just a bit of form-filling that doesn’t appear to promise any real revelation to the audience. Yet it does just that, delivering a penny-drop moment of realisation. Or perhaps it’s more of an ambiguous hint and all the more disquieting for that.

Related: Sleazy bosses, exploited barmaids: US cinema finally discovers the left behinds

As much of the U.S. remains on lockdown, abortion rights are under attack nationwide. We get an update on the fight for abortion access with Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Our bodies have literally been deemed essential," she says, "and yet the control of our bodies and the right to control our own bodies has not."