Irish Government announces referendum on abortion

January 31, 2018

Many thanks to Christina Zampas, our Reproductive Health Law Fellow,*  for preparing this expert comment for Reprohealthlaw subscribers.

On January 29, 2018. the Irish government announced that it will hold a referendum on the provision of the Constitution which limits abortion access. In deciding this, it took into consideration the recommendations issued on December 20 by the  Joint Committee of the Irish Parliament (the Oireachtas).

Ireland has one of the most restrictive abortion law regimes in the world, only allowing abortion in cases of risk to a woman’s life. The Joint Committee on the Eight Amendment of the Constitution was formed to review the  Citizens’ Assembly recommendations calling for constitutional reform of Article 40.3.3 (the Eighth Amendment) which guarantees an equal right to life of the “unborn” as to a pregnant woman.   The Eighth Amendment was inserted in the Constitution in 1983, after a bitterly contested referendum.  The intent of the Amendment was to halt the wave of liberalization of European and US abortion laws from hitting Ireland. An Amnesty International report shows how the Eighth Amendment fundamentally shaped the restrictive scope and content of Ireland’s abortion law and the quality of care received by all pregnant women and girls, not just women seeking abortion.

For three months in autumn, 2017, the Joint Committee assessed the Citizens’ Assembly recommendations and heard from scores of witnesses, including myself. I provided expert testimony on the impact of the Eighth Amendment on women and girls, the human rights violations resulting from such a draconian legal framework, and the practical reality that thousands of women from Ireland are accessing abortion either by travelling overseas or purchasing the abortion pill online.  As a result of this process, the Joint Committee recommended repeal of the Eighth Amendment, to align Ireland’s abortion law with human rights obligations and the laws of other European countries.  These recommendations will also guide the government in drafting a referendum proposal that will go to the people.  The Joint Committee’s recommendations include ensuring abortion on request in the first 12 weeks of gestation, and beyond 12 weeks for fatal fetal impairment, life and health, including mental and physical health.  They recognized that medical decisions are best made in a clinical setting, not by a legislature.  While most recommendations align with women’s and girls’ health care needs, human rights norms and the laws of other European countries, others do not–such as recommendations which do not recognize the need to allow on abortion on grounds of rape beyond 12 weeks gestation and which explicitly disallow abortion on grounds of severe fetal impairment.

The Joint Committee also made important ancillary recommendations which would prevent unwanted pregnancies and ensure quality of care to all pregnant women.  They include decriminalization of abortion (to reduce the chilling and stigmatic effect that criminal law has on provision of health care to all pregnant women), robust, evidence-based sex education, free access to contraception, equal access to high standards of obstetric care regardless of geography or socio-economic status, and improvements to counselling and support facilities surrounding pregnancy and abortion.

The government in announcing the referendum decided wording that effectively repeals the Eighth Amendment. Alongside this, the government announced that the Minister for Health will prepare legislation in line with the Joint Oireachtas Committee’s recommendations on abortion access, which includes a 12-week ‘on request’ period for abortion access.

This is a significant step for Ireland, where the abortion debate raged for decades with little government response until 2012, when the tragic and unnecessary death of Savita Halappanavar provoked large public protests.  Her death was due, in part, to the Eighth Amendment’s role in the clinical decision not to provide her with appropriate care during miscarriage.  This tragic case, combined with a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights in A, B and C v Ireland (2010), which had found Ireland in violation of the European Convention for lack of legal clarity on risk to life, the only ground on which women can access abortion,  the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act (PLDPA) was passed in 2013.  This PLDPA replaced the 1861 Offences against Persons Act, a complete ban on abortion penalized by lifetime imprisonment.  Over 150 years later, the new law was limited by the Eighth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretation (in Attorney General v. X (1992)) that the Constitution only permitted abortion where there is a “real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother.”  Within these confines, the 2013 law offers surprisingly little clarity on allowable circumstances and places formidable barriers, including multiple provider authorizations, to exercising the “life” exemption from criminal prosecution.  It continues to impose a criminal penalty on abortion: 14 years imprisonment.

The reformed law has changed nothing; every day, 10-12 women or girls travel from Ireland to England for an abortion.  These may include victims of rape, schoolgirls, women who cannot afford to have another child and those faced with fatal fetal diagnoses.  These women travel because they cannot access safe and legal abortion in Ireland.  Meanwhile, marginalized women, such as migrants, asylum seekers or impoverished women, are trapped in Ireland, unable to access abortion by travel.  For all these women and girls, their human rights are being violated, as criticized by international and regional bodies for over 20 years, most recently by the UN Human Rights Committee in Mellet v Ireland (2016) and Whelan v Ireland (2017)

Ireland’s draconian abortion law is part of its notorious history of strict punitive social controls over female sexuality, both in law and in practice, amid the socio-religious stigma that drove women and girls to the infamous “mother and child homes” or “Magdalene Laundries,” and subjected pregnant women to the medical practice of Symphysiotomy during childbirth.  It’s about time that such abuses and human rights violations are not only prevented from happening in the future but that the State recognized its role in this wrongdoing.

Related Links:

*Christina Zampas, a Reproductive Health Law Fellow in the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law and an independent human rights consultant, provided expert testimony on international human rights standards related to abortion to the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution on October 4, 2017  Video of testimony (at 2:27-2:45)

Ireland must comply with international human rights obligations, including HRC rulings in Whelan and Mellet cases, by Mercedes Cavallo Reprohealthlaw Blog, January 31, 2017.  Commentary online.

These are #115 and #116 in our Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series. online here.

______________
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

 

 

 

 


Ireland must comply with international human rights including HRC rulings in Whelan and Mellet cases

January 31, 2018

Many thanks to Mercedes Cavallo, a doctoral candidate in the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, and a Reproductive Health Law Fellow,  for analyzing these two key Irish cases for readers of this blog:

On October 18, 2017, the Irish Oireachtas (Parliamentary) Joint Committee on Abortion recommended 15-2-2 not to fully retain the Eighth Amendment restrictions on abortion.   Irish abortion laws are among the most restrictive in the world and have been condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee in the cases of Whelan v. Ireland and Mellet v. Ireland.  Under the Irish Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Ireland in Attorney General v. X and Others, abortion is a crime and is only permissible when it is established, as a matter of probability, that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the pregnant woman.

In addition, the “Abortion Information Act” 1995 restricts circumstances in which individuals (including health professionals) can provide information about legal abortion services in Ireland or abroad, and criminalizes “advocating or promoting” the termination of pregnancy.  Due to the constraints of this legal framework, women who need abortions in Ireland usually travel to the United Kingdom, with little information and no financial or psychological support from the State.

In the Whelan and Mellet. cases, the UN’s Human Rights Committee found Ireland non-compliant in denying abortion services and grief counselling to two women who had each been pregnant with a doomed foetus.

Siobhán Whelan, at 20 weeks pregnant, was informed that her foetus had a congenital malformation and would likely die in utero, during labor, or soon after birth. Her obstetrician mentioned that “in another jurisdiction [she] would be offered a termination but obviously not in this country due to Irish law.” The obstetrician expected Ms. Whelan to “continue with the pregnancy, attend ante-natal appointments ‘as normal’ and wait for nature to take its course.” Another doctor gave her a report of the scan, “in case [she] wanted to travel.”  She sought further information about travel, but most agencies could only assist women who were less than 13 weeks pregnant, so she learned about the Liverpool Women’s Hospital through a friend. At significant expense, she arranged babysitting, leave from work and farm relief.  Afterwards, she felt very isolated, and suffers from complicated grief and trauma.

Amanda Jane Mellet was 21 weeks pregnant when she was told that her foetus had congenital defects and would die in utero or shortly after birth.  Hospital staff said only that abortions were not available in Ireland and that some people “choose to travel.” The midwife advised her to contact an Irish family planning organization for information and counseling. Her doctor attempted to dissuade her from travelling to the UK for abortion. Only 12 hours after the abortion, she travelled to Ireland because she could not afford a longer stay in the U.K.  Upon her return, she was denied access to grief counselling. She still suffers from complicated grief and unresolved trauma.

In both cases, the Committee ruled that Ireland had violated the women’s rights to privacy (article 17), equality/non discrimination (article 26) and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (article 7), under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  To make amends, the Committee required Ireland to pay full reparations to both women, make psychological treatment available to them, and take measures to prevent similar violations in the future.  According to the Committee, “the State party should amend its law on voluntary termination of pregnancy, including if necessary its Constitution, to ensure compliance with the Covenant, ensuring effective, timely and accessible procedures for pregnancy termination in Ireland, and take measures to ensure that health-care providers are in a position to supply full information on safe abortion services without fearing they will be subjected to criminal sanctions” (Mellet, para. 9).

In Mellet, Judge Nigel Rodley concurred that “the refusal of the State party to allow for terminations even in the case of fatal foetal abnormality cannot even be justified as being for the protection of the (potential) life of the foetus. In addition, not only has article 7 [prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment under ICCPR] been violated cumulatively … but by the very requirement that a pregnant woman carrying a doomed foetus is subjected to the anguish of having to carry the pregnancy to term.”(Mellet p.25).

As human rights expert Christina Zampas testified (2:27-2:45) before an Irish  parliamentary committee, Ireland is obligated to comply with international human rights law, including these two decisions: “The urgency of the human rights concerns in Ireland is reflected in serious human rights violations amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as found in the Mellet and Whelan cases. The UN Human Rights Committee held in these two cases that prohibiting and criminalising abortion in situations of fatal foetal impairment subjected these women to conditions of intense physical and mental suffering, and that no justification could be invoked, nor were there extenuating circumstances to excuse such harm.”

 So far, these decisions only represent a victory for the two victims.  The Human Rights Committee ignored that the criminalization of abortion in Ireland discriminates against women on grounds of sex and gender. The Committee decided that the women’s right to equality was violated only because other women who had had spontaneous miscarriages in Ireland could access counselling services, but they could not.

Equal treatment on grounds of sex and gender demands accommodation of the biological differences between men and women in reproduction,2 not endorsement of a false legal equality created by men for men.  Both decisions overlooked that the criminalization of abortion discriminates against women because it is a medical procedure that only women need, whereas the Irish legal system does not criminalize any medical procedure that only men need. Fortunately, concurring opinions by Committee members Yadh Ben Achour and Sarah Cleveland exemplify jurisprudence that strives to understand the perspectives of women in difficult situations.

It remains to be seen whether Irish government initiatives and a referendum this year, will bring Irish law into compliance with international human rights law.

Related resources:

Ireland:  Irish Government announces referendum on abortion, by Christina Zampas, Reprohealthlaw Blog, January 31, 2017.  Commentary online.

These are #115 and #116 in our Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series. online here.
______________
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca. For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

 


“How Laws Fail the Promise of Medical Abortion,” by Patty Skuster

January 31, 2018

Congratulations to Patty Skuster, Senior Policy Advisor at Ipas and an Adjunct Professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Public Health Initiatives;  her recently published article is now publicly available through SSRN.  We thank her for abstracting this article for Reprohealthlaw subscribers:

Patty Skuster, “How Laws Fail the Promise of Medical Abortion: A Global Look,” Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 18.379, 2017.  Article online at SSRN

Abortion law has not kept pace with abortion practice, namely the rising use of abortion with pills. Evidence is growing that women can safely use misoprostol without the involvement of a healthcare professional. And researchers have attributed abortion with pills outside formal health care settings to a worldwide decrease in abortion mortality.

Meanwhile, abortion law globally and nationally remains rooted in outdated abortion methods that do require a healthcare professional.  Global human rights experts recommend governments decriminalize women who seek abortion to meet human rights treaty obligations and reduce unsafe abortion deaths. However, the vast majority of abortion laws—even recently liberalized ones—still require a health-care professional to perform or approve legal abortion. More recent laws have progressed to allow mid-level providers (instead of medical doctors) to provide legal abortion. But even in liberal settings, women who end their abortion with pills and without a provider face imprisonment.

This article includes a summary of treaty body recommendations on abortion and the right to life and health. While treaty bodies call for governments to change laws to make abortion more accessible, treaty bodies have failed to address the nearly universal criminalization of women’s self-abortion with pills. It offers examples of laws that criminalize women’s self-use: newer laws in Uruguay and Uganda, and Zambia which, like many other former British Colonies, follows the model of the United Kingdom and requires provider involvement.

To make real progress toward upholding women’s rights to health and life, human rights authorities and governments must examine provider involvement requirements in abortion laws. We must work toward laws that permit all women to realize the promise of medical abortion.

Related links:

Access to safe abortion in Uganda: Leveraging Opportunities through the Harm Reduction Model” by Moses Mulumba, Charles Kiggundu, Jacqueline Nassimbwa and Noor Musisi Nakibuuka, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 138 (August 2017): 231–236. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12190   PDF at Wiley Online Submitted text.

Updated WHO Guidance on Safe Abortion: Health and Human Rights”   by J.N. Erdman, T.  DePiñeres, and E. Kismödi, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 120 (2013): 200-203. Article online

Applying Human Rights to Improve Access to Reproductive Health Services,” by Dorothy Shaw and Rebecca J. Cook,  International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 119 (2012) S55–S59.  Article online,

Ethical and Legal Issues in Reproductive and Sexual Health80+ brief articles

______________
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – Jan. 2018

January 31, 2018

SUBSCRIBE TO REPROHEALTHLAW: To receive these updates monthly by email, enter your address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
Africa:  Madagascar – New Family Planning Act enacted Jan. 18, 2018 sweeps away the old colonial-era policy that prohibited any promotion of contraception, and recognizes reproductive health and family planning as basic human rights says Family Planning 2020.   However, planned inclusion of therapeutic abortion “sabotaged” at Senate level.   Summary by Safe Abortion.   News report in French.


CALL FOR PAPERS
Reproductive Health in Latin America (Ethical and Legal Issues welcome)
, for publication in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetics (IJGO): Re: the XXII FIGO World Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics in Rio de Janeiro in October 2018.  Submit by February 28, 2018 for peer review. IJGO guidelines and call for papers.

SCHOLARSHIP:

Abortion by telemedicine in Northern Ireland: patient and professional rights across borders, by Tamara Hervey and Sally Sheldon. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly (2017) 68.1: 1-33    Article online

[abortion law, conscientious objection, Chile]   “A critical review of conscientious objection and decriminalisation of abortion in Chile,” by Adela Montero and Raúl Villarroel,  Journal of Medical Ethics, preview online Jan. 6, 2018 

[abortion law in Sweden, Norway and Finland]  Dropping the ball or holding the line? Challenges to abortion laws in the Nordic countries, Heli Askola (Faculty of Law, Monash University)  Women’s Studies International Forum 66 (Jan-Feb 2018): 25-32.
Institutional access

[abortion Law, Uruguay]  Legal barriers to access abortion services through a human rights lens: the Uruguayan experience,” by Lucía Berro Pizzarossa, Reproductive Health Matters 26.52 (2018): preview online Jan. 17, 2018

Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies, ed. Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman and Bernard M. Dickens (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), now also in Spanish (see next entry) and in paperback, 20% discount code PH70.  English editionTable of Contents with chapter summaries. 
Abortion Decisions Online
El aborto en el derecho transnacional: casos y controversias,  ed. Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman y Bernard M. Dickens (Mexico: FCE/CIDE, 2016)   En espanol, 2016: Fondo de Cultura Económica Libreria CIDE.   Índice con resúmenes de capítulos 1-16
Decisiones Judiciales sobre aborto en línea

[Africa] Legal Grounds III: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts  (Pretoria, Pretoria University Law Press (PULP), 2017).  PDF 228 page bookPrevious volumes PDF online at CRR.      Printed edition from PULP.
Online edition with links to decisions and updates.

FIGO Bioethics Curriculum:  Introduction to Principles and Practice of Bioethics: Case Studies in Women’s Health.  Table of Contents and List of Case Studies    Curriculum in EnglishCurriculum in Spanish    Ahora en Español!

“Freedom of conscience in Europe?  An analysis of three cases of midwives with conscientious objection to abortion,” by Valerie Fleming, Beate Ramsayer, Teja Škodič Zakšek, Journal of Medical Ethics (2018) 44: 104-108  Article online.

Portuguese edition online: Reproductive Health and Human Rights:  Integrating Medicine, Ethics and Law, (Oxford University Press, 2003)  English  (Oxford Scholarship Online)  en Francais    en Portugues, 602 pages\Spanish / Español    Case Studies in Arabic

US-focused news, resources, and legal developments are available on Repro Rights Prof Blog.   View or subscribe.


NEWS:

New “Framework Convention on Global Health Alliance aims to facilitate a coordinated global treaty for the Right to “the highest attainable level of health.”  For an overview, see: “Turning the Right to Health into the Lived Reality for Everyone” by Dr. Martin Hevia (Founding Chair):  Overview online.

Canada:  Court dismisses anti-abortion group’s injunction request about refusal of Canada Summer Jobs funding.  News report.

Germany:  Doctor fined 6000 euros for illegally “advertising” abortions, having listed “abortion” among other medical specialties on her website.   It is illegal to advertise abortion services in a way that is to one’s own economic advantage.  News articleParagraph 219a of the German criminal code.

Ireland:  Government announces referendum on the 8th Amendment of the Constitution which limits abortion access, following recommendations of the Joint Committee of the Irish Parliament (the Oireachtas).  Jan. 30, 2018 newsComment by Christina Zampas.
Comment by Mercedes Cavallo.

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here

______________
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – Dec. 2017

December 20, 2017

SUBSCRIBE TO REPROHEALTHLAW: To receive these updates monthly by email, enter your address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

DEVELOPMENTS

Bolivia:   decriminalized abortion within 8 weeks of pregnancy for “students, adolescents, or girls” presumably under 18 years old.  National Assembly vote was December 6, 2017.  President will sign.  Press release from Ipas Bolivia.

Ireland:  After months of hearings, special parliamentary committee voted to recommend repealing the controversial “eighth amendment” to the Irish constitution which protects “the right to life of the unborn.”  Referendum promised in early summer 2018.  BBC Report.
See also: Christina Zampas, presentation on Ireland’s international human rights obligations: Video (see 2:27-2:45)  Transcript Oct 4, 2017.  Comment by Christina Zampas.

CALL FOR PAPERS

on Reproductive Health in Latin America (Ethical and Legal Issues welcome), for publication in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetics (IJGO): Re: the XXII FIGO World Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics in Rio de Janeiro in October 2018.  Submit by February 28, 2018 for peer review. IJGO guidelines and call for papers on Latin America

Audre Rapoport Prize for Scholarship on Gender and Human Rights is awarded annually to the winner of an interdisciplinary writing competition on international human rights and gender.   $1000 prize honors the work of Audre Rapoport (1923-2016), who advocated for women in the United States and internationally, particularly on issues of reproductive health.  University students eligible.  Submit by July 1, 2018.
Details and papers by past winners online

SCHOLARSHIP:

[Europe]  Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Europe (France: Council of Europe, Dec 2017), prepared by Leah Hoctor, Adriana Lamačková and Katrine Thomasen, with assistance from Jessica
Boulet, from the Europe Program at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Overview, Summary and 78-page Issue Paper.

[Slovakia – Discrimination against Roma women in reproductive healthcare]:
Vakeras Zorales – Speaking Out: Roma Women’s Experiences in Reproductive Health Care in Slovakia, by the Center for Reproductive Rights and the [Slovak] Center for Civil and Human Rights (Poradna)  Report online.  Overview.   44-page Report

Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies, ed. Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman and Bernard M. Dickens (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), now also in Spanish (see next entry) and in paperback, 20% discount code PH70.  English edition from U Penn PressTable of Contents with chapter summaries. 
Abortion Decisions Online

El aborto en el derecho transnacional: casos y controversias,  ed. Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman y Bernard M. Dickens (Mexico: FCE/CIDE, 2016)   En espanol, 2016: Fondo de Cultura Económica Libreria CIDE.     Índice con resúmenes de capítulos 1-16
Decisiones Judiciales sobre aborto en línea

[Africa] Legal Grounds III: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts  (Pretoria, Pretoria University Law Press (PULP), 2017).  PDF 228 page bookPrevious volumes PDF online at CRR.      Printed edition from PULP.
Online edition with links to decisions and updates.

US-focused news, resources, and legal developments are available on Repro Rights Prof Blog.   View or subscribe.


JOBS

Jobs and Fellowships Women’s Rights and Reproductive Health, in Malawi, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia.  Global Health Corps.  Apply by Jan 17, 2018  for the 2018-2019 fellowships Details online.

Reproductive Health Matters.  Director and Editor-in-Chief.  2-year renewable contract.   Apply by Jan 8, 2018.  RHM Director and Editor Position details.

Links to other employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here

______________
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


“Significados estigmatizados del derecho penal sobre el aborto,” por Rebecca Cook

December 20, 2017
 [Stigmatized Meanings of Criminal Abortion Law]

Rebecca Cook, “Significados estigmatizados del derecho penal sobre el aborto” El aborto en el derecho transnacional: Casos y controversias, editoras/es  Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman, y Bernard M. Dickens (FCE/CIDE, 2016) págs. 438-467. en español   en inglés.

El decimo sexto capítulo del El aborto en el derecho transnacional: Casos y controversias, Rebecca Cook se centra en cómo la penalización del aborto puede ser un vehículo para la creación, implementación o disputa del estigma, con el objetivo de comprender el uso de normas sobre el aborto en la generación de estigma y de explorar abordajes más concretos en el razonamiento legal sobre los efectos estigmatizadores del derecho penal. En este sentido, la autora plantea el siguiente cuestionamiento: dados sus efectos estigmatizadores, ¿cómo pueden las sociedades justificar la penalización del aborto? El capítulo esboza, primero, las justificaciones normativas de la penalización del aborto mas comunes. Luego, explora las maneras en que las sociedades utilizan esas justificaciones para crear significados sociales sobre las mujeres que, a su vez, justifican aún más la penalización. La Prof. Cook utiliza argumentos de psicología social para articular con mayor claridad los perjuicios estigmatizadores que se pueden atribuir a la penalización del aborto y los procesos que llevan a la producción de estigma, así como también para identificar los contextos en que se manifiesta.

Luego, la Prof. Cook examinan las maneras en que el derecho penal formal y las normas informales sobre aborto estigmatizan a las mujeres. En este sentido, la autora presenta el caso R. R. v. Polonia, del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, explicando las maneras en que la sentencia podría haber reconocido más claramente los perjuicios estigmatizadores que resultan de la implementación de la normativa penal sobre el aborto en Polonia, así como también de qué manera el tribunal podría haber determinado la violación del derecho de R. R. a disfrutar de estos derechos sin discriminación basada en el sexo. Como resultado de los efectos estigmatizadores de la construcción penal de las mujeres, Cook concluye que el análisis del aborto, principalmente a través del derecho penal, no está justificado.

El aborto en el derecho transnacional: casos y controversias: en españolen inglés,  Sumario y Índice General
Dos capítulos en portugués:  Capítulo 2.    Capítulo 4  
Descargar: Reseña del libro en Andamios, por Diego Garcia Ricci
Introducción y Prólogo. 

Tabla de Casos/Jurisprudencia en línea con enlaces a muchas de las decisiones judiciales

Otros capitulos de la cuarta parte del libro:
Lisa Kelly, “El tratamiento de las narrativas del sufrimiento inocente en el litigio transnacional del aborto” págs. 383-414. Resumen.
—Alejandro Madrazo, “Narrativas sobre la personalidad jurídica prenatal en la regulación del aborto,” págs. 415-437  Resumen

____________________________________

REPROHEALTHLAW:  Nuestras publicaciones en español o portugues.
Únete a este blog aquí.
Participe deste blog aqui.

 


“Narrativas sobre la personalidad jurídica prenatal en la regulación del aborto,” por Alejandro Madrazo Lajous

December 20, 2017
[Narratives of Prenatal Personhood in Abortion Law]

Alejandro Madrazo Lajous, “Narrativas sobre la personalidad jurídica prenatal en la regulación del aborto” El aborto en el derecho transnacional: Casos y controversias, editoras/es  Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman, y Bernard M. Dickens (FCE/CIDE, 2016) págs. 415-437: en españolen inglés.

Si bien la cuestión de la personalidad jurídica prenatal ha estado presente durante mucho tiempo en las discusiones jurídicas relacionadas con el aborto, las iniciativas legislativas y decisiones judiciales recientes parecen decirnos que su importancia será cada vez mayor.

En este anteúltimo capitulo de El aborto en el derecho transnacional: Casos y controversiasAlejandro Madrazo examina el significado  de  los  debates  jurídicos  en  México y otros países sobre la condición de persona del feto en relación con el ejercicio de las mujeres de sus derechos reproductivos. Su preocupación no descansa en asuntos estrictos de interpretación jurídica, sino en el papel que desempeñan en la formulación de debates públicos sobre el aborto. Dejar de lado la cuestión fundamental sobre la condición de persona del feto puede tener consecuencias catastróficas para los derechos de las mujeres en general y para sus derechos sexuales y reproductivos en particular, en parte al facilitar el uso del derecho penal en vez del derecho constitucional como modalidad de razonamiento.

Además, la  protección  de  la  personalidad  jurídica  del no nacido usualmente no es utilizada de forma crítica por sus proponentes, sino que  más  bien  es  un  argumento  para  justificar  las  restricciones  que  se  oponen a los derechos sexuales y reproductivos de las mujeres y, más específicamente, para obstaculizar su derecho a decidir. Los argumentos sobre la condición  de  persona  del  feto  permiten  narrativas  simplificadas  centradas en el acto del aborto más que en las circunstancias de las mujeres que dan lugar a embarazos no deseados.

En este capítulo, Prof. Madrazo se propone abordar las consecuencias de otorgar el estatus jurídico de Persona a la vida prenatal, a partir de un estudio de lo que ha ocurrido recientemente en varios países de América Latina, principalmente. Sus preguntas son: ¿cuáles son las consecuencias de concebir la vida prenatal, en sus diferentes etapas, como una “persona” desde la perspectiva jurídica? ¿Cuáles son las consecuencias cuando se le niega esa condición?

 El aborto en el derecho transnacional: casos y controversias:  en español    en inglés.      Sumario y Índice General
Descargar: Reseña del libro en Andamios, por Diego Garcia Ricci
Introducción y Prólogo. 

Otros capitulos de la cuarta parte del libro:
—Lisa Kelly, El tratamiento de las narrativas del sufrimiento inocente en el litigio transnacional del aborto”  págs. 383-414.   Resumen.

—Rebecca Cook, “Significados estigmatizados del derecho penal sobre el aborto,” págs. 438-467  Resumen.

Tabla de Casos/Jurisprudencia sobre aborto, con enlaces a muchas de las decisiones judiciales

____________________________________

REPROHEALTHLAW:  Nuestras publicaciones en español o portugues.
Únete a este blog aquí.
Participe deste blog aqui.