REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – Oct 2019

October 31, 2019

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:

Australia – Abortion decriminalized September 26, 2019. New South Wales (NSW), the last remaining state where it was illegal, legalized abortion up to 22 weeks for any reason, and up to birth with medical committee review. BBC Report.

[homosexuality] “Botswana High Court decriminalizes homosexuality. Letsweletse Motshidiemang v Attorney General,[2019] MAHGB-000591-16, Decision of June 11, 2019. (High Court of Botswana). Decision online.   Case comment by Kutlwano Pearl Magashula, Other African court cases from our “Legal Grounds” series.

Mexico: Supreme Court abortion ruling upholds human right to health in the case of “Marisa”/”Jane Doe”:  Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Primera Sala, Amparo en Revisión 1388/2015  May 15, 2019. Decision in Spanish.   English translation. Videos from Harvard conference with 2 Mexican SC judges. Expert blogposts by Court clerks: Adriana Ortega on “risk to health” in the decision; David García Sarubbi: on Fundamental right to health and judicial review; Patricia del Arenal Urueta, on “Rights” discourse in Mexico. Estefanía Vela Barba, LL.M., comments on gender perspective, international law, and a path to decriminalization. Overview of these resources.

[Northern Ireland] Sarah Ewart v  NI Departments of Justice and Health, October 3, 2019. (High Court of Belfast)  Court followed the ruling of the UK Supreme Court  that  Northern Ireland  abortion law is incompatible with ECHR Article 8 in relation to fatal foetal abnormality (“FFA”).  Court also ruled that applicant Ms Ewart has standing to bring a challenge to the current legislation.  Official summary

[Northern Ireland] Abortion decriminalized by the United Kingdom, October 22, 2019, in absence of devolved Northern Irish government. Regulations for abortion provision must be in place by March 2020. Same sex weddings also legalized. First weddings in February 2020. BBC report.

[Tanzania, child marriage] Attorney General vs Rebeca Z. Gyumi (Civil Appeal No.204 of 2017) [2019] TZCA 348; (23 October 2019) High Court of Appeals upheld 2016 decision that Third party consent to marriage of girls under 18 is unconstitutional.] 52-page Decision onlineBlog about 2016 decision. Article about 2016 decision.

SCHOLARSHIP

[abortion and human rights] “Extending the Right to Life Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: General Comment 36,” by Sarah Joseph, Human Rights Law Review 19.2 (June 2019): 347–368. Institutional access.

[abortion law, Ireland] “The Last Holdout: Ireland, the Right to Abortion and the European Federal Human Rights System” by Federico Fabbrini. iCourts Working Paper Series, No. 142, 2018. Abstract and article.

[abortion law, Ireland] “‘The Only Lawyer on the Panel’: Anti-Choice Lawfare in the Battle for Abortion Law Reform,” by Fiona de Londras and Máiréad Enright. Forthcoming in Kath Browne & Sydney Calkin, “After Repeal: The Future of Women’s Reproductive Rights” (Zed Books, 2019) Submitted text.

[abortion law, Mexico] “The Mexican Supreme Court’s latest abortion ruling:  In between formalities, a path to decriminalization.” by Estefanía Vela Barba, Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series, October 31, 2019.  Full comment

[abortion law, Mexico and Latin America] “Abortion Battles in Mexico and Beyond: The Role of Law and the Courts,” proceedings of conference by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, held October 4, 2019, Videos of all presentations

[African sexual, racial and cultural diversity] Charles Ngwena interviewed on Africa Rights Talk: Aug. 19, 2019: (26-min. podcast) about his book, What is Africanness? : Contesting nativism in culture, race and sexualities (Pretoria University Law Press (PULP), 2018) 306 pages. Download Free PDF or order paperback.

[child marriage, Tanzania] “The analysis of child marriage and third party consent in the case of Rebeca Z. Gyumi v Attorney General Miscellaneous Civil Case no 5 of 2016 Tanzania High Court at Dar es Salaam,” by Norah Hashim Msuya, Ph.D, [2019] De Jure Law Journal 52 (2019): 295-315 Article online.

[conscience] “Selective Conscientious Objection in Healthcare, by Christopher Cowley in The New Bioethics 25.3 (2019): 236-247 ( Part of a special issue on Conscience in Healthcare) Abstract and Article.

“Post-abortion care:  Ethical and Legal Duties,” by Bernard M. Dickens, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2019; 147: 273–278.   PDF at Wiley Online.    Submitted text at SSRN. FIGO guidelines and other resources.

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

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


Mexican Supreme Court’s abortion ruling affirms the human right to health

October 31, 2019

Many thanks and congratulations to Estefanía Vela Barba,* whose summary and analysis of the latest Mexican Supreme Court abortion ruling** is now published in our Reprohealthlaw Commentaries series, online here.

[Cite as:]    Estefanía Vela Barba, “The Mexican Supreme Court’s latest abortion ruling:  In between formalities, a path to decriminalization.”  Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series, October 31, 2019.  Full comment

In the initial summary, Estefanía states that “the Court’s First Chamber held that denying women access to abortion violates their right to health.”
She then explains how by adopting a “gender perspective,” the Court overcame the usual “indirect discrimination” against pregnant women through amparo proceedings, which usually come to trial long after the injustice becomes irreversible or irrelevant.  This insight allowed consideration of the merits of the case.

In this case, she notes, “The Court conceptualized a robust right to health, relying both on constitutional and international law provisions [such as the San Salvador Protocol and CESCR’s General Comment No. 14.] to flesh it out.    Using this framework, the Court held that:

‘if a health condition – be it physical, mental or social–  appears or worsens with the pregnancy for causes directly or indirectly related to it, this state of health is sufficient to consider the interruption of the pregnancy as a therapeutic action aimed at solving the risk of a pregnant woman progressing towards a more serious health condition.’     [para 103]

Denying such a therapeutic action is denying women their right to health.”   Thus, the Court concluded that, although Mexico’s “General Health Law did not explicitly contemplate access to abortion, health authorities must  ‘apply and interpret the provisions of its regulatory framework to make them compatible’ with the right to health, thus understood. Given that authorities failed to do so, and denied the plaintiff access to abortion, the Court deemed that they violated her right to health.”

Although the ruling “did not explicitly deem abortion criminalization unconstitutional . . .  it certainly laid the groundwork for it.”  In the case of “Marisa,” the refusal of therapeutic abortion was based on the General Health Law, so the Court ignored the role played by criminalization of abortion.  Therefore, Estefanía concludes, “It seems that in order for the Court to apply its right-to-health framework to criminal law, it needs to be presented with a case in which criminal law is explicitly invoked.”
Estefanía Vela Barba’s full case comment is online here.
__________________________
Adriana Ortega Ortiz, LL.M., Director of the Supreme Court’s Gender Equality Unit served as Court Clerk for this case,  has explained “How to understand the Mexican Supreme Court’s decision regarding abortion based on health risks,” (Explanation online),  and also translated the ruling into English (translation online.)   

This English translation has fostered international legal discussion.  At the Harvard Law School’s recent conference on “Abortion Battles in Mexico and Beyond: The Role of Law and the Courts,” two of the Supreme Court judges, Justice González Alcántara and Justice Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena, delivered keynote addresses in English, amid presentations by other experts (e.g., on abortion ban in El Salvador).  Videos online.

Two other clerks of the Supreme Court of Mexico have published insights from other perspectives:
—–David García Sarubbi, “The Fundamental Right to Health and Judicial Review in México”
—–_Patricia del Arenal Urueta, “Amparo en Revisión 1388/2015 and the “Rights” Discourse in Mexico
____________
* Estefanía Vela Barba holds an LL.M. from the Yale Law School, where she is currently developing her doctoral research. She is also Executive Director of Intersecta, a feminist research and advocacy organization committed to ending gender discrimination in Mexico, through the promotion of intersectional and evidence-based policies.
____________
** Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Primera Sala,  Amparo en Revisión 1388/2015 [Case of “Marisa”/”Jane Doe”]  May 15, 2019.  Decision in Spanish.    English translation  now on updated Abortion Law Decisions webpage.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series.
TO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


Botswana High Court decriminalizes homosexuality

October 31, 2019

Many thanks to Kutlwano Pearl Magashula, an LL.M. student in the Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Africa program at the University of Pretoria’s Centre of Human Rights, for her summary and analysis of the recent judgment in Letsweletse Motshidiemang v Attorney General [2019] MAHGB-000591-16 (High Court of Botswana)   Decision of June 11, 2019, in which the Court struck down sections of the Penal Code that criminalized same-sex sexual intercourse.

(Cite as:) Kutlwano Pearl Magashula, “Botswana High Court decriminalizes homosexuality: Letsweletse Motshidiemang v Attorney General, 2019” online at: “Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts” 5-page case summary and comment

We are pleased to excerpt her comments about the significance of this ruling:

The case made a watershed finding that recognized the rights of LGBT persons in Botswana. The Court found that sodomy laws do not serve any useful public purpose and in fact ‘deserve archival mummification, or better still, a museum peg, shelf or cabinet for archival display.’ The Court found that the question of private morality and decency between consenting adults should not be the concern of the law. This was an important consideration that essentially challenged the harmful precedent made in the earlier Kanane decision which allowed public morality to limit the exercise of rights of LGBT persons. This [new] decision reaffirms the argument by Cook and Ngwena that issues of sexual and reproductive health and rights should not be determined based on religion, morality or sentiment, but rather on the basis of evidence and fact.[1]

Further, the Court determined that “sex” as used in section 3 of the Botswana Constitution includes “sexual orientation.” This interpretation is in line with the findings of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which has noted that the phrase ‘other status’ in human rights instruments must be interpreted broadly to cover sexual minorities, including LGBT persons.[2] Moreover, the decision is consistent with Botswana’s obligations as a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) the Human Rights Committee of which has also stated that laws criminalizing consenting sexual conduct between adults, amount to violations of the rights to privacy and equality. [3] This generous and wide interpretation was critical for ensuring the continued protection of sexual minorities in Botswana beyond this individual case. Given that section 15 of the Constitution of Botswana does not prohibit discrimination on grounds of ‘other status,’ this constitutes a milestone in the recognition of the rights of LGBT persons in the country.

Finally, faced with arguments that it should exercise restraint and defer to Parliament to make necessary changes in the law, the Court stayed faithful to its role in the protection of human rights and stated that it had the jurisdictional authority to intervene as the ultimate defender of the Constitution.

This case is very significant for the [African] region, where issues relating to same sex relationships are treated cautiously and in a frugal manner. Indeed, in many African countries, there have been renewed attempts at criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct particularly in the wake of the HIV epidemic in the region.[5] Rather than address LGBT health needs, these criminalization attempts have fueled violence and violations of human rights of LGBT people. In response to this challenge, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Resolution 275 condemns all forms of violence and human rights abuses against an individual based on their real or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity.[6] This resolution has been hailed as a significant development in protecting and promoting the rights of LGBT persons in the African region. The findings of this case not only affirmed Resolution 275 but showcased a domestic response to regional efforts in combatting discrimination and violence against sexual minorities. [Read entire case comment].


[1] R Cook and C Ngwena ‘Women’s access to health care: The legal framework” (2006) 94 International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 216-225. Article online.

[2] See UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General comment No. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights (art. 2, para. 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 2 July 2009, E/C.12/GC/2. General Comment 20.

[3] Toonen v Australia, Communication No. 488/1992. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 31 March 1994
Human Rights Committee decision.

[4] The Court in this case found that gay men and women did not represent a group or class which was shown to require protection under the Constitution.

[5] See PM Eba, ‘HIV-specific legislation in sub-Saharan Africa: A comprehensive human rights analysis’ (2015) 15 African Human Rights Law Journal 224-262.

[6] ACHPR/Res.275 (LV) 2014: Resolution on Protection against Violence and other Human Rights Violations against Persons on the basis of their real or imputed Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity adopted during the 55th Ordinary Session held in Luanda, Angola, from 28 April to 12 May 2014. Resolution 275 online.
___________

Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts (2017), volume III, updated online edition, now includes 5 court rulings about “Sexual Orientation” and another 6 about “Recognition of LGBTIQ Advocacy and Groups.” Online edition with updates.

Botswana High Court decriminalizes homosexuality: Entire case comment (5 pages)

(Cite as:)  Kutlwano Pearl Magashula, “Botswana High Court decriminalizes homosexuality: Letsweletse Motshidiemang v Attorney General, 2019, online at: Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts. Online here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – Sept 2019

September 30, 2019

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:

[Africa, Mali] APDF & IHRDA v Republic of Mali (Association pour le Progrés et la Défense des Droits des Femmes Maliennes (APDF) and The Institute For Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) v. Republic Of Mali, Application No. 046/2016, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. (2018) Decision of May 11, 2018  PDF.  Decision online .
Case Summary and Comment by LL.M. student George Sakyi Asumadu

SCHOLARSHIP:

[abortion] “The Moral Agency of Abortion Providers: Conscientious Provision, Dangertalk, and the Lived Experience of Doing Stigmatized Work,” by Lisa Harris, in: Ethical Issues in Women’s Healthcare: Practice and Policy, ed. Lori d’Agincourt-Canning and Carolyn Ells (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019). Abstracts and Table of Contents of Book. Publisher’s abstract of book.

[abortion, Northern Ireland] “Evaluating the Need to Reform Northern Ireland’s Abortion Law from a Human Rights Perspective,” by Zoe Louise Tongue, Cambridge Law Review 4 (2019): 121-150. Institutional access.

[conscience, Australia] “Medical Referral for Abortion and Freedom of Conscience in Australian Law,” by Joanne Howe and Suzanne Le Mire, 34 Journal of Law & Religion 85 (2019) Institutional access.

Conscientious Objection / The Right to Conscience – annotated bibliography, International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, updated May 9 2019 Annotated bibliography

[Malawi] Woes of the Womb: An Investigation into allegations of medical malpractices resulting in removal of uteruses from expectant women in public health facilities, SYS/INV/2/2019 (Republic of Malawi: Office of the Ombudsman, August 2019) includes preventable deaths of mothers and infants. 37-page Ombudsman report. Overview by G. Kangaude and C. Sibande.

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

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


African Court ruling: Mali’s child marriage laws violate human rights

September 30, 2019

Many thanks to George Sakyi Asumadu, an LL.M student in Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Africa at the Centre for Human Rights in the University of Pretoria’s Faculty of Law, for summarizing and commenting on the significance of this landmark decision on age of marriage, gender discrimination, and violations of rights through customary law. We are pleased to excerpt this overview of the Court ruling and provide links to the full Case C.

APDF & IHRDA v Republic of Mali (Association pour le Progrés et la Défense des Droits des Femmes Maliennes (APDF) and The Institute For Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) v. Republic Of Mali), Application No. 046/2016, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. (2018)  Decision of May 11, 2018  PDF.  Decision online . Case Comment by George Sakyi Asumadu.

COURT HOLDING: The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (The Court) held that it had jurisdiction over the case, since Mali had ratified the treaties under contention. The case was also admissible before it because it conformed with Article 6(2) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Rule 40(6) of the Court.

 The Court further held that the Persons and Family Code  (Family Code)  violated Articles 1(3), 2, 3, 4 and 21  of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of Children (Children’s African Charter); Articles 2(2), 6(a) and (b), and 21(2) of the  Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa  (Maputo Protocol); and  Articles 5(a), 16(a) and (b) of The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women  (CEDAW) which the state has ratified. These violations were in relation to child marriage, consent to marriage, discriminatory inheritance and marriage practices. The Court held Mali culpable of these violations, proposing amendments and other revisions to the Family Code. [. . . ]

Read more: APDF & IHRDA v Republic of Mali, 2018: Case Comment by George Sakyi Asumadu.
__________________
See also: Domestic Decisions on child marriage, summarized in Legal Grounds III: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts (Pretoria: Pretoria University Law Press, 2017)  
Online edition with updates.     Earlier volumes online.

Mudzuru & Another v Ministry of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs (N.O.) & Others (Const. Application No. 79/14) [2015] ZWCC 12 (20 January 2016);  [Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe outlawed child marriage under 18 years old.]  Decision online

Nvumeleni Jezile v The State and 7 Others [2015], High Court Case No. A 127/2014 (High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town).  [Customary marriage practices are not justification for abduction and rape of a girl of 14.]   Decision onlineDecision PDF.

Rebeca Z. Gyumi v The Attorney General,
Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 5 of 2016, High Court of Tanzania.  Date of Judgment: 8/7/2016,  [Third-party consent to marriage of girls under 18 is unconstitutional] Decision online

Child Marriage: Legal and Socio-Cultural Aspects” thematic highlight by Godfrey Kangaude.
________________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.  


REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – August 2019

August 26, 2019

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.

COLLOQUIUM:

Overcoming Barriers to Safe Abortion in the African Region, 16-17 January 2020, at the University of Pretoria’s Centre for Human Rights. Details, funding, topics, and Call for Abstracts

DEVELOPMENTS:

El Salvador – Young woman acquitted of aggravated homicide after miscarriage in 2016. Evelyn Hernandez Cruz was released on appeal, July 10, 2019. News report.

Germany: Higher court overturns doctor’s conviction for “advertising” abortion among other health services, in light of recent legal reform. News report, July 3, 2019.

Kenya – Case of “JMM,” a teenager who died in 2015 after botched illegal abortion.  The High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Constitutional and Human Rights Division, declared that abortion is permitted for rape victims. It also ruled that the Ministry of Health’s 2014 withdrawal of abortion “Standards and Guidelines” and abortion trainings for healthcare professionals, were arbitrary and unlawful. Federation of Women Lawyers (Fida – Kenya) & 3 others v Attorney General & 2 others; East Africa Center for Law & Justice & 6 others (Interested Party) & Women’s Link Worldwide & 2 others (Amicus Curiae) [2019] eKLR, Petition No. 266 of 2015.   Decision of June 11, 2019.   News report.    Press release by Center for Reproductive Rights.

Northern Ireland – U.K. bill to maintain Northern Ireland’s public services during governmental hiatus includes decriminalized abortion and same-sex marriage. Bill was signed into law July 24, 2019, to take effect October 22, 2019. Time Magazine: “After 158 Years.”

United Kingdom: Court of Appeal upholds legality of a buffer zone around a London abortion clinic.  Dulgheriu and Orthova v. the London Borough for Civil Liberties and The National Council for Civil Liberties [2019] EWCA Civ 1490, Case No: C1/2018/1699 Court of Appeal (Civil Division). (Decision of August 21, 2019Report by Safe Abortion.

United Nations, International Law Commission, UN 71st session, A/CN.4/L.935 May 15, 2019, adopted new edition of “Crimes against Humanity” treaty, which “removed the outdated definition of gender … [It] affirmed that the rights of women, LGBTIQ persons, and other marginalized groups are protected in international criminal law, which will have ripple effects across national laws and future legal mechanisms for years to come,” according to Jessica Stern et al. New edition of Treaty.

SCHOLARSHIP:

[abortion law, Brazil] “Why is decriminalization necessary?  by the Anis Bioethical Institute (Brasilia, 2019).  The booklet is now available in English, Spanish and Portuguese : scroll down on this webpage.

[abortion law, Chile ] “Criminalisation under scrutiny: how constitutional courts are changing their narrative by using public health evidence in abortion cases,” by Verónica Undurraga, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 2019;27(1) DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2019.1620552 Article and abstract

[abortion law, Mexico] “Motherhood or Punishment: The criminalization of abortion in Mexico.” English 57-page report, 2019, English executive summary. Based on “Maternidad o Castigo:  La criminalización del aborto en Mexico,”  (Mexico, GIRE, 2018)  Informe de 72 paginas

[abortion law – United Kingdom] “Female Autonomy, Foetal Personhood and the English Legal Stance on Abortion Practice,” by Sahra Paula Thomet, Queen Mary Law Journal 10 (2019): 27-50. Institutional Access.

[abortion pill – Canada] “To Solve Abortion Pill Prescription Problems, We need to Rethink the Prescription Itself” by Professor Joanna Erdman, Dalhousie Law School, July 17, 2019 Newspaper Comment.

[age-of-marriage, Mali] “A commentary on the African Court’s decision in the case APDF and IHRDA v Republic of Mali: why socio-cultural endemic factors of a society could never support arguments based on force majeure” by Giulia Pecorella,  International Law Blog, January 14, 2019.  Comment online. Decision PDF.

“Gender Equality, Norms, and Health” 5-part series in The Lancet Vol. 393 provides new analysis and insights into the impact of gender inequalities and norms on health, and opportunities to transform them. ArticlesGender Equality Norms and Health series.

“Integrating Gender Perspectives  in Gynaecology and Obstetrics: Engaging Medical Colleges in Maharashtra, India,” by Sangeeta Rege,  Padma Bhate-Deosthali, Pravin Shingare, Srinivas Gadappa, Sonali Deshpande, Nandkishore Gaikwad, and Shailesh Vaidya, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 146 (2019): 132–138    PDF at Wiley OnlineSubmitted text at SSRN.

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

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – June 2019

June 28, 2019

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:

[abortion, Germany]: Two more doctors fined for “advertising” abortion.  Newspaper report.  Criminal restrictions on abortion “advertising” restricts information provision – comment by Stephanie Schlitt.

[abortion, United Kingdom] UK Appeal court overturns forced abortion ruling. Termination had been said to be in best interests of woman with learning disabilities. The Guardian newspaper.

[abortion law, Croatia]:  Constitutional Court decision of February 21, 2017.  Rješenje Ustavnog Suda Republike Hrvatske, broj: U-I-60/1991 i dr. od 21.veljace 2017.  Decision in Croatian.  Summary from CRR.   Court’s press release.   New: Judgment translated into English.    I-CONnect Symposium online.

[abortion law, Mexico]  Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Primera Sala [Supreme Court] 2019,  Amparo en Revisión 1388/2015
[Case of “Marisa,” ruled that abortion should be allowed when mother’s health at risk]  May 15, 2019.  Decision in Spanish.   Backup copy.

[Costa Rica] Emergency contraception (Levonorgestrel) approved by Ministry of Health, for sale without prescription.  News article.

[homosexuality rulings]:
“Botswana’s High Court decriminalizes gay sex.”  June 12, 2019.  New York Times report.
“India: [Supreme] Court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling,” Sept 6, 2018.  BBC Report.
“Kenya: High Court upholds a ban on gay sex.”  EG & 7 others v Attorney General; DKM & 9 others Petition 150 & 234 of 2016 (consolidated), decision May 24, 2019  Decision online.    New York Times report.  Activists plan to appeal. Human Rights Watch report.

SCHOLARSHIP:

[abortion law, Brazil, Portuguese and English article]
—— “Constitucionalização do aborto no Brasil: uma análise a partir do caso da gravidez anencefálica,” por Marta Rodriguez de Assis Machado y Rebecca J. Cook. Revista Direito e Práxis, Ahead of print, Rio de Janeiro, 2019. DOI: 10.1590/2179-8966/2019/43406
Disponível em: Portugues, antes da impressão.
Resumo en Portugues.

—— “Constitutionalizing abortion in Brazil,” Marta Rodriguez de Assis Machado y Rebecca J. Cook. Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 5, n. 3, p. 185-231, set./dez. 2018. DOI: 10.5380/rinc.v5i3.60973. Article in English. Abstract and related resources.

[abortion law, Chile] The misrepresentation of conscientious objection as a new strategy of resistance to abortion decriminalisation,” by Verónica Undurraga and Michelle Sadler, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.2 (2019):1–3.  Abstract on Reprohealthlaw.   Article online

[abortion law, Croatia]: “Symposium: The 2017 Croatian Constitutional Court’s Abortion Ruling,” International Journal of Constitutional Law Blog (I-CONnect), June 15-18, 2019) includes comments from 3 legal scholars:
—— “Reconciling with the Past, Looking to the Future,” by Prof. Djordje Gardašević  Introduction
—— “A Nominal Win for Reproductive Freedom,” by Prof. Ana Horvat Vuković   Reproductive Freedom.
—— “Finding Common Ground amid Differences in Approach,” by Prof. Sonia Human  Common Ground.

[abortion law, South Korea] “Punishment for Abortion will Vanish from Korea’s Criminal Code: the April 2019 Constitutional Court Decision,” by Professor Hyunah Yang, Seoul National University School of Law  Commentary on Reprohealthlaw.

[USA]:  Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories (Law Stories Series), ed. Melissa Murray, Katherine Shaw, and Reva B. Siegel. Foundation Press, 2019. includes litigation stories behind important cases. Publisher’s summary.   Symposium about the book

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

REPORTS

[Dominican Republic] “I Felt Like the World Was Falling Down on Me,”  Adolescent Girls’ Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in the Dominican Republic (New York: Human Rights Watch, June 18, 2019)     Report in English.   en Español

[Honduras]  “Life or Death Choices for Women Living Under Honduras’ Abortion Ban,” (Human Rights Watch, 2019) Report in English.    en Español

[sex education – Canada] Canadian Guidelines for Sexual Health Education (updated edition, SIECAN (Sex Information & Education Council of Canada), May 1, 2019)  Guidelines, in Englishet en Francais.

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.