REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – 2023-24

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

DEVELOPMENTS

[Argentina, preventable maternal death,”obstetric violence”] Britez Arce et. al. v. Argentina. (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 16, 2022). Decision in English. Decision in Spanish. Press Release Jan 18, 2023. Comment by CRR. [Earlier: Merits report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Report 236/19, Case 13.002. Report in English-download.)

[Bolivia, rape of a minor, revictimization] Losado v Bolivia (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 18, 2022) English press release Jan 19, 2023 Summary in Spanish. Decision in Spanish. The Court held Bolivia responsible for gender and child discrimination, and revictimization of an adolescent victim of sexual violence during the judicial process.

[Colombia, abortion decriminalized] Sentencia C-055-22.  Expediente D-13.956. Demanda de inconstitucionalidad contra el artículo 122 de la Ley 599 del 2000. (Constitutional Court of Colombia, February 21, 2022). Decision in Spanish (414 pages).  Backup decision in Spanish.  Unofficial English translation. 27-page Spanish press release.  English summary of Press Release.  1-page Spanish press release. [Abortion is decriminalized within 24 weeks of gestation, and thereafter permitted on specified grounds.] 

[El Salvador, abortion, anencephaly] Beatriz v. El Salvador, Case 13-378, Report No. 09/20, Inter-Am. C.H.R. (2020) (Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, January 5, 2022): Report in Spanish. Case Summary in Spanish.  Press release in English. [Woman with lupus and kidney failure denied abortion for fetus with anencephaly.] Inter-American Court of Human Rights held hearings in March 2023.

France made abortion a fundamental constitutional right. March 4, 2024. Parliamentarians voted to revise the country’s 1958 constitution to enshrine women’s “guaranteed freedom” to abort. News report in English.

[Mexico, Abortion decriminalized], Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación [Supreme Court], 2023..Review of Constitutional Protection. Amparo en revisión 267/2023. Sept. 6, 2023. Speaker: Justice Ana Margarita Ríos Farjat. Decided September 6, 2023. Official Press release in Spanish.   [Abortion is decriminalized throughout Mexico.]

[Northern Ireland, UN CEDAW] Report of the Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, (2018) U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1  Original CEDAW 2018 report.  Comments by Clare Pierson. [abortion, a crime in Northern Ireland following sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against Persons Act 1861, was legalized in 2020.]
—Follow-up report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 16 January 2023, published March 14, 2023 as CEDAW/C/OP.*/GBR/3/Add.1.  Followup report in different formats, English, French and Spanish.  [Among other reforms, Northern Ireland established a Gender Equality Strategy Expert Advisory Panel whose Report of December 2020 is online here]. 

[Peru, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child] Camila v. Peru, Communication No. 136/2021.U.N. Doc CRC/C/93/D/136/2021 (June 13, 2023) Decision online in Spanish, Arabic and Russian.  Decision in English (May 25, 2023, *unofficial draft). Case note by Godfrey Kangaude.  [Child raped by her father. Ruling: Peru violated child rape victim’s rights by failing to guarantee access to abortion and criminally prosecuting her for self-abortion.]

[Peru, child marriage] Ley N.º 31945 to prohibit and eliminate any possibility of marriage with minors under the age of 18 was promulgated on 25 November 2023. Prior to the new legislation, Article 42 of Peru’s Civil Code permitted adolescents to marry from the age of 14 under certain conditions, with consent from at least one parent, despite the minimum legal age of marriage being 18 years for girls and boys. Context in English.

[Poland, ECtHR ruled against fetal abnormality abortion ban] M.L. v. POLAND (Application no. 40119/21) (European Court of Human Rights, December 14, 2023) [Woman forced to travel for abortion of malformed fetus. Court found violation of ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR, following a 2020 Constitutional Court ban on legal abortion in case of foetal abnormalities. Press release. Decision of 14 Dec 2023.

[Poland, fetal abnormality risk, inadmissible] A.M. and others v. Poland (application no. 4188/21, 4957/21, 5014/21,5523/21, 5876/21, 6114/21, 6217/21, 8857/21) (European Court of Human Rights, May 16, 2023) ruled these 8 cases inadmissible because each applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of the ECHR owing to risk of a future violation. Press Release. Decision of 16 May 2023.

[Spain, access to abortion information] Tribunal Supremo de España, Sala Tercera, de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección 4ª, S 1231/2022, 3 Oct. 2022 (Rec. 6147/2021)  Decision in Spanish.  Spanish backup copy.  Decision in English.  English backup copy. [The Government cannot block public access to a website containing information or opinions without judicial authorization.  This includes the site of Women on Web, which discusses access to abortion.

[Turkey, abortion for rape victim], [Case of] R.G. [GK], B. No: 2017/31619, 23/7/2020,.July 23, 2020. (Grand Chamber of the Turkish Constitutional Court)   27-page decision in Turkish. Backup copy. Official press release in English. Backup copy.  Comment  in English on IACL/AIDC Blog. Article in English from a Turkish Journal of Constitutional Law  [procrastination after rape victim applied for abortion violated the right to protect one’s corporeal and spiritual existence (provided under Article 17 of Turkish Constitution.

[UK – challenge to fetal abnormality ground for abortion] R (on the Application of Crowter and Ors) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care EWCA Civ 1559 Case No: CA-2021-000314 (UK Court of Appeal (Civil Division) London, 25 Nov., 2022, Judgment summary. Decision online.  [UK legislation allowing abortion for substantial risk of a born child’s serious handicap (such as Down syndrome) is not incompatible with disabled persons’ human rights to respect for their private and family life and to nondiscrimination.] This was an appeal of [2021] EWHC 2536 (Admin) Case No. CO/2066/2020 (High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, London) Sept 23, 2021.  Judgment and summary.    [fetus has no established rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), so UK abortion law allowing legal abortions in cases of severe fetal abnormalities is compatible with ECHR.]

[Venezuela, obstetric violence] Inter-American Court of Human Rights – Case of Rodríguez Pacheco et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2023. Series C No. 504. Press release in English. Official Summary in Spanish. 82-page judgment in Spanish. Download partial dissent by Judge Sierra Porto. Download: partial dissent by Judge Pérez Goldberg. The Court ruled that Venezuela is responsible for deficiencies in Judicial Proceedings on a Complaint of acts of obstetric violence and medical malpractice that took place in a private hospital.

SCHOLARSHIP

[comparative abortion law] Rebecca J. Cook and Bernard M. Dickens, “Abortion,” in Jan M. Smits, Jaakko Husa, Catherine Valcke and Madalena Narciso, eds., Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, 3rd ed., (Cheltenham, UK: Elgar Publishing, 2023), 3-11. Abstract online here. Full text and PDF online

[abortion law, Colombia] “The new Colombian law on abortion,” by Isabel C Jaramillo Sierra, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 160.1 (January 2023): 345-350.  Abstract and Article. 

[abortion law and policy] “Self managed abortion: aligning law and policy with medical evidence,” by Patty Skuster, Heidi Moseson and Jamila Perritt, in International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 160.2 (February 2023): 720-725. Abstract and Article.  

[abortion law and policy, guideline] “The WHO Abortion Care Guideline: Law and Policy–Past, Present and Future,” by Joanna N. Erdman, in International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 162.3 (Sept 2023): 1119–1124. Abstract and Article.  WHO Abortion Care guideline, 2022.

[adolescents, Africa] “Integrating child rights standards in contraceptive and abortion care for minors in Africa,” by Godfrey Dalitso Kangaude, Catriona Macleod, Ernestina Coast and Tamara Fetters, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 159.3 (December 2022): 998-1004.   Abstract and Article.

[Africa, Zimbabwe, rewrite abortion decision, gender equality] Charles Ngwena and Rebecca J. Cook, “Restoring Mai Mapingure’s Equal Citizenship,” In: Rebecca J. Cook, ed., Frontiers of Gender Equality: Transnational Legal Perspectives (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2023). Abstract online.  Book available here. Introduction to the book (by Rebecca Cook).

[gender equality, health, CEDAW GR 24] “Gender Equality in Health Care: Reenvisioning CEDAW General Recommendation 24,” by Joanna N. Erdman and Mariana Prandini Assis, in Frontiers of Gender Equality: Transnational Legal Perspectives, ed. Rebecca J. Cook (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2023). Abstract online in English. Portuguese translation of this chapter. Book available here. Introduction to the book (by Rebecca Cook).

[gender equality] Rebecca J. Cook, “Many Paths to Gender Equality,” Introduction to: Frontiers of Gender Equality: Transnational Legal Perspectives (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2023). Introduction online.

[infertility] “”Human Rights Approaches to Reducing Infertility,” by Payal K. Shah and Jaime M. Gher, in International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.162.1 (July 2023): 368–374.  Abstract and Article. 

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.

______________
Contributed by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our Publications,  Research 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.

REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – Feb/March 2020

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

DEVELOPMENTS

[CEDAW] S.F.M. v. Spain. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women urges reparations to a woman who suffered lasting physical and mental trauma during childbirth, and recommends public policies to combat obstetric violence (verbal or physical abuse or mistreatment during childbirth). CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018, Decision of 28 Feb 2020. Press release. Decision in Spanish.

[Colombia] Constitutional Court declines to consider anti-choice petition, allowing three exceptions to criminal law against abortion to continue. March 2, 2020. Expediente D-13225, Boletín No. 25:     Decision in Spanish.  News article in English.  Safe Abortion article in English.

[England]: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has approved “Temporary approval for home use for both stages of early medical abortion” (up to 10 weeks), due to COVID-19 pandemic. Government announcement, March 30, 2020. RCOG Guidance for Health Professionals, version 1, March 21, 2020.

European Court of Human Rights dismisses complaint of conscientious objector who could not secure job as a midwife in Sweden. Case of Grimmark v. Sweden,   App. No. 43726/17, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2020)  Decision online.  Backup copy. Overview by Prof. Bernard M. Dickens.

New Zealand decriminalizes abortion, reclassifying it as a medical procedure, available on request within first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion Legislation Act 2020 (2020/6) received royal assent March 23, 2020. New legislation. News report.

Northern Ireland – will allow abortion on request within 12 weeks, March 31, 2020. “A new legal framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland: Implementation of the legal duty under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. UK government document. BBC news report.

[Thailand] Constitutional Court ruled that Criminal Code section 301 concerning penalties for abortion violates the 2017 Constitution sections 27, 28, which endorse equal rights between men and women, as well as the right and liberty of everyone in his/her life and person. Decision of February 19, 2020, summarized in: News report.

SCHOLARSHIP

[Abortion, Australia (NSW)] “Abortion Decriminalisation in New South Wales: An Analysis of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2019 (NSW), by Anna Walsh and Tiana Legge, Journal of Law and Medicine, 30 Nov 2019, 27(2):325-337 Article online.

[abortion, Australia (SA)] “Abortion: A Review of South Australian Law and Practice,” by the Southern Australian Law Reform Institute(SALRI), Report 13 (October 2019), submitted to Attorney General Dec. 5, 2019, recommendations for planned decriminalization. 506-page report. News report.

[abortion, Belgium] “Late Termination of Pregnancy in Belgium: Exploring Its Legality and Scope,” byFien De Meyer – European Journal of Health Law 27.1 (2020): 9-34 Abstract and Article.

[abortion law, Canada] “When there are no abortion laws: A case study of Canada,” by Dorothy Shaw, Wendy V. Norman, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 49-62. Abstract and related resources. Article online.

“Abortion in Ireland,” Feminist Review 124.1 (March 2020), Special issue includes:
— Introduction to the Themed Issue,” by Sydney Calkin, Fiona de Londras, Gina Heathcote.
—[Ireland] ‘A Hope Raised and then Defeated’? the Continuing Harms of Irish Abortion Law, by Fiona de Londras
—[El Salvador] ‘Repeal the 8th’ in a Transnational Context: The Potential of SRHRs for Advancing Abortion Access in El Salvador, by Rebecca Smyth
—-[Italy] The Ambivalence of Law: Some Observations on the Denial of Access to Abortion Services in Italy, by Elena Caruso

Abortion Law Decisions webpage, with links to court decisions, updated March 2020, is online here in English… y en Espanol.

[abortion, Mexico] “Abortion Rights and Human Rights in Mexico, by Jennifer Nelson, chapter in Reproductive Justice and Sexual Rights: Transnational Perspectives, ed. Tanya Saroj Bakhru (New York: Routledge, 2019; 264 pp. About the book.

[abortion, U.K.] “Decriminalising Abortion in the UK- What Would It Mean?” ed. Sally Sheldon and Kaye Wellings. (Bristol: Policy Press, March 23, 2020) 112 pages, Open Access book.

Women’s Health and the Limits of the Law: Domestic and International Perspectives, ed. Irehobhude O. Iyioha (Routledge, 2020), Book information. Chapters include:
—“Abortion law in China: disempowering women under the liberal regulatory model,” by Wei Wei Cao
—“Tilted interpretations,: reproductive health law and practice in the Philippines,” by Amparita Sta. Maria
—“On the margins of law: examining the limits of legislative initiatives on maternal mortality in South Africa and Nigeria,” by Arooj Shah, Simisola O. Akintola and Irehobhude O. Iyioha

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

WEBINAR:
“COVID-19: What implications for SRHR globally?” by Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, held March 27, 2020. 100-minute video.

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 Publications,  Information 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.

Brazil: Implementing international human rights to improve obstetric care

Congratulations to Alicia E. Yamin, Beatriz Galli and Sandra Valongueiro, whose article is now available in the Latin American-themed October 2018 issue of the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, in conjunction with the FIGO World Congress, held October 14-19 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  We are pleased to circulate the abstract in English, and (further below) Brazilian Portuguese:

Alicia E Yamin, Beatriz Galli and Sandra Valongueiro. “Implementing international human rights recommendations to improve obstetric care in Brazil,” by  International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 143.1 (October 2018): 114-120    DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12579.  Download full next now, Free access online for 6 months.

Abstract:  In 2011, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) issued a groundbreaking decision in the case of Alyne da Silva Pimentel Teixeira versus Brazil involving the maternal death of a young Afro‐Brazilian woman. The CEDAW addressed systemic failures in the Brazilian health system that combined to violate Alyne’s rights to life, health, and access to maternal health services. Almost 5 years later, after significant back and forth between the concerned parties, a technical follow‐up commission was created with the support of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and was welcomed by the government of Brazil. The technical follow‐up commission was precedent‐setting, seeking to move beyond identifying gaps in “compliance” and concentrate instead on issues that might catalyze re‐engagement by national level stakeholders, both governmental and non‐governmental, with the aim of advancing CEDAW’s recommendations through not only the creation, but also the effective implementation, of policies and programs that promote women’s sexual and reproductive rights in practice, including their rights to safe motherhood. Here, the human‐rights‐based framework of the technical follow‐up commission is described, in addition to their findings related to legal and policy frameworks, evidence‐based programing, and monitoring and oversight of providers.

Resumo do artigo:  Em 2011, o Comitê das Nações Unidas para a Eliminação de Todas as Formas de Discriminação contra as Mulheres emitiu uma decisão inovadora contra a morte materna de uma jovem afro-brasileira, Alyne da Silva Pimentel Teixeira. O Comitê CEDAW apontou falhas sistêmicas no sistema de saúde brasileiro que violaram os direitos de Alyne à vida, à saúde e ao acesso a serviços de saúde materna. Quase cinco anos depois, uma Comissão de Acompanhamento Técnico foi criada, com o apoio do Centro de Direitos Reprodutivos, sendo recebida pelo Governo do Brasil. Essa Comissão de Acompanhamento Técnico estabeleceu os precedentes e procurou ir além da identificação de lacunas na “conformidade”, concentrando-se em questões que poderiam catalisar o reengajamento de atores em nível nacional, tanto governamentais como não-governamentais, com o objetivo de avançar as recomendações do Comitê CEDAW, por meio não só da criação, mas também da implementação efetiva, de políticas e programas que promovam os direitos sexuais e reprodutivos das mulheres, incluindo direito à maternidade segura. Este artigo descreve o arcabouço baseado em direitos humanos usado pela Comissão de Acompanhamento Técnico e os achados relevantes para provedores vinculados a estruturas legais e de políticas, programação baseada em evidências e monitoramento e supervisão.

Download full next now, Free access to PDF online for 6 months.

_______________________________________

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 – Sept 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.

DEVELOPMENTS

[UN – CEDAW and CRPD] “Guaranteeing sexual and reproductive health and rights for all women, in particular women with disabilities,”   Joint statement by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 29 August 2018.  Decriminalize abortion, repeal discriminatory health policies and abortion laws that perpetuate deep-rooted stereotypes and stigma and undermine women’s reproductive autonomy and choice.    PDF online.

CALL FOR PAPERS:

“The Impact of Politics on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights,” for publication in Reproductive Health Matters, May 2019.  Submissions due October 31, 2018.  RHM Call for papers

SCHOLARSHIP:

[abortion law – Brazil]    “Brazilian Supreme Court Public Hearing on the Decriminalization of Abortion:   Antecedents, Contents, Meanings” by Sonia Corrêa  (published by Sexuality Policy Watch, 2018)  27 pages PDF     Direct download.

[abortion law – Brazil]  Testimony by Prof. Rebecca Cook . . .against Unsafe Abortion in the Public Hearing of the Brazilian Supreme Court, caso ADPF 442, Brasilia, August 3, 2018.   English original.    em Portugues do Brasil.   Testimonio – Espanol traducido por CLACAI (Consorcio Latinoamericano contra el aborto inseguro).    Uno otro en Espanol.  

[abortion law – El Salvador] “Physicians’ Challenges under El Salvador’s Criminal Abortion Prohibition,” by Alyson Zureick, Amber Khan, Angeline Chen and Astrid Reyes. forthcoming International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, October2018  Early view PDF.   Submitted text online at SSRN.

[abortion law – Malawi] “The Duty to make abortion law transparent:  A Malawi case study,”  by Godfrey Dalitso Kangaude and Chisale Mhango, forthcoming International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics,     Early view PDF.

Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies, ed. Rebecca Cook, Joanna Erdman and Bernard Dickens (Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press, 2014) 20% discount code is PH70.  Abstracts of all 16 chapters.   Spanish edition by FCE/CIDE – 16 abstracts.  Abortion Decisions: Table of Cases in English and Spanish.

[abortion policy] “The Philippines rolls back advancements in the postabortion care policy,” by Melissa Upreti and Jihan Jacob,  International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 142 (August 2018): 255–256.   PDF online.  Submitted text  at SSRN.

[abortion policies] “Access to knowledge and the Global Abortion  Policies Database,”  by Joanna N. Erdman and Brooke Ronald Johnson Jr.  International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, July 2018; 142: 120–124   PDF at Wiley online.   Submitted text at SSRN.

[Africanness, including sexuality],  What is Africanness?: Contesting nativism in culture, race and sexualities, peer-reviewed book by Charles G. Ngwena (Pretoria University Law Press, 2018) 306 pages.  “Part 3: Heterogeneous Sexualities” – chapter abstracts.    Entire book open access at PULP.     Table of Contents.   Overview, Comments from scholars,  PDFs of all chapters.   Podcast on African Rights Talk (2019) 

[Brazil – obstetric care, maternal mortality /morbidity, Alyne case]  “Implementing international human rights recommendations to improve obstetric care in Brazil,” by Alicia E Yamin, Beatriz Galli and Sandra Valongueiro.   International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 143.1 (October 2018): 114-120    Abstract online in English and Portuguese. English PDF for institutional subscribers.

[CEDAW]”The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women” by Rebecca J. Cook and Cusack, Simone Cusack.  In Tara Van Ho and Nigel Rodley, eds, Research Handbook on Human Rights Institutions and Enforcement (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Forthcoming).  Submitted text archived online.

[conscience]  Unconscionable: When Providers Deny Abortion Care  Report of the International Women’s Health Coalition, 2018, based on the first global meeting on the topic of “conscientious objection,” held in Montevideo, Uruguay in August 2017.    8-page report.

[intersex, gender] “Management of intersex newborns: Legal and ethical developments,” by Bernard M. Dickens, forthcoming International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2018.   Early View PDF.

[self-managed abortion] “Understandings of self-managed abortion as health inequity, harm reduction and social change,” by Joanna N. Erdman, Kinga Jelinska and Susan Yanow. Forthcoming in Reproductive Health Matters. Early view PDF.

[strategic litigation] Seeking Social Change in the Courts: Tools for Strategic Advocacy, by Mónica Roa with Barbara Klugman (Women’s Link Worldwide, 2018) practical tool for advocates from all social justice fields who are interested in using the courts and understanding “strategic litigation”  160 pages, PDF online..

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES:

“The Right to Conscience” – An Annotated Bibliography.   (Toronto: International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program,
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 2018)  Conscience bibliography

Indications for abortion: new annotated bibliographies:

• Fetal Anomaly:  Annotated Bibliography on legal aspects of fetal anomaly and their implications for counseling, service delivery and abortion laws and policies (Toronto: International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 2018).  Fetal anomaly bibliography
• Rape-related abortion:  Legal and policy dimensions of rape-related abortion services (Court decisions, Treaty resources, policy guidance and publications. ) (Toronto: International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 2018).  Rape or Incest bibliography 
  
• Causal Violacion y/o incesto:  Selección de doctrina y jurisprudencia latinoamericanas sobre Causal violación y/o incesto en casos de aborto (Rape or Incest bibliography in Spanish)  (Toronto: El Programa Internacional de Derecho en Salud Sexual y Reproductivas Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Toronto, 2018)

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 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.

 

CEDAW re Northern Ireland abortion laws: grave and systematic violations of women’s rights

Many thanks to Professors Claire Pierson of the University of Liverpool,  Kathryn McNeilly of Queen’s University Belfast and Fiona Bloomer of Ulster University, founding members of the Reproductive Health Law and Policy Advisory Group, online here, who kindly commented on the results of CEDAW’s inquiry into Northern Ireland’s abortion laws, based on their 9-page Briefing Document:

Reproductive Health Law and Policy Advisory Group,  Briefing Document: Report of the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, April 2018.
Briefing on CEDAW’s Northern Ireland inquiry and UK response – (9 pages).

From the late twentieth century onwards, human rights emerged as a significant tool, drawing attention to reproductive health provision for women. In Northern Ireland, however, it is only recently that human rights have stimulated meaningful discussion on local abortion access. The UN CEDAW Committee has become the latest body to engage rights in this way.

In early 2018, the CEDAW Committee completed an Optional Protocol inquiry into Northern Ireland’s abortion laws. CEDAW’s report, online here, found the United Kingdom in violation of several articles of the Convention through maintenance of a criminal framework permitting abortion in Northern Ireland only in circumstances of threat to life or serious and long-term threat to health. These violations were found to be grave and systematic.

The inquiry was undertaken following a 2010 submission by the Family Planning Association for Northern Ireland (FPA), Alliance for Choice and the Northern Ireland Women’s European Platform (NIWEP). In 2014, the UK submitted written observations on the submission to CEDAW.  These denied that violation of rights had occurred and outlined that legislative change was not envisaged.  Upon reviewing the UK response and material received by the FPA, Alliance for Choice and NIWEP, CEDAW determined the allegations were reliable and assigned two delegates to conduct an inquiry in 2016.

In addition to the impact of the region’s restrictive criminal law on women’s health and equality, the report highlights concerns with wider access to reproductive and sexual health services, including: post-abortion care, harassment at reproductive health clinics, and a lack of adequate sexual health education. It particularly notes the disproportionate impact of restrictive abortion access on rural and poorer women.

The Committee made 13 recommendations, including repeal of the current criminal law (sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861) and the creation of legislation to allow for abortion under particular grounds.  The UK Government has issued a response outlining that it does not accept that women in Northern Ireland have been subject to grave and systematic violations of rights under the Convention.

A separate legal challenge to the compatibility of Northern Ireland’s law with domestic human rights commitments is being heard by the UK Supreme Court. Pressure is mounting for the UK to seriously consider the rights implications of abortion law in this region.

RELEVANT LINKS:
CEDAW’s Report, see: Committee on the Elimination  of Discrimination against Women,Report of the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, U.N.  Doc, CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1, February 23, 2018.  CEDAW’s report on abortion law in Northern Ireland, 19 pages

Observations of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the report of the inquiry concerning United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women*  United Kingdom response, 7 pages

The Reproductive Health Law and Policy Advisory Group, discussed above, has issued a  a Briefing Document summarizing both the CEDAW report and the UK government’s response 9-page briefing.

Mandatory Waiting Periods and Biased Abortion Counseling in Central and Eastern Europe

Congratulations to Leah Hoctor and Adriana Lamačková of the Centre for Reproductive Rights, whose article has just been published in the Ethical and Legal Issues section of the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.  The article addresses the recent retrogressive introduction of mandatory waiting periods and biased counseling and information requirements prior to abortion in Central and Eastern Europe.

Leah Hoctor and Adriana Lamačková,  Mandatory Waiting Periods and Biased Abortion Counseling in Central and Eastern Europe (2017). International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 139 (Nov. 2017): 253–258. 
PDF at Wiley Online Library.    Submitted text online at SSRN.

A number of Central and Eastern European countries have recently enacted retrogressive laws and policies introducing new pre-conditions that women must fulfill before they can obtain legal abortion services. Mandatory waiting periods and biased counseling and information requirements are particularly common examples of these new prerequisites. This article considers these requirements in light of international human rights standards and public health guidelines, and outlines the manner in which, by imposing regressive barriers on women’s access to legal abortion services, these new laws and policies undermine women’s health and well-being, fail to respect women’s human rights, and reinforce harmful gender stereotypes and abortion stigma.

Key words: Abortion; Abortion counseling; Central and Eastern Europe; Discrimination; Human rights; Informed consent; Waiting periods

The published article is online in PDF at Wiley Library.
Full text, as submitted, is online at SSRN.
Ethical and Legal Issues in Reproductive Health: 80 other concise 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 — July/August 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
[Chile] Abortion legalized in three cases: when the woman’s life is at risk, when the fetus will not survive the pregnancy, and in case of rape).  New law ruled constitutional by the Constitutional Court of Chile on August 28, 20176:  STC Rol N° 3729(3751). Requerimientos de inconstitucionalidad presentados por un grupo de Senadores y Diputados, respecto de normas del proyecto de ley que regula la despenalización de la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo en tres causales, correspondiente al boletín N° 9895-11.  Tribunal Constitucional Chile.  Decision in Spanish -295 pages.  Accompanying documents.  Other Submissions  Newspaper report in English.    Overview by Carlos Herrera, LL.M.
Many Chilean law professors addressed the Court, including:
   Prof. Veronica Undurraga  presentation online.
Prof. Lidia Casas Becerra   presentation begins at minute 42:00

 

[United Nations – CEDAW] General Recommendation 35,  Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, (CEDAW) concerns gender-based violence against women, updating General Recommendation 19 (1992). e.g.: “Violations of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, such as forced sterilizations, forced abortion, forced pregnancy, criminalisation of abortion, denial or delay of safe abortion and post-abortion care, forced continuation of pregnancy, abuse and mistreatment of women and girls seeking sexual and reproductive health information, goods and services, are forms of gender-based violence that, depending on the circumstances, may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” (Art. 18)  Calls for repeal of ” legal provisions that discriminate against women,”(Art. 31) including “legislation that criminalises abortion” (31a).  Advance Unedited version of Gen. Rec. 35, 24 July 2017

CALL FOR PAPERS:
Feminist Legal Theory Collaborative Research Network, for the Law and Society Annual Meeting in Toronto, Canada, June 7-10, 2018, on the theme: “Law at the Crossroads”  500-word abstracts due Sept 17, 2017 Submission link.   Detailed call for papers  Pre-formed panels or ideas are welcome at:  2018lsacrn at gmail.com.

RESOURCES
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 Press.  Table of Contents with chapter summaries. 
Table with links to many Abortion Decisions.

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 y  Libreria CIDE.     Índice con resúmenes de capítulos 1-5
Tabla de Casos/Jurisprudencia en línea con enlaces a muchas de las decisiones judiciales

[abortion law] Amicus curiae brief on international legal consensus  on abortion law reform, non-arbitrariness and proportionality, and grounds and procedural protections. 20 pp, submitted to the Tribunal Constitucional of Chile by Professors Joanna Erdman and Rebecca Cook, August 10, 2017.   Spanish and English PDF

[abortion law, Ireland] “The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013: Suicide, Dignity and the Irish Discourse on Abortion”, by Claire Murray, Social and Legal Studies 25.6 (Dec 2016): 667-698   PDF online.  Accepted version.

[abortion, Uganda] “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 (Aug. 2017): 231–236. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12190   PDF temporarily online for 12 months.  Submitted text online at SSRN.

[Africa] “The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights and the Woman Question”, by Ebenezer Durojaye and O. Oluduro, Feminist Legal Studies (2016) 24: 315-336  Abstract and article.

[conscientious objection] Amicus curiae brief  on conscientious objection by Professor Bernard Dickens submitted to the Tribunal Constitucional of Chile, August 10, 2017  English PDF     Spanish  PDF

NEWS
[abortion drug, Canada]: “Mifegymiso” (a combination of two abortion pills: mifepristone and misoprostol RU-486), approved by Health Canada in 2015, is now available free of charge in Ontario through pharmacies by prescription from physicians and nurse practitioners  News article.

International news and resources for advocacy:  International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion.

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 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.

Northern Ireland: Advocating Abortion Rights – Local and Global Tensions

Congratulations to Dr. Catherine O’Rourke of the Transitional Justice Institute at Ulster University, Northern Ireland.  Her useful journal article was recently published in a special issue of Social & Legal Studies,  guest-edited by Siobhan Mullally, on “Regulating Abortion: Dissensus and the Politics of Rights”:

Catherine O’Rourke “Advocating Abortion Rights in Northern Ireland: Local and Global Tensions,” Social and Legal Studies 25 (6). pp. 716-740.
Published PDF       Submitted text (accepted after minor revisions)

Abstract:       It is frequently claimed that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is more significant for the cultural, rather than legal, work that it does in reframing locally contested gender issues as the subject of international human rights. While this argument is well developed in respect of violence against women, CEDAW’s cultural traction is less clear in respect of women’s right to access safe and legal abortion. This article examines the request made jointly by Alliance for Choice, the Family Planning Association Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Women’s European Platform to the CEDAW Committee to request an inquiry under the CEDAW Optional Protocol into access to abortion in the jurisdiction. The study found that the CEDAW framework was useful in underpinning alliances between diverse pro-choice organizations but less effective in securing the support of ‘mainstream’ human rights organizations in the jurisdiction. The article argues that the local cultural possibilities of CEDAW must be understood as embedded within both the broader structural gendered limitations of international human rights law and persistent regressive gendered sub-themes within mainstream human rights advocacy.

_______________________

For full text of this article, see:

Published PDF
Submitted text (before minor revisions)

“Regulating Abortion: Dissensus and the Politics of Rights”:  special issue of Social & Legal Studies, ed. Siobhan Mullally and Clare Murray:  Table of Contents

___________
SUBSCRIBE TO REPROHEALTHLAW: To receive these updates monthly by email from the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, enter your address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

 

I.V. v. Bolivia decision: Forced sterilization is based on harmful gender stereotypes

Many thanks to Christina Zampas, a Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Fellow at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, for summarizing this decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.  She also presented oral expert testimony in this case during its hearing on 2 May 2016 in San Jose, Costa Rica, focusing on international and regional human rights standards in relation to informed consent to sterilization, and on gender discrimination and stereotyping. (Overview of her testimony.)

Caso I.V. v. Bolivia,   Sentencia de 30  Noviembre de 2016 (Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas) Corte InterAmericana de Derechos Humanos  Decision in Spanish.

I.V. v Bolivia concerns the involuntary sterilization in 2000 of an immigrant woman from Peru in a public hospital in Bolivia during a caesarean section.   In its first case alleging forced sterilization and indeed, its first case on informed consent to a medical procedure, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights struck at the heart of such practices by addressing underlying causes of such violations: gender discrimination and stereotyping.

The Court held that the State violated the woman’s rights to personal integrity, personal freedom, private and family life, access to information and rights to found a family, and to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to the dignity of a human being, all contained in the American Convention on Human Rights.  The State had also violated its duties to condemn all forms of violence against women under the Convention of Belem do Pará.   In finding these violations, the Court recognized that sterilization without consent annulled the right to freely make decisions regarding one’s body and reproductive capacity, resulting in loss of control over one’s most personal and intimate decisions, with lasting implications.

While generally agreeing with decisions about forced sterilization of Roma women issued by the European Court of Human Rights and the CEDAW Committee , the Inter-American Court’s decision is groundbreaking in that it uniquely highlighted the transcendent role of state obligations to respect and guarantee the right to non-discrimination in the context of women’s human rights violations. Thus, the Court recognized that the freedom and autonomy of women in sexual and reproductive health, generally, has historically been limited or annulled on the basis of negative and harmful gender stereotypes in which women have been socially and culturally viewed as having a predominantly reproductive function, and men viewed as decision-makers over women’s bodies. The Court recognized that non-consensual sterilization reflects this historically unequal relationship. The Court noted how the process of informed decision-making operated under the harmful stereotype that I.V., as a woman, was unable to make such decisions responsibly, leading to “an unjustified paternalistic medical intervention” restricting her autonomy and freedom.  The Court thus found a violation of the right to non-discrimination based on being a woman. It also stressed the particular vulnerability to forced sterilization facing certain women, based on other characteristics such as socioeconomic status, race, disability, or living with HIV.

The Court ordered both individual reparations and general measures, including ensuring education and training programs for healthcare and social security professionals regarding informed consent, gender-based violence, discrimination and stereotyping.  The Court’s unequivocal articulation of the right of women to make decisions concerning reproductive health, without being subjected to discrimination based on stereotypes or power relations, is important in this first case by an international or regional tribunal addressing this in the context of sterilization.  It could also apply to other reproductive health care contexts, such as the case for abortion.

Links for this case:

Caso I.V. v. Bolivia,   Sentencia de 30  Noviembre de 2016 (Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas) Corte InterAmericana de Derechos Humanos  Decision in Spanish
Report on the Merits (2014) in English.

Amicus Curiae brief by Ciara O’Connell, Diana Guarnizo-Peralta and Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito:  in English.

Related decisions, alluded to above:
V.C. v. Slovakia, European Court of Human Rights (Decision 8 November 2011)
N.B. v. Slovakia,  European Court of Human Rights (Decision 12 June 2012)
VC and NB decisions, summarized by Andy Sprung
I.G. and others v. Slovakia  European Court of Human Rights (Decision 13 November 2012).
IG decision, summarized by Andy Sprung

UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
A.S. v. Hungary  (Decision online).
Summary  and documents from CRR.
Analysis by Simone Cusack, OP CEDAW blog.
———————-
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.

Preventable maternal deaths: Ugandan court decisions

Many thanks to Godfrey Kangaude, LL.M. (UFS), LL.M. (UCLA), an LL.D. candidate with the University of Pretoria and Executive Director of Nyale Institute for Sexual and Reproductive Health Governance in Malawi, for composing or editing dozens of analytical summaries of African court decisions for our forthcoming volume, Legal Grounds III: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts.  Previous volumes in the series, published in 2005 and 2010 by the Center for Reproductive Rights, are freely available in print or electronic form.  Legal Grounds online.

Several of the cases involve preventable maternal deaths. Traditionally, families and communities suffer these losses silently, unless a legal advocacy organization brings the case forward.  In Uganda, for instance, the Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and others brought two maternal death cases to the Constitutional Court of Uganda as human rights violations, but the petition was dismissed without consideration in 2012 as a “political” matter.[1]  In November 2015, however, Uganda’s Supreme Court ordered Constitutional Court to hear the petition on maternal health rights violations.[2]  We still await the Constitutional Court’s  ruling on the merits of CEHURD’s petition.

Just six months earlier, a Ugandan High Court  found human rights violations and awarded damages to the family of a woman who died in obstructed labour at Nakaseke District Hospital; the only doctor who could handle this complication was on duty but could not be found.[3]  As Godfrey Kangaude  comments, “the judgment is an important signal that preventable death of women during pregnancy, labour, and childbirth is a human rights issue.”

Moreover, as Kangaude explains, “Uganda is a party to the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). One of the important decisions on the subject matter under CEDAW is Alyne da Silva Pimentel Teixeira v Brazil (Communication No. 17/2008 CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008). The Committee on CEDAW (CEDAW Committee) considered the case of a woman who had died of complications of pregnancy as a result of delays in being provided with appropriate care by the health system.[4] The CEDAW Committee found violation of state obligations under Article 12 on the equal right to health, and under Article 2(c) in relation to access to justice, amongst others. It made several recommendations to address the systemic factors, which would apply to the Uganda context . . .” [5]

The CEDAW Committee recommended that the state:

“(a) Ensure women’s right to safe motherhood and affordable access for all women to adequate emergency obstetric care, in accordance with General Recommendation No. 24 (1999) on women and health;

(b) Provide adequate professional training for health workers, especially on women’s reproductive health rights, including quality medical treatment during pregnancy and delivery, as well as timely emergency obstetric care;

(c) Ensure access to effective remedies in cases where women’s reproductive health rights have been violated and provide training for the judiciary and for law enforcement personnel;

(d) Ensure that private health-care facilities comply with relevant national and international standards on reproductive health care; [and]

(e) Ensure that adequate sanctions are imposed on health professionals who violate women’s reproductive health rights.”[6]
_____________________

REFERENCES:

[1] Center for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and 3 Others v Attorney General [2012], Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011 (Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala). Decision online. Preventable maternal deaths were dismissed as a “political” matter.  Case Summary and Analysis by Nthabiseng Lelisa and Godfrey Kangaude, with special thanks to Nthabiseng Lelisa, an LL.M. candidate in Sexual and Reproductive Rights in the Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

[2]  Center for Health, Human Rights and Development & 3 Others  v Attorney General.  [2015], Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2013 (Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala) [Uganda Supreme Court orders Constitutional Court to hear a petition on maternal health rights violations.]  Decision online.  Case summary and analysis by Godfrey Kangaude. 

[3] Center for Health, Human Rights and Development & 4 Others  v Nakaseke District Local Administration [2015], Civil Suit No. 111 of 2012 (High Court of Uganda at Kampala). [Ugandan High Court finds human rights violations where a pregnant woman died of a ruptured uterus and blood loss while in labour.] Decision online. Case summary and Analysis by Godfrey Kangaude 

[4] See also: Rebecca J. Cook “Human Rights and Maternal Health: Exploring the Effectiveness of the Alyne Decision”  41.1 (Spring 2013) Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 103-123,  Original publication in English.  Republished in Spanish.  Translation to Portuguese.  Republication in Portuguese journal.

[5] CEHURD v Nakaseke (note 3 above), Case summary and Analysis by Godfrey Kangaude , page 3.

[6] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,  Alyne da Silva Pimentel Teixeira (deceased) v Brazil, Communication No.17/2008, CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008), Recommendations, 8.2.  CEDAW decision Sept 27, 2011

---

Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in African Commonwealth Courts   (up to 2008) Volumes I and II can be downloaded here.  Our update will be published early in 2017.  Decisions already identified for Volume III  are online here.  New case summaries are added every month.   If you can suggest other cases, please do!   How You Can Help.