REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – Autumn 2020

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
Amnesty International’s new institutional policy on abortion, released Sept 28, 2020, has been endorsed by the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO). Amnesty Abortion Policy.
Press release. Explanatory note. Key messages. FAQ.

[Poland] Constitutional Tribunal ruled that abortion on grounds of congenital fetal defects is unconstitutional. Sygn. akt K 1/20, October 22, 2020. Decision in Polish. News report in English.

[The Philippines] PINSAN (network of NGOs and individuals) released proposed text of a “decriminalization bill” and an international petition to decriminalize abortion in the Philippines, September 28, 2020.
Proposed legislation. International petition. Bill launch on Facebook with Q & A.

SCHOLARSHIP
Access to Abortion: An Annotated Bibliography of Reports and Scholarship. (Toronto: International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, 2020) 44 pages. Abortion access bibliography.

[abortion] “Why self-managed abortion is so much more than a provisional solution for times of pandemic,” by Mariana Prandini Assis & Sara Larrea, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 28:1 (2020) Article online.

[Africa] “Adolescent sexual and reproductive health and universal health coverage: a comparative policy and legal analysis of Ethiopia, Malawi and Zambia,” by Godfrey Kangaude, Ernestina Coast & Tamara Fetters (2020) Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 28:2, 1-15. Abstract and article. Policy briefs: Ethiopia brief, Malawi brief. Zambia brief.

[Argentina] “A Case for Legal Abortion: The Human Cost of Barriers to Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Argentina,” (Human Rights Watch, 2020) 77-page report in English. Overview in English. Informe en Espanol.

[Australia] “Advancing Reproductive Rights through Legal Reform: The Example of Abortion Clinic Safe Access Zones,” by Ronli Sifris, Tania Penovic and Caroline Henckels, University of New South Wales Law Journal 43.3 (2020): 1078-1097. Abstract and Article.

[Belgium, Ireland] “Abortion law reform in Europe: The 2018 Belgian and Irish Acts on termination of pregnancy,” by Fien De Meyer – Medical Law International 20.1 (2020): 3-30. Abstract and article.

[India-abortion law] “The MTP 2020 Amendment Bill: anti-rights subjectivity,” by Alka Barua, Anubha Rastogi, V. Deepa, Dipika Jain, Manisha Gupte, and Rupsa Mallik. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 28.1 (2020). Commentary online.

[India] “Reimagining Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence in India: Reflections on the Recent Decisions on Privacy and Gender Equality from the Supreme Court of India,” by Dipika Jain and Payal K. Shah, Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 39.2 (2020): 1-53. Abstract and PDF access.

[Mexico] “Bioethics training in reproductive health in Mexico,” by Gustavo Ortiz-Millán and Frances Kissling, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 151.2 (November, 2020): 308-313  PDF free access for 12 months.  Submitted Text. 

[Nigeria] “The Conflict in Northeast Nigeria’s Impact on the Sexual and Reproductive Rights of Women and Girls.” by Onyema Afulukwe and Chinonye Obianwu (Nairobi: Center for Reproductive Rights and Legal Defence and Assistance Project, 2020) 26 page report.

[Philippines] “Reasons Why We Need to Decriminalize Abortion” by Clara Rita A. Padilla (of EnGendeRights and PINSAN).
Seven reasons op-ed, 22 reasons – full report.

[Surrogacy] “Paid surrogacy abroad does not violate public policy: UK Supreme Court,” by Bernard M. Dickens, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 150.1 (July 2020): 129-133 PDF- Free Access till July 2021.  Submitted Text.

“Transsexuality:  Legal and Ethical challenges,” by Bernard M. Dickens.  International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 151.1 (October, 2020): 163-167 PDF free access for 12 months.   Submitted Text.

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 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.

REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – Summer 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
[Argentina, abortion, conscience]  Argentina Ministry of Health issued a protocol expanding hospital abortion access to pregnancies resulting from rape. Raped girls 13 and over can have abortions without parental consent. The protocol also weakens a doctor’s ability to refuse to perform such abortions due to personal objection. New York Times, Dec 12, 2019.

[IACtHR, Ecuador], First standards for protection from sexual violence in schools: Paola del Rosario Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador, Case C No. 405 (June 24, 2020) Sentencia en espanol – 85 paginas. Public Hearing Jan. 28 2020.  Resolución (Asuntos) 7 paginas. Reprohealthlaw blog summary.
Case comment in English (10 pages).

Ugandan Constitutional Court declares maternal health a constitutional right. First African court to do so. The Center for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and 3 Others v Attorney General [2020], Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011 (Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala). [Maternal health] Decision of August 19, 2020. Reprohealthlaw blogpost. Longer comment with the Court’s twelve “Declarations.”

[United Kingdom, surrogacy] Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Appellant) v. XX (Respondent) [2020] UK Supreme Court 14. (April 1, 2020) allows paid surrogacy, where legal, in foreign countries. Decision (24 pages). Article by Prof. Bernard Dickens.

WEBINARS
“Access to medical abortion: Global South perspectives,”, with Panelists Dr. Shilpa Shroff, Prof. Dipika Jain, Dr. Sana Durvesh, and Moderator, Sai Jyothirmai Racheria. Organizers: SARJAI and SAIGE. Friday, Sept. 4, 2020, 14:30 (GMT+8, Kuala Lumpur time). Register here for Sept 4.

“Telemedicine, self-managed abortion and access to abortion in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic,” chaired by Mariana Romero (Argentina). Speakers: Jade Maina (Kenya), Maria Mercedes Vivas (Colombia), Wendy V. Norman (Canada), Rodica Comendant (Moldova), Jasmine Lovely George (India), Kinga Jelinska (The Netherlands), Marge Berer (United Kingdom), to be held: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 (2:00-3:30 p.m. British Summer Time). Register here for Sept 23.

“Telemedicine / self-managed abortion is critical to strengthening women and girls’ reproductive rights and reducing maternal mortality” FIGO webinar, chaired by Prof. Dame Lesley Regan (FIGO), with speakers: Ambassador Dr. Eunice Brookman-Amissah (Ghana), Marge Berer (UK), Christina Zampas (Switzerland), Nelly Munyasia (Kenya), Evelyn Odhiambo (Kenya). Will be available in English, Spanish and French. To be held Thursday Sept. 24, 2020 at 15:00-16:30 (British Summer Time). Register for Sept 24.

SCHOLARSHIP
“Access to Abortion: An Annotated Bibliography of Reports and Scholarship,” prepared by the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 2nd edition, 2020, 44 pages, (organized by country, focuses on barriers and recommendations, ) Annotated bibliography.

[abortion] “Abortion,” thematic chapter in Comparative Human Rights Law, by Sandra Fredman (Oxford UP, Nov. 2018). Institutional access through Oxford Scholarship Online. About the book.

[abortion, Argentina, Ireland, US] “Argentina’s path to Legalizing Abortion:  A comparative analysis of Ireland, the United States and Argentina,” by  Andrea F. Noguera, Southwestern Journal of International Law 25.2 (2019): 356-392.    Article online.

[abortion, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay ] “Challenges and opportunities for access to legal and safe abortion in Latin America based on the scenarios in Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay,” by Beatriz Galli – Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 2020 – SciELO Public Health

[abortion, Brazil] Understanding the sexual and reproductive health needs in Brazil’s Zika-affected region: placing women at the center of the discussion,” by D. Diniz, L. Brito, I. Ambrogi, AB Tavares, M. Ali. International of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2019; 147: 17 Institutional access

[abortion, India] “Reimagining Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence in India: Reflections on the Recent Decisions on Privacy and Gender Equality from the Supreme Court of India,” by Dipika Jain and Payal Shah. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 39.2(2020), 1-53. Article online.

[abortion law, India] “A Womb of One’s Own: Privacy and Reproductive Rights,” Arijeet Ghosh & Nitika Khaitan (2017) 52:42/43 Economic & Political Weekly, [1-9], re landmark Aug 24, 2017 privacy decision (Puttaswamy) already helped decriminalize homosexuality, adultery–potentially abortion. Article online.

Human Rights Quarterly is freely available online during the COVID-19 pandemic.  All issues.

[obstetric violence] “Operationalizing a Human Rights-Based Approach to Address Mistreatment against Women during Childbirth,” by Christina Zampas, Avni Amin, Lucinda O’Hanlon, Alisha Bjerregaard, Hedieh Mehrtash, Rajat Khosla, and Özge Tunçalp, Health and Human Rights Journal, 22(1) 2020: 251-264 Article online.

[surrogacy] “Paid surrogacy abroad does not violate public policy: UK Supreme Court,” by Bernard M. Dickens, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 150.1 (2020): 129-133. PDF at Wiley Online.    Abstract and Submitted Text.

[U.S. reproductive decisions] Feminist Judgments: Reproductive Justice Rewritten, ed. Kimberly Mutcherson, Cambridge UP, 2020. Book details.

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

Violence Against Women’s Health in International Law, new book by Sara De Vido, Manchester University Press, 2020. Abstract and Table of Contents.

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.

REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – April/May 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
[Ecuador] Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Caso Guzmán Albarracín y otros Vs. Ecuador. Decision (January 27 2020) against sexual abuse in educational system. Decision online. 8-hour Public hearing, Jan. 28, 2020.  Guardian newspaper report  

CASEBOOKS
[India] Securing Reproductive Justice in India: A Casebook, ed. Mrinal Satish, Aparna Chandra, and Payal K. Shah, (New York: Center for Reproductive Rights, 2019) 520-page book/chapters online.

[United States] Feminist Judgments: Reproductive Justice Rewritten, ed. Kimberly Mutcherson, Feminist Judgment Series: Rewritten Judicial Opinions. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020). Institutional access.

SCHOLARSHIP
“Abortion in the context of COVID-19: a human rights imperative,” by Jaime Todd-Gher & Payal K Shah (2020) Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 28.1 Article online.

[abortion, India] “Reimagining Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence in India: Reflections on the Recent Decisions on Privacy and Gender Equality from the Supreme Court of India,” by Dipika Jain and Payal Shah. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 39.2(2020), 1-53. Article online.

[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.

[abortion laws: Uruguay, South Africa] “Abortion, health and gender stereotypes: a critical analysis of the Uruguayan and South African abortion laws through the lens of human rights,” by Lucia Berro Pizzarossa, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen, 2019. 304 pages. Complete thesis. Abstract.

[conscience, Europe] “Conscientious Objection under the European Convention on Human Rights: The Ugly Duckling of a Flightless Jurisprudence,” by Stijn Smet, in The European Court of Human Rights and the Freedom of Religion or Belief: The 25 Years since Kokkinakis, ed. Jeroen Temperman, T. Jeremy Gunn and Malcolm D. Evans (Brill, 2019) 282–306. Institutional access.

[conscience, Italy] “The impact of gynecologists’ conscientious objection on abortion access,” by Tommaso Autorino, Francesco Mattioli e Letizia Mencarini,  Social Science Research 87 (March, 2020): 102403  16-pages, Institutional access.

Conscientious Objection / The Right to Conscience – annotated bibliography, updated March 17, 2020. Download here.

Human Rights Quarterly is freely available online during the COVID-19 pandemic.  All issues.

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, webinar March 27, 2020. 100-minute video.

JOBS
University of Toronto, Faculty of Law @UTLaw seeks new Director, International Human Rights Program. Apply by June 17, 2020. Details and application information.

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.

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

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 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.

Botswana High Court decriminalizes homosexuality

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.

SEE ALSO:
“Botswana court ruling is a ray of hope for LGBT people across Africa,” by Frans Viljoen, The Conversation, June 12,2019. Article 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 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.

Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments – re-imagining court decisions

Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments: Judges’ Troubles and the Gendered Politics of Identity, edited by Máiréad Enright, Julie McCandless and Aoife O’Donoghue (Oxford: Hart, 2017) (available here) is the most recent of a series of insightful studies on re-imagining court decisions from feminist perspectives.[1]    The volume includes rewrites and commentaries on 26 cases from Ireland or Northern Ireland, including:

Attorney General v. X, [1992] I.E.S.C. 1, (Supreme Court of Ireland) had decided that an attempt to prevent a 14-year old girl who was pregnant as a result of being raped, from traveling from Ireland to England in order to access abortion care was not justified.  Actual decision online.

In Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments. Ruth Fletcher rewrites the Irish Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the X case.Sheelagh McGuinness writes a commentary on it, explaining the ways in which Fletcher J. illustrates how the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution (acknowledging the “right to life of the unborn… with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother…”) is an instrument of gendered harms.  McGuinness contrasts the “progressive constitutionalism” of Fletcher J.’s reasoning with the “conservative constitutionalism” of the original judgment. Fletcher J. crafts a judgment that considers the text of the Eighth Amendment, examines the evidence of the substantial difference between the contingency of unborn life and the life of the pregnant woman that sustains that life to decide, consistently with the original judgment, that X is entitled to an abortion. She tries to rise above her own partiality by putting herself in X’s shoes to explain how her pregnancy in such circumstances would impose “an impracticable burden on her rightful life.”
ONLINE:  Ruth Fletcher’s imagined decision: working paper version
Sheelagh McGuinness’s commentary: peer review version

McGee v. Attorney General,[1974] I.R. 284 (Supreme Court of Ireland), which had overturned a criminal ban on the importation of contraceptives into Ireland. Actual decision online.

Emilie Cloatre and Máiréad Enright write the commentary on Enright’s rewriting of the Irish Supreme Court’s decision in the McGee case, where Enright J. reached the same decision but for different reasons. They explore the ways that Enright J. acknowledged Mrs. McGee’s experiences in trying to access effective contraception to enable her to plan her family in ways that did not seriously risk her life.  Of particular note is the way in which Enright J. elaborated how Mrs. McGee’s right to freedom of conscience was a basis for overturning the importation ban: “There can be no clearer example, in my view, of the exercise of constitutionally protected conscience than Mrs. McGee’s deliberate breach of a provision of the criminal law that imposes a particular set of moral principles on the citizenry.”

[1] Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments-Judges’ Troubles and the Gendered Politics of Identity, ed. Máiréad Enright, Julie McCandless and Aoife O’Donoghue (Oxford: Hart, 2017) (book details).  Other insightful studies on re-imagining court decisions from feminist perspectives  include:  Rewriting Equality (2006) 18(1); R. Hunter, C.McGlynn and E. Rackley (eds.) Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (Oxford: Hart, 2010); H. Douglas, F. Bartlett, T. Luker and R. Hunter (eds.), Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law (Oxford: Hart, 2015); K. Stanchi, L. Berger and B. Crawford (eds.), U.S. Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court (Cambridge: CUP, 2016).

Strategic litigation for abortion rights in Latin America

Congratulations to Dr. Alba M. Ruibal, a researcher with Argentina’s National Scientific and Technical Research Council (Conicet) who is currently working on a project about federalism and feminist legal mobilization at the subnational level in Argentina, including litigation for abortion rights.  We appreciate her excellent article, recently published in English:

“Social movements and constitutional politics in Latin America: reconfiguring alliances, framings and legal opportunities in the judicialisation of abortion rights in Brazil,” Contemporary Social Science 10.4(2015): 375-385,  Publication access via academic libraries.  Open access to submitted text.

Abstract:  One of the main innovations in the interaction between social movements and the state in Latin America since the democratisation processes is the use of courts as venues for social change and the intervention of social actors in constitutional politics. Drawing from the empirical study of the process of strategic litigation for abortion rights in Brazil, this paper aims to show what type of changes can take place when social actors set out to pursue a legal strategy on a highly controversial matter, and in a transitional context, where courts are in the midst of a redefinition of their institutional role in the political system, and movements have not yet been central actors in judicialisation processes. The study highlights how feminist organisations adapted their framing of the abortion issue and developed new alliances with legal actors in order to pursue a rights strategy and to interact with the constitutional court. It also points out how, when dealing with the abortion controversy, the Brazilian constitutional court (Supremo Tribunal Federal) expanded the legal opportunity for the participation of civil society actors and, in its 2012 decision that liberalised the abortion law, acknowledged the legal arguments advanced by social actors in this field.   Published edition, online via academic libraries.  Open access to submitted text.     More about the author. 

Several of Dr. Ruibal’s earlier publications on abortion law strategy in Latin America are available online through SSRN:

“Reform and Backlash in Mexico’s Abortion Law: Political and Legal Opportunities for Mobilization and Countermobilization,”(2014)  English abstract and conference  paper.  
—See also: Feminism, Religion and Democracy in the Process of Abortion Legalization in Mexico City (2012)  Spanish article online, with abstracts in Spanish and English.

“Movement and Counter-Movement: A History of Abortion Law Reform and the Backlash in Colombia 2006-2014” English article and abstract online.

[Legal Mobilization and Counter-Mobilization. Proposal for Its Analysis in Latin America] (2015)  Spanish article online with abstracts in Spanish and English.

[Feminism Counters Religious Fundamentalisms: Mobilization and Counter-Mobilization in the Field of Reproductive Rights in Latin America](2014) focusing on the cases of Brasil, Colombia and Mexico  Portuguese article, and abstracts in Portuguese, Spanish and English.   Spanish translation of article.

———–
Regarding the Brazilian decision of 2012, mentioned in Dr. Ruibal’s abstract, see also: Luís Roberto Barroso, “Bringing Abortion into the Brazilian Public Debate: Legal Strategies for Anencephalic Pregnancy,” chapter 12 in Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies (U Penn Press, 2014)  258-78.  English edition.   Spanish paperback from FCE, 2016.
————–
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.

Proportionality in the Constitutional Review of Abortion Law

Verónica Undurraga, “ Proportionality in the Constitutional Review of Abortion Law,” chapter 4 in Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies, ed. Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman, and Bernard M. Dickens (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) pp. 77-97, 402n-404n.  A Spanish edition was published in August, 2016:  Ahora disponible en español.

Courts are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the need for principled approaches that resolve constitutional conflicts through a reasoned balance of rights. As the shape of constitutional abortion judgments shift, courts are trying different frameworks through which to articulate their reasoning.   In this fourth chapter of Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies, Verónica Undurraga analyzes judicial methodology in constitutional abortion law, focusing on proportionality as a reasoned analytical framework, introduced by the German Constitutional Court in 1975 and refined in more recent European and Latin American judgments, that allows courts to move beyond the abstract, intuitive decision-making that characterized abortion judgments of the past.

Proportionality brings into consideration substantive issues and empirical data too often neglected in abortion law adjudication, requiring judges to assess not merely the rationale, but also the effectiveness of criminalization in protecting unborn life, the availability of alternative measures of protection. They must also account for the sacrifice that this criminalization demands of women against its alleged benefits. Using this analytical method, judges assess laws according to the three key standards of suitability, necessity and strict proportionality. Proportional analysis of constitutional questions usually results in support for approaches to abortion regulation outside of criminal law. In the final part of this chapter, Undurraga explains how courts have used proportionality to reconcile positive duties to protect unborn life with negative duties to abstain from interfering with women’s rights.

Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies was published in August 2014.   Table of Contents and other information online.  Spanish and Portuguese translations of this article are available:   Ahora disponible en español.  Também em português do Brasil – en linea.

 

 

Abortion in Portugal: New Trends in European Constitutionalism

The first five chapters of Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies explore “Constitutional Values and Regulatory Regimes” by illustrating how European constitutional courts came to reject the traditional assumption that women’s rights conflict with those of the unborn.   Reva Siegel’s chapter “The Constitutionalization of Abortion” provides an overview of this trend, followed by two country-specific chapters.  The first of these is abstracted below.

“Abortion in Portugal: New Trends in European Constitutionalism”, by Ruth Rubio-Marín,  Chapter 2 in Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies, ed. Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman, and Bernard M. Dickens (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) pp. 36-55, notes 393-397. A Spanish edition was published in August 2016:  Ahora disponible en español.

In this  second chapter of Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective, Prof. Ruth Rubio-Marín explores the constitutionalization of abortion by analyzing the rich history of constitutional jurisprudence in Portugal, culminating in the 2010 decision of the Portuguese Constitutional Court validating a “periodic regime” of access to abortion within the early weeks of pregnancy, combined with the introduction of mandatory non-dissuasive abortion counseling to protect intrauterine life.  The Court recognized this new regime as protective of unborn human life but also respectful of women’s dignity and autonomy as constitutional values worthy of protection. Overall, Rubio-Marín identifies a shifting vision, underlying this evolution, of the pregnant woman, now viewed as a responsible actor who makes her own legitimate decisions informed by available means and support, suggesting an alternative, positive course of action for the state.

Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies was published in August 2014.   Table of Contents and other information online.  A Spanish edition was published in August 2016:  Ahora disponible en español.

 

COURTS, CALLS, COURSES & RESOURCES

REPROHEALTHLAW-L
November 10, 2011

DECISIONS:

ECtHR: Case of S.H. and Others v. Austria [sperm/ova donation] application no. 57713/00, European Court of Human Rights- Grand Chamber, final judgment 3 November 2011 Austrian ban on sperm/ova donation does not violate European Convention on Human Rights.  Press release   Judgment

ECtHR: VC v Slovakia (forced sterilization- Roma) Slovakia was found in violation of inhumane and degrading treatment and the right to private life for the coerced sterilization of a Roma woman.
Press Release    Judgment   Further reading:  CRR Report: Body and Soul: Forced sterilization and other assaults on Roma reproductive freedom.
 
European Court of Justice bans patents on embryonic stem cells. News article

UN – CEDAW – LC v. Peru decision [abortion in case of rape]:   Peru must relax restrictions on abortion.  Decision forthcoming online.   CRR press release

CALLS

Call for abstracts on Reproductive Health History (any aspect), Canadian Society for the History of Medicine Annual Meeting, University of Waterloo, Ontario,  250-300 word abstract and 1-page CV due Nov. 30, 2011. More info

Call for volunteers, Resisting & Challenging Religious Fundamentalisms initiative at AWID. More info

Call for papers: Women, the Charter, and CEDAW in the 21st Century: Taking Stock and Moving Forward.  Queen’s University Feminist Legal Studies   March 2-4, 2012, Kingston Ont., Canada.   More info

Reproducing Normality: Disability, prenatal testing and bioethics Workshop, University of Sydney, Australia, Wed. Dec 7, 2011  Event info

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

“Global Health Law and Governance”  Summer Program at Georgetown Law School, June 18-22, 2012,  Washington DC.  USA.  More info

“Health Rights Litigation” course, Global School on Judicial Enforcement of Economic, Social, and Cultural (ESC) Rights, offered by The Health Rights of Women and Children Program at the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights, Harvard University, June 18-22 2012 in Boston, MA, USA  Save the dates.

FUNDING

Calls for Proposals re funding re sexual/repro health/rights projects offered by the European Union.  E-nEUs  Oct 28th edition now online here.

Postdoctoral fellowships Women & Gender Studies, 2012-2014  Rice University.  More info

RESOURCES

[abortion, Brazil]  Negative Impacts of Abortion Criminalization in Brazil: Systematic Denial of Women’s Reproductive Autonomy and Human Rights, by Maria Beatriz Galli Bevilacqua, University of Miami Law Review 2011, 65: 969.  article

[abortion, counseling, informed consent] Abortion and Informed Consent: How Biased Counseling Laws Mandate Violations of Medical Ethics, by Ian Vandewalker, forthcoming in Michigan Journal of Gender & Law. article

[abortion, counseling, informed consent] Abortion Counselling and the Informed Consent Dilemma, by Scott Woodcock in Bioethics 25.9 (Nov 2011), pp 495-504 article

[abortion, counseling, informed consent] Sawicki, Nadia N., The Abortion Informed Consent Debate: More Light, Less Heat by Nadia N. Sawicki. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 21, p. 1, 2011. article
  
[abortion, Mexico] Abortion Legalization in Mexico City – 7 articles in special section in Studies in Family Planning, 42.3 (Sept 2011). table of contents with links

[abortion, Morocco] Government plans to legalize abortion in cases of rape or incest, currently allowed to save mother’s life. News article

[abortion, telemedicine] Effectiveness and Acceptability of Medical Abortion Provided Through Telemedicine, D. Grossman et al.,  Obstetrics & Gynecology 18.2, pt 1, Aug 2011, pp 296-303. article

[abortion] Russia’s parliament adopted a law limiting abortions but rejected tougher restrictions backed by the country’s conservative Orthodox Church.  news article

[abortion] The Criminalization of Abortion is an Abuse of State Power, by Meghan Doherty, Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD), October 25, 2011 – RH Reality Check blog
 
[abortion] The World’s Abortion Laws  poster and new interactive format here.

[abortion] Amicus curiae brief to tje Mexican Supreme Court, 2009 written comments by the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme, Faculty of Law, Univesity of Toronto, re unconstitutionality claim for Article 7 amendment by the state of Baja California, contends that the Right to Life, as protected under Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, permits legal abortion.  Now online in English and Spanish.

[access to medicines, patents] Intellectual Property and Public Health: Two Sides of the Same Coin by Yahong Li,  AJWH, Vol. 6, No. 389, 2011; article.

[anti-abortion] “San Jose articles” against abortion being promoted by celebrity signatories. Online here.
—Critique by Global Rights Watch, PPFA, online here.

[Argentina]  Women’s Rights at the Argentine Supreme Court: Innovative Non-Jurisdictional Offices for Women and a Conservative Jurisprudence on Reproductive Rights, by Alba Ruibal working paper

ASEAN: Making the fair choice: Key steps to improve maternal health in ASEAN, based on case studies in Indonesia and the Philippines. 13 page Amnesty International report, download here

[assisted repro]  Synthetic Cells, Synthetic Life, and Inheritance by Kristine S. Knaplund, Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 45, 2011.  article

[assisted repro, cross-border]  Assisted Reproduction on Treacherous Terrain: The Legal Hazards of Cross-Border Reproductive Travel, by Richard F. Storrow, Reproductive Biomedicine Online, Vol. 23, pp. 538-545, 2011.  article.

[assisted repro]  “Legislation for assisted reproductive technologies,” by Bernard Dickens,  in Joseph G. Schenker, ed.  Ethical Dilemmas in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Germany: De Gruyter,  2011)  15-28.  Book info

[assisted repro] Capacity and Autonomy: A Thought Experiment on Minors’ Access to Assisted Reproductive Technology by Michele Goodwin & Naomi Duke, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, Vol. 34, 2011. article

[assisted repro]  Psycho-Social, Ethical and Legal Arguments for and Against the Retrospective Release of Information About Donors to Donor-Conceived Individuals in Australia, by Sonia Allan, Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2011.  article
 
Austria – Court of Appeal confirms fines for 4 anti-choice activists who bullied abortion doctor. Article in German

[contraception, Africa] Access to Contraception for Adolescents in Africa: A Human Rights Challenge, by Ebenezer Tope Durojaye, Comparative International Law Journal of Southern Africa, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 1-29, 2011. article

[consent, pregnant women] Recalcitrant Vessels: In Search of the Justifications for Compelled Medical Care of Pregnant Women (December 20, 2010)  by Carolyn Anne McConnell working paper

[emergency contraception (EC)]  How Do Emergency Contraceptive Pills Work to Prevent Pregnancy?  Mechanism of Action –  3 page explanation endorsed by FIGO and ICEC, in English – Spanish – French – German – Portuguese
Access to fact sheets and related policy papers here.
 
[EC, Hungary] No over-the-counter emergency contraception for Hungary. news article

Emergency Contraception: Catholics in Favor, Bishops Opposed (ICEC/CFC)  (8 page fact sheet) English & Spanish

[gender equality] Is the Right to Health a Necessary Precondition for Gender Equality? By Hilary Hammell,  New York University Review of Law & Social Change, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2011.  article

[gender equality] Gender Justice and CEDAW: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, by Sally Engle Merry,  Journal of Women of the Middle East and the Islamic World 9 (2011) 49-75, not online.

[HIV, Canada] Criminalization of Non-Disclosure of HIV Status to Sexual Partners, special section in McGill Journal of Law and Health 5.1 (Sept 2011), table of contents  links to:
— HIV/AIDS Introduction, by David Parry
— Prosecution of Non-Disclosure of HIV in Canada: Time to Rethink Cuerrier, by Isabel Grant
— Criminalization of the Intended Transmission or Knowing Non-Disclosure of HIV in Canada by Matthew Cornell

[HIV, family planning] What does family planning have to do with HIV? 2 page fact sheet

[HIV, India]  Rights of Persons Living with HIV/AIDS and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by Sameer Boray, working paper

[HIV, patents]   Driving a decade of change: HIV/AIDS, patents and access to medicines for all [including low income countries.  Discusses “patent pools” among other tools.  by Ellen ‘t Hoen, Jonathan Berger, Alexandra Calmy and Suerie Moon. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2-11. 14:15  article

[HIV, patents] The Global Governance of HIV/AIDS and the Rugged Road Ahead: An Epilogue, by Peter K. Yu.  In: The Global Governance of HIV/ AIDS: Intellectual Property and access to essential medicines, by Obijiofor Aginam, et al, eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012. article

[HIV, Uganda] Proposed HIV And AIDS Legislation Is A Setback To The Fight Against The Pandemic In Uganda.  AWID analysis

Ireland – contraception for adolescents – ambiguous laws  news article

Marriage as Punishment [for seduction. Historical analysis of state regulation of sex and sexuality] by Melissa E. Murray. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 2, 2012. article.

[MSM] Sex in Your city (IPPF, 36 page report)   MSM case studies re Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei, Seoul & Busan.  Survey results and gaps re sexual health.  IPPF report

[patents, stem cell] The European Court of Justice bans stem cell patents. news article

[rape of child- fatal]  “Idowu: The Nigerian Supreme Court Erred!”  by Chinua Asuzu.  working paper.

Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics and Law – book by R. Cook, B Dickens & M. Fathalla (Oxford University Press, 2003).  Full text now available online, to institutional subscribers only:  link

The Right to Health in International Law [book], by John Tobin, Oxford University Press, 2011; U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 562. Introduction

[rights-based] UN OHCHR  Report on Good and Effective Practices in Using a Human Rights Based Approach to preventable Maternal Mortality & Morbidity [following up on UN HRC second resolution.] Report.

[sex work & trafficking laws, Spain] Iglesias Skulj, Agustina, El Control Penal De Las Trabajadoras Del Sexo En El Ambito De Las Politicas Contra La Trata De Mujeres Con Fines De Explotaci�n Sexual (El Caso Espanol) (Law Enforcement and Control of Sex Workers in the Field of Policies Against Trafficking in Women for Sexual Exploitation (Special Reference to Spanish Criminal Policy))  by Agustina Iglesias Skulj. Derecho Penal y Criminologia, 32(2011)  92.  article in Spanish

[sex work, Canada] Sex Work By Law: Bedford’s Impact on the Municipal Regulation of the Sex Trade , by Elaine Craig, Review of Constitutional Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2011. article

[sex work, Canada] Why anti-john laws don’t work [ineffective in Sweden], by Lisa Kelly & Katrina Pacey newspaper op-ed

[sex work, UK, London] Most migrant sex workers are not forced to sell sex, ESRC study by Dr. Nick Mai, London Metropolitan University press release

[sterilization] Conceptualising Involuntary Sterilisation as “Severe Pain or Suffering” for the Purposes of Torture Disclosure, by Ronli Sifris (2010). 28 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 523 article

[surrogacy, Australia]  The New Surrogacy Parentage Laws in Australia: Cautious Regulation or “25 Brick Walls”  by Jenni Millbank, Melbourne University Law Review, 35.1 (2011) article

[surrogacy] A Tale of Many Cities: Using Bioethics to Deconstruct Baby Stories from the Wild World of Commercial Surrogacy, by Seema Mohapatra,  Berkeley Journal of International Law (BJIL) article

US:   Reproductive Rights Prof Blog provides US-focused scholarship and news. Subscribe here:

—————
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme,
For Programme publications and resources, see our website.