REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – January 2020

February 3, 2020

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
Colombian Constitutional Court grants “victim” status to member of armed rebel group suffering from forced and unsafe abortion, Sentencia SU-599/19, Communicado No. 50, December 11, 2019 (Constitutional Court of Colombia) “The decision is one of very few in the world to specifically recognise reproductive violence as a form of harm committed against women and girls in times of conflict” (Case comment by Dieneke de Vos).  Decision in Spanish.

Nigerian High Court upheld failure to register an organization to protect lesbian women: Pamela Adie v. Corporate Affairs Commission, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/827/2018.  Decision of November 16, 2018   (Federal High Court of Nigeria at Abuja)  Decision online.  Case comment by Obiagbaoso Maryanne Nkechi.

SCHOLARSHIP:
“Abortion: Global Perspectives and Country Experiences,” edited by Iqbal H. Shah, Special Issue of Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, includes:

— “Abortion: Professional responsibility beyond safe healthcare,”
by Mahmoud F. Fathalla, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 1-2) Editorial

— “Decriminalization of abortion – A human rights imperative,” by
Joanna N. Erdman and Rebecca J. Cook, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 11-24) Abstract and article

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

Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters just published three issues for 2019:
— “The gender injustice of abortion laws,” by Joanna N. Erdman, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27:1 (Feb 2019): 4-8, Abstract and article.
— “Criminalisation under scrutiny: how constitutional courts are changing their narrative by using public health evidence in abortion cases,” by Verónica Undurraga, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.1 (Feb 2019): 41-51. Abstract and article.
— “Politics, power and sexual and reproductive health, by Sarah Pugh, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.2 (Oct. 2019): 1-5, Table of Contents. Editorial.
— “Eliminating stigma and discrimination in sexual and reproductive health care: a public health imperative,” by Julia Hussein and Laura Ferguson, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.3 (Dec 2019): 1-5 Table of Contents. Editorial.

“Abortion Law Reform” Special section of: Health and Human Rights Journal vol. 21.2 (December 2019), online here, includes:
— “Progress towards decriminalization of abortion and universal access to safe abortions: National Trends and Strategies,” editorial by Marge Berer and Lesley Hoggart
— “Abortion in Chile: The Long Road to Legalization and its Slow Implementation,” by Gloria Maira, Lidia Casas, and Lieta Vivaldi. Abstract and article.
—“Denial of Safe Abortion to Survivors of Rape in India,” by Padma Bhate-Deosthali and Sangeeta Rege. Abstract and article.

“Abortion in the Middle East and North Africa” another special section of: Health and Human Rights Journal 21.2 (December 2019), online here, introduced by:
— “The Limits of the Law: Abortion in the Middle East and North Africa,” by Irene Maffi and Liv Tønnessen, Introduction by guest editors.

Abortion Law Decisions webpage, with links to court decisions, updated January 2020, is online here.

[Inter-American] “Women’s Reproductive Rights: Repairing Gender-Based harm in the Inter-American System of Human Rights,by Ciara O’Connell, PhD diss., University of Sussex, U.K., School of Law, Politics and Sociology, March 2017. Doctoral thesis online. Abstract and overview of case studies.

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

JOBS

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


Nigerian Court denies lesbian group registration

February 3, 2020

Many thanks to Obiagbaoso Maryanne Nkechi, an LL.M student in Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Africa, at the Center for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria’s Faculty of Law. We thank her for summarizing and commenting on this 2018 High Court decision for our online updates to the three-volume series: Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts, available here.

We are pleased to circulate excerpts from her overview and some of her comments on the decision.

Pamela Adie v. Corporate Affairs Commission, Suit No. FHCI ABJICSI82712018, Decision of November 16, 2018 Federal High Court of Nigeria (Abuja Judicial Division)  Decision online6-page overview and comments by Obiagbaoso Maryanne Nkechi.

COURT HOLDING                          
The Court dismissed the case of the Applicant on the ground that the existing and operative Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act of 2013 (SSMPA) does not support such association and for as long as the Act has not been repealed, the case of the Applicant failed.

Summary of Facts
In October 2017, the Applicant [Pamela Adie] founded an association with the name ‘Lesbian Equality and Empowerment Initiatives’ with the main objective of advocating for the rights of sexual minority women in Nigeria. She had sought to register the name of the association with the Corporate Affairs Commission, but was refused registration on the ground that the proposed name violated section 30 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) for being misleading, offensive and contrary to public policy. Additionally, registration was refused on the basis that the association violated the SSMPA, which prohibits same sex marriages and associations in Nigeria. The Applicant undertook her right of appeal as provided in section 36(2) of CAMA by petitioning the Registrar General of the Corporate Affairs Commission to overrule the decision. The Registrar General declined to do so, making the rejection final.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Corporate Affairs Commission, Pamela Adie applied to the Federal High Court of Nigeria, seeking redress. She alleged that the refusal to register her association violated her fundamental rights to freedom of expression and association as contained in section 39 and section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) (CFRN) and Articles 9(2) and 10(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (ACHPRA) of 1986 respectively.

“The case of the Applicant failed because Section 45(1)(a) [of the Nigerian Constitution] provides for the limitation of a right where the right is in conflict with public safety, public order and public morality . . . [and] the exercise of fundamental rights is not absolute — these rights can be curtailed by relevant laws. The Court . . . [noted] section 4 of the SSMPA is an example of the laws that prohibit the registration of same-sex associations in Nigeria. . . . “

Significance (excerpts):
The Court chose to remain within the confines of its own Constitutional jurisprudence . . . that allows for the overriding of rights in certain circumstances as an acceptable limit on the human rights of Nigerians. . . . It missed an opportunity to look more broadly into the realm of international law . . . [and] also did take cognizance of the ACHPRA that was brought to its attention by the Applicant’s counsel. . . .

The Court did not align with international human rights standards that protect the rights of all persons, irrespective of gender identity or sexual orientation [although] Nigeria had ratified African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights in 1986 and its Maputo Protocol in 2004, as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1993. Nigeria is therefore bound by CESCR’s General Comment 20 and ICCPR Article 17, which, according to the Human Rights Committee’s decision in Toonen v. Australia (1994), is violated by laws criminalizing homosexual activity between consenting adults, and more recently, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Resolution 275, which notes that acts of violence against an individual as a result of gender identity or sexual orientation violates a person’s right to dignity and right to be free from discrimination.

The full text of this commentary is online here: Case comment by Obiagbaoso Maryanne Nkechi.
———————
RELATED RESOURCES:
“Nigeria avoided constitutional scrutiny of anti-gay laws,” Teriah Joseph Ebah v. Federal Government of Nigeria, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/197/2014.  Decision of October 22, 2014 (Federal High Court of Nigeria at Abuja) Overview on Reprohealthlaw Blog.   Case comment by Ovye Affi.

Successful LGBT registration cases from other African courts:

For overviews of African jurisprudence. see Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts, freely available and updated here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


“The Gender Injustice of Abortion Laws” by Joanna Erdman

February 3, 2020

Congratulations to Professor Joanna N. Erdman, now Associate Director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Dalhousie, whose commentary was recently published in Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters (formerly known as Reproductive Health Matters).

Joanna N. Erdman, “The Gender Injustice of Abortion Laws,” Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 2019; 27(1): 4–8. Abstract and article.

This commentary is a response to Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska’s article on the treatment of criminal abortion laws as a form of sex discrimination under international human rights law through a study of two communications to the UN Human Rights Committee, Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland. The commentary offers a reading of these communications, and specifically the sex discrimination analysis premised on inequalities of treatment among women, as an engagement with the structural discrimination that characterises abortion laws, and as a radical vision for gender justice under international human rights law.

Prof. Erdman concludes that “By focusing on the gender stereotype that anchored the Irish prohibition in Mellet and Whelan, the [UN Human Rights] Committee moved beyond ideas of substantive equality to tackle the structural discrimination that characterises abortion law. These communications are not about comparing women to men, or comparison at all. They concern foremost the use of gender in law to rationalise inequality and injustice. Unconventional in its approach but radical in its vision, the Committee’s engagement with the structural discrimination of the Irish abortion prohibition opens international human rights law to a range of gender injustices. The Committee set out to remake gender from a set of fixed categories and essential identity traits into a source of equality and liberation for all. “Inherent to the principle of … gender equality,” as expressed under CEDAW [Gen Rec 28, para 22], “is the concept that all human beings, regardless of sex, are free to … make choices without the limitations set by stereotypes, rigid gender roles and prejudices.” Mellet and Whelan are important legal precedents for the decriminalisation of abortion as a human rights imperative. Yet they are also case studies in a vision of gender justice under international law.”

Keywords: abortion, discrimination, equality, human rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The Gender Injustice of Abortion Laws is available online: Abstract and article.

RELATED RESOURCES:
“A tough job: recognizing access to abortion as a matter of equality. A commentary on the views of the UN Human Rights Committee in the cases of Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland,” by Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska,  Reproductive Health Matters 26.54 (Nov. 2018): 25-31.  Article online.

“Ireland must comply with international human rights obligations, including HRC rulings in Whelan and Mellet cases, by Mercedes Cavallo, LL.M., Reprohealthlaw Blog, January 31, 2018.  Comment online,

Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives, by Rebecca J. Cook and Simone Cusack (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010) English edition: about the book. Libro en espanol, 2011, PDF.

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


Decriminalization of abortion: a human rights imperative

February 3, 2020

Congratulations and thanks to Professors Joanna N. Erdman, MacBain Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Dalhousie, and Rebecca J. Cook, Professor Emerita, Faculty Chair in International Human Rights, and Co-Director of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. Their co-authored article was recently published in a special issue of Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. We are pleased to circulate their abstract and highlights:

Joanna N. Erdman and Rebecca J. Cook, “Decriminalization of abortion – A human rights imperative,” Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 11-24. Abstract and article.

Decriminalization of abortion is the removal of abortion from the criminal law. This chapter reviews the evolving consensus in international human rights law, first supporting the liberalization of criminal abortion laws to improve access to care and now supporting their repeal or decriminalization as a human rights imperative to protect the health, equality, and dignity of people. This consensus is based on human rights standards or the authoritative interpretations of U.N. and regional human rights treaties in general comments and recommendations, individual communications and inquiry reports of treaty monitoring bodies, and in the thematic reports of special rapporteurs and working groups of the U.N. and regional human rights systems. This chapter explores the reach and influence of human rights standards, especially how high courts in many countries reference these standards to hold governments accountable for the reform and repeal of criminal abortion laws.

Human rights require:
— the withdrawal of punitive abortion measures,
— access to abortion, at least on grounds of life, health, sexual crime, and fetal impairment,
— timely access to information about the pregnancy and grounds for its possible termination, written reasons for denials, and review mechanisms for denials, and
— that abortion services be available to all, irrespective of their specific circumstance.

Decriminalization of Abortion: a human rights imperative,” is now available here: Abstract and article.

Related Resources:
Rebecca J. Cook, Joanna N. Erdman and Bernard M. Dickens, eds., Abortion Law in Transnational Perspective: Cases and Controversies (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), 480 pages  English edition.   En español, 2016. Table of Contents, with abstracts of all chapters.

Joanna N. Erdman and Rebecca J. Cook, Amicus Curiae brief to the Constitutional Court of Chile, about the international consensus on decriminalization of abortion, August 9, 2017
Download Spanish and English briefs in one PDF.

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


REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – Oct 2019

October 31, 2019

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

DEVELOPMENTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHOLARSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOBS

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


UN Rapporteur denounces abuses against women during childbirth

October 31, 2019

Congratulations and thanks to Dubravka Šimonović, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, for presenting her groundbreaking report, “A human rights-based approach to mistreatment and violence against women in reproductive health services, with a focus on childbirth and obstetric violence,” to the UN General Assembly on July 11, 2019 23-page report online.

Many thanks to legal scholars Alisha Bjerregaard and Christina Zampas, who summarized this report for the Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series. We are pleased to excerpt certain paragraphs:

“UN Rapporteur denounces abuses against women during childbirth,” by Alisha Bjerregaard and Christina Zampas, Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series, October 31, 2019. The full text is online here

” [ . . . This] first U.N. report of its kind . . . addresses human rights abuses experienced by women during facility-based childbirth “as part of a continuum of the violations that occur in the wider context of structural inequality, discrimination and patriarchy.”   The report states unequivocally that: “Women’s human rights include their right to receive dignified and respectful reproductive health-care services and obstetric care, free from discrimination and any violence, including sexism and psychological violence, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and coercion.” 

“Human rights violations addressed in the report include: physical and verbal abuse; over-medicalization, including the overuse of caesarian delivery, episiotomy and oxytocin when not medically justified; symphysiotomy; forced sterilization; forced abortion; shackling of women; failure to respect privacy and confidentiality; procedures without anesthesia; a lack of autonomy and decision-making; and the post-childbirth detention of women for inability to pay their hospital bills.  This list is not exhaustive, the report notes, nor does it include violations outside healthcare facilities. [ . . . ]

“By shedding light on the rights violations experienced by women during facility-based childbirth, and the drivers of this mistreatment and violence, we hope that this report spurs states to prevent and redress these abuses.  We also hope that human rights bodies engage in robust analyses of abuses that women experience during childbirth, the context in which they occur, and the inherent discrimination of these practices, as well as the intersectional nature of the discrimination that many women face.” 

The full text is online here
(Cite as:) Alisha Bjerregaard and Christina Zampas, UN Rapporteur denounces abuses against women during childbirth,” Reprohealthlaw Blog Commentaries Series, October 28, 2019.


RELATED RESOURCES:

UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women (Dubravka Šimonović), “A human rights-based approach to mistreatment and violence against women in reproductive health services, with a focus on childbirth and obstetric violence.”  U.N. Doc. A/74/137, 11 July 2019. 23-page Special Rapporteur report.

FIGO Guidelines emphasized in the report:
“Guidelines Regarding Informed Consent” (Lyon, June 2007) FIGO Ethical Guidelines pp 22-24. provides human rights standards to protect the autonomy and agency of women.

“Harmful stereotyping of women in health care” FIGO’s Ethical Guidelines (pp. 40-43) is recommended as a key resource for providers.

World Health Organization. The prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth (Geneva, WHO, 2015) 4-page WHO statement.

WHO Recommendations. Intrapartum Care for a Positive Birth Experience. (Geneva: WHO, 2018) 210-page WHO report
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our PublicationsInformation resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries SeriesTO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.


REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – June 2019

June 28, 2019

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

DEVELOPMENTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHOLARSHIP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPORTS

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

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

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

JOBS

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