Self-managed abortion: law, policy and medical evidence

Congratulations and thanks to Patty Skuster, Heidi Moseson and Jamila Perritt, whose article was recently published in the “Ethical and Legal Issues in Reproductive Health” section of the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Prof. Skuster holds the Beck Chair in Law at the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, Dr. Moseson is Senior Research Scientist at Ibis Reproductive Health, and Dr. Perritt is President and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health. We are pleased to circulate the abstract of their co-authored article, which is now freely accessible online. 

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

ABSTRACT: People have always and will always find ways to try to end their pregnancies when necessary. Many do so safely without the involvement or direct supervision of healthcare professionals by self-managing their abortions. In 2022, the well-established safety and efficacy of abortion medications prompted WHO to fully endorse self-managed medication abortion as part of a comprehensive range of safe, effective options for abortion care. But despite robust evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of the self-use of medications for abortion, abortion laws and policies around the world remain at odds with clinical evidence and with the realities of self-managed medication abortion in the present day. The present article considers legal issues related to self-managed abortion and addresses the role of obstetricians, gynecologists, and other healthcare professionals in promoting clinical and legal safety in abortion care through support of self-managed abortion.

RELATED RESOURCES

World Health Organization, Abortion Care Guideline, 2022. Online here.

“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. 

Ethical and Legal Issues in Reproductive Health, more than 110 concise articles 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 this blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

International migrants’ right to sexual and reproductive health care

Congratulations and thanks to Professor Y.Y. Brandon Chen, a legal scholar who teaches at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law. Professor Chen’s recent article in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics‘ section on Ethical and Legal Issues in Reproductive Health notes that international law protects migrants’ right to access sexual and reproductive health care, so violation of this right by governments will attract condemnation from human rights treaty bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Committee’s 2018 ruling in the case of Toussaint v. Canada. We are pleased to circulate the following abstract.

Y. Y. Brandon Chen, “International migrants’ right to sexual and reproductive health care,” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2022;157: 210–215.  PDF at Wiley online.. 

Abstract: International migration puts people’s sexual and reproductive health (SRH), particularly those of women and children, at increased risk. However, many international migrants are denied access to timely and adequate SRH information, goods, and services by governments and/or service providers. This article reviews relevant international human rights treaties to argue that the barriers faced by migrants in accessing SRH care constitute violations of international law. It is well established that migrants are guaranteed access to SRH care as a part of their right to health, as well as the rights enjoyed by vulnerable populations. Increasingly, hindrance of migrants’ access to SRH care is also recognized as a threat to their rights to life and equality with non- migrants. The case of Toussaint v Canada illustrates how governments may be held accountable by human rights treaty monitoring bodies when they fail to respect and fulfill migrants’ right to SRH care.

Keywords: health care access, international migrants, migrant women, non-discrimination, right to life, sexual and reproductive health and rights.

RELATED RESOURCES

“Sexual and reproductive health and rights of refugee and migrant women: gynecologists’ and obstetricians’ responsibilities,” by Margit Endler, T. Al Haidari, S. Chowdhury, J. Christilaw, F. El Kak, D. Galimberti, M. Gutierrez, A. Ramirez-Negrin, H. Senanayake, R. Sohail, M. Temmerman, K. Gemzell Danielsson, (On behalf of the FIGO Committee on Human Rights, Refugees and Violence against women). International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics149.1 (April 2020): 113–119. PDF at Wiley Online.   Submitted Text at SSRN.

Ethical and Legal Issues in Reproductive Health, more than 100 concise articles 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.  

New book: Advancing SRH and Rights in Africa

Congratulations to Ebenezer Durojaye, Gladys Mirugi-Mukundi, and Charles Ngwena, whose co-edited book, was recently published by Routledge. Ebenezer Durojaye is Professor and Head of the Socio-Economic Rights Project at the Dullah Omar Institute, University of the Western Cape, South Africa; Gladys Mirugi-Mukundi is a researcher in the same project; and Charles Ngwena is Professor of Law, Center for Human Rights, University of Pretoria. We are pleased to circulate the abstract and Table of Contents of this open-access book, showing the wide range of authors and subjects covered.

Ebenezer Durojaye, Gladys Mirugi-Mukundi and Charles Ngwena, eds., Advancing Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Africa: Constraints and Opportunities (Routledge, 2021), 268 pages. Entire book is online and downloadable.

This book explores recent developments, constraints and opportunities relating to the advancement of sexual and reproductive health and rights in Africa.

Despite many positive developments in relation to sexual and reproductive health in recent years, many Africans still encounter challenges, for instance in poor maternity services, living with HIV, and discrimination on the basis of age, gender, sexual orientation or identity. Covering topics such as abortion, gender identity, adolescent sexuality and homosexuality, the chapters in this book discuss the impact of culture, morality and social beliefs on the enjoyment of sexual and reproductive health and rights across the continent, particularly in relation to vulnerable and marginalized groups. The book also explores the role of litigation, national human rights institutions and regional human rights bodies in advancing the realization of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the region. Throughout, the contributions highlight the relevance of a rights-based framework in addressing topical and contentious issues on sexual and reproductive health and rights within Sub-Saharan Africa. This book will therefore be of interest to researchers of sexuality, civil rights and health in Africa.

The Open Access version of this book, available online here, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
Ebenezer Durojaye, Gladys Mirugi-Mukundi and Charles Ngwena

2. Abortion and ‘conscientious objection’ in South Africa: The need for regulation
Satang Nabaneh

3. Addressing Maternal Mortality through decriminalizing abortion in Nigeria: Asking the “Woman Question”
Ibrahim Obadina

4. Mainstreaming the ‘Abortion Question’ into the Right to Health in Uganda
Robert Nanima

5. Barriers to Access to Contraceptives for Adolescent Girls in Rural Zimbabwe as a Human Rights Challenge
Michelle Rufaro Maziwisa

6. It Takes Two to Tango! – The Relevance and Dilemma of Involving Men in the Realisation of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Africa
Sibusiso Mkwananzi

7. Positive Approaches to Childhood Sexuality and Transforming Gender Norms in Malawi
Godfrey Dalitso Kangaude

8. Addressing Female Genital Cutting/Mutilation (FGC/M) in The Gambia: Beyond Criminalisation
Ebenezer Durojaye and Satang Nabaneh

9. In Search of a Middle Ground: Addressing Cultural and Religious Influences on the Criminalisation of Homosexuality in Nigeria
Adetoun T Adebanjo

10. A Case for Removing Barriers to Legal Recognition of Transgender Persons in Botswana
Kutlwano Pearl Magashula

11. Advancing the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Journey to Resolution 275
Berry D. Nibogora

12. Lessons from Litigating for Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights in Southern Africa
Tambudzai Gonese-Manjonjo and Ebenezer Durojaye

13. Experiences from the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights KNCHR) on the Promotion and Protection of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
Shatikha S. Chivusia

14. Monitoring implementation of the sexual and reproductive health and rights of adolescent children: the role of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
Ayalew Getachew Assefa

Open Access Book:
Read Full Book – Open Access Opens in new tab or window

________

Compiled 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.

Malawi’s first abortion ruling sheds light on law and hospital norms

Many thanks to legal scholars Lewis Bande, Ph.D, and Godfrey Kangaude, LL.D., for submitting a learned commentary on the High Court of Malawi’s first ever “Ruling on a judicial review application to access safe abortion,” decided June 15, 2021. Their 6-page summary and analysis of this decision has just been published at this link, among the online updates to the third volume of case summaries, Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in Sub-Saharan African Courts. Here is a brief overview of their comments on the following case:

The State (On the Application by HM (Guardian) on behalf of CM (Minor) vs The Hospital Director of Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital & The Minister of Health: Judicial Review Cause Number 03 of 2021 (unreported) (High Court of Malawi, Zomba District Registry) Decision of 15 June 2021. Decision on Google drive. (Download:) Legal Brief by Lewis Bande and Godfrey Kangaude. 

The case centres upon a minor known as “C.M.,” a 15-year-old girl who had been “defiled,” impregnated and abandoned by a married man.  She claimed to have been refused termination of pregnancy at the Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital’s facility for survivors of sexual abuse. There, healthcare providers told her that abortion is illegal in Malawi.  From legal counsel, the girl’s family later learned that abortion is indeed illegal under the antiquated Malawi Penal Code of 1930, but prosecution can be avoided under Section 243, which provides:

A person is not criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon any person for his benefit, or upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother’s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time, and to all the circumstances of the case.

Healthcare providers routinely interpret this Section of the law restrictively, excluding victims of defilement or sexual assault. In this context, abortion requests and refusals normally happen orally and are not usually recorded in medical records.

The Court’s Ruling: The Court rejected the application for judicial review on the sole ground that there was no evidence that the First Defendant, as director of a public hospital, was responsible for any “decision” that could be judicially reviewed. As Bande and Kangaude observe, the Court cannot be faulted for this ruling. However, the Court proceeded to speculate that this application would probably have failed on other grounds that seem debatable. The Court’s ruling, they write, shows room for further litigation on the interpretation of the current law for girls and women who have been sexually assaulted.  In the ruling, the Court used language that suggests that it recognizes that preservation of a woman’s life entails preserving her mental and physical health. This seems progressive on the part of Court, as it conforms with the consensus in the human rights discourse that the rights to health and life are closely related.   

Significance: Although permission for judicial review was denied, this ruling is a milestone, marking the very first instance that the High Court of Malawi has acknowledged and discussed the position that abortion can be lawfully performed in Malawi. The ruling also shows that defiled or raped Malawian girls and women are being excluded from safe abortion, and they are forced to keep pregnancies that are a result of sexual assault because the Section 243 exception is interpreted restrictively by health providers. The Second Defendant in this case was, appropriately, the Minister of Health, because decisions to refuse terminations of pregnancy would be based on policies for which the Health Minister is responsible.

The Malawi Law Commission’s 2015 review of the colonial abortion law proposed liberal changes to the law which, if implemented, would eventually expand access to safe abortion.[1] Rather than waiting for law reform, the Ministry of Health should immediately provide defiled girls and rape victims with access to safe abortion by clarifying the application of the existing abortion law. In the Health Ministry’s current Standards and Guidelines for Post Abortion Care (2020)[3], section 1.2, it remains unclear whether victims of sexual violence can access safe terminations legally. Professional guidelines should clarify that any girl or woman who has been raped or defiled should have an option to terminate the pregnancy, and without being subjected to burdensome requirements such as proving severe depression or suicidal ideation. Meanwhile, health advocates should continue to champion law reforms that respect Malawi’s constitutional and international obligations toward girls and women.

Related Resources:

[1]   Malawi Law Commission. Report of the Law Commission on the review of the law on abortion (Penal Code CAP.7:01 of the Laws of Malawi). Lilongwe: Malawi Law Commission; 2015. Report online.

 [2] See also: Godfrey Dalitso Kangaude and Chisale Mhango, “The Duty to make abortion law transparent: A Malawi case study” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 143.3 (Dec. 2018): 409–413, Published Version at IJGO.  Submitted text online at SSRN.

[3] Ministry of Health, Malawi, Standards and Guidelines for Post Abortion Care 2020.   43-page document. PAC Guidelines.

(Download:) Legal Brief by Lewis Bande and Godfrey Kangaude. 

________
Compiled by the Coordinator of 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 – 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.

India: Reimagining Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence

Congratulations to Dipika Jain and Payal Shah, whose 2020 article recently appeared in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Dipika Jain is a Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Centre for Health Law, Ethics, and Technology at Jindal Global Law School. Payal K. Shah, recently acting as Regional Director for Asia at the Center for Reproductive Rights, is now a Reproductive Health Law Fellow in the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. We are pleased to circulate the authors’ abstract and a link to their paper:

“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 article online.

Despite the significant impact of decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, on a woman’s future life and enjoyment of her other human rights, the Indian judiciary has yet to clearly articulate the link between reproductive autonomy and gender equality. In the Puttaswamy decision, the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to reproductive choice is rooted within the constitutionally protected right to privacy. While the right to privacy has been the basis for ground-breaking judgments on reproductive rights globally, feminist legal theorists have voiced significant critiques as to the limits of privacy, specifically its potential to achieve reproductive autonomy and equality. We explore the applicability of these critiques in India, including concerns voiced by legal scholars regarding the limitations of the right to privacy as a tool for meaningful enjoyment of reproductive autonomy or gender equality as a whole.

The post-Puttaswamy decisions of Navtej Johar [on homosexuality] and Joseph Shine [on adultery] mark a shift in jurisprudence, with the Supreme Court relying on equality-based arguments to reject societal stigmatization and discrimination against the marginalized group in question. In both cases, the court set forth a framework to understand how the rights to privacy, equality, and non-discrimination on the basis of sex and gender intersect. This intersection of rights gives rise to an obligation of states to eliminate laws that reflect discriminatory gender stereotypes, including those pertaining to sexuality. Limits on the right to abortion indirectly or directly marginalize women by controlling their right to bodily autonomy and denying them privacy and equality. Hence, we argue that these cases demonstrate the potential success of arguments for reproductive rights based on equal citizenship.

We first lay out the legal framework and jurisprudence of reproductive rights in India before the Puttaswamy decision. We then explore the benefits of having a constitutionally recognized right to privacy and how it can advance reproductive rights. We also examine the drawbacks of using a privacy-based analysis as a foundation for reproductive rights due to its vulnerability to restriction on grounds of compelling state interest. Further, this we engage with feminist critiques of privacy rights as well as equality-based approaches and argue for a framework that takes into consideration meaningful choice and structural barriers to the exercise of reproductive autonomy. We critically examine judgments from comparative and international law that have a strong basis in the right to equality to reflect on how recognition of reproductive rights as an issue of gender justice—beyond just individual choice—could strengthen Indian reproductive rights jurisprudence. In other words, we argue for a reimagination of reproductive rights within an equality framework. Finally, we conclude that the use of an equality-based framework could significantly benefit pregnant persons’ right to reproductive autonomy.

The full text can be freely downloaded through this webpage.]

RELATED REPORTS by Payal K. Shah:

Securing Reproductive Justice in India: A Casebook, Center for Reproductive Rights, 2019 (co-authored with Mrinal Satish and Aparna Chandra) 520-page casebook, and chapters by topic.

Ensuring Reproductive Rights: Reform to Address Women’s and Girls’ Need for Abortion After 20 Weeks in India, Center for Reproductive Rights, 2018. 56-page report.

Reproductive Rights in Indian Courts, Center for Reproductive Rights, 2016. 4-page briefing.
______________
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.

UN Call for submissions: Women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights in situations of crisis

Cross-posted from UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, with clarification about submissions below.

By Monday, August 31, 2020, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women and girls (WG-DAWG) requests stakeholders to contribute to a thematic report on women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in situations of crisis for the 47th session of the Human Rights Council in June 2021. The report will examine women’s and girls’ SRHR within an overarching framework of reasserting gender equality and countering roll-backs.

The Working Group will take a broad approach to crisis. In doing so, it intends not only to look at humanitarian crises, typically understood as encompassing international and non-international conflicts and occupied territories, natural disasters, man-made disasters, famine and pandemics, but it will also examine long-standing situations of crisis resulting from structural discrimination deeply embedded in histories of patriarchy, colonization, conquest and marginalization (such as in the case, for example, of indigenous women, Roma women and women of African descent), as well as other types of crisis based on the lived experiences of women, such as those induced by environmental factors, including the toxification of the planet, land grabbing, political, social and economic crises, including the impact of austerity measures, refugee and migrant crises, displacement crises, and gang-related violence, among others. The Working Group will examine how existing laws, policies, and practices can contribute to negative reproductive health outcomes for women and girls in situations of crisis and restrictions on their autonomy during their life-cycle, using an intersectional approach.

In order to inform the preparation of this report and in line with its mandate to maintain a constructive dialogue with States and other stakeholders to address discrimination against women and girls, the Working Group would like to seek inputs from all stakeholders.

Submissions should be sent by 31 August 2020 to wgdiscriminationwomen@ohchr.org and will be made public on the Working Group’s web page, unless otherwise requested. The Working Group is particularly interested in receiving information about challenges faced in ensuring that women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive rights are respected, protected and fulfilled in times of crisis, and are adequately prioritized, as well as examples of good practices.

CLARIFICATION:
By August 31, 2020, please submit to wgdiscriminationwomen@ohchr.org:
1. responses to this 4-page Questionnaire: in English,
in French, or Spanish;
2. any relevant information (including publications, reports or academic articles)*
Reminder: All submissions will be published (or republished) on the Working Group’s website, unless confidentiality is requested.

______________
Cross-posted 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.

Global Zoom: “COVID-19 and the Politics of Repro Health” Wed. 29 July

Please join the upcoming virtual discussions with panelists and participants at this upcoming Zoom webinar, hosted by Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics:

“COVID-19 and the Politics of Reproductive Health: Global Perspectives,” ZOOM webinar, Wednesday July 29th, 2020 at 11:00 am Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Event details. REGISTER HERE.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged health systems around the world, displacing attention to other much-needed services and conditions. It has particularly impacted access to sexual and reproductive health goods and services around the globe. While in some places governments have made concerted efforts to mitigate the displacement of sexual and reproductive health services by telehealth and other means, in many other places the pandemic has provided cover for policies that neglect and even undermine reproductive health and rights. Reproductive rights movements and mobilizations (including around abortion) have been interrupted; contraception access has been affected; and sexual and obstetric violence have increased. Join us for a discussion of the impact that COVID-19 has had on sexual and reproductive health and rights around the world.

Panelists include:
* Paola Bergallo, Associate Professor of Law, Universidad Torcuato di Tella, Argentina;
* Ruth Fletcher, Senior Lecturer in Medical Law, Queen Mary’s University of London, School of Law, United Kingdom;
* Camila Gianella, Executive Director, Centre for Social Science Research (CISEPA), Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú;
* Nerima Were, Program Manager, Sexual Reproductive Health Rights, The Kenya Legal & Ethical Issues Network on HIV and AIDS (KELIN).
* Alicia Ely Yamin, Senior Fellow in Global Health and Rights, The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School (will moderate).

Event details
REGISTER HERE.

REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – January 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 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.

Inter-American Repro Rights Reparations – thesis by Ciara O’Connell

Congratulations to Dr. Ciara O’Connell, now a Research Fellow at the Law School of Trinity College Dublin, whose 2017 doctoral thesis from the University of Sussex is now freely accessible online. We are pleased to circulate her abstract, into which we have inserted {in curly brackets} her introductions to the three Inter-American cases she analyzed.

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

This thesis examines women’s reproductive rights litigation before the Inter-American System of Human Rights and determines how the Inter-American System can more effectively take account of, and repair, harms specific to women in reproductive rights cases. It builds upon a growing body of literature on women’s rights in the Inter-American System, and employs feminist socio-legal methodologies to identify the structural obstacles which cause violations of women’s reproductive rights, and to challenge the gap between gender-based rhetoric and reparation in women’s reproductive rights cases. The thesis centres around three specific cases. These cases are critically examined using the Holistic Gender Approach to Reparations developed by Ruth Rubio-Marín and Clara Sandoval. In applying this Approach to the case studies, it is possible to determine how, to what extent and to what effect, each reproductive rights case incorporates gendered harm in its reparation design.

{The cases selected for this research project are emblematic in nature, and represent violations of women’s reproductive rights on a massive scale. The first case study examines María Mamerita Mestanza Chávez v. Peru, which was a Friendly Settlement Agreement. This case remains open before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and was selected because it addressed the coercive sterilization of thousands of Peruvian women, and because the Agreement included an analysis, albeit limited, of socio-cultural discrimination as a cause of women’s reproductive rights violations.
The second case, Paulina del Carmen Jacinto Ramírez v. Mexico, was also a Friendly Settlement Agreement, but in this case the State and the victim reached an agreement before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights formally admitted the case. The case was an abortion rights case that highlights the restrictions women and girls face when attempting to access their legal rights to abortion services. The Inter-American Commission closed this case, despite the fact that the State of Mexico failed to comply with all of the measures of the Friendly Settlement Agreement. The analysis conducted of each of these Agreements highlights the potential of the Friendly Settlement Agreement mechanism to transform the reproductive lives of women through gender-based reparations.
The final case, Artavia Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica, was selected for analysis because it is, at this point, the Inter-American System’s only binding reproductive rights judgment, and as such, it is the first glimpse into the Inter-American Court’s approach to repairing gender-based
harm in a reproductive rights case. This case examined the right to in vitro fertilization for heterosexual married couples in Costa Rica, and is especially significant because the Inter-American Court expanded the definition of reproductive health, and included an analysis of the disproportionate impact of gender stereotyping on the lives of women.}
(pp. 8-9)

This research utilizes doctrinal and empirical research methods to draw conclusions about how the Inter-American System and members of civil society such as women’s rights organizations and litigators can expand upon and improve the Inter-American System’s approach to repairing and eliminating violations of women’s reproductive rights. Through information gathered from interviews with actors familiar with the case studies and the Inter-American System, this thesis determines a number of strategies to improve the transformative potential of reparations issued by the Inter-American Commission and Court. These strategies, when combined with the Holistic Gender Approach to Reparations, establish the foundation on which to develop a “gender reparations tradition” within reproductive rights litigation before the Inter-American System of Human Rights.

The entire thesis (272 pages, PDF) can be downloaded here: Doctoral thesis.

Related Resources:

Ruth Rubio-Marín and Clara Sandoval, “Engendering the Reparations Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Promise of the ‘Cotton Field’ Judgment” (2011) 33:4 Human Rights Quarterly 1062-1091. English PDF.

“Human Rights to In Vitro Fertilization” by Fernando Zegers-Hochschild, Bernard M. Dickens and Sandra Dughman-Manzur, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 123 (2013) 86–89. English PDF. Texto y PDF en Español

Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives, by Rebecca J. Cook and Simone Cusack (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010). About the book. Spanish edition (311 pages) PDF

______________
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.