Bligh to rewrite law to abortion to protect doctors
Jamie Walker | August 21, 2009
Article from: The Australian
QUEENSLAND will rewrite part of its hotly contested law on abortion to accommodate doctors' concerns that they may be liable to criminal prosecution for performing drug-induced terminations.
Premier Anna Bligh, confirming a report in The Australian today, said the Government would review a section of the Criminal Code that is supposed to provide a defence for doctors to perform an abortion, otherwise banned by state law, to preserve the mother's life or health.
Doctors at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital this week suspended medical abortions out of concern that section 282 of the criminal code referred only to surgical abortions and so did not cover them for terminations involving drugs such as the abortion pill, RU486.
The issue has been brought to a head by the charging of a couple in Cairns with criminal offences for illegally procuring an abortion, allegedly with RU486 and another abortion drug, misoprostol, smuggled into the state from overseas.
Ms Bligh, who is on the record as personally favouring decriminalisation of abortion, said today that doctors performing authorised medical abortions were entitled to same legal protection surgical procedures had under the law.
"What we are looking at is where a doctor provides medicine, that is authorised for any purpose, that they should be entitled to the same protection already provided under the criminal code for any authorised surgery, whether it is in relation to termination of pregnancy or indeed any other surgery,” Ms Bligh said.
Deputy Queensland Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said the Liberal National Party would be willing to support the change, provided it did no more than clarify the existing law, and did not make abortion more readily available.
Obstetricians at Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital were due to meet this afternoon to discuss an appeal by the Government to resume their medical abortion service.
NSW and Victoria both said today there were mechanisms for patients to be referred from Queensland on a case by case basis, and neither government would block such access.
Queensland retains the harshest laws in the country against abortion, with offences carrying up to 14 years' jail.
Ms Bligh, however, has ruled out wider reform of the contentious law.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Australia- Caught in Abortion Crossfire
Caught in abortion crossfire
The Australian Newspaper
SPARE a thought for Tegan Leach and her boyfriend, Sergie Brennan.
Late last year they were faced with a decision 100,000-odd Australian women make annually: Leach, 19, had become pregnant and, after talking things through with her partner, is alleged by police to have resolved not to have the baby.
The steps the couple are alleged to have taken are now the subject of intensely watched court proceedings in Cairns, north Queensland. Police have charged Leach with the offence, under the Queensland Criminal Code, of procuring her own miscarriage, the first such prosecution for more than a half century.
But that's not all that gives this case its political needle; Leach is alleged to have terminated her pregnancy with contraband RU486, the abortion pill that was allowed into the country just three years ago, and only after federal MPs and senators exercised conscience votes to overturn a ban on its importation.
If convicted, she faces up to seven years' jail.
Brennan, 21, has been charged with one count of attempting to procure an abortion, an offence carrying up to 14 years' imprisonment, and a further count of supplying drugs to procure an abortion, punishable by three years' jail. Neither has entered pleas.
As detailed in the paper's news section today, the couple's problems don't end there.
Their home was firebombed with a Molotov cocktail and Brennan's car was smashed up. The young man believes the attacks were no coincidence, though Cherish Life Queensland, the state's main pro-life group, has strongly denied any association with violence.
The couple has moved to a new address in Cairns secured by closed-circuit cameras and guard dogs.
"It was pretty bad," Brennan tells Inquirer in his first interview. "Everyone in Australia knew who we were and where we lived."
Forces on both sides of the bitter abortion divide are mobilising across the country. In cyberspace, a dedicated page has been set up on social networking site Facebook to support the couple.
Children by Choice in Queensland is using the case to step up its campaign for abortion law reform; specifically, for the 110-year-old provisions of the criminal law against abortion to be repealed and for abortion to be regulated instead through the state's Health Act. Essentially, this is what Victoria did last year when it decriminalised abortions up to week 24 of gestation. Anti-abortion rights activists are organising in Queensland to block the renewed push for law reform in that state.
Toowoomba general practitioner David van Gend, who campaigned strongly to keep RU486 out of the country, has re-emerged to back the police in prosecuting the prosecution of the Cairns couple, saying bluntly: "Where consenting adults conceive a baby, both they and their doctors have a duty of care to that child that cannot be abrogated and any attempt to take its life must be restrained by law. Does our position mean couples should be prosecuted for self-procurement of abortion, such as with RU486, where there is no medical necessity? Yes. We either enforce, with an appropriate deterrent, some agreed limits on abortion, or sink to the depraved depths of the current Victorian regime."
Cherish Life Queensland president Teresa Martin says the group has had observers in court to track the case as it grinds through the judicial process. Leach and Brennan are due toappear at a committal hearing next month in Cairns, where a magistrate will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to put them on trial.
Martin insists that her people have no truck with the aggressive tactics adopted by some anti-abortion groups; they don't confront women outside abortion clinics, for example, though they sometimes mount "silent protests" there.
Anyone who used violence would be drummed out of Cherish Life, Martin says. "In no way, shape or form would we accept that."
The case has already exposed deep-seated problems with the abortion laws in Queensland. Cairns obstetrician and professor of medicine Caroline de Costa, who was at the forefront of the campaign in 2005-06 to bring RU486 into the country and established the first clinical service using the drug, has stopped prescribing it because of what she says is the uncertainty in the law.
There were two factors in this decision, de Costa says. Strictly speaking, elective abortions are banned by statute law in Queensland. Section 282 of the criminal code, however, does allow an abortion to be performed "for the preservation of the mother's life".
In 1986, Brisbane judge Fred McGuire interpreted this exemption broadly to create one of the planks in Australian case law that gives women access to elective abortion, even when it is banned by statute.
De Costa's primary concern is that the legal situation is unstable, and the prosecution of Leach and Brennan reinforced that.
"Cairns has become something of a centre of abortion radicalism, if you like, compared to the rest of Queensland," she says. "And so when this case presented we felt it just wasn't a coincidence."
The second issue she has with the existing law is the wording of section 282, which refers to "a surgical operation" to save the mother's life. How does the common law defence apply to her work with RU486, she wonders, when it is medical in its application, not surgical?
"It's not about the ethics or morality or what anyone thinks about abortion," she says. "It's about making sure that the law is clear and consistent with the rest of Australia."
All of which is something of a headache for Premier Anna Bligh, just what she doesn't need right now when the unions are kicking up over the state government's $15 billion assets sell-off and the Labor mates affair continues to unspool.
Bligh's Labor predecessors Wayne Goss and Peter Beattie each reformed Queensland's antiquated laws on prostitution but shied away from abortion. Bligh, to date, has continued to follow the path of least resistance, saying she would support a private member's bill if it happened to lob in parliament, but the legislation wouldn't come from her, and if it were presented she doubted whether it would pass.
Bligh, a former women's activist, said she feared access to abortion could be made more restrictive if the legislation were amended "in its manifestation through the debate".
That would be a terrible outcome for women, the Premier said.
Leach, awaiting her day in court in trepidation with her boyfriend, could probably tell Bligh a thing or two about that.
The Australian Newspaper
SPARE a thought for Tegan Leach and her boyfriend, Sergie Brennan.
Late last year they were faced with a decision 100,000-odd Australian women make annually: Leach, 19, had become pregnant and, after talking things through with her partner, is alleged by police to have resolved not to have the baby.
The steps the couple are alleged to have taken are now the subject of intensely watched court proceedings in Cairns, north Queensland. Police have charged Leach with the offence, under the Queensland Criminal Code, of procuring her own miscarriage, the first such prosecution for more than a half century.
But that's not all that gives this case its political needle; Leach is alleged to have terminated her pregnancy with contraband RU486, the abortion pill that was allowed into the country just three years ago, and only after federal MPs and senators exercised conscience votes to overturn a ban on its importation.
If convicted, she faces up to seven years' jail.
Brennan, 21, has been charged with one count of attempting to procure an abortion, an offence carrying up to 14 years' imprisonment, and a further count of supplying drugs to procure an abortion, punishable by three years' jail. Neither has entered pleas.
As detailed in the paper's news section today, the couple's problems don't end there.
Their home was firebombed with a Molotov cocktail and Brennan's car was smashed up. The young man believes the attacks were no coincidence, though Cherish Life Queensland, the state's main pro-life group, has strongly denied any association with violence.
The couple has moved to a new address in Cairns secured by closed-circuit cameras and guard dogs.
"It was pretty bad," Brennan tells Inquirer in his first interview. "Everyone in Australia knew who we were and where we lived."
Forces on both sides of the bitter abortion divide are mobilising across the country. In cyberspace, a dedicated page has been set up on social networking site Facebook to support the couple.
Children by Choice in Queensland is using the case to step up its campaign for abortion law reform; specifically, for the 110-year-old provisions of the criminal law against abortion to be repealed and for abortion to be regulated instead through the state's Health Act. Essentially, this is what Victoria did last year when it decriminalised abortions up to week 24 of gestation. Anti-abortion rights activists are organising in Queensland to block the renewed push for law reform in that state.
Toowoomba general practitioner David van Gend, who campaigned strongly to keep RU486 out of the country, has re-emerged to back the police in prosecuting the prosecution of the Cairns couple, saying bluntly: "Where consenting adults conceive a baby, both they and their doctors have a duty of care to that child that cannot be abrogated and any attempt to take its life must be restrained by law. Does our position mean couples should be prosecuted for self-procurement of abortion, such as with RU486, where there is no medical necessity? Yes. We either enforce, with an appropriate deterrent, some agreed limits on abortion, or sink to the depraved depths of the current Victorian regime."
Cherish Life Queensland president Teresa Martin says the group has had observers in court to track the case as it grinds through the judicial process. Leach and Brennan are due toappear at a committal hearing next month in Cairns, where a magistrate will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to put them on trial.
Martin insists that her people have no truck with the aggressive tactics adopted by some anti-abortion groups; they don't confront women outside abortion clinics, for example, though they sometimes mount "silent protests" there.
Anyone who used violence would be drummed out of Cherish Life, Martin says. "In no way, shape or form would we accept that."
The case has already exposed deep-seated problems with the abortion laws in Queensland. Cairns obstetrician and professor of medicine Caroline de Costa, who was at the forefront of the campaign in 2005-06 to bring RU486 into the country and established the first clinical service using the drug, has stopped prescribing it because of what she says is the uncertainty in the law.
There were two factors in this decision, de Costa says. Strictly speaking, elective abortions are banned by statute law in Queensland. Section 282 of the criminal code, however, does allow an abortion to be performed "for the preservation of the mother's life".
In 1986, Brisbane judge Fred McGuire interpreted this exemption broadly to create one of the planks in Australian case law that gives women access to elective abortion, even when it is banned by statute.
De Costa's primary concern is that the legal situation is unstable, and the prosecution of Leach and Brennan reinforced that.
"Cairns has become something of a centre of abortion radicalism, if you like, compared to the rest of Queensland," she says. "And so when this case presented we felt it just wasn't a coincidence."
The second issue she has with the existing law is the wording of section 282, which refers to "a surgical operation" to save the mother's life. How does the common law defence apply to her work with RU486, she wonders, when it is medical in its application, not surgical?
"It's not about the ethics or morality or what anyone thinks about abortion," she says. "It's about making sure that the law is clear and consistent with the rest of Australia."
All of which is something of a headache for Premier Anna Bligh, just what she doesn't need right now when the unions are kicking up over the state government's $15 billion assets sell-off and the Labor mates affair continues to unspool.
Bligh's Labor predecessors Wayne Goss and Peter Beattie each reformed Queensland's antiquated laws on prostitution but shied away from abortion. Bligh, to date, has continued to follow the path of least resistance, saying she would support a private member's bill if it happened to lob in parliament, but the legislation wouldn't come from her, and if it were presented she doubted whether it would pass.
Bligh, a former women's activist, said she feared access to abortion could be made more restrictive if the legislation were amended "in its manifestation through the debate".
That would be a terrible outcome for women, the Premier said.
Leach, awaiting her day in court in trepidation with her boyfriend, could probably tell Bligh a thing or two about that.
Australia- Abortion laws 'feed illegal drug trade'
Abortion laws 'feed illegal drug trade'
By Bronwyn Herbert for The World Today ABC News Australia
The president of the Australian College of Obstetricians has renewed the call for abortion to be decriminalised throughout Australia.
For many women, attending an abortion clinic is unaffordable or out of reach, so increasingly it seems some women are turning to what is known as a "medical" abortion - in others words, terminating a pregnancy by drugs rather than by surgery.
And the obstetrician Caroline de Costa says many of them are illegally buying a drug to induce their own abortions at home.
"The drug Misoprostol, which is legally available for a number of reasons in Australia, is also being used undercover or covertly by some women for procuring an abortion for themselves in Australia," she said.
"I think this is probably most common amongst some immigrant women from China and from south-east Asia, where the drug is widely used in this way anyway."
Dr de Costa is a professor of gynaecology and obstetrics at James Cook University's School of Medicine in Cairns. She is also an advocate of medical abortions carried out under a doctor's supervision.
Dr de Costa says it is disturbing to hear of women buying the drug illegally.
"I'm aware of anecdotal evidence that this is happening; I've spoken to colleagues who have also mentioned that they have come across cases," she said.
"We know that it is easy to access the drug on the internet, it is sold in Australia and prescribed in Australia for other purposes so it can be illegally accessed that way."
Medical abortions are available in many western countries including the US, Sweden and New Zealand, but not in Australia unless you visit one of a handful of gynaecologists.
Edith Weisberg is the director of research at Family Planning New South Wales and a senior clinical lecturer at Sydney University.
"I think the problem is that Australia is one of the few western countries that doesn't have medical abortion available as an option for women needing an abortion," Dr Weisberg said.
Another drug used for medical abortions is RU486 and Dr Weisberg says it is concerning to hear that some women in Queensland have also been illegally sourcing this drug.
"The problem is that first of all we don't know where they're sourcing it from and how good the product is - that's the first thing," she said.
"And the second thing is that RU486 used as an abortifacient is only about 85 per cent effective if you use it by yourself, so these women may in fact have incomplete abortions and need surgical evacuation of their uterus afterwards."
Ted Weaver is the president of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians.
"We think that if people have to resort to backyard approaches for doing these things then we think that's probably not a good idea," he said.
"There's a potential for harm for women; these drugs aren't without risk and whatever the rights and wrongs of abortion we think that women, if they choose to do this, should be able to access a safe service."
Dr Weaver says abortion needs to be decriminalised nationwide.
"There needs to be legislative certainty for doctors that they won't be prosecuted for performing abortions, if that's what they want to do, and that women shouldn't be prosecuted for trying to access one, if that's also what they want to do," he said.
"So we need to take it out of the criminal code, essentially.
"Some states have enacted law reform, Victoria has and South Australia has, but in Queensland abortion is still contained within the criminal code.
"The College's position would be that it should be taken out of the criminal code and if people want to access that service, and that's their business, then those services should be provided in a safe way."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/04/2645919.htm?section=australia
By Bronwyn Herbert for The World Today ABC News Australia
The president of the Australian College of Obstetricians has renewed the call for abortion to be decriminalised throughout Australia.
For many women, attending an abortion clinic is unaffordable or out of reach, so increasingly it seems some women are turning to what is known as a "medical" abortion - in others words, terminating a pregnancy by drugs rather than by surgery.
And the obstetrician Caroline de Costa says many of them are illegally buying a drug to induce their own abortions at home.
"The drug Misoprostol, which is legally available for a number of reasons in Australia, is also being used undercover or covertly by some women for procuring an abortion for themselves in Australia," she said.
"I think this is probably most common amongst some immigrant women from China and from south-east Asia, where the drug is widely used in this way anyway."
Dr de Costa is a professor of gynaecology and obstetrics at James Cook University's School of Medicine in Cairns. She is also an advocate of medical abortions carried out under a doctor's supervision.
Dr de Costa says it is disturbing to hear of women buying the drug illegally.
"I'm aware of anecdotal evidence that this is happening; I've spoken to colleagues who have also mentioned that they have come across cases," she said.
"We know that it is easy to access the drug on the internet, it is sold in Australia and prescribed in Australia for other purposes so it can be illegally accessed that way."
Medical abortions are available in many western countries including the US, Sweden and New Zealand, but not in Australia unless you visit one of a handful of gynaecologists.
Edith Weisberg is the director of research at Family Planning New South Wales and a senior clinical lecturer at Sydney University.
"I think the problem is that Australia is one of the few western countries that doesn't have medical abortion available as an option for women needing an abortion," Dr Weisberg said.
Another drug used for medical abortions is RU486 and Dr Weisberg says it is concerning to hear that some women in Queensland have also been illegally sourcing this drug.
"The problem is that first of all we don't know where they're sourcing it from and how good the product is - that's the first thing," she said.
"And the second thing is that RU486 used as an abortifacient is only about 85 per cent effective if you use it by yourself, so these women may in fact have incomplete abortions and need surgical evacuation of their uterus afterwards."
Ted Weaver is the president of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians.
"We think that if people have to resort to backyard approaches for doing these things then we think that's probably not a good idea," he said.
"There's a potential for harm for women; these drugs aren't without risk and whatever the rights and wrongs of abortion we think that women, if they choose to do this, should be able to access a safe service."
Dr Weaver says abortion needs to be decriminalised nationwide.
"There needs to be legislative certainty for doctors that they won't be prosecuted for performing abortions, if that's what they want to do, and that women shouldn't be prosecuted for trying to access one, if that's also what they want to do," he said.
"So we need to take it out of the criminal code, essentially.
"Some states have enacted law reform, Victoria has and South Australia has, but in Queensland abortion is still contained within the criminal code.
"The College's position would be that it should be taken out of the criminal code and if people want to access that service, and that's their business, then those services should be provided in a safe way."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/04/2645919.htm?section=australia
Thursday, July 30, 2009
It's Time The State Faced Up To Abortion Realities
The Irish Examiner - Letter to the Editor
It's time the state faced up to abortion realities
Thursday, July 30, 2009
HOW ironic if, as Dan Buckley suggests (July 21), a European Court of Human Rights decision in the A,B and C abortion cases becomes Europe's equivalent of Roe v Wade.
Anti-choice groups have influenced the Irish state's policy on this matter to the extent that it has failed even to legislate on the protection of a woman's life when, in the words of the X case judgment, there is a "real and substantial risk" that she will die because of her pregnancy.
It is surely no defence to claim that every woman in the country who finds herself in situation where she wishes to choose abortion has the option of exposing her most intimate concerns before a court in order to seek permission. It is time the state was honest and admitted that far from being a shining example of difference from our European neighbours, abortion is commonplace here.
Failure to face up to that reality and give Irish women access to those reproductive rights shared by most European women has meant that, as US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently said of the situation in the USA, "we have a policy that only affects poor women ... and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often".
A period of recession can only deepen the inequalities between Irish women who have the means to define and exercise their right to choose abortion and can travel to Britain, the Netherlands or further afield and those who do not. The matter of abortion involves complex issues of rights and ethics which Irish politicians have grappled with only at the most simplistic level – and rarely with a focus on the rights, experiences or health of women.
The Irish state's failure to address this issue and its lack of interest in or understanding of the difficulties pregnant women may face deserves to be exposed in an international arena.
Dr Sandra McAvoy
Douglas Road
Cork
Read more: http://examiner.ie/opinion/letters/its-time-the-state-faced-up-to-abortion-realities-97641.html#ixzz0MjQGEMI0
It's time the state faced up to abortion realities
Thursday, July 30, 2009
HOW ironic if, as Dan Buckley suggests (July 21), a European Court of Human Rights decision in the A,B and C abortion cases becomes Europe's equivalent of Roe v Wade.
Anti-choice groups have influenced the Irish state's policy on this matter to the extent that it has failed even to legislate on the protection of a woman's life when, in the words of the X case judgment, there is a "real and substantial risk" that she will die because of her pregnancy.
It is surely no defence to claim that every woman in the country who finds herself in situation where she wishes to choose abortion has the option of exposing her most intimate concerns before a court in order to seek permission. It is time the state was honest and admitted that far from being a shining example of difference from our European neighbours, abortion is commonplace here.
Failure to face up to that reality and give Irish women access to those reproductive rights shared by most European women has meant that, as US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently said of the situation in the USA, "we have a policy that only affects poor women ... and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often".
A period of recession can only deepen the inequalities between Irish women who have the means to define and exercise their right to choose abortion and can travel to Britain, the Netherlands or further afield and those who do not. The matter of abortion involves complex issues of rights and ethics which Irish politicians have grappled with only at the most simplistic level – and rarely with a focus on the rights, experiences or health of women.
The Irish state's failure to address this issue and its lack of interest in or understanding of the difficulties pregnant women may face deserves to be exposed in an international arena.
Dr Sandra McAvoy
Douglas Road
Cork
Read more: http://examiner.ie/opinion/letters/its-time-the-state-faced-up-to-abortion-realities-97641.html#ixzz0MjQGEMI0
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Amnesty Condemns Abortion Ban in Nicaragua
The Irish Times July 29th
• Amnesty condemns abortion ban
TRACY WILKINSON in Mexico City
NICARAGUA’S TOTAL ban on abortion is a violation of human rights and is killing a growing number of women and children, Amnesty International has said in launching a campaign to have the measure repealed.
In a report released in Mexico City yesterday, the international human rights organisation said Nicaragua’s law, which went into effect in late 2006, put it in a group with only 3 per cent of the world’s nations that do not allow abortion under any circumstance.
Citing statistics from the Nicaraguan Ministry of Health, the report said 33 women and girls died from pregnancy complications in the first 19 weeks of this year, compared with 20 in the same period last year.
But it added that the real numbers were probably much higher.
Nicaragua has one of Latin America’s highest rates of sexual violence, with the abuse often perpetrated by fathers, uncles or other relatives. At least 50 per cent of reported rapes are of girls under 18, and most of those who get pregnant are under 15, the report said.
Women and girls who have been impregnated by rapists or whose life or health is at risk are not allowed to abort.
“A festering, debilitating human rights situation [is] bringing grave fear, threat, harm and even death to Nicaragua’s girl children and women,” Kate Gilmore, executive deputy secretary general of Amnesty International, said in Mexico City.
Abortion laws are generally restrictive in most of Latin America. The irony in Nicaragua is that the ban was backed by now-president Daniel Ortega, who led the left-wing Sandinista revolution 30 years ago and championed women’s rights. In the middle of the 2006 election season, Mr Ortega promoted the law to gain the support of the Catholic Church and return to power.
The ban ended a 100-year-old exception that had allowed abortion when the woman’s health was at risk.
Amnesty International issued its 50-page report following an investigation in Nicaragua by Ms Gilmore and a team of experts. She said Mr Ortega refused to see them, and the health minister dismissed their findings of a growing mortality rate among pregnant women as unfounded.
Dr Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of Medical Practitioners, said the ban has had a chilling effect on doctors.
“Not being allowed to do everything to save your patient goes against medical ethics,” he said in a telephone interview from Managua.
Fearing they will break the law, many doctors decline to treat pregnant women in obstetric emergencies, or delay treatment, increasing the risks, he said.
The ban initially contained penalties of as long as six years for women who had abortions and the doctors who performed them. The penalty was raised to eight years last year. Some advocates wanted sentences of as long as 30 years. No one has been charged or put on trial yet.
While criticised by human rights and women’s groups since it was first drafted, the prohibition received wide support from the church and from several political parties in addition to Mr Ortega’s Sandinistas. A petition supporting the ban collected 300,000 signatures.
Proponents contended at the time that advances in medical science now allowed doctors to bring a foetus to the point of viability without endangering the woman’s life and that warnings of heightened dangers were exaggerated. But Ms Gilmore said lawmakers ignored expert opinion to the contrary.– ( LA Times-Washington Post service)
• Amnesty condemns abortion ban
TRACY WILKINSON in Mexico City
NICARAGUA’S TOTAL ban on abortion is a violation of human rights and is killing a growing number of women and children, Amnesty International has said in launching a campaign to have the measure repealed.
In a report released in Mexico City yesterday, the international human rights organisation said Nicaragua’s law, which went into effect in late 2006, put it in a group with only 3 per cent of the world’s nations that do not allow abortion under any circumstance.
Citing statistics from the Nicaraguan Ministry of Health, the report said 33 women and girls died from pregnancy complications in the first 19 weeks of this year, compared with 20 in the same period last year.
But it added that the real numbers were probably much higher.
Nicaragua has one of Latin America’s highest rates of sexual violence, with the abuse often perpetrated by fathers, uncles or other relatives. At least 50 per cent of reported rapes are of girls under 18, and most of those who get pregnant are under 15, the report said.
Women and girls who have been impregnated by rapists or whose life or health is at risk are not allowed to abort.
“A festering, debilitating human rights situation [is] bringing grave fear, threat, harm and even death to Nicaragua’s girl children and women,” Kate Gilmore, executive deputy secretary general of Amnesty International, said in Mexico City.
Abortion laws are generally restrictive in most of Latin America. The irony in Nicaragua is that the ban was backed by now-president Daniel Ortega, who led the left-wing Sandinista revolution 30 years ago and championed women’s rights. In the middle of the 2006 election season, Mr Ortega promoted the law to gain the support of the Catholic Church and return to power.
The ban ended a 100-year-old exception that had allowed abortion when the woman’s health was at risk.
Amnesty International issued its 50-page report following an investigation in Nicaragua by Ms Gilmore and a team of experts. She said Mr Ortega refused to see them, and the health minister dismissed their findings of a growing mortality rate among pregnant women as unfounded.
Dr Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of Medical Practitioners, said the ban has had a chilling effect on doctors.
“Not being allowed to do everything to save your patient goes against medical ethics,” he said in a telephone interview from Managua.
Fearing they will break the law, many doctors decline to treat pregnant women in obstetric emergencies, or delay treatment, increasing the risks, he said.
The ban initially contained penalties of as long as six years for women who had abortions and the doctors who performed them. The penalty was raised to eight years last year. Some advocates wanted sentences of as long as 30 years. No one has been charged or put on trial yet.
While criticised by human rights and women’s groups since it was first drafted, the prohibition received wide support from the church and from several political parties in addition to Mr Ortega’s Sandinistas. A petition supporting the ban collected 300,000 signatures.
Proponents contended at the time that advances in medical science now allowed doctors to bring a foetus to the point of viability without endangering the woman’s life and that warnings of heightened dangers were exaggerated. But Ms Gilmore said lawmakers ignored expert opinion to the contrary.– ( LA Times-Washington Post service)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Human Rights Court To Hear Irish Abortion Case
• Human rights court to hear Irish abortion ban case
CARL O'BRIEN, Social Affairs Correspondent The Irish Times
THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear a challenge by three women in Ireland to the Government’s ban on abortion in a full hearing before its grand chamber of 17 judges.
The women claim the restrictive nature of Irish law on abortion jeopardises their health and their wellbeing and violates their human rights. The identities of the three will remain confidential.
The court in Strasbourg, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among the 47 states of the Council of Europe. Any court decision at this level is binding on the state involved.
The court’s decision to hold a hearing before the grand chamber rather than a smaller chamber of seven judges is regarded by legal experts as a sign of the significance of the issues at stake.
The three women at the centre of the case include a woman at risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a pregnant woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman whose children were placed in care as she was unable to cope.
Their complaints centre on four articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, including protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” and freedom from discrimination. The case is expected to be heard later this year, although no firm date has been set.
In papers filed with the court and seen by The Irish Times, the Government has indicated it will launch a robust defence of the State’s restrictions on abortion.
It also insists the European Convention on Human Rights does not confer even a limited right to abortion and it would be “inconceivable” that member states would have agreed to this in drafting the convention. The main plank of its defence is that domestic legal remedies have not been exhausted by the women.
The women at the centre of the case – who are supported by the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) – say the lack of any effective remedy at home means they have satisfied the requirement to exhaust domestic legal remedies.
In addition, they say that taking a case would have been costly, futile and could have forced them to relinquish their anonymity.
Niall Behan, chief executive of the IFPA, said: “The women are looking forward to have their voices heard in the grand chambers and having their human rights vindicated.”
After several referendums in recent decades and rulings by the higher courts, abortion is illegal but may be performed if there is a substantial risk to the mother’s life, including the threat of suicide. Abortion in the case of foetal abnormalities is not provided for. The case will be watched closely by observers given a ruling by the same court in recent years that resulted in Poland being instructed to guarantee access to legal abortions.
The case has drawn the interest of a large number of groups with divergent views on abortion who have sent in observations to the court on the case.
These groups, along with the three women and the State, will be asked to send in new briefs or observations to the court over the coming weeks.
CARL O'BRIEN, Social Affairs Correspondent The Irish Times
THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear a challenge by three women in Ireland to the Government’s ban on abortion in a full hearing before its grand chamber of 17 judges.
The women claim the restrictive nature of Irish law on abortion jeopardises their health and their wellbeing and violates their human rights. The identities of the three will remain confidential.
The court in Strasbourg, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among the 47 states of the Council of Europe. Any court decision at this level is binding on the state involved.
The court’s decision to hold a hearing before the grand chamber rather than a smaller chamber of seven judges is regarded by legal experts as a sign of the significance of the issues at stake.
The three women at the centre of the case include a woman at risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a pregnant woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman whose children were placed in care as she was unable to cope.
Their complaints centre on four articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, including protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” and freedom from discrimination. The case is expected to be heard later this year, although no firm date has been set.
In papers filed with the court and seen by The Irish Times, the Government has indicated it will launch a robust defence of the State’s restrictions on abortion.
It also insists the European Convention on Human Rights does not confer even a limited right to abortion and it would be “inconceivable” that member states would have agreed to this in drafting the convention. The main plank of its defence is that domestic legal remedies have not been exhausted by the women.
The women at the centre of the case – who are supported by the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) – say the lack of any effective remedy at home means they have satisfied the requirement to exhaust domestic legal remedies.
In addition, they say that taking a case would have been costly, futile and could have forced them to relinquish their anonymity.
Niall Behan, chief executive of the IFPA, said: “The women are looking forward to have their voices heard in the grand chambers and having their human rights vindicated.”
After several referendums in recent decades and rulings by the higher courts, abortion is illegal but may be performed if there is a substantial risk to the mother’s life, including the threat of suicide. Abortion in the case of foetal abnormalities is not provided for. The case will be watched closely by observers given a ruling by the same court in recent years that resulted in Poland being instructed to guarantee access to legal abortions.
The case has drawn the interest of a large number of groups with divergent views on abortion who have sent in observations to the court on the case.
These groups, along with the three women and the State, will be asked to send in new briefs or observations to the court over the coming weeks.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Teen Rape Victim Files Case Against Peru in U.N. Committee
• Teen Rape Victim Files Case Against Peru in U.N. Committee
From Reproductiverights.org
Today, a 16-year-old Peruvian rape survivor who suffered devastating consequences after being denied an abortion filed a human rights petition against her government before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The CEDAW Committee monitors states’ compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. L.C., who wishes to remain anonymous, charges that Peru’s failure to implement measures that guarantee a woman’s ability to obtain essential reproductive health services in a timely manner, particularly legal abortion, not only violates the Peruvian Constitution, but international treaty obligations.
“Extreme human rights violations against women and girls, such as L.C., occur in Peru on a daily basis,” said Lilian Sepúlveda, regional manager and legal adviser for Latin America and the Caribbean at the Center for Reproductive Rights, who represents L.C. along with the Center for the Promotion and Defense of Sexual and Reproductive Rights (PROMSEX). “As L.C.’s case illustrates, it is not enough to simply pass a law that permits access to abortion—-it is imperative that governments establish and enforce regulations that guarantee women are able to obtain those services and obtain them safely.”
In 2006, L.C., 13-years-old at the time, was repeatedly raped by a 34-year-old male who lived in her neighborhood, the district of Ventanilla, an impoverished section in the province of El Callao near the capital city of Lima. By 2007, she learned that she was pregnant. Desperate, L.C. attempted to commit suicide by jumping off the roof of a building next door to her house. Neighbors discovered her and rushed her to the hospital. After examining her condition and diagnosing an immediate referral to realign her spine, doctors refused to provide her with urgent care arguing that they could not operate on L.C. because she was pregnant. Even though Peru allows abortion in cases where the mother’s health and life are at risk, hospital officials failed to treat L.C. L.C. eventually suffered a miscarriage because of the severity of her injuries.
Several weeks after the miscarriage, four months after she was told she needed surgery, L.C. did undergo the spinal procedure, but was told shortly thereafter that the surgery would have little to no effect and that she would remain paralyzed.
“What happened to L.C. is a travesty.Requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when the pregnancy threatens her physical and mental health constitutes discrimination because it prioritizes her reproductive capacity over her health,” said Susana Chávez, director of PROMSEX. “As a medical procedure sought only by women, the denial of a timely abortion constitutes discrimination.”
In 2002, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a similar case against Peru before the U.N. Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). In 2005, that committee ruled against Peru for failing to protect K.L., a young woman who was forced by state officials to carry to term a pregnancy with fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. The UNHRC found that denying access to legal abortion violates women's most basic human rights and ordered Peru to adopt the necessary regulations to guarantee access to legal abortion. The government has failed to abide by the decision.
Among other remedies, L.C. is asking that the Peruvian government acknowledge the human rights violation; provide L.C. with reparations, including physical and mental rehabilitation; and issue necessary measures so that no other woman is denied her right to comprehensive health care and therapeutic abortion.
From Reproductiverights.org
Today, a 16-year-old Peruvian rape survivor who suffered devastating consequences after being denied an abortion filed a human rights petition against her government before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The CEDAW Committee monitors states’ compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. L.C., who wishes to remain anonymous, charges that Peru’s failure to implement measures that guarantee a woman’s ability to obtain essential reproductive health services in a timely manner, particularly legal abortion, not only violates the Peruvian Constitution, but international treaty obligations.
“Extreme human rights violations against women and girls, such as L.C., occur in Peru on a daily basis,” said Lilian Sepúlveda, regional manager and legal adviser for Latin America and the Caribbean at the Center for Reproductive Rights, who represents L.C. along with the Center for the Promotion and Defense of Sexual and Reproductive Rights (PROMSEX). “As L.C.’s case illustrates, it is not enough to simply pass a law that permits access to abortion—-it is imperative that governments establish and enforce regulations that guarantee women are able to obtain those services and obtain them safely.”
In 2006, L.C., 13-years-old at the time, was repeatedly raped by a 34-year-old male who lived in her neighborhood, the district of Ventanilla, an impoverished section in the province of El Callao near the capital city of Lima. By 2007, she learned that she was pregnant. Desperate, L.C. attempted to commit suicide by jumping off the roof of a building next door to her house. Neighbors discovered her and rushed her to the hospital. After examining her condition and diagnosing an immediate referral to realign her spine, doctors refused to provide her with urgent care arguing that they could not operate on L.C. because she was pregnant. Even though Peru allows abortion in cases where the mother’s health and life are at risk, hospital officials failed to treat L.C. L.C. eventually suffered a miscarriage because of the severity of her injuries.
Several weeks after the miscarriage, four months after she was told she needed surgery, L.C. did undergo the spinal procedure, but was told shortly thereafter that the surgery would have little to no effect and that she would remain paralyzed.
“What happened to L.C. is a travesty.Requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when the pregnancy threatens her physical and mental health constitutes discrimination because it prioritizes her reproductive capacity over her health,” said Susana Chávez, director of PROMSEX. “As a medical procedure sought only by women, the denial of a timely abortion constitutes discrimination.”
In 2002, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a similar case against Peru before the U.N. Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). In 2005, that committee ruled against Peru for failing to protect K.L., a young woman who was forced by state officials to carry to term a pregnancy with fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. The UNHRC found that denying access to legal abortion violates women's most basic human rights and ordered Peru to adopt the necessary regulations to guarantee access to legal abortion. The government has failed to abide by the decision.
Among other remedies, L.C. is asking that the Peruvian government acknowledge the human rights violation; provide L.C. with reparations, including physical and mental rehabilitation; and issue necessary measures so that no other woman is denied her right to comprehensive health care and therapeutic abortion.
Petition Filed Against Peru with UN CEDAW Committee
Petition Filed Against Peru with UN CEDAW Committee
A 16-year-old Peruvian rape survivor filed a petition with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) against Peru yesterday. While abortion is legal in Peru in case of risk to a woman's health or life, the petition alleges that the failure of the Peruvian government to adequately enforce existing laws led to the anonymous survivor's paralysis.
At age 13, the young woman was raped by a 34-year-old man and became pregnant. After discovering the pregnancy, she attempted suicide by jumping off a building. Doctors treated her injuries, but refused to perform necessary spinal surgery when they realized she was pregnant. Ultimately, the young woman had a miscarriage as a result of her injuries, but remained paralyzed after undergoing surgery.
A similar case was filed against Peru by the Center for Reproductive Rights in 2002. In that case, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled in favor of a young woman who was forced to carry to term a fetus with fatal abnormalities. The Committee ruled that access to abortion in the case of threats to maternal health is a human right and Peru was ordered to change their abortion laws.
Peru signed CEDAW on July 23, 1981. CEDAW is the most comprehensive international agreement that seeks women's advancement. It establishes rights for women in areas not previously subject to international standards. Moreover, the Convention establishes a committee to periodically review the progress being made by its adherents. The US is the only industrialized western country that has not ratified CEDAW, which has been ratified by 185 countries.
Media Resources: Center for Reproductive Rights 6/18/09; Feminist Daily News Wire 2/25/04, 4/14/09; United Nations CEDAW
A 16-year-old Peruvian rape survivor filed a petition with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) against Peru yesterday. While abortion is legal in Peru in case of risk to a woman's health or life, the petition alleges that the failure of the Peruvian government to adequately enforce existing laws led to the anonymous survivor's paralysis.
At age 13, the young woman was raped by a 34-year-old man and became pregnant. After discovering the pregnancy, she attempted suicide by jumping off a building. Doctors treated her injuries, but refused to perform necessary spinal surgery when they realized she was pregnant. Ultimately, the young woman had a miscarriage as a result of her injuries, but remained paralyzed after undergoing surgery.
A similar case was filed against Peru by the Center for Reproductive Rights in 2002. In that case, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled in favor of a young woman who was forced to carry to term a fetus with fatal abnormalities. The Committee ruled that access to abortion in the case of threats to maternal health is a human right and Peru was ordered to change their abortion laws.
Peru signed CEDAW on July 23, 1981. CEDAW is the most comprehensive international agreement that seeks women's advancement. It establishes rights for women in areas not previously subject to international standards. Moreover, the Convention establishes a committee to periodically review the progress being made by its adherents. The US is the only industrialized western country that has not ratified CEDAW, which has been ratified by 185 countries.
Media Resources: Center for Reproductive Rights 6/18/09; Feminist Daily News Wire 2/25/04, 4/14/09; United Nations CEDAW
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Jamaica: For an Abortion Law That Reaches The Poor
JAMAICA: For an Abortion Law That Reaches the Poor
By Zadie Neufville
KINGSTON, Jun 14 (IPS) - When a Jamaican women’s group Sistren realised the voices of poor women were missing in a national debate on abortion rights, they boldly staged a play before parliamentarians reviewing a draft law that seeks to clarify when abortion can be deemed legal.
Called ‘Slice of Reality’, the performance was aimed to give "a voice to groups of women whose experiences may not otherwise be heard", says Lana Finikin, Sistren’s executive director. It tells the stories of "poor women who are being robbed of the right to make decisions concerning their own bodies" she told IPS in an interview.
The right to abortion is outlawed in Jamaica under an archaic Offenses Against the Persons Act, which is modeled along the lines of an English law of the same name, legislated in 1861. It prescribes life imprisonment for a woman who aborts her foetus and up to three years in jail for the doctor who helps her.
The common law under which abortions may be legally carried out, women’s activists say, perpetuates a situation where only the rich are able to take advantage. Abortions are allowed in cases of rape, incest, and extreme abnormality of the foetus or danger to the mother, but the only hospital that provided the service to the poor closed in the mid-90s.
Sistren’s taut, 10-minute performance on Mar. 12 was one of dozens of presentations before a joint select committee of parliament reviewing the pending Termination of Pregnancy Act. The new law seeks to clarify when abortions can be termed legal.
In Kingston’s tough inner-city communities, an unplanned pregnancy can mean a lifetime of poverty. Abortion which carries a stigma - scorn and social ostracism - is out of the reach of most women. With only a few doctors willing to do the procedure, the cost of a termination is high, starting at 250 dollars, when daily wage workers earn roughly 43 dollars a week.
As a result, according to Finikin, many risk their lives in unsafe abortions or by consuming dangerous herbal concoctions or lethal drug combinations to cause miscarriages. Health Ministry data show that between Mar. 1 and Aug. 31, 2005, there were 641 admissions due to complications from botched abortions at the island’s main maternity hospital in Kingston.
For more than a year now, the joint select committee has been hearing pro- and anti-abortion arguments as it seeks to re-write the draft legislation.
Finikin feels that the debate is confined to the rights of the foetus and the immorality of the act without regard for the reasons why women decide to abort. She is upset that a poor woman who is raped has no choice. "When you tell me that somebody rapes me, that I must walk with that trauma for nine months and then bring it to fruition…" she said, very graphically expressing the pain many women who have to raise a child born out of rape.
Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), a Caribbean women’s rights forum, which has been coordinating the campaign for a just abortion law for the poor, issued a statement. "To continue to criminalise abortion puts women’s lives at risk, and suggests that the right of the foetus outweighs the right of women to have control over their own body and life," it noted.
The Sistren Theatre Collective, one of the members, has been at the forefront of educating women about their rights for more than 32 years.
Meanwhile, the pro-life lobby has several well-known members of the Christian clergy in its ranks including a well-known playwright, actor and Jesuit priest Father Richard HoLung, a longtime advocate for the poor and founder of the Missionaries of the Poor.
They have accused parliamentarians of supporting abortion, "a barbaric and evil" act, in order to secure money for HIV/AIDS programmes from the European Union and the U.S., charges which both have denied.
Opposition member of parliament Lisa Hanna who is on the joint parliamentary committee told IPS that in her rural north coast constituency of South Eastern St. Ann, women and girls who are desperate to end their pregnancy resort to all sorts of life threatening solutions.
A Slice of Reality portrays these and other stories of insane or other mentally challenged women and those without social support who are preyed on by abusive men, or girls who are forced into sexual relationships with gunmen in their communities.
Slice of Reality portrays like these and other stories of women without social support who are preyed on by abusive men, or girls who are forced into sexual relationships with gunmen in their communities.
In addition, there are teenager victims of incestuous relationships who are sworn to secrecy by their families, and women whose husbands refuse to permit them to access birth control methods.
Lobbying for support for women’s reproductive rights and (access to) abortion, DAWN states "it is a woman’s right to have all options available to her" so she can make an informed decision.
While the common law allows abortions under specified conditions, it "gives doctors the right over women’s lives since not all situations in which women become pregnant, may be strictly in line with the definition provided for under the law", according to DAWN.
With the hearing almost completed, the parliamentary committee will soon make its recommendations.
"All information taken in these hearings will be taken into consideration. The chairman will make our report to parliament and the legislation will be redrafted," says MP Hanna. She is optimistic that the committee will be able to table the bill in Jamaica’s lawmaking lower house of parliament by year end.
By Zadie Neufville
KINGSTON, Jun 14 (IPS) - When a Jamaican women’s group Sistren realised the voices of poor women were missing in a national debate on abortion rights, they boldly staged a play before parliamentarians reviewing a draft law that seeks to clarify when abortion can be deemed legal.
Called ‘Slice of Reality’, the performance was aimed to give "a voice to groups of women whose experiences may not otherwise be heard", says Lana Finikin, Sistren’s executive director. It tells the stories of "poor women who are being robbed of the right to make decisions concerning their own bodies" she told IPS in an interview.
The right to abortion is outlawed in Jamaica under an archaic Offenses Against the Persons Act, which is modeled along the lines of an English law of the same name, legislated in 1861. It prescribes life imprisonment for a woman who aborts her foetus and up to three years in jail for the doctor who helps her.
The common law under which abortions may be legally carried out, women’s activists say, perpetuates a situation where only the rich are able to take advantage. Abortions are allowed in cases of rape, incest, and extreme abnormality of the foetus or danger to the mother, but the only hospital that provided the service to the poor closed in the mid-90s.
Sistren’s taut, 10-minute performance on Mar. 12 was one of dozens of presentations before a joint select committee of parliament reviewing the pending Termination of Pregnancy Act. The new law seeks to clarify when abortions can be termed legal.
In Kingston’s tough inner-city communities, an unplanned pregnancy can mean a lifetime of poverty. Abortion which carries a stigma - scorn and social ostracism - is out of the reach of most women. With only a few doctors willing to do the procedure, the cost of a termination is high, starting at 250 dollars, when daily wage workers earn roughly 43 dollars a week.
As a result, according to Finikin, many risk their lives in unsafe abortions or by consuming dangerous herbal concoctions or lethal drug combinations to cause miscarriages. Health Ministry data show that between Mar. 1 and Aug. 31, 2005, there were 641 admissions due to complications from botched abortions at the island’s main maternity hospital in Kingston.
For more than a year now, the joint select committee has been hearing pro- and anti-abortion arguments as it seeks to re-write the draft legislation.
Finikin feels that the debate is confined to the rights of the foetus and the immorality of the act without regard for the reasons why women decide to abort. She is upset that a poor woman who is raped has no choice. "When you tell me that somebody rapes me, that I must walk with that trauma for nine months and then bring it to fruition…" she said, very graphically expressing the pain many women who have to raise a child born out of rape.
Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), a Caribbean women’s rights forum, which has been coordinating the campaign for a just abortion law for the poor, issued a statement. "To continue to criminalise abortion puts women’s lives at risk, and suggests that the right of the foetus outweighs the right of women to have control over their own body and life," it noted.
The Sistren Theatre Collective, one of the members, has been at the forefront of educating women about their rights for more than 32 years.
Meanwhile, the pro-life lobby has several well-known members of the Christian clergy in its ranks including a well-known playwright, actor and Jesuit priest Father Richard HoLung, a longtime advocate for the poor and founder of the Missionaries of the Poor.
They have accused parliamentarians of supporting abortion, "a barbaric and evil" act, in order to secure money for HIV/AIDS programmes from the European Union and the U.S., charges which both have denied.
Opposition member of parliament Lisa Hanna who is on the joint parliamentary committee told IPS that in her rural north coast constituency of South Eastern St. Ann, women and girls who are desperate to end their pregnancy resort to all sorts of life threatening solutions.
A Slice of Reality portrays these and other stories of insane or other mentally challenged women and those without social support who are preyed on by abusive men, or girls who are forced into sexual relationships with gunmen in their communities.
Slice of Reality portrays like these and other stories of women without social support who are preyed on by abusive men, or girls who are forced into sexual relationships with gunmen in their communities.
In addition, there are teenager victims of incestuous relationships who are sworn to secrecy by their families, and women whose husbands refuse to permit them to access birth control methods.
Lobbying for support for women’s reproductive rights and (access to) abortion, DAWN states "it is a woman’s right to have all options available to her" so she can make an informed decision.
While the common law allows abortions under specified conditions, it "gives doctors the right over women’s lives since not all situations in which women become pregnant, may be strictly in line with the definition provided for under the law", according to DAWN.
With the hearing almost completed, the parliamentary committee will soon make its recommendations.
"All information taken in these hearings will be taken into consideration. The chairman will make our report to parliament and the legislation will be redrafted," says MP Hanna. She is optimistic that the committee will be able to table the bill in Jamaica’s lawmaking lower house of parliament by year end.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Kenya: Abortion: The Bitter Truth
Abortion: The bitter truth
The Standard, Nairobi, Kenya.
Published on 04/06/2009
By Dann Okoth
Unsafe abortions are taking a heavy toll on women and the heath care system with three of 10 pregnancy related deaths arising from botched attempts to end pregnancies, a Government survey reveals.
As young people continue to rely on sex myths, the Church adamantly against lifting the ban on abortion, courts dodging the matter and pro-abortion activists in no mood to compromise, the situation is bound to get worse. According to the survey, unsafe abortions account for a staggering 35 per cent of all maternal deaths with public hospitals spending over Sh18 million on treatment of related complications.
The survey conducted by the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation and Ipas, an international NGO that works around the world to increase women’s ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights, finds that there are 380,000 unsafe abortions annually. This amounts to an incredible 800 unsafe abortions a day up from 700 cases 2002.
"A whopping Sh18 million of taxpayer’s money goes to mitigate the effects of the botched abortions," says Dr B Kigen the Deputy Head of the Division of Reproductive Health in the ministry.
Teenagers represent nearly 16 per cent of failed abortion cases that end up in public hospitals.
The survey whose findings have been collected and collated since 2004 reveals that for every 100,000 births there are 414 stillbirths directly associated with unsafe abortions.
The figure is double the amount set aside for the ministry in this financial year’s supplementary estimates for basic wages for temporary employees which stands at Sh12 million.
Tip of the iceberg
The figure could be a tip of the iceberg. "The numbers could be much higher and cost to the economy much bigger especially considering that the survey only captures cases that report to public health institutions for treatment," Kigen says.
The financial cost is not fully reflected in the figures because treatment in public hospitals is subsidized. For instance, Kenyatta National Hospital only charges Sh300 for cleaning the womb and associated treatment for each botched abortion. A similar service could cost upwards of Sh150,000 in a private hospital in Nairobi. "In private hospitals such cases are considered surgical where the requirement is that a patient deposits Sh100,000 . Ultimately, the cost of such operations run into several hundred thousand shillings depending on the gravity of the condition," says a lead surgeon in one of the leading private hospitals in Nairobi.
It is not yet clear how many cases end up in ragtag health outlets scattered across the country.
A recent case where a self-professed gynaecologist in Nairobi was hauled to court accused of illegally carrying out abortion and foetuses found dumped along the roadside in the city points to a growing problem. Indeed the fact that many young girls who procure such abortions never come out from these insidious health joints alive is a wake up call for the authorities to act.
But just to give a glimpse of what burden unsafe abortion has become, Kigen says that now such cases take up 50 per cent occupancy in gynaecological beds in public hospitals.
This essentially points to the fact that a huge chunk of the health ministry budget goes to take care of such cases.
"One per cent of women admitted to public hospitals with abortion complications die," Kigen says.
Incredibly, 16 per cent of the cases are girls under 19 while 70 per cent are women aged between 20-34 years.
The shocking revelations come a few months after doctors petitioned the Government to lift prohibitive laws on abortion with the view to saving lives of women who seek the service illegally.
Under the auspices of the Kenya Obstetrical and Gynaecology Society the doctors said the State should address abortion more objectively to improve the maternal mortality. While addressing a members’ gathering in Mombasa in February the Society chairman Dr Omondi Ogutu said maternal deaths could now be standing at double the official ratio of 141:100,000 yet most countries were now targeting a single digit ratio.
Reproductive Health
They called for the fast tracking of the Reproductive Health and Rights Bill which they say would address the abortion issue and cater for a wide range of issues including family planning and men’s reproductive rights .
To counter the increasing number of botched abortion Kigen says the Government has embarked on a programme to train staff on proper abortion care.
"The programme aims to address among other things post abortion care, strengthen family planning programmes especially targeting adolescent people in the reproductive age," he says.
The World Health Organisation, United Nations Population Fund, KWF and United States Agency for International Development, he says, support the effort.
The Standard, Nairobi, Kenya.
Published on 04/06/2009
By Dann Okoth
Unsafe abortions are taking a heavy toll on women and the heath care system with three of 10 pregnancy related deaths arising from botched attempts to end pregnancies, a Government survey reveals.
As young people continue to rely on sex myths, the Church adamantly against lifting the ban on abortion, courts dodging the matter and pro-abortion activists in no mood to compromise, the situation is bound to get worse. According to the survey, unsafe abortions account for a staggering 35 per cent of all maternal deaths with public hospitals spending over Sh18 million on treatment of related complications.
The survey conducted by the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation and Ipas, an international NGO that works around the world to increase women’s ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights, finds that there are 380,000 unsafe abortions annually. This amounts to an incredible 800 unsafe abortions a day up from 700 cases 2002.
"A whopping Sh18 million of taxpayer’s money goes to mitigate the effects of the botched abortions," says Dr B Kigen the Deputy Head of the Division of Reproductive Health in the ministry.
Teenagers represent nearly 16 per cent of failed abortion cases that end up in public hospitals.
The survey whose findings have been collected and collated since 2004 reveals that for every 100,000 births there are 414 stillbirths directly associated with unsafe abortions.
The figure is double the amount set aside for the ministry in this financial year’s supplementary estimates for basic wages for temporary employees which stands at Sh12 million.
Tip of the iceberg
The figure could be a tip of the iceberg. "The numbers could be much higher and cost to the economy much bigger especially considering that the survey only captures cases that report to public health institutions for treatment," Kigen says.
The financial cost is not fully reflected in the figures because treatment in public hospitals is subsidized. For instance, Kenyatta National Hospital only charges Sh300 for cleaning the womb and associated treatment for each botched abortion. A similar service could cost upwards of Sh150,000 in a private hospital in Nairobi. "In private hospitals such cases are considered surgical where the requirement is that a patient deposits Sh100,000 . Ultimately, the cost of such operations run into several hundred thousand shillings depending on the gravity of the condition," says a lead surgeon in one of the leading private hospitals in Nairobi.
It is not yet clear how many cases end up in ragtag health outlets scattered across the country.
A recent case where a self-professed gynaecologist in Nairobi was hauled to court accused of illegally carrying out abortion and foetuses found dumped along the roadside in the city points to a growing problem. Indeed the fact that many young girls who procure such abortions never come out from these insidious health joints alive is a wake up call for the authorities to act.
But just to give a glimpse of what burden unsafe abortion has become, Kigen says that now such cases take up 50 per cent occupancy in gynaecological beds in public hospitals.
This essentially points to the fact that a huge chunk of the health ministry budget goes to take care of such cases.
"One per cent of women admitted to public hospitals with abortion complications die," Kigen says.
Incredibly, 16 per cent of the cases are girls under 19 while 70 per cent are women aged between 20-34 years.
The shocking revelations come a few months after doctors petitioned the Government to lift prohibitive laws on abortion with the view to saving lives of women who seek the service illegally.
Under the auspices of the Kenya Obstetrical and Gynaecology Society the doctors said the State should address abortion more objectively to improve the maternal mortality. While addressing a members’ gathering in Mombasa in February the Society chairman Dr Omondi Ogutu said maternal deaths could now be standing at double the official ratio of 141:100,000 yet most countries were now targeting a single digit ratio.
Reproductive Health
They called for the fast tracking of the Reproductive Health and Rights Bill which they say would address the abortion issue and cater for a wide range of issues including family planning and men’s reproductive rights .
To counter the increasing number of botched abortion Kigen says the Government has embarked on a programme to train staff on proper abortion care.
"The programme aims to address among other things post abortion care, strengthen family planning programmes especially targeting adolescent people in the reproductive age," he says.
The World Health Organisation, United Nations Population Fund, KWF and United States Agency for International Development, he says, support the effort.
RH Reality Check blog: Abortion Law Liberalised in Catholic Monaco
Abortion Law Liberalized in Catholic Monaco
By Anna Wilkowska-Landowska, RH Reality Check, Eastern Europe
June 5, 2009 - 8:00am
Last month, after five years of advocacy, Monaco approved a new law, which legalizes medically necessary abortions. Monaco was one of the last three states in Europe where abortion was illegal. The other two countries are Ireland and Malta.
The law was passed unanimously by the National Council, Monaco's parliament, in a 26-0 vote. This is significant because 90 percent of Monaco's population is formally Catholic. As generally known, the Roman Catholic Church believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion under all circumstances. However, the modern Catholic position states a medical procedure needed to save the life of the mother, but that may result in the death of the "pre-born child" as a secondary effect, is morally acceptable.
Until now, Monaco has had one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. Under Monaco's Criminal Code, there were no stated exceptions to a general prohibition of abortion. Nonetheless, under general criminal law principles of necessity, an abortion could be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. Any person performing an illegal abortion was subject to one to five years imprisonment and a fine. A woman who induced her own abortion or consented to its being induced was subject to six months to three years imprisonment and a fine. Physicians, surgeons, midwives and pharmacists who performed abortions were liable to harsher penalties including suspension from their profession.
The process of adopting a new bill calling for increased abortion access took years of struggling against religious beliefs. Like many other Catholic Church representatives, Archbishop Pernard Barsi of Monaco said there are a few fundamental principles that come not from religious morality, but from the natural law itself, that applies to all modern civilized societies: Life begins at conception. "What we term ‘interruption of pregnancy,' no matter what the motive is, remains an abortion. One of the most fundamental human rights is the integrity of the person at all stages of life. Civil law must never abridge the moral law," he said.
The Catholic Church in Monaco continuously claimed that permitting deliberate abortion for medical reasons or rape would inevitably lead to abortion on demand, and sooner or later, to the total liberalization of abortion. Barsi was pointing to the progression of laws permitting abortion in countries with no restrictions on the procedure. Instead of focusing on termination of pregnancies, he suggested looking closer at the problems faced by women and families dealing with difficult pregnancies, and called for increased support in society for them. "It's not by legalizing the 'interruption of pregnancies for medical motives or rape' that we will help women, couples and families. We must in fact accompany women by putting in place concrete measures within our institutions to foster solidarity," he said.
The new law permits abortion for "hard cases" including rape, fetal deformity, fetal illness or danger to the life of the mother. Catholic authorities argue that new regulations on termination of pregnancy are "incompatible" with the constitution of Monaco, which recognizes the Catholic faith as the state religion. They fear, for example, that there will be further attempts to conform Monaco to what they consider lowest ethical standards.
Adoption of the new bill on abortion in Monaco should be regarded as an important step on the way to providing sufficient guarantees for women within the area of reproductive rights. The fact that currently there are only two states in Europe where abortion is illegal and therefore totally prohibited, is a genuine proof that societies can change mentality, despite religious constraints that very often constitute serious obstacles when discussing controversial matters, especially abortion. Monaco serves as a perfect example.
By Anna Wilkowska-Landowska, RH Reality Check, Eastern Europe
June 5, 2009 - 8:00am
Last month, after five years of advocacy, Monaco approved a new law, which legalizes medically necessary abortions. Monaco was one of the last three states in Europe where abortion was illegal. The other two countries are Ireland and Malta.
The law was passed unanimously by the National Council, Monaco's parliament, in a 26-0 vote. This is significant because 90 percent of Monaco's population is formally Catholic. As generally known, the Roman Catholic Church believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion under all circumstances. However, the modern Catholic position states a medical procedure needed to save the life of the mother, but that may result in the death of the "pre-born child" as a secondary effect, is morally acceptable.
Until now, Monaco has had one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. Under Monaco's Criminal Code, there were no stated exceptions to a general prohibition of abortion. Nonetheless, under general criminal law principles of necessity, an abortion could be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. Any person performing an illegal abortion was subject to one to five years imprisonment and a fine. A woman who induced her own abortion or consented to its being induced was subject to six months to three years imprisonment and a fine. Physicians, surgeons, midwives and pharmacists who performed abortions were liable to harsher penalties including suspension from their profession.
The process of adopting a new bill calling for increased abortion access took years of struggling against religious beliefs. Like many other Catholic Church representatives, Archbishop Pernard Barsi of Monaco said there are a few fundamental principles that come not from religious morality, but from the natural law itself, that applies to all modern civilized societies: Life begins at conception. "What we term ‘interruption of pregnancy,' no matter what the motive is, remains an abortion. One of the most fundamental human rights is the integrity of the person at all stages of life. Civil law must never abridge the moral law," he said.
The Catholic Church in Monaco continuously claimed that permitting deliberate abortion for medical reasons or rape would inevitably lead to abortion on demand, and sooner or later, to the total liberalization of abortion. Barsi was pointing to the progression of laws permitting abortion in countries with no restrictions on the procedure. Instead of focusing on termination of pregnancies, he suggested looking closer at the problems faced by women and families dealing with difficult pregnancies, and called for increased support in society for them. "It's not by legalizing the 'interruption of pregnancies for medical motives or rape' that we will help women, couples and families. We must in fact accompany women by putting in place concrete measures within our institutions to foster solidarity," he said.
The new law permits abortion for "hard cases" including rape, fetal deformity, fetal illness or danger to the life of the mother. Catholic authorities argue that new regulations on termination of pregnancy are "incompatible" with the constitution of Monaco, which recognizes the Catholic faith as the state religion. They fear, for example, that there will be further attempts to conform Monaco to what they consider lowest ethical standards.
Adoption of the new bill on abortion in Monaco should be regarded as an important step on the way to providing sufficient guarantees for women within the area of reproductive rights. The fact that currently there are only two states in Europe where abortion is illegal and therefore totally prohibited, is a genuine proof that societies can change mentality, despite religious constraints that very often constitute serious obstacles when discussing controversial matters, especially abortion. Monaco serves as a perfect example.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
German Parliament Votes To Change Law on Late-Term Abortions
German Parliament Votes to Change Law on Late-Term Abortions
In the Bundestag vote on 14 May, 326 delegates voted in favor of the consultation period which includes a doctor's psychological evaluation. Of the 612 parliamentarians involved in the vote, 234 voted against and 52 abstained. Parliamentarians also voted in favor of increased consultations and support for families with handicapped children considering a termination.
The motion mandates that women receive counseling from a doctor about the medical and psychological consequences of a late-term abortion. The doctor should also inform the patient about living with a physically or mentally disabled child, and point her towards other means of support. A woman considering a late-term abortion would also have a three-day waiting period between the counseling session and the procedure to give her time to think about her options. After being approved by the upper chamber of parliament, the Bundesrat, it should come into effect in January 2010. (DW/AFP)
In the Bundestag vote on 14 May, 326 delegates voted in favor of the consultation period which includes a doctor's psychological evaluation. Of the 612 parliamentarians involved in the vote, 234 voted against and 52 abstained. Parliamentarians also voted in favor of increased consultations and support for families with handicapped children considering a termination.
The motion mandates that women receive counseling from a doctor about the medical and psychological consequences of a late-term abortion. The doctor should also inform the patient about living with a physically or mentally disabled child, and point her towards other means of support. A woman considering a late-term abortion would also have a three-day waiting period between the counseling session and the procedure to give her time to think about her options. After being approved by the upper chamber of parliament, the Bundesrat, it should come into effect in January 2010. (DW/AFP)
Abortion Bill Approved in Monaco
Abortion Bill Approved in Monaco
The Monaco Parliament (National Council) has unanimously approved a bill authorizing medical abortions. The bill was passed in a 26-0 vote, despite the fact that 90% of its population is formally Catholic. The legislation had been in process for five years and it is the first case of legalizing abortion in the country where Catholicism is the state religion.
The Monaco Parliament (National Council) has unanimously approved a bill authorizing medical abortions. The bill was passed in a 26-0 vote, despite the fact that 90% of its population is formally Catholic. The legislation had been in process for five years and it is the first case of legalizing abortion in the country where Catholicism is the state religion.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
UN Committee Concludes That Abortion Law in Northern Ireland Should Be Amended
press statement from fpa Northern Ireland:
Tuesday 27 May 2009
UN Committee concludes that abortion law in Northern Ireland should be amended
For the third time in ten years, another United Nations human rights monitoring body has recommended that the abortion law in Northern Ireland should be amended and better protection afforded to women’s human rights. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the monitoring body of the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights met in Geneva on the 12 and 13 of May 2009, to examine the UK and Northern Ireland government. In its concluding observations, the Committee recommended that the abortion law in Northern Ireland should be brought into line with the rest of the UK.
It stated:
“The Committee calls upon the State party to amend the abortion law of Northern Ireland to bring it in line with the 1967 Abortion Act with a view to preventing clandestine and unsafe abortions in cases of rape, incest or foetal abnormality.”
Reacting to the Committee’s recommendations, Dr Audrey Simpson, fpa Director Northern Ireland said:
“Once again the ongoing discrimination of Northern Ireland women has been acknowledged in Europe. It is totally unacceptable for the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly to continue to ignore UN human rights monitoring bodies. It is a blatant disregard for women’s human rights in relation to their reproductive health.”
Tuesday 27 May 2009
UN Committee concludes that abortion law in Northern Ireland should be amended
For the third time in ten years, another United Nations human rights monitoring body has recommended that the abortion law in Northern Ireland should be amended and better protection afforded to women’s human rights. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the monitoring body of the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights met in Geneva on the 12 and 13 of May 2009, to examine the UK and Northern Ireland government. In its concluding observations, the Committee recommended that the abortion law in Northern Ireland should be brought into line with the rest of the UK.
It stated:
“The Committee calls upon the State party to amend the abortion law of Northern Ireland to bring it in line with the 1967 Abortion Act with a view to preventing clandestine and unsafe abortions in cases of rape, incest or foetal abnormality.”
Reacting to the Committee’s recommendations, Dr Audrey Simpson, fpa Director Northern Ireland said:
“Once again the ongoing discrimination of Northern Ireland women has been acknowledged in Europe. It is totally unacceptable for the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly to continue to ignore UN human rights monitoring bodies. It is a blatant disregard for women’s human rights in relation to their reproductive health.”
Friday, May 01, 2009
Women's Group in Malawi Sues Government Over Abortion Rights
HEALTH-MALAWI:
Women’s Group Sues Govt Over Abortion Rights
Pilirani Semu-Banda
LILONGWE, Apr 29 (IPS) - An influential women rights organisation in Malawi, Women in Law in Southern Africa-Malawi (WILSA-Malawi), is suing the government of Malawi for preventing women from accessing safe abortion.
Malawian law prohibits abortion - Section 149 of the country’s penal code says any person who administers abortion shall be liable to imprisonment for 14 years, while Section 150 indicates that any woman who solicits abortion is liable to seven years imprisonment.
But WILSA-Malawi’s executive director, Seodi White, calls the existing laws nonsensical because they infringe on women’s rights. She says they force women to seek back-street abortions from traditional healers and illegal clinics thereby putting their lives in danger.
"These laws do not make sense at all. They are contributing towards the death of so many women. We need to get rid of them as soon as possible," urged White.
Government statistics in Malawi indicate that up to 30 percent of maternal deaths in the country are due to abortion. Malawi’s maternal mortality is one of the highest in Africa - second only to war-torn Sierra Leone.
White says refusing women the right to abort is discrimination. "Access to legal and safe abortion services is essential to the protection of women’s rights to non-discrimination and equality. Where women are compelled to continue unwanted pregnancies, it puts them at a disadvantage because abortion is a medical procedure that only women need," she told IPS.
White argues that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has implied that the denial of medical procedures that only women need is a form of discrimination against women. "Therefore, restrictive abortion laws may amount in certain cases to discrimination against women," she concluded.
WILSA-Malawi is also contending that when pregnancy is unwanted, a legal requirement to continue the pregnancy may constitute government intrusion on a woman’s body. "We are therefore taking the Malawi government to court for failing to protect the women in the country," explained White.
WILSA-Malawi, whose main mandate is to work towards improving women's human rights from a legal and social perspective, has already celebrated one major success in changing legislation to improve women’s rights.
In 2006, the organisation facilitated the enactment of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, after a long battle against the country’s deeply rooted culture and beliefs that wife beating was normal.
Legal battle
Meanwhile, a number of other organisations have joined WILSA-Malawi in the debate on unsafe abortion. For instance, the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC), a government body working on developing and sustaining a culture of respect for human rights among all people in Malawi, indicated that one of the issues the country needs to tackle is abortion.
"This is part of addressing reproductive and sexual health rights of all Malawians. This is important, because there is overwhelming evidence of dangerous termination of pregnancies among women and girl children of Malawi," said MHRC executive director Dr. Aubrey Mvula.
He says the initiative is in line with global women’s rights protocols, such as the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and the Beijing Declaration and its Platform of Action. ICPD objectives include universal access to reproductive care services, while the Beijing Declaration urges governments to review laws that contain punitive measures against women who undergo illegal abortion.
Mvula stressed the fact that international human rights law supports the need to terminate pregnancy to promote and protect other human rights.
"Therefore, MHRC submits that Malawi needs to move forward and significantly promote the health of women and the girl child by making sure that all dangerous pregnancies acquired through unwanted, ill-advised and accidental sexual activities or economic problems need to be terminated on that basis," he said.
Unsafe abortions
In response to demands by MHRC and WILSA-Malawi, the Reproductive Health Unit (RHU) within Malawi’s Department of Health admitted that unsafe abortions are rampant in the country.
RHU deputy director Fannie Kachale points out that most countries with low maternal death rates, such as South Africa and Ghana, have had to permit induced abortion and that legalising abortion has not led to increased number of abortions in those countries. "It has just shifted [numbers from] unsafe to safe abortions," she said.
Kachale explained that while the government of Malawi does not permit abortion, it indirectly acknowledges the fact that illegal abortions take place, because it provides post-abortion care to women who underwent abortions and have developed complications.
According to IPAS, an international organisation working globally to increase women's ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights and to reduce abortion-related deaths and injuries, by providing post-abortion care, the government of Malawi is confirming that there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
Dr. Eunice Brookman-Amissah, vice president of IPAS Africa, told IPS that women usually have valid and important reasons for abortion. "Women tend to seek abortions when pregnancies are not supported by their partners, families or communities, when the pregnancy may threaten the woman’s health or survival or when the foetus has abnormalities. It’s not for immoral reasons," she said.
Brookman-Amissah also explained that the medical process of abortion is usually simpler and cheaper than post-abortion care. "Induced abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. But with unsafe abortion, women easily develop complications, such as hemorrhage, infections, incomplete abortion and secondary infertility. These conditions are very expensive to treat," said Dr. Brookman-Amissah.
As the example of Malawi shows, making abortion illegal does not prevent them from happening. "Where safe abortion is unavailable, women go for unsafe abortion through the ingestion of herbs, bleach, gasoline and gun powder. Others go for vaginal insertions of sharp tools such as twigs and pouches filled with arsenic," explained Brookman-Amissah.
Some women have also been reported to hit themselves into the stomach, while others throw themselves from high places to abort the foetus. According to IPAS, apart from death, consequences of unsafe abortion include significant short and long-term illness, injury and infertility.
Women’s Group Sues Govt Over Abortion Rights
Pilirani Semu-Banda
LILONGWE, Apr 29 (IPS) - An influential women rights organisation in Malawi, Women in Law in Southern Africa-Malawi (WILSA-Malawi), is suing the government of Malawi for preventing women from accessing safe abortion.
Malawian law prohibits abortion - Section 149 of the country’s penal code says any person who administers abortion shall be liable to imprisonment for 14 years, while Section 150 indicates that any woman who solicits abortion is liable to seven years imprisonment.
But WILSA-Malawi’s executive director, Seodi White, calls the existing laws nonsensical because they infringe on women’s rights. She says they force women to seek back-street abortions from traditional healers and illegal clinics thereby putting their lives in danger.
"These laws do not make sense at all. They are contributing towards the death of so many women. We need to get rid of them as soon as possible," urged White.
Government statistics in Malawi indicate that up to 30 percent of maternal deaths in the country are due to abortion. Malawi’s maternal mortality is one of the highest in Africa - second only to war-torn Sierra Leone.
White says refusing women the right to abort is discrimination. "Access to legal and safe abortion services is essential to the protection of women’s rights to non-discrimination and equality. Where women are compelled to continue unwanted pregnancies, it puts them at a disadvantage because abortion is a medical procedure that only women need," she told IPS.
White argues that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has implied that the denial of medical procedures that only women need is a form of discrimination against women. "Therefore, restrictive abortion laws may amount in certain cases to discrimination against women," she concluded.
WILSA-Malawi is also contending that when pregnancy is unwanted, a legal requirement to continue the pregnancy may constitute government intrusion on a woman’s body. "We are therefore taking the Malawi government to court for failing to protect the women in the country," explained White.
WILSA-Malawi, whose main mandate is to work towards improving women's human rights from a legal and social perspective, has already celebrated one major success in changing legislation to improve women’s rights.
In 2006, the organisation facilitated the enactment of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, after a long battle against the country’s deeply rooted culture and beliefs that wife beating was normal.
Legal battle
Meanwhile, a number of other organisations have joined WILSA-Malawi in the debate on unsafe abortion. For instance, the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC), a government body working on developing and sustaining a culture of respect for human rights among all people in Malawi, indicated that one of the issues the country needs to tackle is abortion.
"This is part of addressing reproductive and sexual health rights of all Malawians. This is important, because there is overwhelming evidence of dangerous termination of pregnancies among women and girl children of Malawi," said MHRC executive director Dr. Aubrey Mvula.
He says the initiative is in line with global women’s rights protocols, such as the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and the Beijing Declaration and its Platform of Action. ICPD objectives include universal access to reproductive care services, while the Beijing Declaration urges governments to review laws that contain punitive measures against women who undergo illegal abortion.
Mvula stressed the fact that international human rights law supports the need to terminate pregnancy to promote and protect other human rights.
"Therefore, MHRC submits that Malawi needs to move forward and significantly promote the health of women and the girl child by making sure that all dangerous pregnancies acquired through unwanted, ill-advised and accidental sexual activities or economic problems need to be terminated on that basis," he said.
Unsafe abortions
In response to demands by MHRC and WILSA-Malawi, the Reproductive Health Unit (RHU) within Malawi’s Department of Health admitted that unsafe abortions are rampant in the country.
RHU deputy director Fannie Kachale points out that most countries with low maternal death rates, such as South Africa and Ghana, have had to permit induced abortion and that legalising abortion has not led to increased number of abortions in those countries. "It has just shifted [numbers from] unsafe to safe abortions," she said.
Kachale explained that while the government of Malawi does not permit abortion, it indirectly acknowledges the fact that illegal abortions take place, because it provides post-abortion care to women who underwent abortions and have developed complications.
According to IPAS, an international organisation working globally to increase women's ability to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights and to reduce abortion-related deaths and injuries, by providing post-abortion care, the government of Malawi is confirming that there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
Dr. Eunice Brookman-Amissah, vice president of IPAS Africa, told IPS that women usually have valid and important reasons for abortion. "Women tend to seek abortions when pregnancies are not supported by their partners, families or communities, when the pregnancy may threaten the woman’s health or survival or when the foetus has abnormalities. It’s not for immoral reasons," she said.
Brookman-Amissah also explained that the medical process of abortion is usually simpler and cheaper than post-abortion care. "Induced abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. But with unsafe abortion, women easily develop complications, such as hemorrhage, infections, incomplete abortion and secondary infertility. These conditions are very expensive to treat," said Dr. Brookman-Amissah.
As the example of Malawi shows, making abortion illegal does not prevent them from happening. "Where safe abortion is unavailable, women go for unsafe abortion through the ingestion of herbs, bleach, gasoline and gun powder. Others go for vaginal insertions of sharp tools such as twigs and pouches filled with arsenic," explained Brookman-Amissah.
Some women have also been reported to hit themselves into the stomach, while others throw themselves from high places to abort the foetus. According to IPAS, apart from death, consequences of unsafe abortion include significant short and long-term illness, injury and infertility.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Legal Abortions on New South Wales Agenda
Doctors, law reformers and politicians are joining forces to de-criminalise abortion in New South Wales state in Australia. NSW Attorney-General Mr John Hatzistergos issued a statement on 8 March confirming the Government's reluctance to change laws that make abortion a crime in some circumstances.
After a long public campaign, the abortion law in Victoria state was amended in November 2008. Abortion is now available on demand until 24-weeks gestation in that state. Greens MP Ms Lee Rhiannon said change would be tougher in NSW because of the number of social conservatives in power. Ms Rhiannon said abortion remained a serious criminal offence in NSW, attracting a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
After a long public campaign, the abortion law in Victoria state was amended in November 2008. Abortion is now available on demand until 24-weeks gestation in that state. Greens MP Ms Lee Rhiannon said change would be tougher in NSW because of the number of social conservatives in power. Ms Rhiannon said abortion remained a serious criminal offence in NSW, attracting a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Irish Women Challenge Abortion Ban in European Court
Carl O'Brien- The Irish Times 21st April 2009
THE GOVERNMENT is to launch a robust defence of the State’s ban on abortion before the European Court of Human Rights in the face of a legal challenge by three women who claim the restrictions violate their human rights.
The Strasbourg-based court is considering the admissibility of a legal challenge by the women, who claim their rights were denied by being forced to terminate their pregnancies outside the State.
The women say the restrictive nature of Irish law on abortion jeopardised their health and wellbeing.
The identities of the three – known as A, B and C – will remain confidential as the case proceeds through the court.
While it has been known for some time that the case is pending, papers lodged with the court show in detail for the first time how the Government will contest the case.
The main plank of its defence rests on its contention that domestic legal remedies have not been exhausted by the women.
It also robustly challenges suggestions by the women that there is a lack of post-abortion care or counselling in Ireland. It also insists the European Convention on Human Rights does not confer even a limited right to abortion and it would be “inconceivable” that member states would have agreed to this.
The women at the centre of the legal challenge include a woman who ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman whose children were placed in care as she was unable to cope.
The court, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Any decision of the court is binding on the member states and must be complied with, except if it consists of an advisory opinion.
The women’s complaints centre on four alleged violations of articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, including protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” and freedom from discrimination.
The women at the centre of the case – who are represented by the Irish Family Planning Association – say the lack of any effective remedy at home means they have satisfied the requirement to exhaust domestic legal remedies.
In addition, they say that taking a case would have been costly, futile and could have forced them to relinquish their anonymity. While the case has passed the first stage of the hearing process, a formal hearing on the admissibility and merits of the case is expected shortly.
The case will be watched closely by observers given a ruling by the same court in recent years which resulted in Poland being instructed to guarantee access to legal abortions.
• Validity of decision to bypass domestic courts is central legal point of argument
CARL O'BRIEN
ANALYSIS: The applicants say Irish law is inadequate but the State argues domestic remedies are untried
THE CASE being taken to the European Court of Human Rights by three women – known as A, B and C – centres on whether their human rights were infringed because they were unable to terminate their pregnancies in Ireland.
In their legal submissions, they say the ban on abortion jeopardised their health and well-being. Travelling abroad placed “enormous physical, emotional and financial burdens” upon them. The law created delays and hardships for each woman, resulted in each having a later abortion, at greater risk to their health. Abortion restrictions interfered with the most intimate aspects of their private and family lives without adequate justification, they say.
This, they submit, is in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for one’s “private and family life”. In addition, the abortion laws impeded the ability of some of the women to obtain necessary follow-up medical care upon their return to Ireland, they claim.
On the point of dealing with the issue through the domestic courts, the applicants say that they had “no chance” in domestic proceedings. “The inadequacy of domestic remedies to address the Irish abortion laws is clear and has been demonstrated previously before this court,” their submission says. It says the burden on the State is to demonstrate that there are domestic remedies, both in theory and in practice.
The Government, in its submission, insists that the applicants have failed to exhaust their domestic remedies and, as a result, the application should be declared inadmissible. It also says there has been no breach in human rights, as protected under the European Convention. “It does not appear that any of the applicants took legal advice from an Irish barrister or solicitors as to the prospect of success in any legal proceedings instituted by them,” the Government’s submission says.
As a result, it says the applicants have no evidence to suggest their application would be futile. It points to the recent “Ms D” case – which centred on the right of a 17-year-old girl in the care of the HSE to travel for an abortion – as an example of how the issue of abortion is arguable in domestic courts.
In addition, it draws attention to the X case in which the then chief justice indicated in his ruling that no interpretation of the Constitution was intended to be final for all time.
The Government says the fact that claims made by the applicants have not been tested in any court undermines their claim. Factual assertions made by the applicants are crucial. Yet, as they have chosen to bypass the Irish courts, there has been no determination made on the “correctness of the assertion”.
“Significant issues of fact are left unascertained and the Court is to a significant extent being asked to make rulings of law on the basis of untested assertion,” the Government submission says. “This is, self-evidently, highly unsatisfactory and – it is submitted – properly impermissible.”
Because one of the women based in Ireland is Lithuanian, the government of that country has also sent in observations on the case to the court. In papers filed to the court, it invites the court to take the opportunity presented by the case to state “general principles on the minimum degree of protection” that should be afforded by the convention to women seeking an abortion.
It adds that it “seems more likely” that the applications of the three women would not be successful in the Irish courts. In response, the Irish Government rejects this assertion. It also says the court cannot be asked to set guidelines for future application, as requested by the Lithuanian government.
The case has drawn the interest of a large number of groups with divergent views on abortion who have sent in observations to the court on the case.
Among those supporting the stance of the three women are the British Pregnancy Advisory Services, Doctors for Choice and the US-based Center for Repoductive Rights.
Groups which have sent in observations defending restrictions on abortion include the Pro-Life Campaign, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and the European Centre for Law and Justice – on behalf of Kathy Sinnott MEP – and the Alliance Defense Fund.
Case details
Ms A
She was unmarried, unemployed and living in poverty when she became pregnant unintentionally. She had four young children, all in foster care as a result of problems she had faced as an alcoholic.
In the year before her fifth pregnancy, she remained sober and was in constant contact with social workers with a view to regaining custody of her children. She felt a further child would jeopardise the successful reunification of her existing family.
She decided to travel to Britain to have an abortion. The British NHS refused to carry out the operation at public expense, so she borrowed money from a moneylender. Her difficulty in raising the money delayed the abortion by three weeks.
She travelled to Britain alone. On her return, she experienced pain, nausea and bleeding for up to nine weeks, but was afraid to seek medical advice because of the prohibition on abortion.
Ms B
She was single when she became pregnant unintentionally. She had taken the morning-after pill the day after intercourse, but was advised by two different doctors that it had not only failed, but had given rise to a significant risk that it would be an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the uterus.
She was not prepared to become either a single parent or run the risks associated with an ectopic pregnancy. She travelled to Britain for an abortion. On her return, she started passing blood clots and, since she was unsure whether this was normal and could not seek medical advice in Ireland, she returned to the clinic in Britain.
The impossibility for her to have an abortion in Ireland made the procedure unnecessarily expensive, traumatic and complicated.
Ms C
For three years she was treated with chemotherapy for cancer. The cancer went into remission and she became unintentionally pregnant. She was unable to find a doctor willing to make a determination as to whether her life would be at risk if she continued to term or to give her clear advice as to how the foetus might have been affected.
Given the uncertainty about the risk involved, she decided to have an abortion in Britain. Although her pregnancy was at an early stage, she could not have a medical abortion (where a miscarriage is induced) because she was a non-resident.
Instead, she had to wait eight weeks until a surgical abortion was possible. On returning home, she suffered the complications of an incomplete abortion, including prolonged bleeding and infection.
Source: Edited extracts from the European Court of Human Rights’ “statement of facts” regarding the A, B and C cases.
THE GOVERNMENT is to launch a robust defence of the State’s ban on abortion before the European Court of Human Rights in the face of a legal challenge by three women who claim the restrictions violate their human rights.
The Strasbourg-based court is considering the admissibility of a legal challenge by the women, who claim their rights were denied by being forced to terminate their pregnancies outside the State.
The women say the restrictive nature of Irish law on abortion jeopardised their health and wellbeing.
The identities of the three – known as A, B and C – will remain confidential as the case proceeds through the court.
While it has been known for some time that the case is pending, papers lodged with the court show in detail for the first time how the Government will contest the case.
The main plank of its defence rests on its contention that domestic legal remedies have not been exhausted by the women.
It also robustly challenges suggestions by the women that there is a lack of post-abortion care or counselling in Ireland. It also insists the European Convention on Human Rights does not confer even a limited right to abortion and it would be “inconceivable” that member states would have agreed to this.
The women at the centre of the legal challenge include a woman who ran the risk of an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the womb; a woman who received chemotherapy for cancer; and a woman whose children were placed in care as she was unable to cope.
The court, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Any decision of the court is binding on the member states and must be complied with, except if it consists of an advisory opinion.
The women’s complaints centre on four alleged violations of articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, including protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” and freedom from discrimination.
The women at the centre of the case – who are represented by the Irish Family Planning Association – say the lack of any effective remedy at home means they have satisfied the requirement to exhaust domestic legal remedies.
In addition, they say that taking a case would have been costly, futile and could have forced them to relinquish their anonymity. While the case has passed the first stage of the hearing process, a formal hearing on the admissibility and merits of the case is expected shortly.
The case will be watched closely by observers given a ruling by the same court in recent years which resulted in Poland being instructed to guarantee access to legal abortions.
• Validity of decision to bypass domestic courts is central legal point of argument
CARL O'BRIEN
ANALYSIS: The applicants say Irish law is inadequate but the State argues domestic remedies are untried
THE CASE being taken to the European Court of Human Rights by three women – known as A, B and C – centres on whether their human rights were infringed because they were unable to terminate their pregnancies in Ireland.
In their legal submissions, they say the ban on abortion jeopardised their health and well-being. Travelling abroad placed “enormous physical, emotional and financial burdens” upon them. The law created delays and hardships for each woman, resulted in each having a later abortion, at greater risk to their health. Abortion restrictions interfered with the most intimate aspects of their private and family lives without adequate justification, they say.
This, they submit, is in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for one’s “private and family life”. In addition, the abortion laws impeded the ability of some of the women to obtain necessary follow-up medical care upon their return to Ireland, they claim.
On the point of dealing with the issue through the domestic courts, the applicants say that they had “no chance” in domestic proceedings. “The inadequacy of domestic remedies to address the Irish abortion laws is clear and has been demonstrated previously before this court,” their submission says. It says the burden on the State is to demonstrate that there are domestic remedies, both in theory and in practice.
The Government, in its submission, insists that the applicants have failed to exhaust their domestic remedies and, as a result, the application should be declared inadmissible. It also says there has been no breach in human rights, as protected under the European Convention. “It does not appear that any of the applicants took legal advice from an Irish barrister or solicitors as to the prospect of success in any legal proceedings instituted by them,” the Government’s submission says.
As a result, it says the applicants have no evidence to suggest their application would be futile. It points to the recent “Ms D” case – which centred on the right of a 17-year-old girl in the care of the HSE to travel for an abortion – as an example of how the issue of abortion is arguable in domestic courts.
In addition, it draws attention to the X case in which the then chief justice indicated in his ruling that no interpretation of the Constitution was intended to be final for all time.
The Government says the fact that claims made by the applicants have not been tested in any court undermines their claim. Factual assertions made by the applicants are crucial. Yet, as they have chosen to bypass the Irish courts, there has been no determination made on the “correctness of the assertion”.
“Significant issues of fact are left unascertained and the Court is to a significant extent being asked to make rulings of law on the basis of untested assertion,” the Government submission says. “This is, self-evidently, highly unsatisfactory and – it is submitted – properly impermissible.”
Because one of the women based in Ireland is Lithuanian, the government of that country has also sent in observations on the case to the court. In papers filed to the court, it invites the court to take the opportunity presented by the case to state “general principles on the minimum degree of protection” that should be afforded by the convention to women seeking an abortion.
It adds that it “seems more likely” that the applications of the three women would not be successful in the Irish courts. In response, the Irish Government rejects this assertion. It also says the court cannot be asked to set guidelines for future application, as requested by the Lithuanian government.
The case has drawn the interest of a large number of groups with divergent views on abortion who have sent in observations to the court on the case.
Among those supporting the stance of the three women are the British Pregnancy Advisory Services, Doctors for Choice and the US-based Center for Repoductive Rights.
Groups which have sent in observations defending restrictions on abortion include the Pro-Life Campaign, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and the European Centre for Law and Justice – on behalf of Kathy Sinnott MEP – and the Alliance Defense Fund.
Case details
Ms A
She was unmarried, unemployed and living in poverty when she became pregnant unintentionally. She had four young children, all in foster care as a result of problems she had faced as an alcoholic.
In the year before her fifth pregnancy, she remained sober and was in constant contact with social workers with a view to regaining custody of her children. She felt a further child would jeopardise the successful reunification of her existing family.
She decided to travel to Britain to have an abortion. The British NHS refused to carry out the operation at public expense, so she borrowed money from a moneylender. Her difficulty in raising the money delayed the abortion by three weeks.
She travelled to Britain alone. On her return, she experienced pain, nausea and bleeding for up to nine weeks, but was afraid to seek medical advice because of the prohibition on abortion.
Ms B
She was single when she became pregnant unintentionally. She had taken the morning-after pill the day after intercourse, but was advised by two different doctors that it had not only failed, but had given rise to a significant risk that it would be an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus develops outside the uterus.
She was not prepared to become either a single parent or run the risks associated with an ectopic pregnancy. She travelled to Britain for an abortion. On her return, she started passing blood clots and, since she was unsure whether this was normal and could not seek medical advice in Ireland, she returned to the clinic in Britain.
The impossibility for her to have an abortion in Ireland made the procedure unnecessarily expensive, traumatic and complicated.
Ms C
For three years she was treated with chemotherapy for cancer. The cancer went into remission and she became unintentionally pregnant. She was unable to find a doctor willing to make a determination as to whether her life would be at risk if she continued to term or to give her clear advice as to how the foetus might have been affected.
Given the uncertainty about the risk involved, she decided to have an abortion in Britain. Although her pregnancy was at an early stage, she could not have a medical abortion (where a miscarriage is induced) because she was a non-resident.
Instead, she had to wait eight weeks until a surgical abortion was possible. On returning home, she suffered the complications of an incomplete abortion, including prolonged bleeding and infection.
Source: Edited extracts from the European Court of Human Rights’ “statement of facts” regarding the A, B and C cases.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Women's eNews: Vatican Should Start Outcast Honor Roll
A Brazilian archbishop's decision to excommunicate the mother of a 9-year-old rape victim who had an abortion, as well as the girl's doctor, outrages Anne Eggebroten. She says Catholic leaders need to revisit their own religious teachings.
Here's today's update:
COMMENTARY
Vatican Expulsion Should Start Outcast Honor Roll
By Anne Eggebroten
WeNews commentator
Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's Enews.
(WOMENSENEWS)--Saving the life of a 9-year-old rape victim is a crime, according to Brazilian Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho and Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Congregation for Bishops at the Vatican.
The "crime" of ending the pregnancy last week in Brazil has earned excommunication for the mother and doctors of the child, but not for the stepfather who apparently sexually abused the child for three years, and her sister as well.
This kind of ethics can only marginalize a church that would like to portray itself as a leading force for moral guidance in the world.
"Life must always be protected," said Re to the daily La Stampa in Rome.
Read: unborn life. The cardinal made no comment on the need to protect little girls or their lives.
"In essence, it appears the church's attitude and the stepfather's attitude are no different, namely, the idea that a female body is not the girl's or woman's own but belongs to men to determine whatever they want with it," notes Letha Dawson Scanzoni, a writer on religion and social issues.
The abortion was legal because Brazil permits the procedure in cases of rape and to save a woman's life, although it outlaws all other abortions. This case qualified on both counts; the child's life was in danger because she was bearing twins and her body weight was just 80 pounds. The girl's stepfather has been jailed and faces criminal charges.
Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and its progressive health minister, Jose Gomes Temporao, have criticized the excommunication and defended the doctor for performing the legal procedure. Temporao has already called for reforms to Brazil's abortion law in the interest of protecting women's health. About 1 million illegal abortions are performed each year in the nation, and about a quarter-million women are hospitalized after receiving botched procedures, according to the reproductive rights group Ipas.
Father Knows Best
But Father knows best. The Roman Catholic Church in Brazil and in Rome ruled that Brazilian law is wrong: the twin fetuses carried by the 9-year-old had a right to live, a right that outweighed her possible death.
Let's count the crimes here:
a child is raped;
the Roman Catholic Church wanted to force her to carry twins to full term and undergo either childbirth or Caesarean section;
the church doesn't mind risking the girl-child's life and sanity;
a Brazilian archbishop excommunicated the child's family and her doctors;
local priests may actually deny the Eucharist to these people.
The list could continue.
On the other hand, Catholic priests who commit sexual abuse of children are not excommunicated but rehabilitated.
Prominent Catholic feminists have called the church to task, notably Frances Kissling of Catholics for Choice, and leaders of the Women's Ordination Conference, who underline the continuing need for women in leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.
A further irony, highlighted by Aisha Taylor and Erin Saiz Hanna of the Women's Ordination Conference, is that Pope Benedict XVI issued a March 8 proclamation of the church's commitment to "every woman . . . obtaining complete respect for her dignity," one day after the cardinal's "right to life" words.
Did the archbishop in Brazil or the cardinal in Rome call for prayers for this child and her family? Who is paying for the counseling this child surely needs? Is a priest or nun visiting the child and her mother and assuring them that God loves and forgives their decision, or even approves it?
Not likely. Archbishop Sobrinho reportedly told the press that abortion is an even more serious crime in the church's view than the rape of a child.
Another Faith May Comfort Her
One blessing in the church's decision to expel the child's family is apparent: She will not remain within a system teaching her that she and her family have committed an unforgiveable sin, a murder. Many other religious communities exist in Brazil, some of which offer a more just interpretation of this tragedy.
Apparently these Catholic leaders have not read chapter 8 of the Gospel according to John lately. When the religious leaders of the first century are about to stone an anonymous woman (but not her partner) for adultery, Jesus warns them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
By excommunicating the mother and doctors who made a difficult decision in an ethically complex crisis, the men of today's church defy these words.
Honor Roll of the Excommunicated
To demonstrate the irrelevance of the church's position, women's groups around the world need to start an honor roll of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, starting with Maryknoll priest Roy Bourgeois, who attended and affirmed the ordination to the priesthood of a Roman Catholic woman in Kentucky last August.
Then add the names of Dr. Rivaldo Albuquerque--who performed the girl's abortion--and others involved in this case, as well as other Catholics whom the church has silenced or excommunicated, primarily for disagreeing with the church's position on social issues such as contraception, gay rights, women's ordination, and clerical celibacy.
Some organization could hold an annual honors banquet with a cash award, or perhaps the excommunicated could be given travel expenses to the annual conference of a para-church group like Call to Action, where they could meet together for support.
I hear the voice of Jesus here:
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the realm of heaven.
"Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:10-12)
Anne Eggebroten is the editor of "Abortion--My Choice, God's Grace: Christian Women Tell Their Stories" (Pasadena: New Paradigm Books, 1994) and teaches Women and Religion at California State University, Northridge. She blogs about women's rights and lives at www.marthaymaria.blogspot.com.
Here's today's update:
COMMENTARY
Vatican Expulsion Should Start Outcast Honor Roll
By Anne Eggebroten
WeNews commentator
Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's Enews.
(WOMENSENEWS)--Saving the life of a 9-year-old rape victim is a crime, according to Brazilian Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho and Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Congregation for Bishops at the Vatican.
The "crime" of ending the pregnancy last week in Brazil has earned excommunication for the mother and doctors of the child, but not for the stepfather who apparently sexually abused the child for three years, and her sister as well.
This kind of ethics can only marginalize a church that would like to portray itself as a leading force for moral guidance in the world.
"Life must always be protected," said Re to the daily La Stampa in Rome.
Read: unborn life. The cardinal made no comment on the need to protect little girls or their lives.
"In essence, it appears the church's attitude and the stepfather's attitude are no different, namely, the idea that a female body is not the girl's or woman's own but belongs to men to determine whatever they want with it," notes Letha Dawson Scanzoni, a writer on religion and social issues.
The abortion was legal because Brazil permits the procedure in cases of rape and to save a woman's life, although it outlaws all other abortions. This case qualified on both counts; the child's life was in danger because she was bearing twins and her body weight was just 80 pounds. The girl's stepfather has been jailed and faces criminal charges.
Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and its progressive health minister, Jose Gomes Temporao, have criticized the excommunication and defended the doctor for performing the legal procedure. Temporao has already called for reforms to Brazil's abortion law in the interest of protecting women's health. About 1 million illegal abortions are performed each year in the nation, and about a quarter-million women are hospitalized after receiving botched procedures, according to the reproductive rights group Ipas.
Father Knows Best
But Father knows best. The Roman Catholic Church in Brazil and in Rome ruled that Brazilian law is wrong: the twin fetuses carried by the 9-year-old had a right to live, a right that outweighed her possible death.
Let's count the crimes here:
a child is raped;
the Roman Catholic Church wanted to force her to carry twins to full term and undergo either childbirth or Caesarean section;
the church doesn't mind risking the girl-child's life and sanity;
a Brazilian archbishop excommunicated the child's family and her doctors;
local priests may actually deny the Eucharist to these people.
The list could continue.
On the other hand, Catholic priests who commit sexual abuse of children are not excommunicated but rehabilitated.
Prominent Catholic feminists have called the church to task, notably Frances Kissling of Catholics for Choice, and leaders of the Women's Ordination Conference, who underline the continuing need for women in leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.
A further irony, highlighted by Aisha Taylor and Erin Saiz Hanna of the Women's Ordination Conference, is that Pope Benedict XVI issued a March 8 proclamation of the church's commitment to "every woman . . . obtaining complete respect for her dignity," one day after the cardinal's "right to life" words.
Did the archbishop in Brazil or the cardinal in Rome call for prayers for this child and her family? Who is paying for the counseling this child surely needs? Is a priest or nun visiting the child and her mother and assuring them that God loves and forgives their decision, or even approves it?
Not likely. Archbishop Sobrinho reportedly told the press that abortion is an even more serious crime in the church's view than the rape of a child.
Another Faith May Comfort Her
One blessing in the church's decision to expel the child's family is apparent: She will not remain within a system teaching her that she and her family have committed an unforgiveable sin, a murder. Many other religious communities exist in Brazil, some of which offer a more just interpretation of this tragedy.
Apparently these Catholic leaders have not read chapter 8 of the Gospel according to John lately. When the religious leaders of the first century are about to stone an anonymous woman (but not her partner) for adultery, Jesus warns them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
By excommunicating the mother and doctors who made a difficult decision in an ethically complex crisis, the men of today's church defy these words.
Honor Roll of the Excommunicated
To demonstrate the irrelevance of the church's position, women's groups around the world need to start an honor roll of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, starting with Maryknoll priest Roy Bourgeois, who attended and affirmed the ordination to the priesthood of a Roman Catholic woman in Kentucky last August.
Then add the names of Dr. Rivaldo Albuquerque--who performed the girl's abortion--and others involved in this case, as well as other Catholics whom the church has silenced or excommunicated, primarily for disagreeing with the church's position on social issues such as contraception, gay rights, women's ordination, and clerical celibacy.
Some organization could hold an annual honors banquet with a cash award, or perhaps the excommunicated could be given travel expenses to the annual conference of a para-church group like Call to Action, where they could meet together for support.
I hear the voice of Jesus here:
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the realm of heaven.
"Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:10-12)
Anne Eggebroten is the editor of "Abortion--My Choice, God's Grace: Christian Women Tell Their Stories" (Pasadena: New Paradigm Books, 1994) and teaches Women and Religion at California State University, Northridge. She blogs about women's rights and lives at www.marthaymaria.blogspot.com.
Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church
Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church
By Andrew Downie / São Paulo Friday, Mar. 06, 2009
Demonstrators hold a banner during an antiabortion march in Brasília
Jamil Bittar / Reuters
The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored."
The case has caused a furor. Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger, both of which apply in this case. (The girl's immature hips would have made labor dangerous; the Catholic opinion was that she could have had a cesarean section.) When the incident came to light in local newspapers, the Church first asked a judge to halt the process and then condemned those involved, including the 9-year-old's distraught mother. Even Catholic Brazilians were shocked at the harshness of the archbishop's actions. "In this case, most people support the doctors and the family. Everything they did was legal and correct," says Beatriz Galli, the policy associate for Ipas Brasil, an NGO that fights to give women more say over their health and reproductive rights. "But the Church takes these positions that are so rigid that it ends up weakened. It is very intolerant, and that intolerance is going to scare off more and more followers."
Brazilian devotion to the Catholic Church has declined over the past several years. Whereas Brazil was once an almost entirely Catholic nation, only 74% of Brazilians today admit allegiance to Rome, with large numbers, especially the urban poor, having defected to Protestant Evangelical sects. Many more water down their Catholicism with dashes of African religions such as Candomble or spiritist beliefs such as Kardecism. Only recently has the decrease in Catholic affiliation seemingly leveled off.
Evangelicals have not projected a united pro-life platform in Brazil, certainly not one as monolithic as the Catholic Church's. But at least one major sect, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, has taken a stance that showcases its differences with its Catholic rival. The Universal Church's television channel TV Record recently aired spots featuring a woman declaring, "I decided who to marry. I decided to use the pill. With my vote I decided who'd be elected President. I decided to work so that I won't be discriminated against. Why can't I decide what to do with my own body? Women should be able to decide for themselves what's important."
The public-relations campaigns of the Catholic Church's rivals do not impress Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho. He told TIME that the Vatican rejects believers who pick and choose their issues. Rome "is not going to open the door to anyone just to get more members," he said after comparing abortion to the Holocaust. "We know that people have other ideas, but if they do, then they are not Catholics. We want people who adhere to God's laws."
In Brazil, that hard line carries over into public life and government policy. While equally devout neighbors Mexico, Colombia and Uruguay have taken steps to give women more of a say in the matter of terminating pregnancies, Brazilian public opinion supports the status quo, and the country's Congress last year voted overwhelmingly to reject a modest attempt at decriminalizing abortion. The advances that have taken place are mostly local initiatives carried out almost surreptitiously, such as the move by São Paulo states to offer the morning-after pill and heavily discounted contraceptive pills at state-run pharmacies.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva did make a halfhearted attempt to spur a national debate last year, calling abortion a public-health issue — even as he declared himself steadfastly against it. But with the Church quick to stifle such talk and the general public not sufficiently engaged to demand action, the debate never took off. In truth, abortions and unwanted pregnancies are a sad constant in Brazil. Although abortion is illegal, an estimated 1 million women each year have one. The poor are forced into clandestine clinics or take medication, while the better-off are treated by qualified physicians at well-appointed surgeries known to anyone with money and overlooked by colluding authorities.
That secrecy has a price. More than 200,000 women each year are treated in public hospitals for complications arising from illegal abortions, according to Health Ministry figures. Those who don't have the courage or the money to be treated take the pregnancy to term. Although the fertility rate has fallen considerably in Brazil (from 6.1 children in 1960 to about 2 today), 1 in 3 pregnancies is unwanted, according to Dr. Jefferson Drezett, head of the Hospital Perola Byington, Latin America's largest women's health clinic. Meanwhile, 1 in 7 Brazilian women between the ages of 15 and 19 is a mother, and the average age at which women have their first child has fallen to 21, from 22.4 in 1996, according to a government-funded study.
Those numbers shock the Catholic Church. But the Church's response to the Recife rape and abortion has shocked public opinion. Some Brazilians hope the controversy may compel the country to deal seriously with an issue that affects so many of its citizens. "Brazil wants to be a world leader, but the government can't guarantee equality for women," says Galli. "This is not a topic that anyone wants to debate."
By Andrew Downie / São Paulo Friday, Mar. 06, 2009
Demonstrators hold a banner during an antiabortion march in Brasília
Jamil Bittar / Reuters
The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored."
The case has caused a furor. Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger, both of which apply in this case. (The girl's immature hips would have made labor dangerous; the Catholic opinion was that she could have had a cesarean section.) When the incident came to light in local newspapers, the Church first asked a judge to halt the process and then condemned those involved, including the 9-year-old's distraught mother. Even Catholic Brazilians were shocked at the harshness of the archbishop's actions. "In this case, most people support the doctors and the family. Everything they did was legal and correct," says Beatriz Galli, the policy associate for Ipas Brasil, an NGO that fights to give women more say over their health and reproductive rights. "But the Church takes these positions that are so rigid that it ends up weakened. It is very intolerant, and that intolerance is going to scare off more and more followers."
Brazilian devotion to the Catholic Church has declined over the past several years. Whereas Brazil was once an almost entirely Catholic nation, only 74% of Brazilians today admit allegiance to Rome, with large numbers, especially the urban poor, having defected to Protestant Evangelical sects. Many more water down their Catholicism with dashes of African religions such as Candomble or spiritist beliefs such as Kardecism. Only recently has the decrease in Catholic affiliation seemingly leveled off.
Evangelicals have not projected a united pro-life platform in Brazil, certainly not one as monolithic as the Catholic Church's. But at least one major sect, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, has taken a stance that showcases its differences with its Catholic rival. The Universal Church's television channel TV Record recently aired spots featuring a woman declaring, "I decided who to marry. I decided to use the pill. With my vote I decided who'd be elected President. I decided to work so that I won't be discriminated against. Why can't I decide what to do with my own body? Women should be able to decide for themselves what's important."
The public-relations campaigns of the Catholic Church's rivals do not impress Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho. He told TIME that the Vatican rejects believers who pick and choose their issues. Rome "is not going to open the door to anyone just to get more members," he said after comparing abortion to the Holocaust. "We know that people have other ideas, but if they do, then they are not Catholics. We want people who adhere to God's laws."
In Brazil, that hard line carries over into public life and government policy. While equally devout neighbors Mexico, Colombia and Uruguay have taken steps to give women more of a say in the matter of terminating pregnancies, Brazilian public opinion supports the status quo, and the country's Congress last year voted overwhelmingly to reject a modest attempt at decriminalizing abortion. The advances that have taken place are mostly local initiatives carried out almost surreptitiously, such as the move by São Paulo states to offer the morning-after pill and heavily discounted contraceptive pills at state-run pharmacies.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva did make a halfhearted attempt to spur a national debate last year, calling abortion a public-health issue — even as he declared himself steadfastly against it. But with the Church quick to stifle such talk and the general public not sufficiently engaged to demand action, the debate never took off. In truth, abortions and unwanted pregnancies are a sad constant in Brazil. Although abortion is illegal, an estimated 1 million women each year have one. The poor are forced into clandestine clinics or take medication, while the better-off are treated by qualified physicians at well-appointed surgeries known to anyone with money and overlooked by colluding authorities.
That secrecy has a price. More than 200,000 women each year are treated in public hospitals for complications arising from illegal abortions, according to Health Ministry figures. Those who don't have the courage or the money to be treated take the pregnancy to term. Although the fertility rate has fallen considerably in Brazil (from 6.1 children in 1960 to about 2 today), 1 in 3 pregnancies is unwanted, according to Dr. Jefferson Drezett, head of the Hospital Perola Byington, Latin America's largest women's health clinic. Meanwhile, 1 in 7 Brazilian women between the ages of 15 and 19 is a mother, and the average age at which women have their first child has fallen to 21, from 22.4 in 1996, according to a government-funded study.
Those numbers shock the Catholic Church. But the Church's response to the Recife rape and abortion has shocked public opinion. Some Brazilians hope the controversy may compel the country to deal seriously with an issue that affects so many of its citizens. "Brazil wants to be a world leader, but the government can't guarantee equality for women," says Galli. "This is not a topic that anyone wants to debate."
Excommunicated doctor hailed for abortion on child rape victim
BRASILIA, Brazil (CNN) -- A doctor excommunicated by the Catholic Church for performing an abortion on a 9-year-old rape victim received a standing ovation during a national convention on women's health, according to a local media report.
Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho excommunicated the doctors who performed the child's abortion.
The response came during the opening ceremony of an event hosted by Brazilian Minister of Health Jose Gomes Temporao.
The newspaper O Povo reported that Temporao called on the audience to acknowledge the "brilliant" work done by a medical team in the abortion, performed in Brazil's northeastern city of Recife.
The girl was pregnant with twins after being raped, allegedly by her stepfather, police were quoted in media reports as saying. The abuse had gone on since the girl was 6, authorities said.
The abortion was performed March 4 during the fourth month of pregnancy, according to media reports
Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Recife excommunicated the doctor, the child's mother and the medical team involved in the procedure.
However, the stepfather was not excommunicated, with Sobrinho telling Globo TV that, "A graver act than (rape) is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life."
The child was not excommunicated, Sobrinho said, because Catholic Church law says minors are exempt from excommunication.
"The church is benevolent when it comes to minors," he told Globo TV. "As for the adults, especially those who approved it, performed this abortion, the excommunication is applicable."
"God's law is above human laws," Sobrinho said.
The case has outraged the Brazilian public and fueled a controversy reaching the highest levels of church and state in a nation whose law bans abortion except in cases of rape.
Temporao recently said doctors must put law before religion.
"The question posed is very simple. There is a Brazilian law which states that a pregnancy can be interrupted in case of rape," Temporao said.
"It is legitimate for the church to have its dogmas, but these dogmas must not be imposed on society as a whole," he added.
Earlier, a verbal spat ensued between President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and the archbishop over the church's decision.
"As a Christian and a Catholic, I find it deeply lamentable that a bishop of the Catholic Church has such a conservative attitude," Lula said on Globo TV.
"In this case, the medical profession was more right than the church," he said.
Meanwhile, a Vatican cleric told Italy's La Stampa newspaper that he supports the Brazilian archbishop's decision to excommunicate all involved in the abortion except for the child.
Dr. Olimpio Moraes, one of the doctors involved in the procedure, said he thanked the archbishop for his excommunication because the controversy sheds light on Brazil's restrictive abortion laws. He said women in Brazil's countryside are victimized by Brazil's ban on abortion.
Some of the doctors vowed to continue attending church services, despite being expelled.
"The fact that I was excommunicated will not keep me from going to Mass, praying, conversing with God, and asking him to illuminate me and my colleagues in our medical team to help us take care of people in similar cases," one doctor said.
TV Globo reported that the child, who is from a town outside Recife, has stayed in the city to recover and to escape media coverage. Her current condition is not known.
A new report by Brazil's IPAS, a non-governmental organization that works with the health ministry, indicates that more than 1 million women undergo illegal abortions in Brazil each year. About 250,000 are treated by doctors for traumas due to botched abortions, said Beatriz Jalli, an IPAS official.
Studies at a Brazilian hospital dedicated to treating female victims of violence, the Perola Byington in Sao Paulo, indicated that more than 40 percent of the cases involved children.
"This is why the Recife case is so important for women in Brazil," Jalli said.
Jalli said the liberated "Girl from Ipanema" image that many foreigners have of Brazilian women is far from reality.
"We live in a male chauvinistic, patriarchal society with a very high rate of sexual crimes against women and minors," she said. "Our reproductive rights are constantly criminalized."
Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho excommunicated the doctors who performed the child's abortion.
The response came during the opening ceremony of an event hosted by Brazilian Minister of Health Jose Gomes Temporao.
The newspaper O Povo reported that Temporao called on the audience to acknowledge the "brilliant" work done by a medical team in the abortion, performed in Brazil's northeastern city of Recife.
The girl was pregnant with twins after being raped, allegedly by her stepfather, police were quoted in media reports as saying. The abuse had gone on since the girl was 6, authorities said.
The abortion was performed March 4 during the fourth month of pregnancy, according to media reports
Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Recife excommunicated the doctor, the child's mother and the medical team involved in the procedure.
However, the stepfather was not excommunicated, with Sobrinho telling Globo TV that, "A graver act than (rape) is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life."
The child was not excommunicated, Sobrinho said, because Catholic Church law says minors are exempt from excommunication.
"The church is benevolent when it comes to minors," he told Globo TV. "As for the adults, especially those who approved it, performed this abortion, the excommunication is applicable."
"God's law is above human laws," Sobrinho said.
The case has outraged the Brazilian public and fueled a controversy reaching the highest levels of church and state in a nation whose law bans abortion except in cases of rape.
Temporao recently said doctors must put law before religion.
"The question posed is very simple. There is a Brazilian law which states that a pregnancy can be interrupted in case of rape," Temporao said.
"It is legitimate for the church to have its dogmas, but these dogmas must not be imposed on society as a whole," he added.
Earlier, a verbal spat ensued between President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and the archbishop over the church's decision.
"As a Christian and a Catholic, I find it deeply lamentable that a bishop of the Catholic Church has such a conservative attitude," Lula said on Globo TV.
"In this case, the medical profession was more right than the church," he said.
Meanwhile, a Vatican cleric told Italy's La Stampa newspaper that he supports the Brazilian archbishop's decision to excommunicate all involved in the abortion except for the child.
Dr. Olimpio Moraes, one of the doctors involved in the procedure, said he thanked the archbishop for his excommunication because the controversy sheds light on Brazil's restrictive abortion laws. He said women in Brazil's countryside are victimized by Brazil's ban on abortion.
Some of the doctors vowed to continue attending church services, despite being expelled.
"The fact that I was excommunicated will not keep me from going to Mass, praying, conversing with God, and asking him to illuminate me and my colleagues in our medical team to help us take care of people in similar cases," one doctor said.
TV Globo reported that the child, who is from a town outside Recife, has stayed in the city to recover and to escape media coverage. Her current condition is not known.
A new report by Brazil's IPAS, a non-governmental organization that works with the health ministry, indicates that more than 1 million women undergo illegal abortions in Brazil each year. About 250,000 are treated by doctors for traumas due to botched abortions, said Beatriz Jalli, an IPAS official.
Studies at a Brazilian hospital dedicated to treating female victims of violence, the Perola Byington in Sao Paulo, indicated that more than 40 percent of the cases involved children.
"This is why the Recife case is so important for women in Brazil," Jalli said.
Jalli said the liberated "Girl from Ipanema" image that many foreigners have of Brazilian women is far from reality.
"We live in a male chauvinistic, patriarchal society with a very high rate of sexual crimes against women and minors," she said. "Our reproductive rights are constantly criminalized."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
