GOP Leaders add rape exceptions to abortion bill.

House GOP Leaders add rape exceptions to abortion bill.

 

Republican leaders are hoping to continue the discussion from last week's controversy over the issue of whether there should be an exception for abortion in cases of rape and incest.   A GOP sponsored bill, banning late term abortion with that exception is expected before the next debate.

Republican members of the House from the Judiciary Committee voted down the Democratic amendment to allow women who are raped to obtain an abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy.  However, the House GOP leader decided to add a small exception.  After GOP members expressed their worries about the issue, Republican leadership agreed that the new exception aids women by permitting victims of rape or incest to have an abortion, if they report the crime to authorities.

Last week, Arizona Republican Representative, Trent Frank, started the controversy again when he argued against the exception. He added that “pregnancy [resulting] from rape was very low."  What about incest? Is his opinion the same? 

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, and a member of judiciary committee immediately pushed back by arguing that “Rep. Trent Frank does not have any scientific basis to say that” and that telling women in the U.S.A. to continue with a pregnancy resulting from rape is humiliating.  After that Todd Askin said that, “Women’s bodies could prevent pregnancies during cases of legitimate rape.". I wonder what is considered legal rape for him? Because, when reporters asked about his comments, he alleged he was talking about pregnancies over six months of women who are raped and their chances for abortion.  After that, Democrats quickly pointed out that there were no female GOP members on the judiciary panel.  Thus, Republicans Nominated Tennessee Republican, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, to lead another abortion debate instead of Frank because she co-sponsored the bill and was close to GOP leaders.  The need for female participation in this discussion is critical. One GOP aide told CNN that leaders encourage Republican women who support measures to participate in the next floor debate.

The House of Democrats spotlights the issue because they emphasized key points in the discussion, but they don’t believe the debate will go anywhere.  Americans will rarely see action on those items since leaders focused on the struggling economy.  Democrats think independent voters can make the difference in the next election; the focus on another controversial social issue will be increased.

http://www.politicalticker.blog.cnn.com

 

Western Abortion Law Looks Deadly

Western Abortion Law Looks Deadly   

The high mortality rates of pregnant women in India are a big topic of political concern. But, what about Ireland?

An Indian woman who lived in Ireland lost her life there because of the country's criminalization of abortion.  Had she been home, her life would have been saved.

When Savita Halappanavar, 31, went into Galway Hospital in Ireland during the last days of October, she could not have imagine her subsequent death; neither that it would cause protests around the world.  Originally from India, she was 17 weeks pregnant when she felt something was wrong.  She talked to her doctor because she was having a miscarriage, but her petition for abortion was ignored by doctors.  Halappanavar died of blood poisoning on October 28.

According to women’snews.org, the discussion of the new century is to reduce maternal mortality rates around the world by 75% by 2015.  They are focused on women in developing countries such India, where there is a high rate of maternal mortality due to complications related to pregnancy and childbirth.  If Halappanavar had stayed in her home state of Kamataka in South India, rather than moving to Ireland, she would have lived because in India, abortion is legal under the Medical Termination Act of 1971.

Halappanavar’s husband, who is an engineer employed in Ireland, demanded a public investigation of his wife's denied petition for abortion, which caused her death.  Amnesty International took this case up with the Ireland Ministry of Health to present a formal petition requesting the causes of her death. A month after Halappavanar died, the committee set up by government released a report including suggestions for amendments to the existing abortion laws.

Indian women’s rights activists point out that this case has shown the entire world that females are “second-class citizens" in many cultural contexts. The Commissioner for Human rights, Mary Robinson, declared at a two-day international seminar held at Harvard Law School in 2010 that, “becoming pregnant was a health risk" and that “not addressing the issues amounts to human right violations no less.”

I believe women from around the world need to speak up and to fight against the violations committed against our rights.  

http:/www.news.com/story/abortion/121202

 

 

 

The History of Abortion

The History of Abortion

Abortion as an integral part of reproductive health care; in the United States, the history of abortion goes back prior to 1973.  Abortion was performed many years ago, but it was legal in the United States from the time when the first settlers arrived.  However, in the mid-1800’s, states passed laws that made abortion illegal.  The anti-abortion laws created varied from state to state.  During the 1800’s, medical procedures, including abortion, were high risk because hospitals did not use common antiseptics.  Also, doctors had primitive medical education.  Thus, the danger for abortion was similar to the danger from other surgeries that were not outlawed.  By 1910, all but one state had criminalized abortion, except where it was deemed necessary based on a doctor’s judgment to save a woman’s life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a “physician’s only practice”.

Milestones in Abortion Law

1700’s to mid-1800’s: Adopting British law, all states permitted abortion before fetal movement could be perceived.

1850 to 1900: Starting with Massachusetts, nearly all states banned abortion, with some exceptions that allowed saving a woman’s life when it was in danger.

1962 to 1973: 17 states amended their laws to allow abortions in cases such as rape, health risks, and fetal damage.  Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington allowed abortion whenever the woman and her doctor deemed it necessary. Only Pennsylvania failed to lift its total ban on the procedure.

January 22, 1973 - Roe v. Wade: U.S Supreme Court legalized abortion on a 7-2 vote, overturning all states’ abortion bans; their reasoning was that the 14^th Amendment of the U.S Constitution guarantees women the right to privacy in decisions of when to end a pregnancy.

On the same day, in the case of Doe v. Bolton, the high court ruled to let women end a pregnancy if their life or health was in danger.

July 1,  1976 - Planned Parenthood v. Danforth: The U.S. Court overturned a Missouri law requiring a married woman to obtain her husband’s consent for an abortion.

June 30, 1990 - Harris v. McRae: The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Hyde amendment to the U.S. Social Securities Act, restricting Medicaid funding for abortion in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest.

July 3^rd, 1989 - Webstern v. Reproductive Health Services: This case concerns a Missouri statute where public health workers were prohibited to perform abortions, unless the mother’s life was at risk.  It also demanded that doctors needed to test the viability of the fetus in a woman who was more than 20 weeks pregnant and looking for an abortion.

June 25, 1990 - Hodgson v. Minnesota: The U.S. Court ruled against a Minnesota law that required minors to notify both parents before obtaining an abortion.

June 29, 1992 - Planned Parenthood v. Casey: The court reaffirms Roes core holding that states may not ban abortions or interfere with a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The court does uphold mandatory 24-hour waiting periods and parental-consent laws

June 28, 2000 - Stenberg v. Carthart: U.S Supreme Court strikes down a Nebraska ban of partial abortion; laws in other 30 states are invalidated.

 Nov. 5, 2003: President Bush signs the Abortion Act of 2003, prohibiting certain abortion procedures.  This became the first federal law banning the D & X procedure.

April 18, 2007 - Gonzales v. Carthart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood federation of America: The Supreme Court reversed a previous ruling and upheld the federal ban, by vote 5-4, on abortion.  It gave opponents of abortion a major victory and prompted many states to consider passing tougher restrictions on abortion.

Through this time line of abortion, we can see how many times women’s rights have been violated.  Although most of the regulations throughout history have permitted abortion when the woman’s life is at risk, in some cases, the courts made decisions based on sociocultural and political influences, rather than on circumstantial evidence, which was the case in Beatriz situation in El Salvador.

http://www.chicago tribune.com

http:/www.pweforum.org/abortion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Struggling to define abortion in El Salvador

Struggling to define abortion in El Salvador

The Salvadorian Health Ministry approved to terminate Beatriz’ high risk pregnancy through a caesarean; but, was it an abortion?

Last week, the Supreme Court of El Salvador once again maintained their position against abortion, as well as denying Beatriz’ petition to undergo a therapeutic abortion.  It also ordered her doctor’s to keep her under medical monitoring to follow all of the necessary procedures to save her life.

As a result of that, the Ministry of Health approved a cesarean delivery because her fetus had no chances of survival outside of her womb.  The cesarean was performed on Monday, June 3, 2013 and the fetus died hours later, while Beatriz was recovering in the hospital; her life is no longer at risk.

Salvadorian antiabortion groups celebrated the Court and the Ministry of Health’s decision to “induce birth” because it showed the general population that the fetus died through natural causes.  Reproductive rights advocates, however, view the medical intervention as an abortion.  Alejandra Cardenas, legal adviser, of the Center of Reproductive Rights told the New York Times that, “It is an abortion [because] they interrupted an unviable pregnancy.”

“Salvadorian laws have no distinction between abortion and an induced premature birth,” said Evelyn Farfan, a professor of constitutional law at the University of El Salvador.  Therefore, when judges approved the medical intervention, but denied the abortion petition, “they modulated the terminology they used in the ruling to say the same thing without referencing the same word, abortion.” – Evelyn Farfan said.

The Salvadorian Obstetrics and Gynecologists made their own procedure fit the gap of the law, which defines that after 20 weeks of pregnancy, there is a difference between abortion and premature delivery.  With undefined guidelines for abortion, the decision, according to some doctors was unclear.  “The abortion was made with intent of killing a baby” stated Jose Miguel Fortin Magana, director of Legal Medicine Institute.  He also said to the New York Times that “an induction was done with the purpose to only save Beatriz’ life.”

I hope Beatriz’ case helps women in El Salvador fight for their rights.  It should be proof that they are in charge of their life decisions, especially when their life is at risk.

Katie McDonough is an assistant editor for salon focusing on lifestyle follows her on twitter@kmcdonough.com or her e-mail at

 kmcdonough@salon.com

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/05/strugling

 

 

 

 

 

Salvadorian Court Denies Beatriz an Abortion

Salvadorian Court Denies Beatriz an Abortion

The plea of a 22 year old woman in El Salvador is making its way through social media.  According to Amnesty International, she is six months pregnant with an anencephalic fetus that has zero probabilities of survival outside the womb.  She has also been diagnosed with several illnesses including lupus and kidney failure. Her health situation is worsening and she could die if she continues with the pregnancy.

            In El Salvador, abortion is illegal under any and all circumstances. The New York Times informed in their blog that advocates have adopted her cause to intensify regional push to change abortion laws by arguing that her rights under international laws are being violated.  The New York Times also mentioned that the Salvadorian church’s position is that the baby’s malformation should not be met with a death sentence.

            On March 22, a lawyer from the National Maternity Hospital requested permission from the government to perform an abortion on her, but due to the total ban on abortion in her country, the request was denied.  Putting Beatriz and any doctor who is willing to perform the abortion at risk at prosecution is unjust.  On May 30, the Supreme Court denied Beatriz her appeal of access to a therapeutic abortion.  Rodolfo Parker said, after the ruling to CNN in El Salvador, “The constitution makes it clear that life exists from the moment of the conception, and anything that tries to end a life is murder.”  According to Amnesty International, it is inexcusable for Salvadorian authorities to deny a lifesaving treatment for Beatriz.  The Human Rights Watch Organization is currently supporting her by protesting outside of the Supreme Court.  They are asking a simple question, “Who will guarantee Beatriz her basic human right to life and health?” The pleas of these people are becoming desperate, as her battle is becoming a race against time!

 

For further information contact Elizabeth Berton-Hunter, Media Relations            

(416)363-9933 #332 bberton-hunter@amnesty.ca or

John Tackaberry    (613)744-7667 #236 jtackaberry@amnesty.ca