Tag Archives: Abortion

Gibraltar votes to ease strict abortion law

By Marco Trujillo

GIBRALTAR (Reuters) -Gibraltar voted to ease a strict abortion law, officials said on Friday, after a referendum which some locals said marked a long overdue advancement of women’s rights in the tiny British territory.

Around 62% of voters who took part backed the change in Thursday’s ballot, where turnout was about 52% of the 23,000 odd eligible voters, Gibraltar’s parliament said.

“Gibraltar does have to keep up with the times, you cannot live in the past,” said Jacqueline, a Gibraltarian woman who declined to give her last name, on Friday morning.

The vote “is an excellent result for women,” chief minister Fabian Picardo, who backed ‘yes’ in a divisive campaign, said on Twitter. “We will also work to introduce the new services we will require to ensure counselling and safe and legal abortions,” he added.

Criminal law in the British enclave on Spain’s southern tip had banned abortion in all circumstances, with a maximum punishment in theory of life in prison. While no one has ever been convicted, citizens and residents were forced to go to Spain or travel to Britain to have an abortion.

The referendum had originally been scheduled for March 2020, but was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Even with the amendment approved on Thursday, the law remains more restrictive than in most of the rest of Europe.

The amendment to the criminal law approved by the referendum allows pregnancies to be terminated by a registered physician within the first 12 weeks in cases where the pregnancy carries more risk to the mother’s health than termination.

Abortions would be permitted at a later stage of pregnancy under a narrow set of circumstances.

Pro-life groups, who opposed the new bill, say the wording of the law could be interpreted in a way that would ultimately allow most abortions after 12 weeks of conception.

Others said the bill did not encourage abortion but that it was important the choice should rest with the woman.

“I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice,” said Sheela, another Gibraltar resident. “I think every person should have, at the end of the day, their own right to do what they want.”

(Reporting by Marco Trujillo in GIBRALTAR and Inti Landauro in MADRID; Editing by Andrei Khalip and Philippa Fletcher)

Gibraltar votes in referendum on easing strict abortion law

By Jon Nazca and Marco Trujillo

GIBRALTAR (Reuters) – Gibraltarians voted in a referendum on Thursday on whether the tiny British territory on the southern tip of Spain should ease one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe.

Its criminal law bans abortion in all circumstances, with a maximum punishment in theory of life in prison. While no one has been convicted, citizens and residents are forced to go to Spain or travel to Britain to have an abortion.

“I think we should be able to have an abortion here, we shouldn’t have to go to a different country just to have an abortion,” 20-year-old student Geraldine told Reuters after casting her vote.

“At the end of the day it is our body, our choice. Other people shouldn’t make the choice for us,” added the student, one of 23,000 Gibraltarians eligible to vote.

The referendum had originally been scheduled for March 2020, but was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Although penalties are tough, not a single woman or doctor has ever been convicted under the law, a Gibraltar government spokeswoman said.

The referendum is on an amendment to the criminal law that would allow pregnancies to be terminated by a registered physician within the first 12 weeks in cases where the pregnancy carried more risk to the mother’s health than termination.

Abortions would be permitted at a later stage under a narrow set of circumstances.

Even if the changes are approved, the law would be far more restrictive than in most of the rest of Europe.

Pro-life groups say that the wording of the law could be interpreted in a way that would ultimately allow most abortions.

“I’m supporting ‘No’ because I believe life begins at conception and life is sacred and it should be respected until the moment of death,” Susan Gomez, 52, who is a member of the Gibraltar pro-life movement, told Reuters.

“We should give (women who are pregnant) all the support in the world so that abortion never happens”, she said.

Both the government, which has backed the proposed changes, and opposition parties in the enclave encouraged people to vote.

“The government will act in keeping with the views of the people of Gibraltar as expressed … whichever of the two results may come out,” Fabian Picardo, Gibraltar’s chief minister, said.

(Reporting by Jon Nazca and Marco Trujillo in Gibraltar. Writing by Emma Pinedo in Madrid)

Federal appeals court blocks Missouri ban on abortions after 8 weeks

By Gabriella Borter

(Reuters) – A panel of federal appeals court judges blocked a Missouri law on Wednesday that banned abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy, saying the provisions of the law violated the constitutional right of women to end their pregnancies.

The law is among more than a dozen gestational age abortion bans that have been passed in recent years by Republican-led legislatures and challenged for their violation of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which said women have a right to abortion before the fetus is viable, between 24 and 28 weeks.

U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs in Kansas City had temporarily halted the Missouri law just days before it was due to go into effect in August 2019, saying it would negatively impact the rights of Missouri women. The decision on Wednesday by a three-judge panel in the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Sachs’ ruling.

“Bans on pre-viability abortions are categorically unconstitutional,” Judge Jane Kelly wrote in the opinion.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the United States, with opponents declaring it immoral on religious grounds and abortion rights advocates saying the option is necessary to ensure women’s bodily autonomy.

Women’s health provider Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties union filed the lawsuit challenging the 2019 ban, which only made exceptions for abortions after eight weeks in cases where there are medical emergencies. The law also banned women from seeking abortions because the fetus had Down’s Syndrome.

“Today’s decision is a critical victory for Missourians,” said Yamelsie Rodríguez, president of Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, in a statement.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement that he was “disappointed” in the Eighth Circuit’s decision.

“We plan to seek review in the Supreme Court,” he said. “I have never and will never stop fighting to ensure that all life is protected.”

Last month, the Supreme Court signaled its willingness to weaken or overturn Roe v. Wade when it agreed to review a Mississippi law that would ban abortions before the fetus is able to live outside the womb. A decision in that case is expected in 2022.

(Reporting by Gabriella Borter; Editing by Aurora Ellis)

Texas governor signs ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion ban, exposing abortion providers to lawsuits

By Gabriella Borter

(Reuters) -Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed into law a “fetal heartbeat” abortion bill that bans the procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy and grants citizens the right to sue doctors who perform abortions past that point.

The new law is part of a wave of similar “heartbeat” abortion bans passed in Republican-led states. Republicans lawmakers who support such legislation have said it is intended to lead to an overturn of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark ruling that guaranteed a woman’s right to end her pregnancy.

The high court this week opened the door for such an overturn, or at least a narrowing, of Roe v. Wade by agreeing to review Mississippi’s bid to ban abortions after 15 weeks.

“Our creator endowed us with the right to life, and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion. In Texas we work to save those lives,” Abbott said before signing the bill, in a video posted on Facebook.

The “fetal heartbeat” law bans abortion once the rhythmic contracting of fetal cardiac tissue can be detected, often at six weeks – sometimes before a woman realizes she is pregnant. The Texas law makes an exception for abortions in cases of medical emergencies.

A fetus that is viable outside the womb, at around 24 weeks into a pregnancy, is widely considered the threshold at which abortion can be prohibited in the United States.

Nearly a dozen states have passed similar “heartbeat” abortion bans, according to reproductive health research organization the Guttmacher Institute, but none have taken effect due to legal challenges.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the United States, with opponents citing religious belief to declare it immoral, and abortion rights advocates prioritizing women’s autonomy.

“It is appalling that in defiance of public opinion and public health, state politicians remain committed to controlling our bodies,” Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement on Wednesday.

Texas’ law, which would take effect in September if it is not stopped by a court, allows citizens to bring a civil lawsuit against anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise,” if the abortion violates the provisions of the law.

In an open letter earlier this month, some 200 Texas physicians voiced concern that the bill would expose doctors to the risk of “frivolous lawsuits that threaten our ability to provide healthcare.”

“Regardless of our personal beliefs about abortion, as licensed physicians in Texas, we implore you to not weaponize the judicial branch against us to make a political point,” the letter said.

(Reporting by Gabriella BorterEditing by Chizu Nomiyama and Jonathan Oatis)

Texas city bans abortion, allows family to sue providers, helpers

By Brad Brooks

LUBBOCK, Texas (Reuters) – Declaring Lubbock a “sanctuary city” for the unborn, voters have approved a local ban on almost all abortions, and the Texas legislature is considering a law to bar the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Lubbock, home to some 260,000 people, is the 25th such “sanctuary city” – all but two in Texas – to have banned abortions in the last two years.

Drucilla Tigner, a policy and advocacy strategist for ACLU-Texas, noted that most other towns that have passed similar sanctuary city measures have populations of a few hundred or thousand, and often have no medical providers whatsoever, let alone one that provides abortions, as Lubbock does.

The Lubbock ordinance bans abortion in all cases except when a woman’s life is in danger. It also allows family members of any woman who has an abortion to sue the provider or anyone who assisted the woman in receiving an abortion.

Nearly 63% of votes cast in the May 1 election supported Lubbock’s abortion measure, the county elections office said Monday. Turnout was 22.6%. The measure is expected to take effect once the official tally is complete, which could take up to a month.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday said it is weighing legal measures, calling the Lubbock vote unconstitutional and detrimental to women’s health. The ACLU has sued other such “sanctuary cities” in Texas in a case that awaits a ruling.

Lubbock is a medical hub for 1 million people in West Texas. The ordinance “has a huge impact on not just the people of Lubbock, but that entire region,” Tigner said.

Planned Parenthood, which last year reopened a clinic in Lubbock, said in a written statement that it “will follow legal restrictions as required.”

Nationwide, women have a constitutional right to abortion under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision.

Abortion fights at the local level have heated up since the Supreme Court attained a 6-3 conservative majority under former President Donald Trump. If Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion would be governed by state and local law.

Jim Baxa, whose West Texas for Life was among the organizations that got the ordinance before voters, said his bigger goal was to see Texas ban abortions at the state level.

Baxa said West Texas for Life got the “sanctuary city” idea after seeing similar measures pass in east Texas two years ago. After the Lubbock city council unanimously rejected the measure as violating state and federal law, West Texas for Life collected enough petition signatures to force a vote.

The Texas Senate in March approved five bills restricting abortion – including one that would ban abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks in some pregnancies. The Texas House is expected to take up the measures later this week.

(Reporting by Brad Brooks in Lubbock; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Idaho becomes latest state to pass ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion ban

By Gabriella Borter

(Reuters) -Idaho has become the latest Republican-led state to pass a “fetal heartbeat” law, prohibiting abortions after five or six weeks of pregnancy except in medical emergencies or in cases of rape or incest.

The law, signed by Republican Governor Brad Little on Tuesday, follows a wave of similar legislation passed by states aiming to prompt a review of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

Also on Tuesday, Arizona passed a law banning abortions performed strictly on the basis of genetic disorders detected in the fetus, such as Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis, unless the condition is considered lethal.

“We should never relent in our efforts to protect the lives of the preborn,” Little said in a statement.

The “fetal heartbeat” law bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, often at six weeks. That could be before a woman realizes she is pregnant.

Idaho’s law states that it will only go into effect 30 days after any U.S. appeals court upholds another fetal heartbeat abortion ban, as several states are in legal battles to have their laws enacted.

“This legislation changes nothing,” abortion rights group Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii said in a statement posted to Facebook on Tuesday.

“What it really does is simply set Idaho up for a lawsuit if a similar ban in another federal court upholds their unconstitutional legislation – and there is nothing that indicates that would ever happen. But even if it does, we will launch a lawsuit immediately to stop it,” the statement said.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the United States, with opponents citing religious belief to declare it immoral, and proponents declaring it a women’s health and privacy issue, among other arguments.

Several Republican-led states have passed restrictions on abortions at around six weeks and most are still tied up in the courts. A law passed in Iowa in 2018 was overturned by a state judge in 2019.

“It is undisputed that such cardiac activity is detectable well in advance of the fetus becoming viable,” District Court Judge Michael Huppert wrote in his decision.

A fetus that is viable outside the womb, usually at 24 weeks, is widely considered the threshold in the United States to prohibit abortion.

(Reporting by Gabriella BorterEditing by Bill Berkrot)

Arizona governor signs ban on abortions based on genetic abnormalities

By David Schwartz

PHOENIX (Reuters) – Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law on Tuesday a measure banning abortions performed strictly on the basis of genetic disorders detected in the fetus, such as Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis, unless the condition is considered lethal.

The bill, approved in Arizona’s Republican-controlled legislature along strict party-line votes last week, makes it a felony for a medical professional to terminate a pregnancy solely on the basis of a hereditary abnormality in the fetus.

Doctors performing such an abortion could face prison time under the newly enacted statute, which opponents have denounced as medically unsound and unconstitutional. A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona said that group and others are weighing a legal challenge.

The bill is due to take effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns for the year.

Support from Ducey, who has never vetoed an abortion restriction and calls himself “proudly pro-life,” was not unexpected.

“There’s immeasurable value in every single life – regardless of genetic makeup,” Ducey, a Republican now in his second term as governor, said in a statement. “We will continue to prioritize protecting life in our preborn children, and this legislation goes a long way in protecting real human lives.”

In addition to outlawing abortions based on genetic abnormalities, the measure – Senate Bill 1457 – also makes it a felony to use force or threat to intimidate a woman into terminating her pregnancy on that basis, or to accept or solicit money to pay for such an abortion.

The measure does not apply to cases in which a genetic condition is considered lethal to the fetus or to abortions sought for other reasons allowed by state law, including protection of the life and health of the mother, Ducey said.

The new law requires any doctor who performs an abortion to complete an affidavit attesting that the woman is not terminating her pregnancy due to an abnormality, and it requires the physician to inform the mother that abortions based on a child’s race, sex or any genetic disorder are illegal.

Various federal courts have taken divergent stands on such restrictions.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled earlier this month that Ohio can enforce a 2017 law banning abortions when medical tests show that a fetus has Down syndrome, a genetic condition that causes cognitive impairment and developmental delays.

That court held that the Ohio statute did not create a substantial barrier to obtaining abortions, was reasonably related to the state’s legitimate interests and was “valid in all conceivable cases.”

But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared a similar Arkansas law unconstitutional in January. That split could prompt the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority to take up the issue.

Supporters of the measure say it is intended as a safeguard against modern-day eugenics, the notion of selective reproduction to “breed out” hereditary disease, disabilities and traits deemed undesirable from the human population.

The American Civil Liberties Union, condemning the bill, said it “will undoubtedly have unintended consequences for people who experience pregnancy loss of any kind and will force people to carry pregnancies to term against their will.”

(Reporting by David Schwartz in Phoenix; Writing and additional reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Ohio can enforce ban on Down syndrome abortions -U.S. appeals court

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) -A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Ohio can enforce a 2017 law banning abortions when medical tests show that a fetus has Down syndrome.

In a 9-7 decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said the law did not create a substantial obstacle to obtaining abortions, was reasonably related to Ohio’s legitimate interests, and was “valid in all conceivable cases.”

The law subjected doctors to license revocations and up to 18 months in prison for performing abortions on women they knew decided to abort at least in part because Down syndrome was in the fetus, or had reason to believe the condition was present.

Tuesday’s decision reversed a 6th Circuit panel ruling in October 2019. The 2-1 panel said the law, House Bill 214, should not be enforced because it prevented some women from obtaining lawful pre-viability abortions.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers that challenged the law did not say in a joint statement whether they would appeal to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.

“This abortion ban inserts politicians between patients and their doctors, denying services to those who need it,” Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson said.

Ohio’s Republican Attorney General Dave Yost said the decision upholds a law directed to “protecting the lives of every Ohioan.”

Down syndrome is a genetic disorder where a person has an extra chromosome. Symptoms include cognitive impairment, slower physical growth, a flat face, a small head, a short neck and poor muscle tone.

Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, who wrote Tuesday’s majority opinion, said Ohio’s law promoted the state’s interests in destigmatizing Down syndrome children, and encouraging doctors to respond to such diagnoses with “care and healing.”

The dissenters said the decision turns House Bill 214 into a “don’t ask, don’t tell” law for doctors and pregnant women.

Circuit Judge Bernice Bouie Donald accused the majority of demonstrating unconcealed “hostility” toward Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion.

The case is Preterm-Cleveland et a v McCloud et al, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3329.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Howard Goller)

U.S. Supreme Court takes up bid to revive defense of Kentucky abortion law

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a bid by Kentucky’s Republican attorney general to defend a restrictive state law, struck down by lower courts, that abortion rights advocates have said would effectively ban the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Attorney General Daniel Cameron has asked the justices to let him intervene in defense of the Republican-backed law after Democratic Governor Andy Beshear’s administration dropped the case.

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide only that narrow issue, and not whether the law violates Supreme Court precedents holding that women have a right to obtain an abortion. Abortion opponents are hopeful that the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will curb abortion rights.

Abortion rights advocates have said the 2018 law would effectively ban an abortion method called dilation and evacuation – the most common form of abortion performed during the second trimester of a pregnancy.

The law was passed by Kentucky’s legislature and signed by a Republican governor, but Beshear subsequently was elected and decided not to continue to defend the measure after the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck it down in June 2020. The 6th Circuit later that month declined to allow Cameron to intervene to defend the law.

The 6th Circuit ruling came just five days before the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision struck down a Louisiana law that imposed restrictions on doctors who perform abortions. Cameron wants to be able to ask the 6th Circuit to reconsider its ruling against the Kentucky law in light of language contained in the Louisiana decision.

The Kentucky law was one of a growing number passed by Republican legislators at the state level imposing a variety of restrictions on abortion. The state’s previous governor, Republican Matt Bevin, had defended the law.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Polish doctors torn over mental health as grounds to bypass near-total abortion ban

By Joanna Plucinska and Kuba Stezycki

WARSAW (Reuters) – When Polish doctors told Paulina, 29, that her unborn child had no kidneys and would die upon birth, she knew she couldn’t go through with the pregnancy.

“Everyone says that the reward after the pain of birth is holding your child in your hands,” said Paulina, a retail manager from Gdynia, who asked Reuters to withhold her surname.

“I would have nothing. I would give birth to a dead child, and that pain would be a thousand times worse.”

Until two months ago, women like Paulina still stood a chance of being allowed an abortion in Poland. However, in a ruling that came into effect in January, the constitutional court decided that terminating pregnancies due to fetal abnormalities was no longer legal, effectively imposing a near-total ban on abortions.

Polish law now considers only incest, rape or a threat to a mother’s life and health as valid grounds to terminate a pregnancy.

Poland’s ruling nationalists supported the move but the country was rocked by weeks of nationwide protests following the Oct. 22 ruling, which quickly morphed into an outpouring of anger against the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) government and the powerful Catholic Church.

Paulina’s only option, therefore, was to find a doctor willing to attest that giving birth was a threat to her health.

Two weeks after Paulina learned of her baby’s condition, abortion rights activists helped her to find a psychiatrist prepared to state that she needed to have an abortion on mental health grounds, and her abortion went ahead.

This makes her one of perhaps only around a dozen women who has managed to get an abortion on such grounds since the ruling came into effect, abortion support groups told Reuters.

Several doctors and lawyers Reuters spoke to maintain that abortions on mental health grounds are in keeping with the law, but government officials and conservative groups call this into question.

Poland’s Ministry of Health told Reuters in an emailed statement that a qualified medical specialist in the appropriate field should determine if a pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother, depending on the woman’s illness.

It did not say if it considered a threat to mental health as sufficient grounds for an abortion.

“I’ve seen opinions like, ‘I’m anxious and I don’t want to give birth’,” Michal Wojcik, a government minister and member of the socially conservative United Poland grouping allied with the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party, told Reuters.

“I don’t think we should count such instances, which are there to simply go around the rules.”

A lawyer for Ordo Iuris, a campaign group that champions ultra-conservative and religious causes, also told Reuters that, in her opinion, giving a recommendation on the basis of mental health was illegal.

ABORTION ACCESS SHRINKING

Some women have chosen to get abortions abroad, despite the coronavirus pandemic and the associated travel restrictions. Paulina was initially told she should go to the Netherlands, a trip she was afraid to do alone.

According to abortion support groups, several women are waiting to find a doctor who is willing to help them, of which there are still very few. This is partly out of fear: Under Polish law, women who undergo an illegal abortion face no penalty, while a doctor can be jailed for up to three years.

In addition, many doctors in Poland, especially in the more conservative southeast, were already exercising their legal right to refuse on religious grounds to terminate pregnancies before the ruling went into force. More are expected to do so now.

Of the four doctors who agreed to support Paulina’s case for an abortion, only one, Aleksandra Krasowska, a Warsaw-based psychiatrist, was willing to be named by Reuters, and confirmed that she had referred Paulina for the termination due to her deteriorating mental health. The other three – a psychiatrist, doctor and a gynecologist – spoke to Reuters anonymously.

“It’s important that this isn’t a one-person decision … Then it’s easier for all of us, to handle this fear of the prosecutor and of the three years in jail,” one of the psychiatrists involved told Reuters.

Maciej Socha, a Gdansk-based gynecologist, is one of few doctors willing to argue publicly that a threat to a woman’s mental health should be accepted as a grounds for abortion.

“If a patient has a brain tumor and continuing the pregnancy threatens her life and health, we can end the pregnancy. If a patient has psychiatric reasons …, then in my opinion, this is enough to end such a pregnancy,” Socha said.

Paulina believes the doctors who helped her terminate her pregnancy saved her life. “These people are heroes. That they aren’t afraid of the consequences from this sick country that they live in,” she said.

(Additional reporting by Alicja Ptak and Anna Wlodarczak-Semczuk; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky)