A new law that bans most abortions has come into force in Texas, US. This comes as the conservative leading Supreme Court failed to respond to an urgent request to block it.

Near-total abortion ban comes into effect in Texas

The eventual ruling by the conservative-majority court, expected next year, could allow states to ban abortions before a fetus is viable outside the womb, upending decades of legal precedent.

US Supreme Court to consider gutting landmark 1973 ruling

The US state of Arkansas has passed a law banning abortion even in cases of rape or incest --&nbsp;a measure that will be the nation's strictest abortion regulation if it is not overturned in court.

The only exception to the Arkansas law is "to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency," Asa Hutchinson, the governor of the southern state known for its Christian conservatism, announced on Tuesday.

Hutchinson said he signed the law due to his "sincere and long-held pro-life convictions," adding that "it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law."

The Arkansas law will not come into force before the summer, and the powerful ACLU civil rights organisation has already announced that it will challenge it in court.

Abortion divides the American population, with strong opposition especially among evangelical Christians.

In recent years, several states in the south and the centre of the country have increased restrictive laws on abortion, forcing many clinics to close their doors.

Then-president Donald Trump's appointment of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court judge in October locked in a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the court, and raised the possibility of overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling on abortion rights. If overturned, individual states would be able to set abortion regulations.

Alabama is the only state to have recently passed a similarly sweeping anti-abortion policy, when the state made it a felony for doctors to perform abortions except to save a mother's life in 2019. That law was struck down in federal court.

(with inputs from agencies)

The US state of Arkansas has passed a law banning abortion even in cases of rape or incest -- a measure that will be the nation's strictest abortion regulation if it is not overturned in court.

The US state of Arkansas has passed a law banning abortion even in cases of rape or incest -- a measure that will be the nation's strictest abortion regulation if it is not overturned in court. The only exception to the Arkansas law is "to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency," Asa Hutchinson, the governor of the southern state known for its Christian conservatism, announced on Tuesday. Hutchinson said he signed the law due to his "sincere and long-held pro-life convictions," adding that "it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law." The Arkansas law will not come into force before the summer, and the powerful ACLU civil rights organisation has already announced that it will challenge it in court. Abortion divides the American population, with strong opposition especially among evangelical Christians. In recent years, several states in the south and the centre of the country have increased restrictive laws on abortion, forcing many clinics to close their doors. Then-president Donald Trump's appointment of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court judge in October locked in a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the court, and raised the possibility of overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling on abortion rights. If overturned, individual states would be able to set abortion regulations. Alabama is the only state to have recently passed a similarly sweeping anti-abortion policy, when the state made it a felony for doctors to perform abortions except to save a mother's life in 2019. That law was struck down in federal court. (with inputs from agencies)

US state of Arkansas bans nearly all abortions in sweeping measure

On abortion, the White House said Biden was ordering the government to review rules under Donald Trump's administration.

U.S. President Joe Biden reverses restrictions on access to abortion

US President Joe Biden is set to scrap a ban on US funding for abortion counselling provided by international organisations.

Abortion has been legal in the United States since a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, and Biden has consistently supported that ruling, which guarantees a woman's "right to choose."

On the eve of the anti-abortion movement's annual March for Life, the White House said Biden would rescind the so-called Mexico City Policy -- which bars US funding for international non-profit organidations that offer abortion counseling or referrals -- on Thursday.

The move is part of a broad package of health-related measures by the new Democratic president at a time when the country is reeling from Covid-19 and, as ever, grappling with a health care system that leaves millions of people uninsured.

Biden is expected to also order a review of rules under Donald Trump's administration that blocked government-funded family planning clinics in the United States from referring women for abortions.

Bidens' Democratic base largely supports abortion rights, but he is also a devout member of the Catholic Church which is firmly opposed to abortion.&nbsp;

Pressed last week on the new president's abortion stance -- particularly on legislation known as the Hyde amendment that would prevent federal funds from being used by Americans to pay for abortion -- White House Spokeswoman Jen Psaki declined to answer directly.

Politically, the issue cleaves a deep division among Americans, and Biden alienating a portion of them could hamper his efforts to build broad-based support to advance other policies on the economy and the coronavirus pandemic.

Strongly supported by US anti-abortion groups, the 1984 Mexico City Policy takes aim at non-American non-governmental organisations involved in health and family planning support in developing countries and whose operations benefit from official US financial aid.

Within days of taking office in January 2017, Trump outlawed the extension of US financing to such groups if they suppport, counsel or offer abortion. Moreover, they could be banned from US aid if they themselves extend support to other NGOs which support abortion.

US President Joe Biden is set to scrap a ban on US funding for abortion counselling provided by international organisations. Abortion has been legal in the United States since a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, and Biden has consistently supported that ruling, which guarantees a woman's "right to choose.

US President Joe Biden is set to scrap a ban on US funding for abortion counselling provided by international organisations. Abortion has been legal in the United States since a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, and Biden has consistently supported that ruling, which guarantees a woman's "right to choose." On the eve of the anti-abortion movement's annual March for Life, the White House said Biden would rescind the so-called Mexico City Policy -- which bars US funding for international non-profit organidations that offer abortion counseling or referrals -- on Thursday. The move is part of a broad package of health-related measures by the new Democratic president at a time when the country is reeling from Covid-19 and, as ever, grappling with a health care system that leaves millions of people uninsured. Biden is expected to also order a review of rules under Donald Trump's administration that blocked government-funded family planning clinics in the United States from referring women for abortions. Bidens' Democratic base largely supports abortion rights, but he is also a devout member of the Catholic Church which is firmly opposed to abortion. Pressed last week on the new president's abortion stance -- particularly on legislation known as the Hyde amendment that would prevent federal funds from being used by Americans to pay for abortion -- White House Spokeswoman Jen Psaki declined to answer directly. Politically, the issue cleaves a deep division among Americans, and Biden alienating a portion of them could hamper his efforts to build broad-based support to advance other policies on the economy and the coronavirus pandemic. Strongly supported by US anti-abortion groups, the 1984 Mexico City Policy takes aim at non-American non-governmental organisations involved in health and family planning support in developing countries and whose operations benefit from official US financial aid. Within days of taking office in January 2017, Trump outlawed the extension of US financing to such groups if they suppport, counsel or offer abortion. Moreover, they could be banned from US aid if they themselves extend support to other NGOs which support abortion.

Biden set to scrap ban on US funds for abortion counseling

The world is welcoming Argentina's new abortion law, but Brazil's President Jair M. Bolsonaro is unhappy. Palki Sharma tells you why.

Gravitas: Is Brazil interfering with healthcare?

Argentina's historic abortion law which was considered to be triumph for women rights campaigner. But the decision doesn't settle well with right wing president of Brazil, Bolsonaro said, 'abortion never be approved on our soil'.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro slams Argentina's historic abortion law

Argentina has become one of only a handful of South American nations to legalise abortion, after hours of debate in the Senate.

Thousands of pro-choice activists cheered Wednesday in the streets of the capital after the Senate approved the bill 38 to 29, with one abstention.

Earlier in the day, both pro-choice and anti-abortion -- gathered outside Buenos Aires' parliament despite coronavirus fears.

South America has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. In Argentina, terminations are currently allowed in only two instances: rape, and danger to the mother's life.&nbsp;

The landmark law would legalise voluntary abortions at up to 14 weeks.

The highly-anticipated session was opened Tuesday by Senate president Cristina Kirchner, who is also Argentina's vice-president.

Kirchner, a former two-term president, said there were 67 of the 72 senators present when the session opened either in person or by video link.

The bill was proposed by President Alberto Fernandez and passed the Chamber of Deputies on December 11, despite fierce opposition from the Catholic Church and evangelical Christians.

Pro-choice activists have campaigned for years to change the abortion laws that date from 1921, adopting a green scarf as their symbol.

Earlier on Wednesday Pope Francis, who is Argentine, tweeted: "The son of God was born discarded to tell us that every person discarded is a child of God."

(with inputs)

Argentina has become one of only a handful of South American nations to legalise abortion, after hours of debate in the Senate. Thousands of pro-choice activists cheered Wednesday in the streets of the capital after the Senate approved the bill 38 to 29, with one abstention.

Argentina has become one of only a handful of South American nations to legalise abortion, after hours of debate in the Senate. Thousands of pro-choice activists cheered Wednesday in the streets of the capital after the Senate approved the bill 38 to 29, with one abstention. Earlier in the day, both pro-choice and anti-abortion -- gathered outside Buenos Aires' parliament despite coronavirus fears. South America has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. In Argentina, terminations are currently allowed in only two instances: rape, and danger to the mother's life. The landmark law would legalise voluntary abortions at up to 14 weeks. The highly-anticipated session was opened Tuesday by Senate president Cristina Kirchner, who is also Argentina's vice-president. Kirchner, a former two-term president, said there were 67 of the 72 senators present when the session opened either in person or by video link. The bill was proposed by President Alberto Fernandez and passed the Chamber of Deputies on December 11, despite fierce opposition from the Catholic Church and evangelical Christians. Pro-choice activists have campaigned for years to change the abortion laws that date from 1921, adopting a green scarf as their symbol. Earlier on Wednesday Pope Francis, who is Argentine, tweeted: "The son of God was born discarded to tell us that every person discarded is a child of God." (with inputs)

Argentine Senate approves bill to legalise abortion

Thousands of people turned out in Warsaw Sunday for the latest protest against a court decision restricting the right to abortion in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

The participants, mainly women and young people, crossed the capital headed for the home of deputy prime minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who analysts consider was behind the Constitutional Court's October 22 ruling.

Police tried several times to block the marchers' route to prevent them reaching Kaczynski's house, the target of several recent protests, before finally blocking off the street where he lives.

Already overnight, a group of farmers who accuse the government of doing nothing to stop the falling prices for their products had dumped a dead pig there and scattered potatoes and eggs across the street.

Have a look|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/bittersweet-victory-green-scarves-wave-as-argentina-celebrates-legalization-of-abortion-349308">Bittersweet victory: Green scarves wave as Argentina celebrates legalization of abortion</a>

Sunday's demonstrations took place on the 39th anniversary of Poland's then leader General Wojciech Jaruzelski declaring martial law to crush the Solidarity trade union movement pressing for reforms.

Activists have organised a series of protests since the October court ruling that abortions due to birth defects are unconstitutional -- a decision that would impose a near-total ban on terminations.

That ruling has not yet been published officially, meaning it does not apply, but doctors have been cancelling scheduled abortions for fear of falling foul of the law.

Once it is implemented, abortions will only be allowed in cases of rape, incest and if the mother's life is at risk.

At the moment, Poland sees fewer than 2,000 legal abortions every year, according to official statistics. But women's groups estimate that an additional 200,000 women abort either illegally or abroad.

Protesters have ignored government orders against mass gatherings during the coronavirus pandemic, which has so far killed 22,000 people in Poland, a country of 38 million people.

Thousands of people turned out in Warsaw Sunday for the latest protest against a court decision restricting the right to abortion in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

Thousands of people turned out in Warsaw Sunday for the latest protest against a court decision restricting the right to abortion in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The participants, mainly women and young people, crossed the capital headed for the home of deputy prime minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who analysts consider was behind the Constitutional Court's October 22 ruling. Police tried several times to block the marchers' route to prevent them reaching Kaczynski's house, the target of several recent protests, before finally blocking off the street where he lives. Already overnight, a group of farmers who accuse the government of doing nothing to stop the falling prices for their products had dumped a dead pig there and scattered potatoes and eggs across the street. Have a look| Bittersweet victory: Green scarves wave as Argentina celebrates legalization of abortion Sunday's demonstrations took place on the 39th anniversary of Poland's then leader General Wojciech Jaruzelski declaring martial law to crush the Solidarity trade union movement pressing for reforms. Activists have organised a series of protests since the October court ruling that abortions due to birth defects are unconstitutional -- a decision that would impose a near-total ban on terminations. That ruling has not yet been published officially, meaning it does not apply, but doctors have been cancelling scheduled abortions for fear of falling foul of the law. Once it is implemented, abortions will only be allowed in cases of rape, incest and if the mother's life is at risk. At the moment, Poland sees fewer than 2,000 legal abortions every year, according to official statistics. But women's groups estimate that an additional 200,000 women abort either illegally or abroad. Protesters have ignored government orders against mass gatherings during the coronavirus pandemic, which has so far killed 22,000 people in Poland, a country of 38 million people.

Fresh protest in Poland over abortion ruling

Bittersweet victory: Green scarves wave as Argentina celebrates legalization of abortion

While mass protests against a court verdict backing a near-total ban on abortion have taken on an increasingly political flavour in Poland, the devout Catholic country is far from turning pro-choice.

Surveys show that Poles have grown comfortable with existing abortion legislation -- among Europe's most restrictive -- adopted in 1993 as part of a church-state compromise after the collapse of communism.

Abortion is only permitted in cases of rape or incest, when the life of the mother is at risk or if there is a severe foetal anomaly. That last provision was struck down by the constitutional court last month, triggering a wave of protests nationwide.

"We're seeing a surprising mobilisation of the younger generation in particular in these protests. And in that group, support for a more liberal law is growing -- but that's not the majority," said Adam Szostkiewicz, a commentator on political and religious issues.

"The majority had been silent for years, holding the belief that if the Church says so and politicians don't question it, then evidently that's just how it must be," he told AFP.

Only 22 percent of Poles are in favour of abortion on demand, according to a survey published late last month by the independent Kantar pollsters. Sixty-two percent think it should be legal in certain cases, while 11 percent are in favour of a total ban.

- 'There was no sexual revolution' -

According to sociologist Katarzyna Zielinska, the attachment of Poles to Catholicism as well as conservative family and gender roles is rooted in the communist past.

"There was no sexual revolution in Poland. On the contrary, we had a religious renewal, because the mobilisation against the communist regime was associated with religion."

Under communism, when Poland had a liberal termination law and contraceptive measures were either unavailable or ineffective, abortions took place en masse.

Today the EU member of 38 million people sees fewer than 2,000 legal abortions every year, according to official statistics. Women's groups estimate that another 200,000 women abort illegally or abroad.

Social researcher Inga Koralewska told AFP that the communist regime liberalised abortion not for women's rights but for political reasons, possibly as "a flick on the nose at the Church, the bedrock of Polish identity" and an ally of the opposition at the time.

When communism fell, the Church was in a position of strength and efficiency while Polish state institutions were in a shambles, allowing it to play an active role in shaping the current abortion law.

- Only time will tell -

Back then, Poles had more liberal views on abortion.

In 1992, 47 percent of Poles believed abortion should be permitted in difficult financial circumstances, according to the CBOS institute.

By 2016, approval was down to 14 percent.

The decrease can be attributed to multiple factors, including the tendency for laws to shape attitudes as well as a societal response to the fact that politicians -- even on the left -- were loath to take on the issue lest the Church turn voters against them.

Zielinska said the impetus for change began with the smaller-scale 2016 protests against a proposed tightening of the law, when women began to speak out about their own terminations.

"Perhaps this is a step that will take us in a more liberal direction," she added.

Szostkiewicz said the "radicalisation" of Poland's liberals was a significant development.

"They've had enough of the majority's silence, are fed up with the Church's interference -- in covenant with the state -- in their private matters and are publicly voicing their anger," he said.

"I see it as a sign that this principled, radical group will most likely grow in strength, and will have an effect on broader public opinion. But will that happen now or in the near future? I don't know."

While mass protests against a court verdict backing a near-total ban on abortion have taken on an increasingly political flavour in Poland, the devout Catholic country is far from turning pro-choice.

While mass protests against a court verdict backing a near-total ban on abortion have taken on an increasingly political flavour in Poland, the devout Catholic country is far from turning pro-choice. Surveys show that Poles have grown comfortable with existing abortion legislation -- among Europe's most restrictive -- adopted in 1993 as part of a church-state compromise after the collapse of communism. Abortion is only permitted in cases of rape or incest, when the life of the mother is at risk or if there is a severe foetal anomaly. That last provision was struck down by the constitutional court last month, triggering a wave of protests nationwide. "We're seeing a surprising mobilisation of the younger generation in particular in these protests. And in that group, support for a more liberal law is growing -- but that's not the majority," said Adam Szostkiewicz, a commentator on political and religious issues. "The majority had been silent for years, holding the belief that if the Church says so and politicians don't question it, then evidently that's just how it must be," he told AFP. Only 22 percent of Poles are in favour of abortion on demand, according to a survey published late last month by the independent Kantar pollsters. Sixty-two percent think it should be legal in certain cases, while 11 percent are in favour of a total ban. - 'There was no sexual revolution' - According to sociologist Katarzyna Zielinska, the attachment of Poles to Catholicism as well as conservative family and gender roles is rooted in the communist past. "There was no sexual revolution in Poland. On the contrary, we had a religious renewal, because the mobilisation against the communist regime was associated with religion." Under communism, when Poland had a liberal termination law and contraceptive measures were either unavailable or ineffective, abortions took place en masse. Today the EU member of 38 million people sees fewer than 2,000 legal abortions every year, according to official statistics. Women's groups estimate that another 200,000 women abort illegally or abroad. Social researcher Inga Koralewska told AFP that the communist regime liberalised abortion not for women's rights but for political reasons, possibly as "a flick on the nose at the Church, the bedrock of Polish identity" and an ally of the opposition at the time. When communism fell, the Church was in a position of strength and efficiency while Polish state institutions were in a shambles, allowing it to play an active role in shaping the current abortion law. - Only time will tell - Back then, Poles had more liberal views on abortion. In 1992, 47 percent of Poles believed abortion should be permitted in difficult financial circumstances, according to the CBOS institute. By 2016, approval was down to 14 percent. The decrease can be attributed to multiple factors, including the tendency for laws to shape attitudes as well as a societal response to the fact that politicians -- even on the left -- were loath to take on the issue lest the Church turn voters against them. Zielinska said the impetus for change began with the smaller-scale 2016 protests against a proposed tightening of the law, when women began to speak out about their own terminations. "Perhaps this is a step that will take us in a more liberal direction," she added. Szostkiewicz said the "radicalisation" of Poland's liberals was a significant development. "They've had enough of the majority's silence, are fed up with the Church's interference -- in covenant with the state -- in their private matters and are publicly voicing their anger," he said. "I see it as a sign that this principled, radical group will most likely grow in strength, and will have an effect on broader public opinion. But will that happen now or in the near future? I don't know."

'Silent majority' of Poles favour strict abortion law

Tens of thousands of Poles joined a march in Warsaw on Friday, the biggest in nine days of protests against a ruling by the country`s top court last week that amounted to a near-total ban on abortion in the predominantly Catholic nation.

Defying strict rules that restrict gatherings to five people during the coronavirus pandemic, demonstrators walked through central Warsaw streets carrying black umbrellas, a symbol of abortion rights protests in Poland, and banners that read "I think, I feel, I decide" or "God is a woman".

Military police lined the streets, some of in riot gear, as the demonstration began.

Organisers and the city of Warsaw said some 100,000 people took part, one of the largest protest gatherings in years, following a Constitutional Court ruling on Oct. 22 outlawing abortions due to foetal defects. It ended the most common of the few legal grounds left for abortion in Poland and set the country further apart from Europe`s mainstream.

Daily protests have taken place across the country in the past week, and have turned into an outpouring of anger against five years of nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) rule and the Roman Catholic church, which is an ally of the government.

Far-right groups which support the court ruling also turned out in small gatherings in Warsaw on Friday, and TV footage showed police clashing with them to keep one group away from the protesters.

The leader of the abortion rights movement in Poland, Marta Lempart, told activists to report any attacks and to resist any threats of prosecution or fines for taking part. "We are doing nothing wrong by protesting and going out on the streets," she told a news conference.

After the ruling goes into effect, women will only be able to terminate a pregnancy legally in the case of rape, incest or a threat to their health.

DANCING ON TRAMS

In an effort to ease tensions, President Andrzej Duda proposed legislation on Friday reintroducing the possibility of terminating a pregnancy due to foetal abnormalities, although only limited to defects that are immediately life-threatening.

Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki pledged lawmakers would proceed with the legislation quickly, but demonstrators were unimpressed.

"This is an attempt to soften the situation for PiS, but no sane person should fall for it," activist and leftist lawmaker Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus told Reuters.

The government has accused demonstrators of risking the lives of the elderly by defying strict pandemic rules against large gatherings. Poland reported a daily record of more than 21,000 new cases of COVID-19 on Friday.

Health Minister Adam Niedzielski drew comparisons between the Polish protest and the Black Lives Matter movement against police brutality, saying demonstrations across the United States caused an "escalation" of the pandemic.

Public health experts say there has yet to be conclusive evidence of large-scale spread from the U.S. events.

Five women were charged with organising an illegal protest which attracted 850 people in the town of Police on Thursday, officials said.

The Catholic Church has said that while it opposes abortion, it did not push the government or the court to increase restrictions.

PiS, however, has sought to instil more traditional and Catholic values in public life, ending state funding for in vitro fertilisation, introducing more patriotic themes into school curricula and funding Church programmes.

It has also launched a crackdown on LGBT rights and a reform of the judiciary the European Union says subverts the rule law. PiS says it seeks to protect traditional Polish values against damaging western liberalism.

Opinion polls have shown its support falling sharply in recent weeks.

Tens of thousands of Poles joined a march in Warsaw on Friday, the biggest in nine days of protests against a ruling by the country`s top court last week that amounted to a near-total ban on abortion in the predominantly Catholic nation.

Tens of thousands of Poles joined a march in Warsaw on Friday, the biggest in nine days of protests against a ruling by the country`s top court last week that amounted to a near-total ban on abortion in the predominantly Catholic nation. Defying strict rules that restrict gatherings to five people during the coronavirus pandemic, demonstrators walked through central Warsaw streets carrying black umbrellas, a symbol of abortion rights protests in Poland, and banners that read "I think, I feel, I decide" or "God is a woman". Military police lined the streets, some of in riot gear, as the demonstration began. Organisers and the city of Warsaw said some 100,000 people took part, one of the largest protest gatherings in years, following a Constitutional Court ruling on Oct. 22 outlawing abortions due to foetal defects. It ended the most common of the few legal grounds left for abortion in Poland and set the country further apart from Europe`s mainstream. Daily protests have taken place across the country in the past week, and have turned into an outpouring of anger against five years of nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) rule and the Roman Catholic church, which is an ally of the government. Far-right groups which support the court ruling also turned out in small gatherings in Warsaw on Friday, and TV footage showed police clashing with them to keep one group away from the protesters. The leader of the abortion rights movement in Poland, Marta Lempart, told activists to report any attacks and to resist any threats of prosecution or fines for taking part. "We are doing nothing wrong by protesting and going out on the streets," she told a news conference. After the ruling goes into effect, women will only be able to terminate a pregnancy legally in the case of rape, incest or a threat to their health. DANCING ON TRAMS In an effort to ease tensions, President Andrzej Duda proposed legislation on Friday reintroducing the possibility of terminating a pregnancy due to foetal abnormalities, although only limited to defects that are immediately life-threatening. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki pledged lawmakers would proceed with the legislation quickly, but demonstrators were unimpressed. "This is an attempt to soften the situation for PiS, but no sane person should fall for it," activist and leftist lawmaker Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus told Reuters. The government has accused demonstrators of risking the lives of the elderly by defying strict pandemic rules against large gatherings. Poland reported a daily record of more than 21,000 new cases of COVID-19 on Friday. Health Minister Adam Niedzielski drew comparisons between the Polish protest and the Black Lives Matter movement against police brutality, saying demonstrations across the United States caused an "escalation" of the pandemic. Public health experts say there has yet to be conclusive evidence of large-scale spread from the U.S. events. Five women were charged with organising an illegal protest which attracted 850 people in the town of Police on Thursday, officials said. The Catholic Church has said that while it opposes abortion, it did not push the government or the court to increase restrictions. PiS, however, has sought to instil more traditional and Catholic values in public life, ending state funding for in vitro fertilisation, introducing more patriotic themes into school curricula and funding Church programmes. It has also launched a crackdown on LGBT rights and a reform of the judiciary the European Union says subverts the rule law. PiS says it seeks to protect traditional Polish values against damaging western liberalism. Opinion polls have shown its support falling sharply in recent weeks.

Thousands in Warsaw join biggest protest so far against abortion ruling

A member of radical feminist group Femen staged a naked&nbsp;protest outside the Polish embassy in Kiev on Monday against a near-total ban on abortion in the EU country.

The English words "My body is my choice" were scrawled on her torso. She held coat hangers in her mouth, a protest symbol representing illegal abortions.

"Sisters to arms!" the woman chanted in Polish before being quickly arrested by police.

Later in the day several dozen activists gathered near the embassy for another demonstration in support of Polish women.

One of the women held a placard saying: "When the government decides to ban safe abortions women may decide to abort the government."

Last week Poland's constitutional court ruled that an existing law allowing the abortion of malformed foetuses was "incompatible" with the constitution.

The ruling has sparked protests against a near-total ban on abortion in a country that already has some of the EU's most stringent restrictions.

According to media reports, Ukraine's much more liberal policies make it one of the destinations for Polish women seeking abortions.

From now on, abortions in Poland will only be allowed in instances of rape or incest, or if there is a threat to the mother's life.

A member of radical feminist group Femen staged a naked protest outside the Polish embassy in Kiev on Monday against a near-total ban on abortion in the EU country.

A member of radical feminist group Femen staged a naked protest outside the Polish embassy in Kiev on Monday against a near-total ban on abortion in the EU country. The English words "My body is my choice" were scrawled on her torso. She held coat hangers in her mouth, a protest symbol representing illegal abortions. "Sisters to arms!" the woman chanted in Polish before being quickly arrested by police. Later in the day several dozen activists gathered near the embassy for another demonstration in support of Polish women. One of the women held a placard saying: "When the government decides to ban safe abortions women may decide to abort the government." Last week Poland's constitutional court ruled that an existing law allowing the abortion of malformed foetuses was "incompatible" with the constitution. The ruling has sparked protests against a near-total ban on abortion in a country that already has some of the EU's most stringent restrictions. According to media reports, Ukraine's much more liberal policies make it one of the destinations for Polish women seeking abortions. From now on, abortions in Poland will only be allowed in instances of rape or incest, or if there is a threat to the mother's life.

Ukraine activist in nude protest against Polish abortion ban

Protesters targeted Catholic churches across Poland on Sunday in the fourth straight day of upheaval against a near-total ban on abortion in the EU country.

Demonstrators chanted "we've had enough!" and "barbarians" inside a church in the western city of Poznan, according to a video clip posted on social media, in scenes that were repeated across the deeply Catholic country.

The protesters were reacting to Thursday's ruling by Poland's constitutional court that an existing law allowing the abortion of damaged foetuses was "incompatible" with the constitution.

The verdict is in line with the position of Poland's powerful Roman Catholic episcopate and the governing nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party.

Protesters, brandishing placards bearing expletives and others saying "I wish I could abort my government", skirmished with police and supporters of the ban outside a landmark church in central Warsaw.

Local media also ran pictures of graffiti daubed on church walls in various cities and towns reading "Women's hell" -- the main slogan of the protests.

Thousands of people -- most of them women -- also rallied in the cities of Gdansk, Krakow, Lodz, Rzeszow as well as dozens of traditionally more conservative towns, echoing mass protests held across Poland since Thursday in defiance of strict limits on public gathering under anti-coronavirus measures.

Opponents of the ruling argue it puts women's lives at risk by forcing them to carry unviable pregnancies but supporters insist it will prevent the abortion of foetuses diagnosed with Down Syndrome.&nbsp;

There are already fewer than 2,000 legal abortions per year in Poland -- and the vast majority of those are carried out due to damaged &nbsp;foetuses.&nbsp;

But women's groups estimate that up to 200,000 procedures are performed illegally or abroad each year.

The abortion verdict drew condemnation from several human rights groups in Europe and the Council of Europe, the continent's leading human rights organisation.

Protesters targeted Catholic churches across Poland on Sunday in the fourth straight day of upheaval against a near-total ban on abortion in the EU country. Demonstrators chanted "we've had enough!

Protesters targeted Catholic churches across Poland on Sunday in the fourth straight day of upheaval against a near-total ban on abortion in the EU country. Demonstrators chanted "we've had enough!" and "barbarians" inside a church in the western city of Poznan, according to a video clip posted on social media, in scenes that were repeated across the deeply Catholic country. The protesters were reacting to Thursday's ruling by Poland's constitutional court that an existing law allowing the abortion of damaged foetuses was "incompatible" with the constitution. The verdict is in line with the position of Poland's powerful Roman Catholic episcopate and the governing nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party. Protesters, brandishing placards bearing expletives and others saying "I wish I could abort my government", skirmished with police and supporters of the ban outside a landmark church in central Warsaw. Local media also ran pictures of graffiti daubed on church walls in various cities and towns reading "Women's hell" -- the main slogan of the protests. Thousands of people -- most of them women -- also rallied in the cities of Gdansk, Krakow, Lodz, Rzeszow as well as dozens of traditionally more conservative towns, echoing mass protests held across Poland since Thursday in defiance of strict limits on public gathering under anti-coronavirus measures. Opponents of the ruling argue it puts women's lives at risk by forcing them to carry unviable pregnancies but supporters insist it will prevent the abortion of foetuses diagnosed with Down Syndrome. There are already fewer than 2,000 legal abortions per year in Poland -- and the vast majority of those are carried out due to damaged foetuses. But women's groups estimate that up to 200,000 procedures are performed illegally or abroad each year. The abortion verdict drew condemnation from several human rights groups in Europe and the Council of Europe, the continent's leading human rights organisation.

Protesters target churches over Poland's near-total abortion ban

The US Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major abortion case for the first time since President Donald Trump appointed two new conservative justices -- with the future of the procedure potentially at stake.

What may be the most significant case on the subject in decades centers on a law in the state of Louisiana that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Groups who support abortion rights argue that the law would severely restrict access to the practice and lead to the closure of two of three remaining clinics in the southern state.

The measure is almost identical to Texas legislation that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016, deeming it too restrictive.

"Nothing has changed that would justify such a legal about-face," said Julie Rikelman, who is arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiff, a Louisiana abortion clinic.

The case, June Medical Services v Russo, is the first on the divisive issue to come before the court since Trump's two conservative appointees -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- joined the nine-member bench.

Kavanaugh replaced former justice Anthony Kennedy, who had sided with the court's four left-leaning justices to block the Texas law.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that the Texas and Louisiana laws were not one and the same and should be treated on a "state by state" basis.

Galvanized activists

Appointment of the two new justices galvanized anti-abortion activists in the country's conservative "Bible Belt," and several states have passed tough laws restricting the practice. A ban in Alabama even covered cases of rape.

That and most of those other laws have been struck down by lower courts, but anti-abortion groups are hoping to force the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 case that legalized a woman's right to an abortion.

If the court were to reverse itself on the Texas law, for example, it could signify that it is also ready to do so on Roe.

Trump, who years ago described himself as "pro-choice in every respect," has flip-flopped to become a staunch opponent of abortion as he seeks to rally evangelical Christians behind his re-election campaign.

On Wednesday, protesters from both sides of the debate were stationed in front of the Supreme Court, where Dennis McKirahan, a 75-year-old abortion opponent from Cincinnati, said "we must stop killing babies."

Not far away, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hit out at Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name. He said they would "pay the price" if additional curbs on access to abortion were allowed.

Chief Justice John Roberts sharply rebuked him, calling the comments "threatening" and "dangerous."

'Protecting women'

A ruling in the case is expected in June, just months ahead of the November presidential vote.

The Trump administration, along with more than 200 Republican members of Congress, is backing Louisiana authorities in the case.

The lawmakers argued in a supporting brief that the case illustrates the "unworkability of the 'right to abortion' found in Roe" and questioned whether it should be "reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled."

Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, who helped argue the case for the state, said the law aims to protect women in the event of complications and ensure "continuity of care."

Rikelman maintained, however, that the law provided no medical benefit and would leave only one doctor and clinic available to perform the procedure in the state, where about 10,000 abortions are carried out every year.

The court's progressive justices appeared to agree. Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserted that "most of these abortions don't have any complications."

Her colleague Elena Kagan noted that some hospitals did not want to be associated with abortion providers.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, blocked the application of the Louisiana law in February 2019 but without delivering a final decision. Roberts joined the four liberal justices on the bench in temporarily blocking the law.&nbsp;

He is seen as the key vote this time around.

chp/bfm-sst/it

The US Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major abortion case for the first time since President Donald Trump appointed two new conservative justices -- with the future of the procedure potentially at stake.

The US Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major abortion case for the first time since President Donald Trump appointed two new conservative justices -- with the future of the procedure potentially at stake. What may be the most significant case on the subject in decades centers on a law in the state of Louisiana that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Groups who support abortion rights argue that the law would severely restrict access to the practice and lead to the closure of two of three remaining clinics in the southern state. The measure is almost identical to Texas legislation that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016, deeming it too restrictive. "Nothing has changed that would justify such a legal about-face," said Julie Rikelman, who is arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiff, a Louisiana abortion clinic. The case, June Medical Services v Russo, is the first on the divisive issue to come before the court since Trump's two conservative appointees -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- joined the nine-member bench. Kavanaugh replaced former justice Anthony Kennedy, who had sided with the court's four left-leaning justices to block the Texas law. On Wednesday, Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that the Texas and Louisiana laws were not one and the same and should be treated on a "state by state" basis. Galvanized activists Appointment of the two new justices galvanized anti-abortion activists in the country's conservative "Bible Belt," and several states have passed tough laws restricting the practice. A ban in Alabama even covered cases of rape. That and most of those other laws have been struck down by lower courts, but anti-abortion groups are hoping to force the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 case that legalized a woman's right to an abortion. If the court were to reverse itself on the Texas law, for example, it could signify that it is also ready to do so on Roe. Trump, who years ago described himself as "pro-choice in every respect," has flip-flopped to become a staunch opponent of abortion as he seeks to rally evangelical Christians behind his re-election campaign. On Wednesday, protesters from both sides of the debate were stationed in front of the Supreme Court, where Dennis McKirahan, a 75-year-old abortion opponent from Cincinnati, said "we must stop killing babies." Not far away, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hit out at Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name. He said they would "pay the price" if additional curbs on access to abortion were allowed. Chief Justice John Roberts sharply rebuked him, calling the comments "threatening" and "dangerous." 'Protecting women' A ruling in the case is expected in June, just months ahead of the November presidential vote. The Trump administration, along with more than 200 Republican members of Congress, is backing Louisiana authorities in the case. The lawmakers argued in a supporting brief that the case illustrates the "unworkability of the 'right to abortion' found in Roe" and questioned whether it should be "reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled." Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, who helped argue the case for the state, said the law aims to protect women in the event of complications and ensure "continuity of care." Rikelman maintained, however, that the law provided no medical benefit and would leave only one doctor and clinic available to perform the procedure in the state, where about 10,000 abortions are carried out every year. The court's progressive justices appeared to agree. Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserted that "most of these abortions don't have any complications." Her colleague Elena Kagan noted that some hospitals did not want to be associated with abortion providers. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, blocked the application of the Louisiana law in February 2019 but without delivering a final decision. Roberts joined the four liberal justices on the bench in temporarily blocking the law. He is seen as the key vote this time around. chp/bfm-sst/it

US Supreme Court hears case that could set future of abortion

The inauguration of Argentina's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/argentinas-president-elect-vows-to-make-good-on-debt-without-austerity-measures-263268">president-elect Alberto Fernandez</a> next month has reignited a debate over the legalization of abortion, a year after conservatives narrowly blocked its decriminalization, leaving the country bitterly divided over the issue.

Fernandez, a leftist Peronist, pledged last week he would move to legalize abortion as soon as the new government takes over on December 10.

"I am an activist for an end to the criminalization of abortion," Fernandez, 60, said in an interview, adding that he would send a bill to Congress.&nbsp;

However, he did not say whether he would seek to decriminalize abortion or legalize it as demanded by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/abortion-effectively-decriminalised-in-australia-as-new-south-wales-passes-new-bill-252101">feminist movements</a>.

Fernandez already appears to have nailed his colors firmly to the mast on the issue. He recently attended the launch of "We are Belen" a book telling the story of a young woman who ran afoul of Argentina's strict anti-abortion laws.&nbsp;

After suffering a miscarriage, Belen was jailed for 29 months for an abortion, before eventually being acquitted by a court.

In a foreword for the book, Canadian author Margaret Atwood said Argentina "provided some of the real-life practices that I included in The Handmaid's Tale, especially the theft of babies perpetrated during the military dictatorship."

"How many other Belens are there in the world? How many women have died because they were afraid of going to a hospital because of an abortion, spontaneous or provoked, terrified of the possibility of being accused of murder?"

At the book launch in Buenos Aires, Fernandez posed for pictures with pro-abortion activists and their emblematic green scarves, a clear gesture of support.

Last year, a bill to decriminalize abortion up to the 14th week of pregnancy was narrowly adopted by the Chamber of Deputies but defeated in the Senate, under strong pressure from the still-powerful Catholic Church.

Argentina novelist and activist Claudia Pineiro, said "abortion is back at the center of debate because Alberto Fernandez is disposed to legalizing it."

"I think he has to decriminalize it and legalize it, but to do that he has to proceed in stages: maybe he should first consider decriminalization and then legalization."&nbsp;

"You can't go fight with all your guns blazing at once, because there are very powerful forces lined up on the other side."

In Pope Francis's homeland, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gay-marriage-abortion-laws-liberalised-in-northern-ireland-257395">abortion</a> is punishable by up to four years in prison, and allowable only in cases of rape or if there is a risk to the life of the mother.

Fernandez taking a position has irked conservatives, like the Archbishop of La Plata, Victor Manuel Fernandez.

"If I could talk to Alberto, I would ask him if it's worth starting his mandate off with an issue that has been so divisive for Argentinians,"&nbsp;the archbishop wrote in an open letter.

Fernandez's abortion plan is "unfortunate," said Ruben Proietti, head of the Christian Alliance of Evangelical Churches in Argentina, ACIERA.&nbsp;

Proietti last year helped mobilize half a million people onto the streets to counter the feminist pro-abortion lobby as both sides held rival mass protests. The pro-abortion activists wore green scarves to symbolize their cause, and the anti-abortion groups wore baby blue.

Proietti promised to bring "even more than before" onto the streets if Fernandez follows through on his plan.

Feminist groups, which have grown in power in Argentina over the past year, say they will not give up the fight.

"The strategy is to continue to put pressure, to continue the campaign," said Martha Rosenberg, a leader of the pro-abortion movement in Argentina.

"We have work to do," she said.

According to NGOs, between 370,000 and 520,000 clandestine abortions are performed every year, more than 1,200 a day.

Kena is one of the many women who were left "on the verge of death" after having a clandestine abortion.

"I am poor and I have six children. I couldn't have a seventh," she told AFP on condition of anonymity.

"My partner told me feeding seven is the same as feeding six, and I told him, no, there won't be seventh eating."

Although she had the abortion more than 20 years ago, it left her "suffering a lot".&nbsp;

"I want abortion to be legal. I saved myself, but there are thousands of women who don't save themselves."

According to the latest survey on beliefs and attitudes in Argentina, the number of people who believe abortion is a woman's right has doubled from 14.1 per cent in 2008 to 27.3 per cent in 2019.

The inauguration of Argentina's president-elect Alberto Fernandez next month has reignited a debate over the legalization of abortion, a year after conservatives narrowly blocked its decriminalization, leaving the country bitterly divided over the issue.

The inauguration of Argentina's president-elect Alberto Fernandez next month has reignited a debate over the legalization of abortion, a year after conservatives narrowly blocked its decriminalization, leaving the country bitterly divided over the issue. Fernandez, a leftist Peronist, pledged last week he would move to legalize abortion as soon as the new government takes over on December 10. "I am an activist for an end to the criminalization of abortion," Fernandez, 60, said in an interview, adding that he would send a bill to Congress. However, he did not say whether he would seek to decriminalize abortion or legalize it as demanded by feminist movements. Fernandez already appears to have nailed his colors firmly to the mast on the issue. He recently attended the launch of "We are Belen" a book telling the story of a young woman who ran afoul of Argentina's strict anti-abortion laws. After suffering a miscarriage, Belen was jailed for 29 months for an abortion, before eventually being acquitted by a court. In a foreword for the book, Canadian author Margaret Atwood said Argentina "provided some of the real-life practices that I included in The Handmaid's Tale, especially the theft of babies perpetrated during the military dictatorship." "How many other Belens are there in the world? How many women have died because they were afraid of going to a hospital because of an abortion, spontaneous or provoked, terrified of the possibility of being accused of murder?" At the book launch in Buenos Aires, Fernandez posed for pictures with pro-abortion activists and their emblematic green scarves, a clear gesture of support. Last year, a bill to decriminalize abortion up to the 14th week of pregnancy was narrowly adopted by the Chamber of Deputies but defeated in the Senate, under strong pressure from the still-powerful Catholic Church. Argentina novelist and activist Claudia Pineiro, said "abortion is back at the center of debate because Alberto Fernandez is disposed to legalizing it." "I think he has to decriminalize it and legalize it, but to do that he has to proceed in stages: maybe he should first consider decriminalization and then legalization." "You can't go fight with all your guns blazing at once, because there are very powerful forces lined up on the other side." In Pope Francis's homeland, abortion is punishable by up to four years in prison, and allowable only in cases of rape or if there is a risk to the life of the mother. Fernandez taking a position has irked conservatives, like the Archbishop of La Plata, Victor Manuel Fernandez. "If I could talk to Alberto, I would ask him if it's worth starting his mandate off with an issue that has been so divisive for Argentinians," the archbishop wrote in an open letter. Fernandez's abortion plan is "unfortunate," said Ruben Proietti, head of the Christian Alliance of Evangelical Churches in Argentina, ACIERA. Proietti last year helped mobilize half a million people onto the streets to counter the feminist pro-abortion lobby as both sides held rival mass protests. The pro-abortion activists wore green scarves to symbolize their cause, and the anti-abortion groups wore baby blue. Proietti promised to bring "even more than before" onto the streets if Fernandez follows through on his plan. Feminist groups, which have grown in power in Argentina over the past year, say they will not give up the fight. "The strategy is to continue to put pressure, to continue the campaign," said Martha Rosenberg, a leader of the pro-abortion movement in Argentina. "We have work to do," she said. According to NGOs, between 370,000 and 520,000 clandestine abortions are performed every year, more than 1,200 a day. Kena is one of the many women who were left "on the verge of death" after having a clandestine abortion. "I am poor and I have six children. I couldn't have a seventh," she told AFP on condition of anonymity. "My partner told me feeding seven is the same as feeding six, and I told him, no, there won't be seventh eating." Although she had the abortion more than 20 years ago, it left her "suffering a lot". "I want abortion to be legal. I saved myself, but there are thousands of women who don't save themselves." According to the latest survey on beliefs and attitudes in Argentina, the number of people who believe abortion is a woman's right has doubled from 14.1 per cent in 2008 to 27.3 per cent in 2019.

Argentina's leftist president-elect reignites abortion debate

The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a challenge to restrictive abortion law in Louisiana, taking up a flashpoint issue that will serve as a test for two new conservative judges appointed by President Donald Trump.

The nine justices will examine the merits of an abortion law adopted in 2014 in the conservative southern state.

The court issued an injunction in February blocking the law from taking effect, but without ruling on what it actually stipulates.

A decision in the case would come before the end of the Supreme Court's term in June 2020, just months before the US presidential election.

The law states that doctors at Louisiana abortion clinics must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 kilometres) of where the procedure is being carried out.

Abortion rights advocates say this restriction is extreme and would force the closure of most of the state's clinics, leaving it with just one doctor authorised to perform abortions.

Louisiana says the stipulation in the law is needed because of the risk of a complication arising during abortions and the need to be able to transfer a patient to a nearby hospital.

Around 10,000 abortions are performed each year in the state.

'Hanging by a thread'

After years of legal wrangling, a federal appeals court upheld the law last year.

Critics of the bill filed an urgent lawsuit with the Supreme Court and just as the law was about to take effect in February, the high court voted 5-4 to block it -- but did not rule on the law's merits.

In June 2016, the court struck down a Texas abortion law similar to the one it will now consider.

The Supreme Court's deliberations will come right in the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign -- and its eventual ruling will be the first meaty decision on the hot-button issue since Trump appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, shifting the court's balance to the right.

In February, the pair voted to allow the Louisiana law to take effect.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative who voted in favour of the Texas law, sided with the four progressives on the bench in suspending the Louisiana measure.

On both sides of the abortion debate, people are watching to see what Roberts does now.

"Access to abortion is hanging by a thread in this country, and this case is what could snap that thread," said Alexis McGill, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood.

Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, said the high court could only strike down the Louisiana law if it follows its own precedent from the Texas case.

"If the rule of law means anything, it means that the Court cannot sit by and watch as the lower court thumbs its nose at Supreme Court precedent and at people's constitutional rights," she said.

On the other side of the debate, Katrina Jackson, a lawmaker who helped write the Louisiana law, urged the court to reverse or at least alter the precedent set with the Texas law.

"Abortion has known medical risks, and the women of this state who are often coerced into abortion deserve to have the same standard of care required for other surgical procedures," Jackson wrote in a statement published by pressure group Louisiana Right to Life.

The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a challenge to restrictive abortion law in Louisiana, taking up a flashpoint issue that will serve as a test for two new conservative judges appointed by President Donald Trump.

The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a challenge to restrictive abortion law in Louisiana, taking up a flashpoint issue that will serve as a test for two new conservative judges appointed by President Donald Trump. The nine justices will examine the merits of an abortion law adopted in 2014 in the conservative southern state. The court issued an injunction in February blocking the law from taking effect, but without ruling on what it actually stipulates. A decision in the case would come before the end of the Supreme Court's term in June 2020, just months before the US presidential election. The law states that doctors at Louisiana abortion clinics must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 kilometres) of where the procedure is being carried out. Abortion rights advocates say this restriction is extreme and would force the closure of most of the state's clinics, leaving it with just one doctor authorised to perform abortions. Louisiana says the stipulation in the law is needed because of the risk of a complication arising during abortions and the need to be able to transfer a patient to a nearby hospital. Around 10,000 abortions are performed each year in the state. 'Hanging by a thread' After years of legal wrangling, a federal appeals court upheld the law last year. Critics of the bill filed an urgent lawsuit with the Supreme Court and just as the law was about to take effect in February, the high court voted 5-4 to block it -- but did not rule on the law's merits. In June 2016, the court struck down a Texas abortion law similar to the one it will now consider. The Supreme Court's deliberations will come right in the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign -- and its eventual ruling will be the first meaty decision on the hot-button issue since Trump appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, shifting the court's balance to the right. In February, the pair voted to allow the Louisiana law to take effect. But Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative who voted in favour of the Texas law, sided with the four progressives on the bench in suspending the Louisiana measure. On both sides of the abortion debate, people are watching to see what Roberts does now. "Access to abortion is hanging by a thread in this country, and this case is what could snap that thread," said Alexis McGill, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood. Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, said the high court could only strike down the Louisiana law if it follows its own precedent from the Texas case. "If the rule of law means anything, it means that the Court cannot sit by and watch as the lower court thumbs its nose at Supreme Court precedent and at people's constitutional rights," she said. On the other side of the debate, Katrina Jackson, a lawmaker who helped write the Louisiana law, urged the court to reverse or at least alter the precedent set with the Texas law. "Abortion has known medical risks, and the women of this state who are often coerced into abortion deserve to have the same standard of care required for other surgical procedures," Jackson wrote in a statement published by pressure group Louisiana Right to Life.

US Supreme Court agrees to hear case on restrictive abortion law

Elizabeth Debicki and other actresses attending the annual Women in Film gala said it's the duty of Hollywood studios to boycott states that allow restrictive abortion laws to go into effect, while others pointed out that such a move could have unintended consequences.

Actors, Oscar-winning producer talk abortion law boycotts, unintended consequences

A move to authorise a referendum over Missouri`s recently enacted <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouri-senate-passes-bill-to-ban-abortions-after-eight-weeks-219305">ban on abortions after the eighth week of pregnancy</a> hit a roadblock on Thursday when the secretary of state rejected petitions filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and others to get the issue to the ballot.

The rejection of the petitions by Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft was immediately challenged by abortion rights advocates, who vowed to sue him for "trying to deprive Missourians of their right to weigh in on the abortion question with a vote," said Tony Rothert, executive director of the ACLU.&nbsp;

Missouri`s constitution gives citizens the right to veto a newly enacted laws by referendum.

In announcing his decision, Ashcroft said, "there are certain limits to the people`s right to a referendum."&nbsp;

On May 17, the legislature passed the so-called "Heartbeat Bill." Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, then signed the bill into law, making Missouri one of eight states that have passed anti-abortion legislation this year.

Anti-abortion activists say the restrictive abortion laws are designed to be challenged in court. Eventually, they say, the newly installed conservative majority on the US Supreme Court could use one of the laws to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman`s right to terminate her pregnancy.

"This cowardly move by the Secretary of State proves that Missouri`s anti-abortion zealots understand that they`re acting against the wishes of the majority," Rothert said in a statement.&nbsp;

"They hope to short-circuit the people`s vote because they know they will lose if the people get their say."&nbsp;Ashcroft`s announcement came as the state awaits a ruling on whether Missouri will become the first US&nbsp;state with no abortion clinics.&nbsp;

A legal fight is underway over Missouri`s refusal to renew the license of Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood in St. Louis, the only clinic in the state that performs abortions.&nbsp;

The license was to expire on Friday, but a judge issued a temporary order to freeze it until he rules.

A move to authorise a referendum over Missouri`s recently enacted ban on abortions after the eighth week of pregnancy hit a roadblock on Thursday when the secretary of state rejected petitions filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and others to get the issue to the ballot.

A move to authorise a referendum over Missouri`s recently enacted ban on abortions after the eighth week of pregnancy hit a roadblock on Thursday when the secretary of state rejected petitions filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and others to get the issue to the ballot. The rejection of the petitions by Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft was immediately challenged by abortion rights advocates, who vowed to sue him for "trying to deprive Missourians of their right to weigh in on the abortion question with a vote," said Tony Rothert, executive director of the ACLU. Missouri`s constitution gives citizens the right to veto a newly enacted laws by referendum. In announcing his decision, Ashcroft said, "there are certain limits to the people`s right to a referendum." On May 17, the legislature passed the so-called "Heartbeat Bill." Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, then signed the bill into law, making Missouri one of eight states that have passed anti-abortion legislation this year. Anti-abortion activists say the restrictive abortion laws are designed to be challenged in court. Eventually, they say, the newly installed conservative majority on the US Supreme Court could use one of the laws to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman`s right to terminate her pregnancy. "This cowardly move by the Secretary of State proves that Missouri`s anti-abortion zealots understand that they`re acting against the wishes of the majority," Rothert said in a statement. "They hope to short-circuit the people`s vote because they know they will lose if the people get their say." Ashcroft`s announcement came as the state awaits a ruling on whether Missouri will become the first US state with no abortion clinics. A legal fight is underway over Missouri`s refusal to renew the license of Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood in St. Louis, the only clinic in the state that performs abortions. The license was to expire on Friday, but a judge issued a temporary order to freeze it until he rules.

Missouri secretary of state blocks referendum on 'heartbeat' abortion law

President Donald Trump has declared himself "strongly Pro-Life", days after two US states passed tough new restrictions on abortions but said exceptions should be made for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

The US president spelt out his position on abortion -&nbsp;set to feature prominently at next year's election -&nbsp;in his first comments on the hot-button issue since Alabama's governor signed a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/alabama-senate-bans-nearly-all-abortions-including-rape-cases-218840">near-total ban on the termination of pregnancy</a>.

"As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions -&nbsp;Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother -&nbsp;the same position taken by Ronald Reagan," Trump tweeted late Saturday.

Trump, who is seeking to expand on his conservative support ahead of his re-election bid, added, "The Radical Left, with late-term abortion (and worse), is imploding on this issue.

"We must stick together and Win for Life in 2020."

Alabama's governor on Wednesday<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/alabama-governor-signs-nations-strictest-abortion-ban-219055"> signed a near-total prohibition on abortions</a> widely seen as the country's most restrictive ban, and the Missouri legislature on Friday made the procedure illegal from eight weeks of pregnancy.

Neither makes exceptions for rape or incest -&nbsp;only for cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Republican-led legislatures in Georgia, Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa and North Dakota have also enacted laws banning abortion from the moment a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Supporters hope that legal battles over the laws will reach the Supreme Court, as they pursue the long-sought conservative goal of overturning its landmark 1973 abortion ruling, known as Roe v Wade.

Roe v Wade guarantees women's rights to abortion as long as the fetus is not viable -&nbsp;around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Trump, a bombastic, twice-divorced billionaire, won over the evangelical vote during his 2016 campaign by promising to appoint anti-abortion justices at the Supreme Court.

He has since brought two conservative appointees to the highest court in the land -&nbsp;Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -&nbsp;shifting the balance of the nine-person bench.

In a series of tweets on the deeply polarising issue, Trump said the US had "come very far in the last two years" on abortion, and praised "two great new Supreme Court Justices".

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan. We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new.....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1129954110747422720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
....Federal Judges (many more to come), two great new Supreme Court Justices, the Mexico City Policy, and a whole new &amp; positive attitude about the Right to Life. The Radical Left, with late term abortion (and worse), is imploding on this issue. We must stick together and Win....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1129954115205914625?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
....for Life in 2020. If we are foolish and do not stay UNITED as one, all of our hard fought gains for Life can, and will, rapidly disappear!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1129954116489404416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

On Sunday, defenders of women's reproductive rights are set to march in protest against Alabama's new abortion law in four of the Southern state's cities, including the capital Montgomery.

"People should have the right to make the decisions that are best for their bodies without state interference," organisers said on Facebook.

President Donald Trump has declared himself "strongly Pro-Life", days after two US states passed tough new restrictions on abortions but said exceptions should be made for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

President Donald Trump has declared himself "strongly Pro-Life", days after two US states passed tough new restrictions on abortions but said exceptions should be made for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The US president spelt out his position on abortion - set to feature prominently at next year's election - in his first comments on the hot-button issue since Alabama's governor signed a near-total ban on the termination of pregnancy. "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan," Trump tweeted late Saturday. Trump, who is seeking to expand on his conservative support ahead of his re-election bid, added, "The Radical Left, with late-term abortion (and worse), is imploding on this issue. "We must stick together and Win for Life in 2020." Alabama's governor on Wednesday signed a near-total prohibition on abortions widely seen as the country's most restrictive ban, and the Missouri legislature on Friday made the procedure illegal from eight weeks of pregnancy. Neither makes exceptions for rape or incest - only for cases where the mother's life is in danger. Republican-led legislatures in Georgia, Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa and North Dakota have also enacted laws banning abortion from the moment a fetal heartbeat is detected. Supporters hope that legal battles over the laws will reach the Supreme Court, as they pursue the long-sought conservative goal of overturning its landmark 1973 abortion ruling, known as Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade guarantees women's rights to abortion as long as the fetus is not viable - around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Trump, a bombastic, twice-divorced billionaire, won over the evangelical vote during his 2016 campaign by promising to appoint anti-abortion justices at the Supreme Court. He has since brought two conservative appointees to the highest court in the land - Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh - shifting the balance of the nine-person bench. In a series of tweets on the deeply polarising issue, Trump said the US had "come very far in the last two years" on abortion, and praised "two great new Supreme Court Justices". As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan. We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new..... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 19, 2019 × ....Federal Judges (many more to come), two great new Supreme Court Justices, the Mexico City Policy, and a whole new & positive attitude about the Right to Life. The Radical Left, with late term abortion (and worse), is imploding on this issue. We must stick together and Win.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 19, 2019 × ....for Life in 2020. If we are foolish and do not stay UNITED as one, all of our hard fought gains for Life can, and will, rapidly disappear! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 19, 2019 × On Sunday, defenders of women's reproductive rights are set to march in protest against Alabama's new abortion law in four of the Southern state's cities, including the capital Montgomery. "People should have the right to make the decisions that are best for their bodies without state interference," organisers said on Facebook.

Trump spells out his position on abortion, says 'Pro-Life' but favours exceptions for rape, incest

Actress Alyssa Milano has called for a 'sex strike' and urged women in America to join in to protest against the new abortion law that has been imposed in Georgia.&nbsp;

"Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy," she tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Our reproductive rights are being erased. 
 
Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. 
 
JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. 
 
I’m calling for a <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SexStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SexStrike</a>. Pass it on. <a href="https://t.co/uOgN4FKwpg">pic.twitter.com/uOgN4FKwpg</a>
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) <a href="https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1127040792281767936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We can LOVE sex and fight for our bodily autonomy. There are lots of alternatives to cis men. 
 
Protect your vaginas, ladies. Men in positions of power are trying to legislate them. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SexStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SexStrike</a> <a href="https://t.co/yPCXuMt286">pic.twitter.com/yPCXuMt286</a>
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) <a href="https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1127296700169605125?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Georgia is the latest state in US to enact legislation which restricts abortion.

Milano's tweet though divided twitter and sparked of a debate that led to the #SexStrike hashtag trending on Twitter in the US.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
There are an awful lot of triggered men on Twitter this morning complaining about women making their own choices about what to do with their bodies. 
 
Which is the entire goddamn point.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SexStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SexStrike</a>
— Ben Jackson (@DadoftheDecade) <a href="https://twitter.com/DadoftheDecade/status/1127177029462446082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Things that should be regulated: 
 
Guns 
 
Things that should not be regulated: 
 
Vaginas 
 
Things that should be regulated: 
 
Carbon emissions 
 
Things that should not be regulated: 
 
Uteruses 
 
Things that should be regulated: 
 
Wall Street 
 
Things that should not be regulated: 
 
Women
— Travis Akers (@travisakers) <a href="https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1127312723782582273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Um my uterus is my uterus and mine alone. I decide what I want to carry in there. My decision doesn't dictate who I am in general. I'd be damned if someone tries to tell me otherwise.
— Kenidra4Humanity (@KenidraRWoods_) <a href="https://twitter.com/KenidraRWoods_/status/1127321241512284160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Our feminist foremothers fought for sexual liberation, which goes hand in hand with bodily autonomy. It’s up to us to protect it. Desperate times call for desperate measures. 🤷🏻‍♀️ <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SexStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SexStrike</a>
— Maureen Shaw (@MaureenShaw) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaureenShaw/status/1127327130625421313?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The 'heartbeat' bill, which was signed by Governor Brian Kemp on Tuesday, is scheduled to come into effect from 1 January 2020 onwards.&nbsp;

The bill has been facing criticism for some time now. The new law bans abortions as soon as a foetal heartbeat can be detected - which is at about six weeks into a pregnancy.

Most critics have argued that many women are not aware they pregnant by six weeks, with morning sickness usually kicking in only after nine weeks. 
The law is likely to be challenged in court. A federal judge blocked a similar law in Kentucky which was scheduled to come into effect immediately, while Mississippi passed a six-week abortion law in March that is not due to take effect until July and is also facing challenges. 
&nbsp;

Actress Alyssa Milano has called for a 'sex strike' and urged women in America to join in to protest against the new abortion law that has been imposed in Georgia.

Actress Alyssa Milano has called for a 'sex strike' and urged women in America to join in to protest against the new abortion law that has been imposed in Georgia. "Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy," she tweeted. Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on. pic.twitter.com/uOgN4FKwpg — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 11, 2019 × We can LOVE sex and fight for our bodily autonomy. There are lots of alternatives to cis men. Protect your vaginas, ladies. Men in positions of power are trying to legislate them. #SexStrike pic.twitter.com/yPCXuMt286 — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 11, 2019 × Georgia is the latest state in US to enact legislation which restricts abortion. Milano's tweet though divided twitter and sparked of a debate that led to the #SexStrike hashtag trending on Twitter in the US. There are an awful lot of triggered men on Twitter this morning complaining about women making their own choices about what to do with their bodies. Which is the entire goddamn point.#SexStrike — Ben Jackson (@DadoftheDecade) May 11, 2019 × Things that should be regulated: Guns Things that should not be regulated: Vaginas Things that should be regulated: Carbon emissions Things that should not be regulated: Uteruses Things that should be regulated: Wall Street Things that should not be regulated: Women — Travis Akers (@travisakers) May 11, 2019 × Um my uterus is my uterus and mine alone. I decide what I want to carry in there. My decision doesn't dictate who I am in general. I'd be damned if someone tries to tell me otherwise. — Kenidra4Humanity (@KenidraRWoods_) May 11, 2019 × Our feminist foremothers fought for sexual liberation, which goes hand in hand with bodily autonomy. It’s up to us to protect it. Desperate times call for desperate measures. 🤷🏻‍♀️ #SexStrike — Maureen Shaw (@MaureenShaw) May 11, 2019 × The 'heartbeat' bill, which was signed by Governor Brian Kemp on Tuesday, is scheduled to come into effect from 1 January 2020 onwards. The bill has been facing criticism for some time now. The new law bans abortions as soon as a foetal heartbeat can be detected - which is at about six weeks into a pregnancy. Most critics have argued that many women are not aware they pregnant by six weeks, with morning sickness usually kicking in only after nine weeks. The law is likely to be challenged in court. A federal judge blocked a similar law in Kentucky which was scheduled to come into effect immediately, while Mississippi passed a six-week abortion law in March that is not due to take effect until July and is also facing challenges.

Alyssa Milano calls for a 'sex strike' to protest against new abortion law

South Korea's constitutional court lifted the country's decades-old abortion ban in a landmark decision Thursday.&nbsp;

The court said criminalising women who undergo abortion and doctors that carry out terminations was "unconstitutional" and ordered the 1953 law to be revised by the end of next year, the Yonhap news agency reported.

However, the court said the current law would remain in effect until the end of next year.

The South was one of the few industrialised nations where the procedure was illegal except for instances of rape, incest and when the mother's health is at risk.

Calls to repeal the law have gained traction in recent years, but support for it is also staunch in a country that remains conservative towards female sexuality and highly influenced by evangelical Christianity.

An opinion poll in 2017 showed a narrow public majority -- 51.9 per cent -- in favour of abolishing the ban.

The Constitutional Court last upheld the law in 2012, saying that abortion would "end up running rampant" if not punished. 
&nbsp;

South Korea's constitutional court lifted the country's decades-old abortion ban in a landmark decision Thursday. The court said criminalising women who undergo abortion and doctors that carry out terminations was "unconstitutional" and ordered the 1953 law to be revised by the end of next year, the Yonhap news agency reported.

South Korea's constitutional court lifted the country's decades-old abortion ban in a landmark decision Thursday. The court said criminalising women who undergo abortion and doctors that carry out terminations was "unconstitutional" and ordered the 1953 law to be revised by the end of next year, the Yonhap news agency reported. However, the court said the current law would remain in effect until the end of next year. The South was one of the few industrialised nations where the procedure was illegal except for instances of rape, incest and when the mother's health is at risk. Calls to repeal the law have gained traction in recent years, but support for it is also staunch in a country that remains conservative towards female sexuality and highly influenced by evangelical Christianity. An opinion poll in 2017 showed a narrow public majority -- 51.9 per cent -- in favour of abolishing the ban. The Constitutional Court last upheld the law in 2012, saying that abortion would "end up running rampant" if not punished.

South Korean constitutional court lifts abortion ban

The people of Ireland are set to liberalise some of the world`s most restrictive abortion laws by a landslide, two exit polls from a referendum showed on Friday, as voters demanded change in what two decades ago was one of Europe`s most socially conservative countries.

An Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI exit poll suggested that voters in the once deeply Catholic nation had backed change by 68 percent to 32 percent. An RTE/Behaviour & Attitudes survey put the margin at 69 percent to 31 percent.

If confirmed, the outcome will be the latest milestone on a path of change for a country which only legalised divorce by a razor-thin majority in 1995 before becoming the first in the world to adopt gay marriage by popular vote three years ago.

"It's looking like we will make history tomorrow," Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, who was in favour of the change, said on Twitter.

Vote-counting begins at 0800 GMT on Saturday, with the first indication of results expected mid-morning.

Voters were asked if they wish to scrap a 1983 amendment to the constitution that gives an unborn child and its mother equal rights to life. The consequent prohibition on abortion was partly lifted in 2013 for cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Photographs on Twitter showed campaigners hugging and in tears at the Together4yes umbrella group's headquarters shortly after the first exit poll was published.

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan called it "another big step out of our dark past." Minister for Children Katherine Zappone, an early advocate for holding the referendum, said an "emotional, historic day" lay ahead.

Varadkar called the vote a once-in-a-generation chance and voters responded with national broadcaster RTE reporting that turnout could be one of the highest for a referendum, potentially topping the 61 percent who backed gay marriage by a large margin.

No social issue has divided Ireland`s 4.8 million people as sharply as abortion, which was pushed up the political agenda by the death in 2012 of a 31-year-old Indian immigrant from a septic miscarriage after she was refused a termination.

Yet the Irish Times exit poll showed overwhelming majorities in all age groups under 65 voted for change, including almost nine in every 10 voters under the age of 24.

The RTE poll suggested the highest "Yes" vote was in Dublin, where 80 percent were in favour, but there was no sharp urban/rural divide as in previous referendums on the subject, with 63 percent of people living in areas with a population under 1,500 backing the proposals.

"So many women have travelled across to England to take care of their family and healthcare needs and I think it`s a disgrace and it needs to change," said "Yes" voter Sophie O`Gara, 28, referring to women who travel to Britain for abortions.

<img alt="Abortion.PNG" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="596" src="http://images.wionews.com/iniline-images/Abortion.PNG" width="1177" />

FIERCE CAMPAIGN

The fiercely contested vote divided political parties, saw the once-mighty church take a back seat, and became a test case for how global internet giants deal with social media advertising in political campaigns.

Unlike in 1983, when religion was front and centre and abortion was a taboo subject for most, the campaign was defined by women on both sides publicly describing their personal experiences of terminations.

"Yes," campaigners argued that with over 3,000 women travelling to Britain each year for terminations -- a right enshrined in a 1992 referendum -- and others ordering pills illegally online, abortion is already a reality in Ireland.

Although not on the ballot paper, the "No" camp sought to seize on government plans to allow abortions with no restriction up to 12 weeks into a pregnancy if the referendum is carried, calling it a step too far for most voters.

Some "Yes" politicians were already calling on the government to pass the legislation without delay following the publication of the exit polls. 
The Irish government`s push to liberalise the laws is in contrast to the United States, where abortion has long been legal, but President Donald Trump backs stripping federal funding from women`s health care clinics that offer abortions.

HOME TO VOTE

Videos shared on social media showed scores of voters arriving home at Irish airports from abroad. Ireland does not allow expatriates to vote via post or in embassies but those away for less than 18 months remain on the electoral roll.

As with the gay marriage referendum, those using the #hometovote hashtag on Twitter appeared overwhelmingly to back change. Many posted photos of themselves wearing sweatshirts bearing the "Repeal" slogan.

"Women and girls should not be made into healthcare refugees when they are in a time of crisis," said Niamh Kelly, 27, who paid 800 euros and travelled 20 hours to return home from Hanoi where she works as an English teacher.

"This is a once in a lifetime generation chance to lift the culture of shame that surrounds this issue so it was really important to me to be part of that."

Exit polls published after Ireland's referendum on abortion suggest a large vote in favour of liberalising the law.

The people of Ireland are set to liberalise some of the world`s most restrictive abortion laws by a landslide, two exit polls from a referendum showed on Friday, as voters demanded change in what two decades ago was one of Europe`s most socially conservative countries. An Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI exit poll suggested that voters in the once deeply Catholic nation had backed change by 68 percent to 32 percent. An RTE/Behaviour & Attitudes survey put the margin at 69 percent to 31 percent. If confirmed, the outcome will be the latest milestone on a path of change for a country which only legalised divorce by a razor-thin majority in 1995 before becoming the first in the world to adopt gay marriage by popular vote three years ago. "It's looking like we will make history tomorrow," Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, who was in favour of the change, said on Twitter. Vote-counting begins at 0800 GMT on Saturday, with the first indication of results expected mid-morning. Voters were asked if they wish to scrap a 1983 amendment to the constitution that gives an unborn child and its mother equal rights to life. The consequent prohibition on abortion was partly lifted in 2013 for cases where the mother's life is in danger. Photographs on Twitter showed campaigners hugging and in tears at the Together4yes umbrella group's headquarters shortly after the first exit poll was published. Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan called it "another big step out of our dark past." Minister for Children Katherine Zappone, an early advocate for holding the referendum, said an "emotional, historic day" lay ahead. Varadkar called the vote a once-in-a-generation chance and voters responded with national broadcaster RTE reporting that turnout could be one of the highest for a referendum, potentially topping the 61 percent who backed gay marriage by a large margin. No social issue has divided Ireland`s 4.8 million people as sharply as abortion, which was pushed up the political agenda by the death in 2012 of a 31-year-old Indian immigrant from a septic miscarriage after she was refused a termination. Yet the Irish Times exit poll showed overwhelming majorities in all age groups under 65 voted for change, including almost nine in every 10 voters under the age of 24. The RTE poll suggested the highest "Yes" vote was in Dublin, where 80 percent were in favour, but there was no sharp urban/rural divide as in previous referendums on the subject, with 63 percent of people living in areas with a population under 1,500 backing the proposals. "So many women have travelled across to England to take care of their family and healthcare needs and I think it`s a disgrace and it needs to change," said "Yes" voter Sophie O`Gara, 28, referring to women who travel to Britain for abortions. FIERCE CAMPAIGN The fiercely contested vote divided political parties, saw the once-mighty church take a back seat, and became a test case for how global internet giants deal with social media advertising in political campaigns. Unlike in 1983, when religion was front and centre and abortion was a taboo subject for most, the campaign was defined by women on both sides publicly describing their personal experiences of terminations. "Yes," campaigners argued that with over 3,000 women travelling to Britain each year for terminations -- a right enshrined in a 1992 referendum -- and others ordering pills illegally online, abortion is already a reality in Ireland. Although not on the ballot paper, the "No" camp sought to seize on government plans to allow abortions with no restriction up to 12 weeks into a pregnancy if the referendum is carried, calling it a step too far for most voters. Some "Yes" politicians were already calling on the government to pass the legislation without delay following the publication of the exit polls. The Irish government`s push to liberalise the laws is in contrast to the United States, where abortion has long been legal, but President Donald Trump backs stripping federal funding from women`s health care clinics that offer abortions. HOME TO VOTE Videos shared on social media showed scores of voters arriving home at Irish airports from abroad. Ireland does not allow expatriates to vote via post or in embassies but those away for less than 18 months remain on the electoral roll. As with the gay marriage referendum, those using the #hometovote hashtag on Twitter appeared overwhelmingly to back change. Many posted photos of themselves wearing sweatshirts bearing the "Repeal" slogan. "Women and girls should not be made into healthcare refugees when they are in a time of crisis," said Niamh Kelly, 27, who paid 800 euros and travelled 20 hours to return home from Hanoi where she works as an English teacher. "This is a once in a lifetime generation chance to lift the culture of shame that surrounds this issue so it was really important to me to be part of that."

Exit polls predict landslide win for Ireland referendum that could lift strict ban on abortion

By: Claire Pierson*

The Republic of Ireland is holding a referendum on May 25 that could dramatically change its stance on abortion. Here’s a rundown of what is happening, when and why.

What is Ireland voting on?

The referendum is about taking action that would result in the repeal of article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution (commonly referred to as the 8th amendment), allowing the Irish government to change the law on abortion, which is currently illegal unless a woman’s life is at substantial risk. Voting yes would repeal the amendment, while voting no would keep it in place.

What is the 8th amendment?

The eighth amendment was passed by referendum in 1983. It says that "the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

It is commonly viewed to equate the life of a pregnant woman with the fetus, making abortion unavailable in almost all circumstances. It is also seen as affecting maternal healthcare because a woman loses her right to refuse consent to medical treatment in pregnancy.

Why does Ireland have this clause in its constitution?

When contraception was legalised in Ireland in 1974, there was a widespread belief that liberal abortion laws would inevitably follow. An amendment campaign emerged in 1981, brought together various "pro-life" groups to lobby for constitutional protection of the "unborn". Their campaign was helped by the fact that in the political instability of the early 1980s, successive Taoisigh (prime ministers) were conscious of alienating the dominant conservative vote.

Ireland’s attorney general warned at the time that the wording of the amendment was too ambiguous and could have potentially negative consequences for women’s healthcare. But momentum had gathered and the referendum resulted in a two-to-one majority in favour of the amendment.

Is Ireland unusual in having an amendment of this kind?

Yes. Regulation of abortion through a constitution is rare (because constitutions are difficult to change). It has left Ireland with some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, which have been regularly criticised by a number of international human rights bodies.

Why is this vote happening now?

There have been a number of high profile, distressing cases in the recent past which have highlighted the inadequacy of the current law. Just two examples (there are many more) are the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 from sepsis after being refused an abortion during miscarriage and the case of Amanda Mellet, who was forced to travel to England to terminate a pregnancy with a fatal fetal anomaly.

Mellet's case reached the UN Human Rights Committee, which concluded that Ireland's near-total abortion ban was discriminatory and amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

In 2017 the Irish government convened a Citizens Assembly to consider evidence on abortion law reform. The 99 randomly selected citizens, after hearing extensive evidence, voted 64 per cent to 36 per cent in favour of having no restrictions on termination in early pregnancy.

What is the Irish government’s official position on the vote?

The government is split on the vote, with many undeclared. However, it appears that more support "yes."&nbsp;Party leaders are supportive – Leo Varadkar (the Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael) is openly pro-repeal, however, his party is allowing a free vote. Micheal Martin, leader of the opposition party Fianna Fail, has also backed repeal, although many in his party think differently.

Sinn Fein supports repeal but not abortion without restriction. Members of parliament for Labour, the Green party, Social Democrats and Solidarity-People Before Profit support both repeal and access to abortion up until 12 weeks into a pregnancy. Independents are mixed.

What happens if the 8th amendment is repealed?

Repeal of the 8th amendment would allow the government to legislate on abortion. The proposed legislation will bring Ireland into line with the majority of European countries, allowing for abortion on request up to the 12th week of pregnancy (subject to medical regulation). After 12 weeks abortion would only be available in cases of a fatal foetal anomaly, if the pregnant woman’s life was at risk or if her health was at risk of serious harm. Cases after 12 weeks would have to be approved by two doctors.

What happens if Ireland votes to keep the 8th amendment?

Nothing would change. The constitution, in conjunction with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, only allows for abortion where there is real and substantial risk to the life - as distinct from the health - of the pregnant woman. She can only access abortion when doctors deem that her life is at risk due to medical complications, or she is at risk of taking her life.

Women in their thousands would continue to travel to England and further afield to access abortion or procure abortion pills online illegally, risking criminality. The impact of Brexit on women's ability to travel freely remains unknown.

Who is opposed to repealing the 8th amendment and why?

Groups who describe themselves as "pro-life" say they are protecting the foetus through their opposition to any change to Irish abortion law. Many of these groups are supported from abroad, in particular from America, and often align themselves with religious views, in particular, the Catholic Church.

What is the main argument for repealing the 8th amendment?

The main argument is that criminalising abortion does not prevent abortion. In fact countries with liberal abortion laws usually have lower rates of abortion. Women living in Ireland have abortions, either abroad and at their own cost, or illegally in Ireland with the abortion pill. All a "yes" vote will do is allow the government to legislate for women to access healthcare legally in Ireland.

Is it likely that the vote will result in repeal?

Polls have indicated that marginally more people support a "yes" vote. There has been concern over voter manipulation, in particular foreign interference with both Google and Facebook changing the rules on political advertising in Ireland in advance of the referendum.

*Claire Pierson is a&nbsp;Lecturer in Politics, University of Liverpool

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The Republic of Ireland is holding a referendum on May 25 that could dramatically change its stance on abortion

By: Claire Pierson* The Republic of Ireland is holding a referendum on May 25 that could dramatically change its stance on abortion. Here’s a rundown of what is happening, when and why. What is Ireland voting on? The referendum is about taking action that would result in the repeal of article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution (commonly referred to as the 8th amendment), allowing the Irish government to change the law on abortion, which is currently illegal unless a woman’s life is at substantial risk. Voting yes would repeal the amendment, while voting no would keep it in place. What is the 8th amendment? The eighth amendment was passed by referendum in 1983. It says that "the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." It is commonly viewed to equate the life of a pregnant woman with the fetus, making abortion unavailable in almost all circumstances. It is also seen as affecting maternal healthcare because a woman loses her right to refuse consent to medical treatment in pregnancy. Why does Ireland have this clause in its constitution? When contraception was legalised in Ireland in 1974, there was a widespread belief that liberal abortion laws would inevitably follow. An amendment campaign emerged in 1981, brought together various "pro-life" groups to lobby for constitutional protection of the "unborn". Their campaign was helped by the fact that in the political instability of the early 1980s, successive Taoisigh (prime ministers) were conscious of alienating the dominant conservative vote. Ireland’s attorney general warned at the time that the wording of the amendment was too ambiguous and could have potentially negative consequences for women’s healthcare. But momentum had gathered and the referendum resulted in a two-to-one majority in favour of the amendment. Is Ireland unusual in having an amendment of this kind? Yes. Regulation of abortion through a constitution is rare (because constitutions are difficult to change). It has left Ireland with some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, which have been regularly criticised by a number of international human rights bodies. Why is this vote happening now? There have been a number of high profile, distressing cases in the recent past which have highlighted the inadequacy of the current law. Just two examples (there are many more) are the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 from sepsis after being refused an abortion during miscarriage and the case of Amanda Mellet, who was forced to travel to England to terminate a pregnancy with a fatal fetal anomaly. Mellet's case reached the UN Human Rights Committee, which concluded that Ireland's near-total abortion ban was discriminatory and amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." In 2017 the Irish government convened a Citizens Assembly to consider evidence on abortion law reform. The 99 randomly selected citizens, after hearing extensive evidence, voted 64 per cent to 36 per cent in favour of having no restrictions on termination in early pregnancy. What is the Irish government’s official position on the vote? The government is split on the vote, with many undeclared. However, it appears that more support "yes." Party leaders are supportive – Leo Varadkar (the Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael) is openly pro-repeal, however, his party is allowing a free vote. Micheal Martin, leader of the opposition party Fianna Fail, has also backed repeal, although many in his party think differently. Sinn Fein supports repeal but not abortion without restriction. Members of parliament for Labour, the Green party, Social Democrats and Solidarity-People Before Profit support both repeal and access to abortion up until 12 weeks into a pregnancy. Independents are mixed. What happens if the 8th amendment is repealed? Repeal of the 8th amendment would allow the government to legislate on abortion. The proposed legislation will bring Ireland into line with the majority of European countries, allowing for abortion on request up to the 12th week of pregnancy (subject to medical regulation). After 12 weeks abortion would only be available in cases of a fatal foetal anomaly, if the pregnant woman’s life was at risk or if her health was at risk of serious harm. Cases after 12 weeks would have to be approved by two doctors. What happens if Ireland votes to keep the 8th amendment? Nothing would change. The constitution, in conjunction with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, only allows for abortion where there is real and substantial risk to the life - as distinct from the health - of the pregnant woman. She can only access abortion when doctors deem that her life is at risk due to medical complications, or she is at risk of taking her life. Women in their thousands would continue to travel to England and further afield to access abortion or procure abortion pills online illegally, risking criminality. The impact of Brexit on women's ability to travel freely remains unknown. Who is opposed to repealing the 8th amendment and why? Groups who describe themselves as "pro-life" say they are protecting the foetus through their opposition to any change to Irish abortion law. Many of these groups are supported from abroad, in particular from America, and often align themselves with religious views, in particular, the Catholic Church. What is the main argument for repealing the 8th amendment? The main argument is that criminalising abortion does not prevent abortion. In fact countries with liberal abortion laws usually have lower rates of abortion. Women living in Ireland have abortions, either abroad and at their own cost, or illegally in Ireland with the abortion pill. All a "yes" vote will do is allow the government to legislate for women to access healthcare legally in Ireland. Is it likely that the vote will result in repeal? Polls have indicated that marginally more people support a "yes" vote. There has been concern over voter manipulation, in particular foreign interference with both Google and Facebook changing the rules on political advertising in Ireland in advance of the referendum. *Claire Pierson is a Lecturer in Politics, University of Liverpool (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Here's what you need to know about Ireland's abortion referendum

By: Claire Pierson*

The Republic of Ireland is holding a referendum on May 25 that could dramatically change its stance on abortion. Here’s a rundown of what is happening, when and why.

What is Ireland voting on?

The referendum is about taking action that would result in the repeal of article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution (commonly referred to as the 8th amendment), allowing the Irish government to change the law on abortion, which is currently illegal unless a woman’s life is at substantial risk. Voting yes would repeal the amendment, while voting no would keep it in place.

What is the 8th amendment?

The eighth amendment was passed by referendum in 1983. It says that “the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right”.

It is commonly viewed to equate the life of a pregnant woman with the foetus, making abortion unavailable in almost all circumstances. It is also seen as affecting maternal healthcare because a woman loses her right to refuse consent to medical treatment in pregnancy.

Why does Ireland have this clause in its constitution?

When contraception was legalised in Ireland in 1974, there was a widespread belief that liberal abortion laws would inevitably follow. An amendment campaign emerged in 1981, brought together various “pro-life” groups to lobby for constitutional protection of the “unborn”. Their campaign was helped by the fact that in the political instability of the early 1980s, successive Taoisigh (prime ministers) were conscious of alienating the dominant conservative vote.

Ireland’s attorney general warned at the time that the wording of the amendment was too ambiguous and could have potentially negative consequences for women’s healthcare. But momentum had gathered and the referendum resulted in a two-to-one majority in favour of the amendment.

Is Ireland unusual in having an amendment of this kind?

Yes. Regulation of abortion through a constitution is rare (because constitutions are difficult to change). It has left Ireland with some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, which have been regularly criticised by a number of international human rights bodies.

Why is this vote happening now?

There have been a number of high profile, distressing cases in the recent past which have highlighted the inadequacy of the current law. Just two examples (there are many more) are the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 from sepsis after being refused an abortion during miscarriage and the case of Amanda Mellet, who was forced to travel to England to terminate a pregnancy with fatal foetal anomaly. Mellet’s case reached the UN Human Rights Committee, which concluded that Ireland’s near total abortion ban was discriminatory and amounted to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.

In 2017 the Irish government convened a Citizens Assembly to consider evidence on abortion law reform. The 99 randomly selected citizens, after hearing extensive evidence, voted voted 64% to 36% in favour of having no restrictions on termination in early pregnancy.

What is the Irish government’s official position on the vote?

The government is split on the vote, with many undeclared. However, it appears that more support “yes”. Party leaders are supportive – Leo Varadkar (the Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael) is openly pro-repeal, however his party is allowing a free vote. Micheál Martin, leader of the opposition party Fianna Fáil, has also backed repeal, although many in his party think differently. Sinn Féin supports repeal but not abortion without restriction. Members of parliament for Labour, the Green party, Social Democrats and Solidarity-People Before Profit support both repeal and access to abortion up until 12 weeks into a pregnancy. Independents are mixed.

What happens if the 8th amendment is repealed?

Repeal of the 8th amendment would allow the government to legislate on abortion. The proposed legislation will bring Ireland into line with the majority of European countries, allowing for abortion on request up to the 12th week of pregnancy (subject to medical regulation). After 12 weeks abortion would only be available in cases of fatal foetal anomaly, if the pregnant woman’s life was at risk or if her health was at risk of serious harm. Cases after 12 weeks would have to be approved by two doctors.

What happens if Ireland votes to keep the 8th amendment?

Nothing would change. The constitution, in conjunction with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, only allows for abortion where there is real and substantial risk to the life – as distinct from the health – of the pregnant woman. She can only access abortion when doctors deem that her life is at risk due to medical complications, or she is at risk of taking her life.

Women in their thousands would continue to travel to England and further afield to access abortion or procure abortion pills online illegally, risking criminality. The impact of Brexit on women’s ability to travel freely remains unknown.

Who is opposed to repealing the 8th amendment and why?

Groups who describe themselves as “pro-life” say they are protecting the foetus through their opposition to any change to Irish abortion law. Many of these groups are supported from abroad, in particular from America, and often align themselves with religious views, in particular the Catholic Church.

What is the main argument for repealing the 8th amendment?

The main argument is that criminalising abortion does not prevent abortion. In fact countries with liberal abortion laws usually have lower rates of abortion. Women living in Ireland have abortions, either abroad and at their own cost, or illegally in Ireland with the abortion pill. All a “yes” vote will do is allow the government to legislate for women to access healthcare legally in Ireland.

Is it likely that the vote will result in repeal?

Polls have indicated that marginally more people support a “yes” vote. There has been concern over voter manipulation, in particular foreign interference with both Google and Facebook changing the rules on political advertising in Ireland in advance of the referendum.

*Claire Pierson is a&nbsp;Lecturer in Politics, University of Liverpool

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By: Claire Pierson* The Republic of Ireland is holding a referendum on May 25 that could dramatically change its stance on abortion. Here’s a rundown of what is happening, when and why. What is Ireland voting on? The referendum is about taking action that would result in the repeal of article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution (commonly referred to as the 8th amendment), allowing the Irish government to change the law on abortion, which is currently illegal unless a woman’s life is at substantial risk. Voting yes would repeal the amendment, while voting no would keep it in place. What is the 8th amendment? The eighth amendment was passed by referendum in 1983. It says that “the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right”. It is commonly viewed to equate the life of a pregnant woman with the foetus, making abortion unavailable in almost all circumstances. It is also seen as affecting maternal healthcare because a woman loses her right to refuse consent to medical treatment in pregnancy. Why does Ireland have this clause in its constitution? When contraception was legalised in Ireland in 1974, there was a widespread belief that liberal abortion laws would inevitably follow. An amendment campaign emerged in 1981, brought together various “pro-life” groups to lobby for constitutional protection of the “unborn”. Their campaign was helped by the fact that in the political instability of the early 1980s, successive Taoisigh (prime ministers) were conscious of alienating the dominant conservative vote. Ireland’s attorney general warned at the time that the wording of the amendment was too ambiguous and could have potentially negative consequences for women’s healthcare. But momentum had gathered and the referendum resulted in a two-to-one majority in favour of the amendment. Is Ireland unusual in having an amendment of this kind? Yes. Regulation of abortion through a constitution is rare (because constitutions are difficult to change). It has left Ireland with some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, which have been regularly criticised by a number of international human rights bodies. Why is this vote happening now? There have been a number of high profile, distressing cases in the recent past which have highlighted the inadequacy of the current law. Just two examples (there are many more) are the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012 from sepsis after being refused an abortion during miscarriage and the case of Amanda Mellet, who was forced to travel to England to terminate a pregnancy with fatal foetal anomaly. Mellet’s case reached the UN Human Rights Committee, which concluded that Ireland’s near total abortion ban was discriminatory and amounted to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”. In 2017 the Irish government convened a Citizens Assembly to consider evidence on abortion law reform. The 99 randomly selected citizens, after hearing extensive evidence, voted voted 64% to 36% in favour of having no restrictions on termination in early pregnancy. What is the Irish government’s official position on the vote? The government is split on the vote, with many undeclared. However, it appears that more support “yes”. Party leaders are supportive – Leo Varadkar (the Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael) is openly pro-repeal, however his party is allowing a free vote. Micheál Martin, leader of the opposition party Fianna Fáil, has also backed repeal, although many in his party think differently. Sinn Féin supports repeal but not abortion without restriction. Members of parliament for Labour, the Green party, Social Democrats and Solidarity-People Before Profit support both repeal and access to abortion up until 12 weeks into a pregnancy. Independents are mixed. What happens if the 8th amendment is repealed? Repeal of the 8th amendment would allow the government to legislate on abortion. The proposed legislation will bring Ireland into line with the majority of European countries, allowing for abortion on request up to the 12th week of pregnancy (subject to medical regulation). After 12 weeks abortion would only be available in cases of fatal foetal anomaly, if the pregnant woman’s life was at risk or if her health was at risk of serious harm. Cases after 12 weeks would have to be approved by two doctors. What happens if Ireland votes to keep the 8th amendment? Nothing would change. The constitution, in conjunction with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, only allows for abortion where there is real and substantial risk to the life – as distinct from the health – of the pregnant woman. She can only access abortion when doctors deem that her life is at risk due to medical complications, or she is at risk of taking her life. Women in their thousands would continue to travel to England and further afield to access abortion or procure abortion pills online illegally, risking criminality. The impact of Brexit on women’s ability to travel freely remains unknown. Who is opposed to repealing the 8th amendment and why? Groups who describe themselves as “pro-life” say they are protecting the foetus through their opposition to any change to Irish abortion law. Many of these groups are supported from abroad, in particular from America, and often align themselves with religious views, in particular the Catholic Church. What is the main argument for repealing the 8th amendment? The main argument is that criminalising abortion does not prevent abortion. In fact countries with liberal abortion laws usually have lower rates of abortion. Women living in Ireland have abortions, either abroad and at their own cost, or illegally in Ireland with the abortion pill. All a “yes” vote will do is allow the government to legislate for women to access healthcare legally in Ireland. Is it likely that the vote will result in repeal? Polls have indicated that marginally more people support a “yes” vote. There has been concern over voter manipulation, in particular foreign interference with both Google and Facebook changing the rules on political advertising in Ireland in advance of the referendum. *Claire Pierson is a Lecturer in Politics, University of Liverpool (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators took to the streets in Croatia's three biggest cities on Saturday in rallies that largely passed without incident, even as the issue continues to divide the staunchly Catholic EU member state.

Police estimated that around 10,000 people took part in a "March for Life" in Zagreb, carrying banners that read "I'm not a choice, but a child", while thousands more demonstrated in both Split and Rijeka on the Adriatic coast.

In Split, archbishop Marin Barisic held a mass during which he called on the marchers to "defend life from conception".&nbsp

But in Rijeka, a counter-demonstration, "March for Freedom", attracted crowds of several thousand people, according to local media estimates, who denounced a rise in conservatism

Police detained more than 20 women's rights activists who tried to block the anti-abortion demo.

Activists have repeatedly warned that the right to abortion is being threatened by mounting pressure from Church-backed conservative groups.

Abortion is legal in Croatia until the 10th week of pregnancy, under a law dating back to 1978, when the country was still part of communist Yugoslavia.

But activists warn that large numbers of public hospital doctors invoke a conscientious objection clause in Croatian law to refuse to perform the procedure.

In a landmark ruling last year, the country's top court rejected calls to ban abortion.

But it also ordered parliament to adopt a new law on abortion regulations by early 2019, ruling that the current legislation was outdated.

Rights groups fear that that could pave the way for more restrictive laws, that would make abortion difficult to access.&nbsp

Nearly 90 percent of Croatia's 4.2 million people are Catholics and the Church plays an important role in society.

Croatia became the EU's newest member in 2013.

Police estimated that around 10,000 people took part in a "March for Life" in Zagreb, carrying banners that read "I'm not a choice, but a child", while thousands more demonstrated in both Split and Rijeka on the Adriatic coast

Thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators took to the streets in Croatia's three biggest cities on Saturday in rallies that largely passed without incident, even as the issue continues to divide the staunchly Catholic EU member state. Police estimated that around 10,000 people took part in a "March for Life" in Zagreb, carrying banners that read "I'm not a choice, but a child", while thousands more demonstrated in both Split and Rijeka on the Adriatic coast. In Split, archbishop Marin Barisic held a mass during which he called on the marchers to "defend life from conception". But in Rijeka, a counter-demonstration, "March for Freedom", attracted crowds of several thousand people, according to local media estimates, who denounced a rise in conservatism Police detained more than 20 women's rights activists who tried to block the anti-abortion demo. Activists have repeatedly warned that the right to abortion is being threatened by mounting pressure from Church-backed conservative groups. Abortion is legal in Croatia until the 10th week of pregnancy, under a law dating back to 1978, when the country was still part of communist Yugoslavia. But activists warn that large numbers of public hospital doctors invoke a conscientious objection clause in Croatian law to refuse to perform the procedure. In a landmark ruling last year, the country's top court rejected calls to ban abortion. But it also ordered parliament to adopt a new law on abortion regulations by early 2019, ruling that the current legislation was outdated. Rights groups fear that that could pave the way for more restrictive laws, that would make abortion difficult to access. Nearly 90 percent of Croatia's 4.2 million people are Catholics and the Church plays an important role in society. Croatia became the EU's newest member in 2013.

Thousands of Croatians march against abortion

The US Supreme Court today handed a victory to abortion rights advocates striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics. 
 
The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the February 13 death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings. 
 
Conservative justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman&#39;s constitutional right to obtain an abortion. 
 
Liberal justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said that the appeals court that upheld the law was wrong in its approach, noting that courts are required to &quot;consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits that those laws confer.&quot; 
 
Deferring to state legislatures over &quot;questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this court&#39;s case law,&quot; Breyer added. 
 
Three conservative justices - Chief Justice John Roberts, justice Clarence Thomas and justice Samuel Alito - dissented. 
 
By setting a nationwide legal precedent that the two provisions in the Texas law were unconstitutional, the ruling imperils laws already in place in other states. 
 
Texas had said its law, passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor in 2013, was aimed at protecting women&#39;s health. The abortion providers had said the regulations were medically unnecessary and intended to shut down clinics. Since the law was passed, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous US state with about 27 million people, has dropped from 41 to 19. 
 
Democratic President Barack Obama&#39;s administration supported the challenge brought by the abortion providers. 
The Texas law required abortion doctors to have &quot;admitting privileges,&quot; a type of formal affiliation that can be hard to obtain, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care. 
 
The law also required clinic buildings to possess costly, hospital-grade facilities. These regulations covered numerous building features such as corridor width, the swinging motion of doors, floor tiles, parking spaces, elevator size, ventilation, electrical wiring, plumbing, floor tiling and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains. 
 
&#39;Substantial obstacle&#39; 
 
&quot;We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,&quot; Breyer wrote in the ruling. &quot;Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.&quot; 
 
Alito said in his dissenting opinion that the court should have upheld the law on a legal technicality. He criticised the majority, saying that in striking down the law, the court &quot;simply disregards basic rules that apply in all other cases.&quot; 
 
The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure. 
 
Abortion rights supporters hailed the ruling. 
 
Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman&rsquo;s Health, which led the challenge to the Texas law, said, &quot;Every day Whole Woman&rsquo;s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity - and today the Supreme Court did the same. We&rsquo;re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open.&quot; 
 
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Twitter called the ruling &quot;a victory for women in Texas and across America.&quot; 
 
&quot;This fight isn&#39;t over: The next president has to protect women&#39;s health. Women won&#39;t be &#39;punished&#39; for exercising their basic rights,&quot; she said, a dig at presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who once suggested women who get illegal abortions should face &quot;some sort of punishment.&quot; The presidential election is November 8. 
 
Abortion opponents denounced the ruling. 
 
&quot;It&#39;s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women&rsquo;s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives,&quot; Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement. 
 
Republican Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick added that abortion clinics are now &quot;free to ignore these basic safety standards and continue practicing under substandard conditions. By its ruling, the court held that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open &ndash; even under substandard conditions &ndash;outweighs the state&rsquo;s ability to put women&rsquo;s health and safety first.&quot; 
 
Some US states have pursued a variety of restrictions on abortion, including banning certain types of procedures, prohibiting it after a certain number of weeks of gestation, requiring parental permission for girls until a certain age, imposing waiting periods or mandatory counseling, and others. 
 
Americans remain closely divided over whether abortion should be legal. In a Reuters/Ipso online poll involving 6,769 US adults conducted from June 3 to June 22, 47 per cent of respondents said abortion generally should be legal and 42 per cent said it generally should be illegal. 
 
Views on abortion in the United States have changed very little over the decades, according to historical polling data. 
 
(Reuters)

The judges said the laws restricted access to abortion clinics, while rights activists said they were aimed at shutting them down

The US Supreme Court today handed a victory to abortion rights advocates striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics. The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the February 13 death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings. Conservative justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman's constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Liberal justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said that the appeals court that upheld the law was wrong in its approach, noting that courts are required to "consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits that those laws confer." Deferring to state legislatures over "questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this court's case law," Breyer added. Three conservative justices - Chief Justice John Roberts, justice Clarence Thomas and justice Samuel Alito - dissented. By setting a nationwide legal precedent that the two provisions in the Texas law were unconstitutional, the ruling imperils laws already in place in other states. Texas had said its law, passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor in 2013, was aimed at protecting women's health. The abortion providers had said the regulations were medically unnecessary and intended to shut down clinics. Since the law was passed, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous US state with about 27 million people, has dropped from 41 to 19. Democratic President Barack Obama's administration supported the challenge brought by the abortion providers. The Texas law required abortion doctors to have "admitting privileges," a type of formal affiliation that can be hard to obtain, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care. The law also required clinic buildings to possess costly, hospital-grade facilities. These regulations covered numerous building features such as corridor width, the swinging motion of doors, floor tiles, parking spaces, elevator size, ventilation, electrical wiring, plumbing, floor tiling and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains. 'Substantial obstacle' "We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes," Breyer wrote in the ruling. "Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution." Alito said in his dissenting opinion that the court should have upheld the law on a legal technicality. He criticised the majority, saying that in striking down the law, the court "simply disregards basic rules that apply in all other cases." The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure. Abortion rights supporters hailed the ruling. Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, which led the challenge to the Texas law, said, "Every day Whole Woman’s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity - and today the Supreme Court did the same. We’re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open." Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Twitter called the ruling "a victory for women in Texas and across America." "This fight isn't over: The next president has to protect women's health. Women won't be 'punished' for exercising their basic rights," she said, a dig at presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who once suggested women who get illegal abortions should face "some sort of punishment." The presidential election is November 8. Abortion opponents denounced the ruling. "It's exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives," Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement. Republican Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick added that abortion clinics are now "free to ignore these basic safety standards and continue practicing under substandard conditions. By its ruling, the court held that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open – even under substandard conditions –outweighs the state’s ability to put women’s health and safety first." Some US states have pursued a variety of restrictions on abortion, including banning certain types of procedures, prohibiting it after a certain number of weeks of gestation, requiring parental permission for girls until a certain age, imposing waiting periods or mandatory counseling, and others. Americans remain closely divided over whether abortion should be legal. In a Reuters/Ipso online poll involving 6,769 US adults conducted from June 3 to June 22, 47 per cent of respondents said abortion generally should be legal and 42 per cent said it generally should be illegal. Views on abortion in the United States have changed very little over the decades, according to historical polling data. (Reuters)

US Supreme Court stands up for women's right to abortion, strikes down restrictive Texas laws

abortion-law

Abortion Law, News on Abortion Law, stories on Abortion Law, articles on Abortion Law, Abortion Law stories at Wion, Abortion Law news, Abortion Law latest news