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