US President Joe&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;on Friday proposed a $6 trillion budget that for the first time in 45 years did not prohibit federal funds being used for abortion, as the Democrat leader fulfilled a campaign pledge.

The absence of the "Hyde amendment" in the proposed budget will be the subject of bitter debate in Congress, where elected Republicans will seek to reintroduce it.

The amendment limits the use of federal funds to finance abortions through Medicaid in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. Medicaid is public health medical insurance intended for poorer Americans.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-set-to-scrap-ban-on-us-funds-for-abortion-counseling-359954">Biden set to scrap ban on US funds for abortion counseling</a>

Describing the amendment as "racist, sexist, deeply unjust, and immensely unpopular," Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood, welcomed the move.

"President&nbsp;Biden's budget, which proposes ending the Hyde Amendment, is a historic step in the fight for reproductive freedom," she said.

"For far too long, the Hyde Amendment has put the government in control of a personal health care decision for many people with low incomes."

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/under-pressure-biden-drifts-leftward-on-abortion-climate-change-225427">Under pressure, Biden drifts leftward on abortion, climate change</a>

The amendment was first introduced after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that authorized abortion as long as the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, i.e. before&nbsp;22 to 24 weeks.

Abortion divides the American population, with strong opposition, especially among evangelical Christians.

In recent years, several Republican-led states have sought to impose restrictive laws on abortion, forcing many clinics to close their doors.

The US Supreme Court agreed this month to hear a case that could pose a challenge to the landmark 1973 ruling.

Biden, a Catholic personally opposed to abortion but who defends women's right to choose, has often backed the Hyde amendment during his long career in the Senate, before changing tack during his campaign to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

US President Joe Biden on Friday proposed a $6 trillion budget that for the first time in 45 years did not prohibit federal funds being used for abortion, as the Democrat leader fulfilled a campaign pledge.

US President Joe Biden on Friday proposed a $6 trillion budget that for the first time in 45 years did not prohibit federal funds being used for abortion, as the Democrat leader fulfilled a campaign pledge. The absence of the "Hyde amendment" in the proposed budget will be the subject of bitter debate in Congress, where elected Republicans will seek to reintroduce it. The amendment limits the use of federal funds to finance abortions through Medicaid in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. Medicaid is public health medical insurance intended for poorer Americans. Also Read | Biden set to scrap ban on US funds for abortion counseling Describing the amendment as "racist, sexist, deeply unjust, and immensely unpopular," Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood, welcomed the move. "President Biden's budget, which proposes ending the Hyde Amendment, is a historic step in the fight for reproductive freedom," she said. "For far too long, the Hyde Amendment has put the government in control of a personal health care decision for many people with low incomes." Also Read | Under pressure, Biden drifts leftward on abortion, climate change The amendment was first introduced after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that authorized abortion as long as the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, i.e. before 22 to 24 weeks. Abortion divides the American population, with strong opposition, especially among evangelical Christians. In recent years, several Republican-led states have sought to impose restrictive laws on abortion, forcing many clinics to close their doors. The US Supreme Court agreed this month to hear a case that could pose a challenge to the landmark 1973 ruling. Biden, a Catholic personally opposed to abortion but who defends women's right to choose, has often backed the Hyde amendment during his long career in the Senate, before changing tack during his campaign to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Biden's proposed budget lifts ban on funding abortions

The year is 2021, and abortion is still a taboo. Laws are being passed to ban abortion after the 6th week, before most women even realise they are pregnant. Why? because religious leaders and states think they have the right over a woman's body.

Gravitas Plus: Why are women being denied the Right to abortion?

A city in Texas has banned almost all abortions. Now, the Texas legislature is considering formalising a law which would prohibit all abortions in Lubbock, even as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Such “sanctuary cities” have been emerging in Texas recently in areas where the majority still oppose abortion rights for women. Lubbock, Texas is home to 260,000 people is the second city in Texas to ban abortions in the last two years.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-president-joe-biden-reverses-restrictions-on-access-to-abortion-360319/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The votes were on May 1, whereby 63 per cent supported banning abortion in the city, as per data from the county’s elections office. The voter turnout was roughly 22.6 per cent and once the complete tally is complete, the measure will take effect.

Now, all abortions in the city remain banned, except ones that may endanger the lives of pregnant women. In addition, the law allows women who get abortions to sue the provider or those who assisted with the process, Reuters reported.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-state-of-arkansas-bans-nearly-all-abortions-in-sweeping-measure-369274" hreflang="en">US state of Arkansas bans nearly all abortions in sweeping measure</a>

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the measure unconstitutional and harmful to the health of women. The ACLU has also sued multiple such “sanctuary cities” in Texas.

A woman’s right to pursue abortion through the first trimester has remained protected in the US since 1973 after a Supreme Court ruling. If the 1973 is overturned, it would states and cities to decide on abortion laws across the United States.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/johnson-johnson-vaccine-gets-embroiled-in-controversy-over-abortion-cells-367400" hreflang="en">Johnson &amp; Johnson vaccine gets embroiled in controversy over abortion cells</a>

In March 2021, Texas Senate approved five bills that restriction abortion. One of those could ban abortion as soon as heartbeat is detected in the foetus, which is as early as the first six weeks in many pregnancies. Now, the Texas House will assess the measures.

(With inputs from agencies)

A city in Texas has banned almost all abortions. Now, the Texas legislature is considering formalising a law which would prohibit all abortions in Lubbock, even as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

A city in Texas has banned almost all abortions. Now, the Texas legislature is considering formalising a law which would prohibit all abortions in Lubbock, even as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Such “sanctuary cities” have been emerging in Texas recently in areas where the majority still oppose abortion rights for women. Lubbock, Texas is home to 260,000 people is the second city in Texas to ban abortions in the last two years. The votes were on May 1, whereby 63 per cent supported banning abortion in the city, as per data from the county’s elections office. The voter turnout was roughly 22.6 per cent and once the complete tally is complete, the measure will take effect. Now, all abortions in the city remain banned, except ones that may endanger the lives of pregnant women. In addition, the law allows women who get abortions to sue the provider or those who assisted with the process, Reuters reported. Also read: US state of Arkansas bans nearly all abortions in sweeping measure On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the measure unconstitutional and harmful to the health of women. The ACLU has also sued multiple such “sanctuary cities” in Texas. A woman’s right to pursue abortion through the first trimester has remained protected in the US since 1973 after a Supreme Court ruling. If the 1973 is overturned, it would states and cities to decide on abortion laws across the United States. Also read: Johnson & Johnson vaccine gets embroiled in controversy over abortion cells In March 2021, Texas Senate approved five bills that restriction abortion. One of those could ban abortion as soon as heartbeat is detected in the foetus, which is as early as the first six weeks in many pregnancies. Now, the Texas House will assess the measures. (With inputs from agencies)

'Sanctuary city' in Texas bans abortions, allows action against doctors practicing it

India is one of the first countries to legalize abortions. Abortions became legal in India under certain conditions only in 1971. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”) was passed due to the progress made in the field of medical science with respect to safer abortions. Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (“the Bill”) amends the MTP Act, 1971 and was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 2nd March 2020 and passed on 17th March 2020. &nbsp;

Thereafter, Rajya Sabha passed the said bill after much deliberation on 16th March 2021. Presently, it awaits the President’s assent for it to become a law. It is pertinent to state that this Bill was presented in the Parliament before and lapsed thrice, in 2014, 2017 and 2018. 
&nbsp; 
Many Writ Petitions were filed by women activists who sought permission to abort after 20 weeks due to rape or foetal abnormalities. It is commonly reported by gynecologists that severe congenital abnormalities only show up after 20 weeks and such pregnancy cannot be legally terminated under the MPT Act,1971. The new Bill aims to resolve this issue.&nbsp;

The Bill was drafted after extensive consultation with various leading NGO’s, Indian Medical Association, the Gynecologist Associations etc., along with ethics committee. &nbsp;The amendment has given a respite to women who are rape survivors, differently-abled, minors, victims of incest etc.

The Bombay High Court, in a petition by Niketa Mehta, held that an abortion of a 24 week old fetus, which had a congenital heart defect, to be in contravention of the MTP Act, 1971, which was also later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. &nbsp;

This case raised issues around abortion laws after 20 weeks and the upbringing of a child suffering from incurable defects. This case shed light on the loopholes in the MTP Act, 1971 and prompted the government to reconsider abortion laws in the country.

The Bill regulates the state of pregnancy, specifically focussing on the increase of the time limit for abortion. Prior to the amendment, abortion undertaken within 12 weeks of conception required the opinion of a doctor and when done between 12-20 weeks, required the opinion of two doctors. The current MTP Act, 1971 does not have any provision for abortion after 20 weeks.&nbsp;

However, the amendment now allows an abortion to be done up to 20 weeks with only one doctor’s advice instead of two and two doctor’s advice in between 20-24 weeks in special cases. Additionally, the Bill also gives authority to States, to decide if a pregnancy may be terminated due to foetal abnormalities after 24 weeks, by way of setting up State-level Medical Boards. The said Board is to consist of a Paediatrician, Radiologist/ Sinologist, Gynecologist and other such members notified by the concerned State Government.

Countries all over the world have put limitations and differing time frames for allowing abortions which are based on the health of the mother and the foetus, along with the possible risk to the mother. One strong viewpoint that is put forth by this Bill is that the State has an obligation to protect all life forms, which also includes that of a foetus.&nbsp;

The Bill gives relief in this aspect by permitting termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks after the approval of the Medical Board, on diagnosis of foetal abnormalities. Having said that, in cases of rape exceeding 24 weeks of pregnancy, only recourse left was to approach the courts through a Writ Petition.&nbsp;

Both, the Act and the Bill, specify that abortion should only be performed by gynecologists or obstetricians and not by untrained persons, which commonly happens in rural areas, where there is a shortage of doctors. As for the privacy of the woman is concerned, the registered medical practitioner is permitted to reveal the details of the patient to only a person who has been authorized by law. Upon violation, the violating medical official is liable to be imprisoned for a year, or fined, or both.&nbsp;

In addition to extending the time frame for terminating pregnancy, the Central Government has also taken a progressive outlook on women, keeping in mind the current changing times. The Bill mentions “woman” and “her partner” instead of a “married woman” and “her husband”, showcasing open-mindedness of the society. &nbsp;The Central Government acknowledges the failure of contraception as well. It further gives relief to women undergoing stress of getting permissions from various courts due to the pressing time factor in pregnancy.&nbsp;

It is noteworthy that India is the first country to pass a legislation which gives mothers and their partners the right to a paid leave following a miscarriage or stillbirth, followed by New Zealand in 2021. More specifically, the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1961, extends miscarriage leave to six weeks of paid leave. Even today, countries such as the UK, United States of America, Brazil and Germany do not give as much autonomy to a pregnant woman as does India.&nbsp;

It is commendable that the Central Government has taken such a bold stand while balancing the diverse cultures, traditions and schools of thought that our country maintains. With the hope of this Bill turning into an Amendment, one can be assured that the country is on the road to advancement, addressing women issues more fiercely than ever.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

India is one of the first countries to legalize abortions. Abortions became legal in India under certain conditions only in 1971. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”) was passed due to the progress made in the field of medical science with respect to safer abortions.

India is one of the first countries to legalize abortions. Abortions became legal in India under certain conditions only in 1971. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”) was passed due to the progress made in the field of medical science with respect to safer abortions. Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (“the Bill”) amends the MTP Act, 1971 and was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 2nd March 2020 and passed on 17th March 2020. Thereafter, Rajya Sabha passed the said bill after much deliberation on 16th March 2021. Presently, it awaits the President’s assent for it to become a law. It is pertinent to state that this Bill was presented in the Parliament before and lapsed thrice, in 2014, 2017 and 2018. Many Writ Petitions were filed by women activists who sought permission to abort after 20 weeks due to rape or foetal abnormalities. It is commonly reported by gynecologists that severe congenital abnormalities only show up after 20 weeks and such pregnancy cannot be legally terminated under the MPT Act,1971. The new Bill aims to resolve this issue. The Bill was drafted after extensive consultation with various leading NGO’s, Indian Medical Association, the Gynecologist Associations etc., along with ethics committee. The amendment has given a respite to women who are rape survivors, differently-abled, minors, victims of incest etc. The Bombay High Court, in a petition by Niketa Mehta, held that an abortion of a 24 week old fetus, which had a congenital heart defect, to be in contravention of the MTP Act, 1971, which was also later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This case raised issues around abortion laws after 20 weeks and the upbringing of a child suffering from incurable defects. This case shed light on the loopholes in the MTP Act, 1971 and prompted the government to reconsider abortion laws in the country. The Bill regulates the state of pregnancy, specifically focussing on the increase of the time limit for abortion. Prior to the amendment, abortion undertaken within 12 weeks of conception required the opinion of a doctor and when done between 12-20 weeks, required the opinion of two doctors. The current MTP Act, 1971 does not have any provision for abortion after 20 weeks. However, the amendment now allows an abortion to be done up to 20 weeks with only one doctor’s advice instead of two and two doctor’s advice in between 20-24 weeks in special cases. Additionally, the Bill also gives authority to States, to decide if a pregnancy may be terminated due to foetal abnormalities after 24 weeks, by way of setting up State-level Medical Boards. The said Board is to consist of a Paediatrician, Radiologist/ Sinologist, Gynecologist and other such members notified by the concerned State Government. Countries all over the world have put limitations and differing time frames for allowing abortions which are based on the health of the mother and the foetus, along with the possible risk to the mother. One strong viewpoint that is put forth by this Bill is that the State has an obligation to protect all life forms, which also includes that of a foetus. The Bill gives relief in this aspect by permitting termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks after the approval of the Medical Board, on diagnosis of foetal abnormalities. Having said that, in cases of rape exceeding 24 weeks of pregnancy, only recourse left was to approach the courts through a Writ Petition. Both, the Act and the Bill, specify that abortion should only be performed by gynecologists or obstetricians and not by untrained persons, which commonly happens in rural areas, where there is a shortage of doctors. As for the privacy of the woman is concerned, the registered medical practitioner is permitted to reveal the details of the patient to only a person who has been authorized by law. Upon violation, the violating medical official is liable to be imprisoned for a year, or fined, or both. In addition to extending the time frame for terminating pregnancy, the Central Government has also taken a progressive outlook on women, keeping in mind the current changing times. The Bill mentions “woman” and “her partner” instead of a “married woman” and “her husband”, showcasing open-mindedness of the society. The Central Government acknowledges the failure of contraception as well. It further gives relief to women undergoing stress of getting permissions from various courts due to the pressing time factor in pregnancy. It is noteworthy that India is the first country to pass a legislation which gives mothers and their partners the right to a paid leave following a miscarriage or stillbirth, followed by New Zealand in 2021. More specifically, the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1961, extends miscarriage leave to six weeks of paid leave. Even today, countries such as the UK, United States of America, Brazil and Germany do not give as much autonomy to a pregnant woman as does India. It is commendable that the Central Government has taken such a bold stand while balancing the diverse cultures, traditions and schools of thought that our country maintains. With the hope of this Bill turning into an Amendment, one can be assured that the country is on the road to advancement, addressing women issues more fiercely than ever. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020: A Short Analysis

New Zealand has passed a legislation giving working mothers and their partners the right to paid leave after suffering a miscarriage or stillbirth. The bill, which also includes people who were planning to have a child through surrogacy, was unanimously passed in parliament on March 24.

Ginny Andersen, member of parliament for Hutt South, introduced this bill after hearing the ordeal of a woman who had suffered a miscarriage but was unable to access bereavement leaves.

"The woman felt it's unfair and approached a local member of parliament after which the idea came to me and I drafted the bill. When I spoke over it, many people supported it. There was a need here," Andersen told WION.&nbsp;

Drawn through a lottery system in the parliament in 2018, this bill has garnered enormous positive response locally and internationally. With this, New Zealand has become the second country in the world to have such law, after India.&nbsp;

In India, women are entitled to six weeks of paid leave in case of miscarriage under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. Moreover, there is no prescribed time period after which it is provided, and excludes the partners of the mourning mothers.&nbsp;

Talking about the importance of this bill, Andersen in the Parliament had said that one in four New Zealand women have had a miscarriage. She told WION that this will help in destigmatising miscarriages.&nbsp;&nbsp;

"In New Zealand, women don't talk about their pregnancy till the third month, as there are high chances of miscarriage in those initial days. It is just like an unspoken rule amongst women. So, I think this bill might bring some change, enable women to talk about it and break these taboos," the Hutt South MP said.

The leave provisions apply to mothers, their partners as well as parents planning to have a child through adoption or surrogacy, but excludes abortions.

On whether&nbsp;abortion was considered to be included, Andersen said, "This issue had come up. New Zealand has removed abortion from the crime list and there is a huge debate about it. I was quite clear to not steer my bill into that hot debate. There was a clear need for women and their partners to have bereavement leave for miscarriage, and I was focused to deliver that."

However, she stated that if any other MP would like to take a member vote on including abortion under the bill, then it would be a great idea.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

New Zealand has passed a legislation giving working mothers and their partners the right to paid leave after suffering a miscarriage or stillbirth. The bill, which also includes people who were planning to have a child through surrogacy, was unanimously passed in parliament on March 24.

New Zealand has passed a legislation giving working mothers and their partners the right to paid leave after suffering a miscarriage or stillbirth. The bill, which also includes people who were planning to have a child through surrogacy, was unanimously passed in parliament on March 24. Ginny Andersen, member of parliament for Hutt South, introduced this bill after hearing the ordeal of a woman who had suffered a miscarriage but was unable to access bereavement leaves. "The woman felt it's unfair and approached a local member of parliament after which the idea came to me and I drafted the bill. When I spoke over it, many people supported it. There was a need here," Andersen told WION. Drawn through a lottery system in the parliament in 2018, this bill has garnered enormous positive response locally and internationally. With this, New Zealand has become the second country in the world to have such law, after India. In India, women are entitled to six weeks of paid leave in case of miscarriage under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. Moreover, there is no prescribed time period after which it is provided, and excludes the partners of the mourning mothers. Talking about the importance of this bill, Andersen in the Parliament had said that one in four New Zealand women have had a miscarriage. She told WION that this will help in destigmatising miscarriages. "In New Zealand, women don't talk about their pregnancy till the third month, as there are high chances of miscarriage in those initial days. It is just like an unspoken rule amongst women. So, I think this bill might bring some change, enable women to talk about it and break these taboos," the Hutt South MP said. The leave provisions apply to mothers, their partners as well as parents planning to have a child through adoption or surrogacy, but excludes abortions. On whether abortion was considered to be included, Andersen said, "This issue had come up. New Zealand has removed abortion from the crime list and there is a huge debate about it. I was quite clear to not steer my bill into that hot debate. There was a clear need for women and their partners to have bereavement leave for miscarriage, and I was focused to deliver that." However, she stated that if any other MP would like to take a member vote on including abortion under the bill, then it would be a great idea.

Hope it breaks taboo, says New Zealand lawmaker behind miscarriage bereavement leave law

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

Argentina's Senate is due to decide next week on whether to give final approval to a bill that would allow abortion up to fourteenth week of pregnancy. The bill is backed by the government but has divided the society that has close ties with Roman Catholic faith. The bill has already been passed by the lower house of Congress on December 11.

"We have the right to be able to decide about our own lives, about whether we want to have children and, if we want to have them, how many we want to have. If we decide to interrupt the pregnancy, we have the right to do it autonomously and freely," Yamila Picasso, a 33-year-old activist, told Reuters outside Congress, where she was demonstrating.

Picasso is a member of the National Campaign for the Right to Legal, Safe and Free Abortion, which has been demanding the new law for years.

On the other side of the debate is Ana Marmora, a 29-year-old lawyer and journalist who is a spokeswoman for the Young Front, a group that rejects the legalization of abortion.

She told Reuters in an interview at the group's Buenos Aires headquarters that backers of the bill want women to be able to terminate pregnancies not out of need but simple desire.

A similar bill was defeated by Argentina's Congress in 2018. Current law allows for abortion only when there is a serious risk to the mother's health or in the event of rape.

The current bill is to be debated in the Senate on Tuesday next week. It is expected that demonstrations will be held both, for and against the bill.

(With Reuters inputs)

Argentina's Senate is due to decide next week on whether to give final approval to a bill that would allow abortion up to fourteenth week of pregnancy. The bill is backed by the government but has divided the society that has close ties with Roman Catholic faith.

Argentina's Senate is due to decide next week on whether to give final approval to a bill that would allow abortion up to fourteenth week of pregnancy. The bill is backed by the government but has divided the society that has close ties with Roman Catholic faith. The bill has already been passed by the lower house of Congress on December 11. "We have the right to be able to decide about our own lives, about whether we want to have children and, if we want to have them, how many we want to have. If we decide to interrupt the pregnancy, we have the right to do it autonomously and freely," Yamila Picasso, a 33-year-old activist, told Reuters outside Congress, where she was demonstrating. Picasso is a member of the National Campaign for the Right to Legal, Safe and Free Abortion, which has been demanding the new law for years. On the other side of the debate is Ana Marmora, a 29-year-old lawyer and journalist who is a spokeswoman for the Young Front, a group that rejects the legalization of abortion. She told Reuters in an interview at the group's Buenos Aires headquarters that backers of the bill want women to be able to terminate pregnancies not out of need but simple desire. A similar bill was defeated by Argentina's Congress in 2018. Current law allows for abortion only when there is a serious risk to the mother's health or in the event of rape. The current bill is to be debated in the Senate on Tuesday next week. It is expected that demonstrations will be held both, for and against the bill. (With Reuters inputs)

Abortion bill in Argentine senate expected to heat-up debate

Should abortion be a choice? In Poland, the top judicial body has imposed a near-total ban on abortion. Thousands of women have hit the streets against the decision. The debate between 'pro-choice' & 'pro-life' has been reignited. WION's Palki Sharma gets you a report.

Gravitas: Poland imposes near-total ban on abortion

Tens of thousands of Poles blocked city streets in cars, on bicycles and on foot on Monday (October 26) on the fifth day of protests against a Constitutional Court ruling that amounts to a near-total ban on abortion in the predominantly Catholic country.

Abortion rights protests block city streets across Poland

Women charged police lines in Mexico City on Monday (September 28) during protests demanding the legalisation of abortion in the majority Roman Catholic country.

Police and protesters face off at protest for legalised abortion in Mexico

With President Donald Trump poised to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice to fill the vacancy created by the death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a new 6-3 conservative majority could be emboldened to roll back abortion rights.

The ultimate objective for U.S. conservative activists for decades has been to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. But short of that, there are other options the court has in curtailing abortion rights.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/in-major-ruling-us-supreme-court-strikes-down-strict-louisiana-abortion-law-309474" hreflang="en">In major ruling, US Supreme Court strikes down strict Louisiana abortion law</a>

Republican-led states including Ohio, Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas and Alabama have passed a variety of abortion restrictions in recent years. Some that seek to ban abortion at an early stage of pregnancy are still being litigated in lower courts and could reach the justices relatively soon.

Abortion is one the most divisive issues in the United States. Conservative opposition to it has been a driving force behind Republicans, including Trump, making a high priority of judicial appointments in recent years.

"Roe v. Wade is on the line in a way it never has been before," said Julie Rikelman, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which regularly challenges abortion restrictions.

Even if Roe is not overturned, "we could be in a situation where the court is upholding even more restrictions on abortion," Rikelman added.

Trump has said he intends to announce his nomination on Saturday, with conservative appeals court judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa considered the frontrunners to be named to succeed Ginsburg, who was a strong defender of abortion rights. Ginsburg died on Friday at age 87.

The leadership of the Republican-controlled Senate is poised to move forward with the nomination even as Trump seeks re-election on Nov. 3.

Even though the court had a 5-4 conservative majority before Ginsburg's death, some activists on the right were concerned about Chief Justice John Robert's incremental approach. Roberts angered conservatives by siding with the court's liberals in June when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana abortion restriction involving a requirement imposed on doctors who perform the procedure.

Roberts, who wrote a separate opinion explaining his views, signaled he may back other abortion restrictions in future cases but said he felt compelled to strike down Louisiana's law because the justices just four years earlier had invalidated a similar law in Texas.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-election-2020-trump-and-biden-battle-for-an-advantage-in-brewing-fight-329526" hreflang="en">US election 2020: Trump and Biden battle for an advantage in brewing fight</a>

Trump vowed during the 2016 presidential campaign to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He already has appointed conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court. Both voted to uphold the Louisiana law.

Anti-abortion groups are pushing for Trump to pick Barrett, a conservative Roman Catholic who he appointed to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. Although she has not yet ruled directly on abortion as a judge, Barrett has twice signaled opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions.

Abortion rights activists have voiced concern that Barrett would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

STATE-BY-STATE EFFORTS

Broadly speaking, Republican-controlled states have enacted two types of abortion laws: measures that would impose burdensome regulations on abortion providers and those that would ban abortions during the early stages of pregnancy.

The latter laws in particular directly challenge Roe v. Wade and a subsequent 1992 ruling that upheld it. Those two rulings made clear that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion at least up until the point when the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks or soon after.

Legal challenges to laws recently enacted in conservative states that directly challenge the Roe precedent by banning abortion outright or in early stages of pregnancy are still being litigated in lower courts.

One appeal pending at the Supreme Court that the justices will discuss whether to hear in the coming months is Mississippi's bid to revive a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

In a separate case the court could act upon at any time, the Trump administration has asked the justices to put on hold a federal judge's decision to block during the coronavirus pandemic a U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule requiring women to visit a hospital or clinic to obtain a drug used for medication-induced abortions.

Clarke Forsythe, a lawyer with the Americans United for Life anti-abortion group that has urged Barrett's appointment, said he expects the Supreme Court to "continue with an incremental approach" even if Trump's nominee is confirmed, in part because of Roberts' opinion in the Louisiana case.

But Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs abortion rights, said that with only four votes among the justices needed to take up a case, a newly emboldened conservative wing could force Roberts' hand and take up a more direct challenge to Roe.

"Now," Dalven said, "Chief Justice Roberts and his concern for the integrity for the court and his potential for being an incrementalist is not enough."

With President Donald Trump poised to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice to fill the vacancy created by the death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a new 6-3 conservative majority could be emboldened to roll back abortion rights.

With President Donald Trump poised to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice to fill the vacancy created by the death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a new 6-3 conservative majority could be emboldened to roll back abortion rights. The ultimate objective for U.S. conservative activists for decades has been to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. But short of that, there are other options the court has in curtailing abortion rights. Also read: In major ruling, US Supreme Court strikes down strict Louisiana abortion law Republican-led states including Ohio, Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas and Alabama have passed a variety of abortion restrictions in recent years. Some that seek to ban abortion at an early stage of pregnancy are still being litigated in lower courts and could reach the justices relatively soon. Abortion is one the most divisive issues in the United States. Conservative opposition to it has been a driving force behind Republicans, including Trump, making a high priority of judicial appointments in recent years. "Roe v. Wade is on the line in a way it never has been before," said Julie Rikelman, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which regularly challenges abortion restrictions. Even if Roe is not overturned, "we could be in a situation where the court is upholding even more restrictions on abortion," Rikelman added. Trump has said he intends to announce his nomination on Saturday, with conservative appeals court judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa considered the frontrunners to be named to succeed Ginsburg, who was a strong defender of abortion rights. Ginsburg died on Friday at age 87. The leadership of the Republican-controlled Senate is poised to move forward with the nomination even as Trump seeks re-election on Nov. 3. Even though the court had a 5-4 conservative majority before Ginsburg's death, some activists on the right were concerned about Chief Justice John Robert's incremental approach. Roberts angered conservatives by siding with the court's liberals in June when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana abortion restriction involving a requirement imposed on doctors who perform the procedure. Roberts, who wrote a separate opinion explaining his views, signaled he may back other abortion restrictions in future cases but said he felt compelled to strike down Louisiana's law because the justices just four years earlier had invalidated a similar law in Texas. Also read: US election 2020: Trump and Biden battle for an advantage in brewing fight Trump vowed during the 2016 presidential campaign to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He already has appointed conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court. Both voted to uphold the Louisiana law. Anti-abortion groups are pushing for Trump to pick Barrett, a conservative Roman Catholic who he appointed to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. Although she has not yet ruled directly on abortion as a judge, Barrett has twice signaled opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions. Abortion rights activists have voiced concern that Barrett would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. STATE-BY-STATE EFFORTS Broadly speaking, Republican-controlled states have enacted two types of abortion laws: measures that would impose burdensome regulations on abortion providers and those that would ban abortions during the early stages of pregnancy. The latter laws in particular directly challenge Roe v. Wade and a subsequent 1992 ruling that upheld it. Those two rulings made clear that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion at least up until the point when the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks or soon after. Legal challenges to laws recently enacted in conservative states that directly challenge the Roe precedent by banning abortion outright or in early stages of pregnancy are still being litigated in lower courts. One appeal pending at the Supreme Court that the justices will discuss whether to hear in the coming months is Mississippi's bid to revive a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In a separate case the court could act upon at any time, the Trump administration has asked the justices to put on hold a federal judge's decision to block during the coronavirus pandemic a U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule requiring women to visit a hospital or clinic to obtain a drug used for medication-induced abortions. Clarke Forsythe, a lawyer with the Americans United for Life anti-abortion group that has urged Barrett's appointment, said he expects the Supreme Court to "continue with an incremental approach" even if Trump's nominee is confirmed, in part because of Roberts' opinion in the Louisiana case. But Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs abortion rights, said that with only four votes among the justices needed to take up a case, a newly emboldened conservative wing could force Roberts' hand and take up a more direct challenge to Roe. "Now," Dalven said, "Chief Justice Roberts and his concern for the integrity for the court and his potential for being an incrementalist is not enough."

Trump-appointed justice could signal major Supreme Court shift on abortion

Brazil expanded its requirements Friday for rape victims seeking an abortion, including a rule that medical staff must tell the woman she can see the embryo or fetus via ultrasound.

The new regulations published by far-right President Jair Bolsonaro's health ministry also stipulate that the rape "must be reported to police" regardless of the woman's wishes, that she must give doctors "a detailed account" of what happened, and that she must be "expressly warned" she can be prosecuted for fraud and aborting illegally if she is unable to prove her claim.

Brazil allows abortion only in cases of rape, danger to the woman's life or the severe birth defect anencephaly.

Even those exceptions are controversial among the religious right in Latin America's largest country, which has powerful conservative Catholic and Evangelical Christian communities.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eldest-son-of-brazils-president-jair-bolsonaro-tests-positive-for-coronavirus-323087">Also read:&nbsp;Eldest son of Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro tests positive for coronavirus</a>

The new rules issued by interim health minister Eduardo Pazuello, an active-duty army general, came on the heels of an outcry earlier this month over the case of a 10-year-old girl who was allegedly raped by her uncle and was refused an abortion in her home state, Espirito Santo.

She then flew across the country to the northeastern city of Recife, where she was able to undergo the procedure.

However, she was met outside the hospital by far-right activists and politicians who staged a furious protest.

Demonstrators were informed of the girl's identity and the hospital where she was to be admitted in a video posted online by far-right activist Sara Winter, a prominent Bolsonaro supporter with close ties to Women's Minister Damares Alves, an Evangelical pastor.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/brazil-president-jair-bolsonaro-and-his-non-normal-antics-314020">Also read:&nbsp;Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro and his 'non-normal' antics</a>

The new regulations from the health ministry, published in the official gazette, triggered immediate outcry from abortion rights supporters.

"I have just introduced a bill in Congress to block today's health ministry decree, which is an obstacle to legal abortion and constitutes psychological violence against women," leftist lawmaker and doctor Jandira Feghali wrote on Twitter.

Sixteen lawmakers in the lower house, including Feghali, wrote a letter to UN human-rights chief Michelle Bachelet urging her to intervene against the decree as a matter of protecting women's rights.

Brazil expanded its requirements Friday for rape victims seeking an abortion, including a rule that medical staff must tell the woman she can see the embryo or fetus via ultrasound.

Brazil expanded its requirements Friday for rape victims seeking an abortion, including a rule that medical staff must tell the woman she can see the embryo or fetus via ultrasound. The new regulations published by far-right President Jair Bolsonaro's health ministry also stipulate that the rape "must be reported to police" regardless of the woman's wishes, that she must give doctors "a detailed account" of what happened, and that she must be "expressly warned" she can be prosecuted for fraud and aborting illegally if she is unable to prove her claim. Brazil allows abortion only in cases of rape, danger to the woman's life or the severe birth defect anencephaly. Even those exceptions are controversial among the religious right in Latin America's largest country, which has powerful conservative Catholic and Evangelical Christian communities. Also read: Eldest son of Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro tests positive for coronavirus The new rules issued by interim health minister Eduardo Pazuello, an active-duty army general, came on the heels of an outcry earlier this month over the case of a 10-year-old girl who was allegedly raped by her uncle and was refused an abortion in her home state, Espirito Santo. She then flew across the country to the northeastern city of Recife, where she was able to undergo the procedure. However, she was met outside the hospital by far-right activists and politicians who staged a furious protest. Demonstrators were informed of the girl's identity and the hospital where she was to be admitted in a video posted online by far-right activist Sara Winter, a prominent Bolsonaro supporter with close ties to Women's Minister Damares Alves, an Evangelical pastor. Also read: Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro and his 'non-normal' antics The new regulations from the health ministry, published in the official gazette, triggered immediate outcry from abortion rights supporters. "I have just introduced a bill in Congress to block today's health ministry decree, which is an obstacle to legal abortion and constitutes psychological violence against women," leftist lawmaker and doctor Jandira Feghali wrote on Twitter. Sixteen lawmakers in the lower house, including Feghali, wrote a letter to UN human-rights chief Michelle Bachelet urging her to intervene against the decree as a matter of protecting women's rights.

Brazil expands requirements for abortion in rape cases

Protests have sparked in Brazil after personal details of a 10-year old rape victim were posted online.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brazil-fires-threaten-worlds-largest-wetland-321632" hreflang="en">Brazil fires threaten world's largest wetland</a>

The victim's name was published online by an anti-abortion activist, who was looking forward to stopping her from having a termination.

A Brazilian judge has ordered Google, Facebook and Twitter to remove the personal details of the girl from their sites. He has urged the companies to remove the details within 24 hours or will face a fine of 50,000 reais ($9,000) per day.&nbsp;

According to British media coverage, &nbsp;pro-Bolsonaro activist Sara Giromini was the one who released the details of the 10-year-old victim.&nbsp;

<h6><img alt="cdd" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c032184b-88c7-4fd8-86b0-1f1bb276f69f" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design_127.jpg" /> 
Sara Giromini, pro-abortion activist | AFP</h6>

Many women in Brazil have taken to streets to protect the 10-year-old girl who was mistreated by religious extremists for trying to legally undergo an abortion after being raped, allegedly by her uncle.&nbsp;

The South American country has strict laws on abortion but the termination is allowed in the cases of rape, when the mother's life is at risk or when the foetus has the birth defect anencephaly which is a rare condition that prevents part of the brain and skull from developing.&nbsp;

Despite having the legal permission for having an abortion, activists against termination surrounded the hospital and began protesting. They called the hospital staff "killers". These activists were dispersed by the military police.

According to pro-choice activists, who are in favour of the abortion, the girl was smuggled into the hospital in the boot of a car. The victim entered the premise by a side door.&nbsp;

Protests have sparked in Brazil after personal details of a 10-year old rape victim were posted online. Also read: Brazil fires threaten world's largest wetland The victim's name was published online by an anti-abortion activist, who was looking forward to stopping her from having a termination.

Protests have sparked in Brazil after personal details of a 10-year old rape victim were posted online. Also read: Brazil fires threaten world's largest wetland The victim's name was published online by an anti-abortion activist, who was looking forward to stopping her from having a termination. A Brazilian judge has ordered Google, Facebook and Twitter to remove the personal details of the girl from their sites. He has urged the companies to remove the details within 24 hours or will face a fine of 50,000 reais ($9,000) per day. According to British media coverage, pro-Bolsonaro activist Sara Giromini was the one who released the details of the 10-year-old victim. Sara Giromini, pro-abortion activist | AFP Many women in Brazil have taken to streets to protect the 10-year-old girl who was mistreated by religious extremists for trying to legally undergo an abortion after being raped, allegedly by her uncle. The South American country has strict laws on abortion but the termination is allowed in the cases of rape, when the mother's life is at risk or when the foetus has the birth defect anencephaly which is a rare condition that prevents part of the brain and skull from developing. Despite having the legal permission for having an abortion, activists against termination surrounded the hospital and began protesting. They called the hospital staff "killers". These activists were dispersed by the military police. According to pro-choice activists, who are in favour of the abortion, the girl was smuggled into the hospital in the boot of a car. The victim entered the premise by a side door.

Pro-abortion vs Pro-choice: Massive outcry in Brazil as 10-year-old rape victim persecuted

The day marks for a huge day in the history of Italy, as woman can now use the abortion pill on an outpatient basis rather than be hospitalised to terminate a pregnancy.

Italy's health minister, Roberto Speranza, announced the change in guidelines in a tweet on Saturday. He said it was based on scientific evidence and was an important step forward in line with Italy's 1978 law legalising abortion.

Previously, women in Italy had to admitted to the hospital to take mifepristone.

Women's groups and pro-choice advocates lobbying for outpatient use had argued that the hospitalization requirement discouraged use of the drug.

Italy in 1978 legalised abortion and in 2009 approved the use of the abortion pill through the seventh week of gestation.

Speranza's deputy, Sandra Zampa, has been quoted as saying it was time to review the guidelines given that a decade of experience had showed the drug could be safely administered without hospitalization. The new guidelines say the drug can be used up to the ninth week. 
&nbsp;

The day marks for a huge day in the history of Italy, as woman can now use the abortion pill on an outpatient basis rather than be hospitalised to terminate a pregnancy.

The day marks for a huge day in the history of Italy, as woman can now use the abortion pill on an outpatient basis rather than be hospitalised to terminate a pregnancy. Italy's health minister, Roberto Speranza, announced the change in guidelines in a tweet on Saturday. He said it was based on scientific evidence and was an important step forward in line with Italy's 1978 law legalising abortion. Previously, women in Italy had to admitted to the hospital to take mifepristone. Women's groups and pro-choice advocates lobbying for outpatient use had argued that the hospitalization requirement discouraged use of the drug. Italy in 1978 legalised abortion and in 2009 approved the use of the abortion pill through the seventh week of gestation. Speranza's deputy, Sandra Zampa, has been quoted as saying it was time to review the guidelines given that a decade of experience had showed the drug could be safely administered without hospitalization. The new guidelines say the drug can be used up to the ninth week.

Italy approves outpatient use for abortion pill

The US&nbsp;Supreme Court defended abortion rights in a major ruling on Monday by striking down a Louisiana law placing restrictions on doctors who perform the procedure, dealing a blow to anti-abortion advocates.

The 5-4 ruling, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberals justices in the majority, represented a victory for Shreveport-based abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women in its challenge to the 2014 law. The measure had required doctors who perform abortions to have a sometimes difficult-to-obtain formal affiliation called "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic.

President Donald Trump's administration supported Louisiana in the case.&nbsp;

Anti-abortion advocates had hoped that the Supreme Court, with its 5-4 conservative majority, would be willing to permit abortion restrictions like those being pursued by Louisiana and other conservative states.

"Today's ruling is a bitter disappointment," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/los-angeles-texas-close-bars-as-coronavirus-takes-very-dangerous-turn-309252" hreflang="en">Los Angeles, Texas close bars as coronavirus takes 'very dangerous turn'</a>

The decision, authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, marked the second time in four years that the court ruled against an "admitting privileges" requirement

In 2016, the court struck down a Republican-backed Texas law that mandated admitting privileges and required clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities, finding that the restrictions represented an impermissible "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Breyer wrote that the two laws are "almost word-for word identical" and that therefore the court had to reach the same result.

There is sufficient evidence to find that the Louisiana measure "would place substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion in Louisiana," Breyer added.&nbsp;

Roberts dissented in the 2016 case, which was called Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, but voted with the liberals in the Louisiana case based on the court's tradition of adhering to its precedents, he said.

"I joined the dissent in Whole Woman's Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman's Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case," Roberts wrote in a separate opinion.&nbsp;

At the same time, Roberts did question some of the court's analysis in the earlier ruling, suggesting he may side with his conservative colleagues in future challenges to abortion restrictions.

'WE'RE RELIEVED'

As a result, the positive reaction to the ruling from abortion rights group was muted.

"We're relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we're concerned about tomorrow," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the Louisiana clinic.

Two of Louisiana's three clinics that perform abortions would have been forced to close if the law went into effect, according to lawyers for Hope Medical Group.&nbsp;

In a dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Louisiana and Texas rulings are similar only because "the abortion right recognized in this court's decisions is used like a bulldozer to flatten legal rules that stand in the way."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/its-all-about-him-john-bolton-criticises-trumps-statement-on-russian-bounties-309243" hreflang="en">It's all about him: John Bolton criticises Trump's statement on Russian bounties</a>

Roberts also sided with the liberal justices in two other important rulings this month. One found that gay and transgender people are protected from workplace discrimination under federal civil rights law. The other blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children.

Several other cases involving legal challenges to abortion restrictions in other states are heading toward the justices that could provide other avenues for its conservative majority to roll back access to the procedure.

Trump, seeking re-election on Nov&nbsp;3, promised during the 2016 presidential race to appoint justices who would overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. The Louisiana case marked the first major abortion dispute heard by the court since Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Neil Gorsuch in 2017 as justices. Both ruled in favor of the Louisiana abortion restrictions.

Abortion remains a divisive issue in the United States as it is in many countries. Christian conservatives - an important political constituency for Trump - are among those most opposed to it. The Republican president, who years earlier had supported abortion rights, attended an anti-abortion march in January and declared, "Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House."&nbsp;

Abortion rights advocates have argued that restrictions such as admitting privileges are meant to limit access to abortion not protect women's health as proponents say. When the Supreme Court in 1992 reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade ruling, it prohibited laws that placed an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.&nbsp;

Baton Rouge-based U.S. District Judge John deGravelles cited the undue burden precedent when he struck down Louisiana's law in 2016. After Louisiana appealed, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

The US Supreme Court defended abortion rights in a major ruling on Monday by striking down a Louisiana law placing restrictions on doctors who perform the procedure, dealing a blow to anti-abortion advocates.

The US Supreme Court defended abortion rights in a major ruling on Monday by striking down a Louisiana law placing restrictions on doctors who perform the procedure, dealing a blow to anti-abortion advocates. The 5-4 ruling, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberals justices in the majority, represented a victory for Shreveport-based abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women in its challenge to the 2014 law. The measure had required doctors who perform abortions to have a sometimes difficult-to-obtain formal affiliation called "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic. President Donald Trump's administration supported Louisiana in the case. Anti-abortion advocates had hoped that the Supreme Court, with its 5-4 conservative majority, would be willing to permit abortion restrictions like those being pursued by Louisiana and other conservative states. "Today's ruling is a bitter disappointment," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List. Also read: Los Angeles, Texas close bars as coronavirus takes 'very dangerous turn' The decision, authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, marked the second time in four years that the court ruled against an "admitting privileges" requirement In 2016, the court struck down a Republican-backed Texas law that mandated admitting privileges and required clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities, finding that the restrictions represented an impermissible "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Breyer wrote that the two laws are "almost word-for word identical" and that therefore the court had to reach the same result. There is sufficient evidence to find that the Louisiana measure "would place substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion in Louisiana," Breyer added. Roberts dissented in the 2016 case, which was called Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, but voted with the liberals in the Louisiana case based on the court's tradition of adhering to its precedents, he said. "I joined the dissent in Whole Woman's Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman's Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case," Roberts wrote in a separate opinion. At the same time, Roberts did question some of the court's analysis in the earlier ruling, suggesting he may side with his conservative colleagues in future challenges to abortion restrictions. 'WE'RE RELIEVED' As a result, the positive reaction to the ruling from abortion rights group was muted. "We're relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we're concerned about tomorrow," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the Louisiana clinic. Two of Louisiana's three clinics that perform abortions would have been forced to close if the law went into effect, according to lawyers for Hope Medical Group. In a dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Louisiana and Texas rulings are similar only because "the abortion right recognized in this court's decisions is used like a bulldozer to flatten legal rules that stand in the way." Also read: It's all about him: John Bolton criticises Trump's statement on Russian bounties Roberts also sided with the liberal justices in two other important rulings this month. One found that gay and transgender people are protected from workplace discrimination under federal civil rights law. The other blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children. Several other cases involving legal challenges to abortion restrictions in other states are heading toward the justices that could provide other avenues for its conservative majority to roll back access to the procedure. Trump, seeking re-election on Nov 3, promised during the 2016 presidential race to appoint justices who would overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. The Louisiana case marked the first major abortion dispute heard by the court since Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Neil Gorsuch in 2017 as justices. Both ruled in favor of the Louisiana abortion restrictions. Abortion remains a divisive issue in the United States as it is in many countries. Christian conservatives - an important political constituency for Trump - are among those most opposed to it. The Republican president, who years earlier had supported abortion rights, attended an anti-abortion march in January and declared, "Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House." Abortion rights advocates have argued that restrictions such as admitting privileges are meant to limit access to abortion not protect women's health as proponents say. When the Supreme Court in 1992 reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade ruling, it prohibited laws that placed an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Baton Rouge-based U.S. District Judge John deGravelles cited the undue burden precedent when he struck down Louisiana's law in 2016. After Louisiana appealed, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

In major ruling, US Supreme Court strikes down strict Louisiana abortion law

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

From bans to easy access: Abortion laws around the world

President Donald Trump's administration rolled out a new rule on Thursday that aims to limit "birth tourism" by women who enter the United States on tourist visas with the intention of obtaining citizenship for their babies born on American soil.

Under the State Department regulation, which will take effect on Friday, pregnant women applying for visitor visas could be required to prove they have a specific reason for travel beyond giving birth, such as a medical necessity.

Trump faces re-election in November and has made restricting legal and illegal immigration a focus of his 2020 campaign. During his presidency, he has criticized the right to citizenship for any person born in the United States, which applies even to children born to tourists. But scrapping that right would require a change in the US Constitution.

No US law bars foreign women from travelling to the United States to give birth, although consular officers previously could require visitors to prove they have the financial means to pay for a medical procedure if that is the reason for the trip.

In some cases, alleged operators and customers of companies promoting "birth tourism" in the United States have been charged with providing false information to immigration authorities in order to conceal plans to give birth in the United States.

A State Department official said in an emailed statement that the new rule aims to address national security risks, including criminal activity associated with the industry for birth-related trips.

The final rule says consular officers must scrutinize female travellers to determine whether they might be pregnant, but does not explain how officers will make such determinations.

The State Department official said US officials will not ask all female visa applicants if they are pregnant, or intend to become pregnant, but instead will only raise the issue if they have "a specific articulable reason" to believe the sole purpose of the US visit is to give birth.

But critics worried the new rule could lead to discrimination.

"It is absurd that the Trump administration is turning embassy employees into reproductive policemen," Kerri Talbot, a director with the Immigration Hub, a Washington-based advocacy organization, said on Thursday. "Women will have to conceal their pregnancies just to get a tourist visa to visit the US"

Statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that approximately 9,300 children were born in the United States to mothers who live overseas in 2017, with an additional 900 born in US territories. However, the CDC did not examine births to tourists specifically.

The State Department said that precisely estimating the number of individuals who give birth in the United States after entering the country on tourist visas "is challenging" since the agency does not publish data regarding applicants' reasons for travel. But the agency said there were increasing reports of the practice from US embassies and consulates abroad.

President Donald Trump's administration rolled out a new rule on Thursday that aims to limit "birth tourism" by women who enter the United States on tourist visas with the intention of obtaining citizenship for their babies born on American soil.

President Donald Trump's administration rolled out a new rule on Thursday that aims to limit "birth tourism" by women who enter the United States on tourist visas with the intention of obtaining citizenship for their babies born on American soil. Under the State Department regulation, which will take effect on Friday, pregnant women applying for visitor visas could be required to prove they have a specific reason for travel beyond giving birth, such as a medical necessity. Trump faces re-election in November and has made restricting legal and illegal immigration a focus of his 2020 campaign. During his presidency, he has criticized the right to citizenship for any person born in the United States, which applies even to children born to tourists. But scrapping that right would require a change in the US Constitution. No US law bars foreign women from travelling to the United States to give birth, although consular officers previously could require visitors to prove they have the financial means to pay for a medical procedure if that is the reason for the trip. In some cases, alleged operators and customers of companies promoting "birth tourism" in the United States have been charged with providing false information to immigration authorities in order to conceal plans to give birth in the United States. A State Department official said in an emailed statement that the new rule aims to address national security risks, including criminal activity associated with the industry for birth-related trips. The final rule says consular officers must scrutinize female travellers to determine whether they might be pregnant, but does not explain how officers will make such determinations. The State Department official said US officials will not ask all female visa applicants if they are pregnant, or intend to become pregnant, but instead will only raise the issue if they have "a specific articulable reason" to believe the sole purpose of the US visit is to give birth. But critics worried the new rule could lead to discrimination. "It is absurd that the Trump administration is turning embassy employees into reproductive policemen," Kerri Talbot, a director with the Immigration Hub, a Washington-based advocacy organization, said on Thursday. "Women will have to conceal their pregnancies just to get a tourist visa to visit the US" Statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that approximately 9,300 children were born in the United States to mothers who live overseas in 2017, with an additional 900 born in US territories. However, the CDC did not examine births to tourists specifically. The State Department said that precisely estimating the number of individuals who give birth in the United States after entering the country on tourist visas "is challenging" since the agency does not publish data regarding applicants' reasons for travel. But the agency said there were increasing reports of the practice from US embassies and consulates abroad.

Trump administration steps up scrutiny of pregnant visa applicants

The US&nbsp;Supreme Court on Monday left in place a&nbsp;Kentucky&nbsp;restriction requiring doctors to show and describe ultrasound images to women seeking an abortion, turning away a challenge arguing that the measure violates the free speech rights of physicians.

The justices declined without comment to hear an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of a lower court ruling that upheld the law after a federal judge previously had struck it down as a violation of the US&nbsp;Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and is closely divided on abortion rights.

On March 4, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/arms-sales-worldwide-up-by-nearly-5-report-267299">the court</a> is scheduled to hear its first major abortion case in three years in a dispute over the legality of a Republican-backed Louisiana law that imposes restrictions on abortion doctors.

The ACLU said the&nbsp;Kentucky&nbsp;law has no medical basis and that its sole purpose is to coerce a woman into not getting an abortion.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of EMW Women's Surgical Center,&nbsp;Kentucky's only licensed abortion clinic, as well as physicians who work there shortly after the law was passed in 2017.

Kentucky&nbsp;requires a physician or qualified technician to perform the ultrasound and position the screen so the woman can view the images of the fetus. The medical staff are required to describe what the images show, including the size of the fetus and any organs or appendages visible. They are also required to make audible the sound of the fetal heartbeat.

The law requires the physicians to continue with the process even if the patient objects and shows signs of distress. Doctors can be fined and referred to the state's medical licensing board if they fail to comply with the&nbsp;Kentucky&nbsp;law.

On the Louisiana law case next year, the high court's ruling could lead to new curbs on access to abortion. Numerous Republican-backed measures restricting abortion have been passed at the state level in recent years.&nbsp;

The Louisiana case will test the willingness of the court, which includes two conservative justices appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, to uphold laws that lower courts have ruled unconstitutional. The court has shifted to the right after Justice Anthony Kennedy, a decisive vote in favour of abortion rights, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh, who has a thin judicial record on the issue.

In 2018, the Supreme Court blocked a California law requiring clinics that counsel women against abortion to notify clients of the availability of abortions paid for by the state, finding that it violated the free speech rights of the facilities. In that 5-4 ruling along ideological grounds, the court's conservative justices were in the majority.

A federal judge in 2017 struck down the law but in an April 2019 ruling the Cincinnati-based 6th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals declared it lawful. The 6th Circuit found that because the law "requires the disclosure of truthful, non-misleading and relevant information about an abortion, we hold that it does not violate a doctor's right to free speech under the First Amendment."

In 2015, the Supreme Court rejected a bid by North Carolina to revive a similar law that had been struck down. A similar law in Texas was upheld by a federal appeals court in 2012.

The US Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky restriction requiring doctors to show and describe ultrasound images to women seeking an abortion, turning away a challenge arguing that the measure violates the free speech rights of physicians.

The US Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky restriction requiring doctors to show and describe ultrasound images to women seeking an abortion, turning away a challenge arguing that the measure violates the free speech rights of physicians. The justices declined without comment to hear an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of a lower court ruling that upheld the law after a federal judge previously had struck it down as a violation of the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and is closely divided on abortion rights. On March 4, the court is scheduled to hear its first major abortion case in three years in a dispute over the legality of a Republican-backed Louisiana law that imposes restrictions on abortion doctors. The ACLU said the Kentucky law has no medical basis and that its sole purpose is to coerce a woman into not getting an abortion. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of EMW Women's Surgical Center, Kentucky's only licensed abortion clinic, as well as physicians who work there shortly after the law was passed in 2017. Kentucky requires a physician or qualified technician to perform the ultrasound and position the screen so the woman can view the images of the fetus. The medical staff are required to describe what the images show, including the size of the fetus and any organs or appendages visible. They are also required to make audible the sound of the fetal heartbeat. The law requires the physicians to continue with the process even if the patient objects and shows signs of distress. Doctors can be fined and referred to the state's medical licensing board if they fail to comply with the Kentucky law. On the Louisiana law case next year, the high court's ruling could lead to new curbs on access to abortion. Numerous Republican-backed measures restricting abortion have been passed at the state level in recent years. The Louisiana case will test the willingness of the court, which includes two conservative justices appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, to uphold laws that lower courts have ruled unconstitutional. The court has shifted to the right after Justice Anthony Kennedy, a decisive vote in favour of abortion rights, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh, who has a thin judicial record on the issue. In 2018, the Supreme Court blocked a California law requiring clinics that counsel women against abortion to notify clients of the availability of abortions paid for by the state, finding that it violated the free speech rights of the facilities. In that 5-4 ruling along ideological grounds, the court's conservative justices were in the majority. A federal judge in 2017 struck down the law but in an April 2019 ruling the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals declared it lawful. The 6th Circuit found that because the law "requires the disclosure of truthful, non-misleading and relevant information about an abortion, we hold that it does not violate a doctor's right to free speech under the First Amendment." In 2015, the Supreme Court rejected a bid by North Carolina to revive a similar law that had been struck down. A similar law in Texas was upheld by a federal appeals court in 2012.

United States Supreme Court leaves Kentucky abortion restriction in place

Same-sex marriage and abortion laws in Northern Ireland <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/northern-irish-lawmakers-sit-to-oppose-abortion-reform-257142">were liberalised on Monday</a> in a landmark shift for the province aimed at bringing it into line with mainland Britain but which has stoked resentment.

The relaxation of the UK-ruled territory's restrictive laws on the issues occurred at midnight 2300 GMT, after a deadline elapsed for local lawmakers to stop the changes imposed by MPs in Westminster.&nbsp;

British lawmakers in July approved decriminalising abortion and creating lawful access to abortion services, as well as rolling out new regulations to allow same-sex marriage and civil partnerships.

They gave Northern&nbsp;Ireland's assembly -- suspended since January 2017, until October 21 to institute alterations to the reforms, which will see the province broadly match the rest of Britain.

Abortion and same-sex marriage are legal in England, Wales and Scotland.

The assembly was briefly restored on Monday, but without support from opposition parties, they were unable to constitute an executive and pass any changes.

"At midnight&nbsp;history will be made," Grainne Teggart,&nbsp;Amnesty&nbsp;International's Northern Ireland campaign manager, said on Monday hours before the deadline.

"This is a hugely significant moment and&nbsp;the beginning of a new era for Northern Ireland, one in which we're free from oppressive laws that have policed our bodies and healthcare."

Northern Ireland Secretary of State Julian Smith told parliament the law forbidding abortions would be repealed at midnight and there will be a moratorium on criminal prosecutions.

"A new legal framework for lawful access to abortion services in Northern Ireland will be put in place by 31st March 2020," he said.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, regulations for same-sex partnership will be outlined by January 13.

"This means at the latest, the first civil same-sex marriages will take place on the week of Valentine's Day 2020," Smith added.

'Stunt' politics

The Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who returned to the chamber of devolved government at Stormont were predominantly from the anti-abortion Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Without participation from the main opposition party Sinn Fein, they could not form an executive under the region's power-sharing laws.

"It is a very sad day," DUP leader Arlene Foster told reporters after leaving the chamber.

"I know some people will seek to celebrate today and I would say to those people: 'Think of those of us who are sad today and who believe that this is an affront to human dignity and to human life.'"

Pressure has been growing in traditionally conservative Northern Ireland for its abortion law to be relaxed, in particular following the landslide 2018 referendum to repeal the abortion ban in the Republic of Ireland.

Sinn Fein vice-president Michelle O'Neill called the DUP-led reconvening of the assembly a "stunt".

She said it "achieved nothing other than to bring the political institutions into further disrepute and further undermine public confidence".

"It is not lost on the public that the first time the DUP recalled the assembly was yet another attempt to deny a section of our community rights," she added, welcoming the reforms.

Celebratory scenes

Outside Stormont protestors gathered Monday, some backing the MLAs in their bid to avert the change, others condemning it.

Around 150 anti-abortion protesters spent the morning and afternoon singing and praying with placards reading "Not in my name".

"It was the Westminster government who forced in legislation," said Bernadette Smyth, director of pro-life Precious Life Northern Ireland.

"This is undemocratic and it's wrong. So it's important that we're here today to be a voice for the vulnerable, unborn children in our society."

A boisterous crowd of some 150 pro-choice campaigners were also present, unfurling banners and chanting "What do we want? The right to chose. When do we want it? Now."

Danielle Roberts, an activist with Alliance for Choice, said "human rights have always been the responsibility of Westminster." &nbsp;&nbsp;

"There have been repeated calls for Westminster to act and finally they've actually done their duty," she told AFP.

Among the crowd, some were also keen to voice their support for the new same-sex marriage provisions.

Chef Jane Peaker, 24, attended holding the hand of her partner Meg. The pair got engaged over the summer.

"I think that we're happy that it's happened, but maybe not so happy that it hasn't come from our government," she said.&nbsp;

"But I think it's a victory nonetheless."

Peaker said the pair would like to marry on February 14, Valentine's Day and likely the earliest possible date.

Same-sex marriage and abortion laws in Northern Ireland were liberalised on Monday in a landmark shift for the province aimed at bringing it into line with mainland Britain but which has stoked resentment.

Same-sex marriage and abortion laws in Northern Ireland were liberalised on Monday in a landmark shift for the province aimed at bringing it into line with mainland Britain but which has stoked resentment. The relaxation of the UK-ruled territory's restrictive laws on the issues occurred at midnight 2300 GMT, after a deadline elapsed for local lawmakers to stop the changes imposed by MPs in Westminster. British lawmakers in July approved decriminalising abortion and creating lawful access to abortion services, as well as rolling out new regulations to allow same-sex marriage and civil partnerships. They gave Northern Ireland's assembly -- suspended since January 2017, until October 21 to institute alterations to the reforms, which will see the province broadly match the rest of Britain. Abortion and same-sex marriage are legal in England, Wales and Scotland. The assembly was briefly restored on Monday, but without support from opposition parties, they were unable to constitute an executive and pass any changes. "At midnight history will be made," Grainne Teggart, Amnesty International's Northern Ireland campaign manager, said on Monday hours before the deadline. "This is a hugely significant moment and the beginning of a new era for Northern Ireland, one in which we're free from oppressive laws that have policed our bodies and healthcare." Northern Ireland Secretary of State Julian Smith told parliament the law forbidding abortions would be repealed at midnight and there will be a moratorium on criminal prosecutions. "A new legal framework for lawful access to abortion services in Northern Ireland will be put in place by 31st March 2020," he said. Meanwhile, regulations for same-sex partnership will be outlined by January 13. "This means at the latest, the first civil same-sex marriages will take place on the week of Valentine's Day 2020," Smith added. 'Stunt' politics The Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who returned to the chamber of devolved government at Stormont were predominantly from the anti-abortion Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Without participation from the main opposition party Sinn Fein, they could not form an executive under the region's power-sharing laws. "It is a very sad day," DUP leader Arlene Foster told reporters after leaving the chamber. "I know some people will seek to celebrate today and I would say to those people: 'Think of those of us who are sad today and who believe that this is an affront to human dignity and to human life.'" Pressure has been growing in traditionally conservative Northern Ireland for its abortion law to be relaxed, in particular following the landslide 2018 referendum to repeal the abortion ban in the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Fein vice-president Michelle O'Neill called the DUP-led reconvening of the assembly a "stunt". She said it "achieved nothing other than to bring the political institutions into further disrepute and further undermine public confidence". "It is not lost on the public that the first time the DUP recalled the assembly was yet another attempt to deny a section of our community rights," she added, welcoming the reforms. Celebratory scenes Outside Stormont protestors gathered Monday, some backing the MLAs in their bid to avert the change, others condemning it. Around 150 anti-abortion protesters spent the morning and afternoon singing and praying with placards reading "Not in my name". "It was the Westminster government who forced in legislation," said Bernadette Smyth, director of pro-life Precious Life Northern Ireland. "This is undemocratic and it's wrong. So it's important that we're here today to be a voice for the vulnerable, unborn children in our society." A boisterous crowd of some 150 pro-choice campaigners were also present, unfurling banners and chanting "What do we want? The right to chose. When do we want it? Now." Danielle Roberts, an activist with Alliance for Choice, said "human rights have always been the responsibility of Westminster." "There have been repeated calls for Westminster to act and finally they've actually done their duty," she told AFP. Among the crowd, some were also keen to voice their support for the new same-sex marriage provisions. Chef Jane Peaker, 24, attended holding the hand of her partner Meg. The pair got engaged over the summer. "I think that we're happy that it's happened, but maybe not so happy that it hasn't come from our government," she said. "But I think it's a victory nonetheless." Peaker said the pair would like to marry on February 14, Valentine's Day and likely the earliest possible date.

Gay marriage, abortion laws liberalised in Northern Ireland

A group of Northern Irish lawmakers will return to their parliament on Monday in a last-minute protest at the liberalisation of abortion laws, set to come into force after being decided by London for the suspended Belfast executive.

The regional government in Belfast collapsed in January 2017 after a scandal over a renewable heating scheme split the power-sharing executive, amid a breakdown in trust.

Abortion is currently illegal in the province, except when the mother's life is in danger.

With the Northern Ireland Assembly not sitting, the British government in July passed legislation forcing the province's laws on abortion and same-sex marriage, which is also illegal, into line with those in the rest of the UK, unless the executive returns by Monday.

However, the return of around 30 of the 90 Northern Ireland Assembly members specifically to discuss abortion law is expected to be symbolic.

The majority of those appearing at Stormont will be members of the conservative Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), led by Arlene Foster.

But without cross-party support, a first minister and deputy first minister cannot be elected, the assembly's first task, meaning the law cannot be blocked.

Michelle O'Neill, the left-wing Sinn Fein party's leader in Northern Ireland, described the event as "stunt politics".

"They're going to discuss issues which they can do nothing about.&nbsp; For me, that's all about being dishonest with the public," she said Friday.

"We want to be in the assembly but we need to get the issues resolved that brought the assembly down."

Trevor Lunn, an assembly member for the centrist cross-community Alliance party called the bid to recall the assembly "showboating".

"It appears those wanting to go back on Monday are only doing so to try and deny LGBTQ people and women the rights guaranteed to them in the rest of the UK," he said last week.

Celebrations are due in the province to herald the changes in the law.

Campaign group Love Equality said couples and supporters will gather in Belfast ahead of Monday's midnight deadline.

A mock-wedding event with "a buffet reception, speeches and photo opportunities featuring a wedding cake, flowers and balloons" will take place at lunchtime, the group said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the Women's Resource and Development Agency campaign group is also organising a protest at Stormont against the bid to block the new legislation.

Pro-life group Both Lives Matter said 31 assembly members have signed the recall petition allowing parliament to sit on Monday.

Foster told the BBC the move will give deputies the opportunity to express opposition to the law changes.

"Hopefully we will be able to debate the issue on Monday," she said.

A group of Northern Irish lawmakers will return to their parliament on Monday in a last-minute protest at the liberalisation of abortion laws, set to come into force after being decided by London for the suspended Belfast executive.

A group of Northern Irish lawmakers will return to their parliament on Monday in a last-minute protest at the liberalisation of abortion laws, set to come into force after being decided by London for the suspended Belfast executive. The regional government in Belfast collapsed in January 2017 after a scandal over a renewable heating scheme split the power-sharing executive, amid a breakdown in trust. Abortion is currently illegal in the province, except when the mother's life is in danger. With the Northern Ireland Assembly not sitting, the British government in July passed legislation forcing the province's laws on abortion and same-sex marriage, which is also illegal, into line with those in the rest of the UK, unless the executive returns by Monday. However, the return of around 30 of the 90 Northern Ireland Assembly members specifically to discuss abortion law is expected to be symbolic. The majority of those appearing at Stormont will be members of the conservative Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), led by Arlene Foster. But without cross-party support, a first minister and deputy first minister cannot be elected, the assembly's first task, meaning the law cannot be blocked. Michelle O'Neill, the left-wing Sinn Fein party's leader in Northern Ireland, described the event as "stunt politics". "They're going to discuss issues which they can do nothing about. For me, that's all about being dishonest with the public," she said Friday. "We want to be in the assembly but we need to get the issues resolved that brought the assembly down." Trevor Lunn, an assembly member for the centrist cross-community Alliance party called the bid to recall the assembly "showboating". "It appears those wanting to go back on Monday are only doing so to try and deny LGBTQ people and women the rights guaranteed to them in the rest of the UK," he said last week. Celebrations are due in the province to herald the changes in the law. Campaign group Love Equality said couples and supporters will gather in Belfast ahead of Monday's midnight deadline. A mock-wedding event with "a buffet reception, speeches and photo opportunities featuring a wedding cake, flowers and balloons" will take place at lunchtime, the group said in a statement. Meanwhile, the Women's Resource and Development Agency campaign group is also organising a protest at Stormont against the bid to block the new legislation. Pro-life group Both Lives Matter said 31 assembly members have signed the recall petition allowing parliament to sit on Monday. Foster told the BBC the move will give deputies the opportunity to express opposition to the law changes. "Hopefully we will be able to debate the issue on Monday," she said.

Northern Irish lawmakers sit to oppose abortion reform

Abortion was decriminalised in Australia's State of New South Wales on Thursday after weeks of contentious debate, bringing its laws into line with the rest of the country.&nbsp;

Politicians from across the political spectrum voted to overturn the laws that date back to 1900 under which&nbsp;women seeking an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-zealand-passes-bill-to-decriminalise-abortion-241584">abortion</a> in Sydney or elsewhere in the state and their doctors could face up to 10 years in prison.

The legislation was delayed for months by a small group of conservatives from the ruling Liberal Party who rebelled against their leader.&nbsp;

The passage of the bill was cheered by pro-choice advocates, who had staged several large demonstrations in its support in recent months, countered by similarly passionate pro-life rallies.

Alex Greenwich, the independent representative for Sydney who introduced the bill, said that he was "sorry it has taken us so long" to remove abortion from the criminal code.&nbsp;

"My deepest gratitude goes to my parliamentary colleagues and to the dedicated women's rights campaigners who have fought toward this for decades," he said in a statement.

Though prosecutions were rare, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/alabama-senate-bans-nearly-all-abortions-including-rape-cases-218840">procedure</a> was only considered legal in Australia's most populous state if the doctor believed the woman's physical or mental health was in danger.

The new legislation allows abortions to be performed by a doctor on request up to 22 weeks, beyond which the consent of two doctors would be required.

It also makes it illegal for an unqualified person to perform an abortion, with the offence punishable by up to seven years in jail.

Amendments made to appease the bill's conservative opponents include tighter regulations on late-term abortions and mandated medical care for any baby born alive following a termination procedure.

New South Wales last year introduced "safe access zones" around medical clinics and hospitals that provide terminations, a measure aimed at stopping anti-abortion protesters from harassing women.

Abortion was decriminalised in Australia's State of New South Wales on Thursday after weeks of contentious debate, bringing its laws into line with the rest of the country.

Abortion was decriminalised in Australia's State of New South Wales on Thursday after weeks of contentious debate, bringing its laws into line with the rest of the country. Politicians from across the political spectrum voted to overturn the laws that date back to 1900 under which women seeking an abortion in Sydney or elsewhere in the state and their doctors could face up to 10 years in prison. The legislation was delayed for months by a small group of conservatives from the ruling Liberal Party who rebelled against their leader. The passage of the bill was cheered by pro-choice advocates, who had staged several large demonstrations in its support in recent months, countered by similarly passionate pro-life rallies. Alex Greenwich, the independent representative for Sydney who introduced the bill, said that he was "sorry it has taken us so long" to remove abortion from the criminal code. "My deepest gratitude goes to my parliamentary colleagues and to the dedicated women's rights campaigners who have fought toward this for decades," he said in a statement. Though prosecutions were rare, the procedure was only considered legal in Australia's most populous state if the doctor believed the woman's physical or mental health was in danger. The new legislation allows abortions to be performed by a doctor on request up to 22 weeks, beyond which the consent of two doctors would be required. It also makes it illegal for an unqualified person to perform an abortion, with the offence punishable by up to seven years in jail. Amendments made to appease the bill's conservative opponents include tighter regulations on late-term abortions and mandated medical care for any baby born alive following a termination procedure. New South Wales last year introduced "safe access zones" around medical clinics and hospitals that provide terminations, a measure aimed at stopping anti-abortion protesters from harassing women.

Abortion effectively decriminalised in Australia as New South Wales passes new bill

About 1,500 Argentines took to the streets of Buenos Aires on Thursday (August 08) to mark the first anniversary of a failed bill to legalise abortion in the country, with rival protests celebrating and denouncing the move.

Rival abortion protesters rally in Buenos Aires as issue divides Argentina

New Zealand on Thursday passed a bill with a resounding victory to decriminalise abortion.

The bill that ends the restrictive law in New Zealand allows women to self-refer to abortion clinics within the first 20 weeks of gestation.

The bill was passed with 94 votes in favour and 23 against it.

The earlier law&nbsp;listed abortion as a crime and was allowed only after the assent of two doctors, to save a pregnant woman's life from mental or physical danger.

Speaking in favour of the bill, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that the time was right to finally put women's dignity and their rights at the centre of this discussion. 
&nbsp;

New Zealand on Thursday passed a bill with a resounding victory to decriminalise abortion. The bill that ends the restrictive law in New Zealand allows women to self-refer to abortion clinics within the first 20 weeks of gestation.

New Zealand on Thursday passed a bill with a resounding victory to decriminalise abortion. The bill that ends the restrictive law in New Zealand allows women to self-refer to abortion clinics within the first 20 weeks of gestation. The bill was passed with 94 votes in favour and 23 against it. The earlier law listed abortion as a crime and was allowed only after the assent of two doctors, to save a pregnant woman's life from mental or physical danger. Speaking in favour of the bill, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that the time was right to finally put women's dignity and their rights at the centre of this discussion.

New Zealand passes bill to decriminalise abortion

The&nbsp;New&nbsp;Zealand&nbsp;government released long-awaited plans Monday to overhaul its abortion laws so that termination is treated as a health issue and a woman's choice rather than a crime.

Under the proposed law, a woman will have access to an abortion until 20 weeks' pregnancy and would only require a medical examination after that.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The bill, to be introduced to parliament on Thursday, will be a conscience vote rather than along party lines.

New&nbsp;Zealand&nbsp;currently has restrictive laws listing abortion as a crime, but with a loophole that gives a woman access to termination if two doctors agree a pregnancy would put her in physical or mental danger.

Government figures show there were about 13,000 abortions in&nbsp;New&nbsp;Zealand&nbsp;last year and only 57 took place after 20 weeks' pregnancy.&nbsp;

"Abortion is the only medical procedure that is still a crime in&nbsp;New&nbsp;Zealand. It's time for this to change," Justice Minister Andrew Little said when releasing details of the proposed changes, after months of wrangling within the three-party ruling coalition.&nbsp;

"This bill will modernise the laws on abortion, by removing it from the Crimes Act and bringing the law into line with many other developed countries.&nbsp;&nbsp;

"Safe abortion should be treated and regulated as a health issue; a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body."&nbsp;&nbsp;

The bill will also allow for "safe zones" 150 metres (yards) around abortion clinics to prevent women from being harassed by protesters.&nbsp;

Little said he expected the law to pass its first reading but he was unsure how many MPs would vote for it.&nbsp;&nbsp;

MPs with religious objections are likely to vote against or abstain.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The lobby group Abortion Rights Aotearoa hailed the announcement as "a huge step forward" but questioned the need for a 20-week limit.&nbsp;

The New Zealand government released long-awaited plans Monday to overhaul its abortion laws so that termination is treated as a health issue and a woman's choice rather than a crime.

The New Zealand government released long-awaited plans Monday to overhaul its abortion laws so that termination is treated as a health issue and a woman's choice rather than a crime. Under the proposed law, a woman will have access to an abortion until 20 weeks' pregnancy and would only require a medical examination after that. The bill, to be introduced to parliament on Thursday, will be a conscience vote rather than along party lines. New Zealand currently has restrictive laws listing abortion as a crime, but with a loophole that gives a woman access to termination if two doctors agree a pregnancy would put her in physical or mental danger. Government figures show there were about 13,000 abortions in New Zealand last year and only 57 took place after 20 weeks' pregnancy. "Abortion is the only medical procedure that is still a crime in New Zealand. It's time for this to change," Justice Minister Andrew Little said when releasing details of the proposed changes, after months of wrangling within the three-party ruling coalition. "This bill will modernise the laws on abortion, by removing it from the Crimes Act and bringing the law into line with many other developed countries. "Safe abortion should be treated and regulated as a health issue; a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body." The bill will also allow for "safe zones" 150 metres (yards) around abortion clinics to prevent women from being harassed by protesters. Little said he expected the law to pass its first reading but he was unsure how many MPs would vote for it. MPs with religious objections are likely to vote against or abstain. The lobby group Abortion Rights Aotearoa hailed the announcement as "a huge step forward" but questioned the need for a 20-week limit.

Proposed New Zealand abortion law to give women right to choose

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouris-sole-abortion-clinic-awaits-ruling-on-whether-it-can-stay-open-231189">abortion</a>.

A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats.&nbsp;

The top court agreed to hear the plea of women challenging the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

The trio, in their petition, stated that the act allows abortion only to save the life of the mother.&nbsp;

It submitted that the restrictions and exceptions in the act violate women's rights.&nbsp;

The issue of safe abortion and restriction on the reproductive choice of women and other incidental issues require consideration and urgent resolution by this Court since it severely, drastically and irreversibly affects all women of the country and is not a regional issue pertaining to any particular state, stated the plea.

The plea also asserted that section 3(2) (b) of the act is violative of <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-put-stay-on-installation-of-cctv-cameras-in-government-schools-235310/amp&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjgsZCs5LbjAhXH6XMBHdOZCskQFjAFegQIBhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2Vb-uvNezOp0z2buIMxZU8">Article 21</a> of the Constitution.

Section 3(2) (b) restricts the right to seek an abortion on the ground of risk to the life of pregnant woman, grave injury to her physical or mental health and substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities.&nbsp;

The Indian Penal Code was enacted including sections 312-316 which criminalized abortion unless it was for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, submitted the plea.

"The impugned provisions and the lack of access to safe abortions affects the fundamental right to health, reproductive choice and right to privacy of women of the country," it added.

The MTPA provision amounts to hostile discrimination against single women without any nexus to the object which is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, said the plea.

"The object of MTPA is to enable a woman to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy since a pregnancy entails several physical, mental and socio-economic consequences.&nbsp;

Keeping the object in view there is no rationale for not affording the same protection to an unmarried woman," it said while adding that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise abortion. A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise abortion. A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats. The top court agreed to hear the plea of women challenging the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The trio, in their petition, stated that the act allows abortion only to save the life of the mother. It submitted that the restrictions and exceptions in the act violate women's rights. The issue of safe abortion and restriction on the reproductive choice of women and other incidental issues require consideration and urgent resolution by this Court since it severely, drastically and irreversibly affects all women of the country and is not a regional issue pertaining to any particular state, stated the plea. The plea also asserted that section 3(2) (b) of the act is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 3(2) (b) restricts the right to seek an abortion on the ground of risk to the life of pregnant woman, grave injury to her physical or mental health and substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities. The Indian Penal Code was enacted including sections 312-316 which criminalized abortion unless it was for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, submitted the plea. "The impugned provisions and the lack of access to safe abortions affects the fundamental right to health, reproductive choice and right to privacy of women of the country," it added. The MTPA provision amounts to hostile discrimination against single women without any nexus to the object which is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, said the plea. "The object of MTPA is to enable a woman to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy since a pregnancy entails several physical, mental and socio-economic consequences. Keeping the object in view there is no rationale for not affording the same protection to an unmarried woman," it said while adding that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on plea seeking to decriminalise abortion

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouri-to-become-first-us-state-without-an-abortion-clinic-222383">Missouri</a>'s only abortion clinic awaited a decision on Friday whether it can stay open until August when an arbiter will hear Planned Parenthood's challenge of the state health department`s refusal to renew the clinic`s license.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/alabama-governor-signs-nations-strictest-abortion-ban-219055">Alabama governor signs nation's strictest abortion ban</a>

Planned Parenthood, the women`s healthcare and abortion provider that operates the clinic, filed a petition with Missouri's Administrative Hearing Commission on Tuesday after the group challenged the state health department`s denial in state court and a judge referred the matter to the commission.

The clinic will have to stop providing abortion services on Friday if the commission does not grant its request for an injunction to stay open until its initial hearing date on August&nbsp;1.

Missouri health officials declined to renew the St. Louis clinic`s license last week on the grounds that it failed to meet their standards. If Missouri officials succeed in closing the clinic, it would become the only US&nbsp;state without a legal abortion facility.&nbsp;

"The terrifying reality is that access is hanging on by a thread with a narrowing timeline," said Dr. Colleen McNicholas, a physician at the clinic, in a statement.

Judge Michael Stelzer issued a temporary injunction on Monday allowing the clinic to remain open until Friday at 5 pm&nbsp;CT (2200 GMT), pending the decision of the commission, which serves as an independent arbiter in disputes between state agencies and individuals or groups.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the United States. Missouri is one of 12 states to pass laws restricting abortion access this year, some aimed at provoking a US Supreme Court review of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a woman`s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy.

State officials have said one of their conditions for renewing the clinic's license was to be allowed to interview several physicians who were involved in what they said were multiple life-threatening abortions at the clinic.

Planned Parenthood officials have said they do not directly employ all the clinic`s staff and cannot force certain health workers to give interviews.

Missouri's only abortion clinic awaited a decision on Friday whether it can stay open until August when an arbiter will hear Planned Parenthood's challenge of the state health department`s refusal to renew the clinic`s license.

Missouri's only abortion clinic awaited a decision on Friday whether it can stay open until August when an arbiter will hear Planned Parenthood's challenge of the state health department`s refusal to renew the clinic`s license. Also read: Alabama governor signs nation's strictest abortion ban Planned Parenthood, the women`s healthcare and abortion provider that operates the clinic, filed a petition with Missouri's Administrative Hearing Commission on Tuesday after the group challenged the state health department`s denial in state court and a judge referred the matter to the commission. The clinic will have to stop providing abortion services on Friday if the commission does not grant its request for an injunction to stay open until its initial hearing date on August 1. Missouri health officials declined to renew the St. Louis clinic`s license last week on the grounds that it failed to meet their standards. If Missouri officials succeed in closing the clinic, it would become the only US state without a legal abortion facility. "The terrifying reality is that access is hanging on by a thread with a narrowing timeline," said Dr. Colleen McNicholas, a physician at the clinic, in a statement. Judge Michael Stelzer issued a temporary injunction on Monday allowing the clinic to remain open until Friday at 5 pm CT (2200 GMT), pending the decision of the commission, which serves as an independent arbiter in disputes between state agencies and individuals or groups. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the United States. Missouri is one of 12 states to pass laws restricting abortion access this year, some aimed at provoking a US Supreme Court review of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a woman`s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy. State officials have said one of their conditions for renewing the clinic's license was to be allowed to interview several physicians who were involved in what they said were multiple life-threatening abortions at the clinic. Planned Parenthood officials have said they do not directly employ all the clinic`s staff and cannot force certain health workers to give interviews.

Missouri's sole abortion clinic awaits ruling on whether it can stay open

The only <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouri-to-become-first-us-state-without-an-abortion-clinic-222383">abortion clinic</a> in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouri-secretary-of-state-blocks-referendum-on-heartbeat-abortion-law-225145">Missouri</a> can stay open after a St. Louis judge issued a preliminary injunction on Monday saying the state must make an "official" decision on the facility`s license before it can be reviewed, a court document showed.&nbsp;

Women`s healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood sued Missouri two weeks ago after state health officials refused to renew the license of the Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis.

Court documents show state health officials said they did not renew because they were unable to interview seven of its physicians over "potential deficient practices."

If the facility`s license is not renewed, Missouri would become the only US&nbsp;state without an abortion clinic since the Supreme Court`s landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide and recognized a woman`s right to terminate her pregnancy.

The injunction issued by State Circuit Court Judge Michael Stelzer said Missouri must make a final decision by June 21 on whether or not to renew the clinic`s license to perform abortions, which was due to expire on May 31, before the decision can be reviewed.&nbsp;

The state must make an `official action` in order for Planned Parenthood to be entitled to review, Stelzer wrote, and scheduled a status hearing for the same day.&nbsp;

He also wrote the state`s Administrative Hearing Commission and not the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction and authority to rule on any decision denying the clinic`s license.

Divisive issue

Planned Parenthood welcomed the ruling.

"Though the looming threat to safe, legal abortion is far from gone, we’ll keep up the fight to protect abortion access in Missouri and across the country. To our patients across the country, we’ve got your back — our doors are open," it said on Twitter.&nbsp;

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the United States, with opponents often citing religious beliefs to call it immoral. A string of states have passed legislation restricting abortion in recent months.

The legal battle began after Missouri Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, signed a bill on May 24 banning abortion beginning in the eighth week of pregnancy, making Missouri one of nine US states to pass anti-abortion legislation this year.

Anti-abortion activists have said they hope to prompt the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade by enacting laws such as Missouri`s, which are assured of facing court challenges.

The only abortion clinic in Missouri can stay open after a St. Louis judge issued a preliminary injunction on Monday saying the state must make an "official" decision on the facility`s license before it can be reviewed, a court document showed.

The only abortion clinic in Missouri can stay open after a St. Louis judge issued a preliminary injunction on Monday saying the state must make an "official" decision on the facility`s license before it can be reviewed, a court document showed. Women`s healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood sued Missouri two weeks ago after state health officials refused to renew the license of the Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis. Court documents show state health officials said they did not renew because they were unable to interview seven of its physicians over "potential deficient practices." If the facility`s license is not renewed, Missouri would become the only US state without an abortion clinic since the Supreme Court`s landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide and recognized a woman`s right to terminate her pregnancy. The injunction issued by State Circuit Court Judge Michael Stelzer said Missouri must make a final decision by June 21 on whether or not to renew the clinic`s license to perform abortions, which was due to expire on May 31, before the decision can be reviewed. The state must make an `official action` in order for Planned Parenthood to be entitled to review, Stelzer wrote, and scheduled a status hearing for the same day. He also wrote the state`s Administrative Hearing Commission and not the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction and authority to rule on any decision denying the clinic`s license. Divisive issue Planned Parenthood welcomed the ruling. "Though the looming threat to safe, legal abortion is far from gone, we’ll keep up the fight to protect abortion access in Missouri and across the country. To our patients across the country, we’ve got your back — our doors are open," it said on Twitter. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the United States, with opponents often citing religious beliefs to call it immoral. A string of states have passed legislation restricting abortion in recent months. The legal battle began after Missouri Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, signed a bill on May 24 banning abortion beginning in the eighth week of pregnancy, making Missouri one of nine US states to pass anti-abortion legislation this year. Anti-abortion activists have said they hope to prompt the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade by enacting laws such as Missouri`s, which are assured of facing court challenges.

Missouri's only abortion clinic to stay open after injunction issued

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

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouri-to-become-first-us-state-without-an-abortion-clinic-222383">Missouri`s only abortion clinic </a>will stay open at least a few more days after a judge on Friday granted a request by Planned Parenthood for a temporary restraining order, allowing the facility to keep operating until a hearing on Tuesday.

Planned Parenthood sued Missouri this week after state health officials said the license for Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood in St. Louis was in jeopardy, meaning the clinic could have closed at midnight unless the judge granted the request for a temporary restraining order.

"This is a great day for the people of Missouri, but the fight is not over," David Eisenberg, the medical director for Planned Parenthood in St. Louis, said at a news conference. "We want our patients to know that our doors are still open and we will always fight for your rights and your health care."

Representatives for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services could not be immediately reached for comment.&nbsp;

Health officials had refused to renew the clinic`s license because they said, they were unable to interview seven of its physicians over "potential deficient practices," according to documents filed in a state circuit court in St. Louis.&nbsp;

The legal battle in St. Louis comes a week after Missouri Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, signed a bill banning abortion beginning in the eighth week of pregnancy, making Missouri one of nine US states to pass anti-abortion legislation this year.

On Friday, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Michael Stelzer said the clinic`s license would remain in effect until a ruling is made on Planned Parenthood`s request for a preliminary injunction against the state. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for 9 am (10 am ET) on Tuesday.

If the judge had ruled against Planned Parenthood, the clinic`s license would have expired at midnight, making Missouri the only US state without an abortion clinic since the Supreme Court`s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that established a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.

Parson said the state will soon have the opportunity for a prompt legal review of what he called the "serious health and safety concerns" of regulators regarding the facility.

"We are committed to and take seriously our duty to ensure that all health facilities in Missouri follow the law, abide by regulations, and protect the safety of patients," Parson said in a statement.

Outside the clinic on Friday, a handful of anti-abortion protesters stood holding "Choose Life" signs.

"Planned Parenthood is not above the law," said Mary Maschmeier, founder of the Defenders of the Unborn, an anti-abortion organization. "The deal is done when we have human life amendment and when Roe v. Wade is overturned."

Abortion is one of the most socially divisive issues in US politics, with opponents often citing religious beliefs to call it immoral, while abortion-rights advocates say the bans amount to state control of women`s bodies.

Anti-abortion activists say they aim to prompt the newly installed conservative majority on the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade by enacting laws that are virtually assured of facing court challenges.

A series of prominent US media companies said they will rethink working in Georgia if a new state law takes effect, banning abortions as soon as a foetal heartbeat can be detected by doctors. That standard effectively bans abortions at about six weeks into a pregnancy, before some women would even be aware they were pregnant.

Those companies include AT&amp;T Inc`s WarnerMedia, CBS Corp, Viacom Inc, Comcast Corp`s NBCUniversal, AMC Networks Inc, Walt Disney Co and Netflix Inc.

Missouri`s only abortion clinic will stay open at least a few more days after a judge on Friday granted a request by Planned Parenthood for a temporary restraining order, allowing the facility to keep operating until a hearing on Tuesday.

Missouri`s only abortion clinic will stay open at least a few more days after a judge on Friday granted a request by Planned Parenthood for a temporary restraining order, allowing the facility to keep operating until a hearing on Tuesday. Planned Parenthood sued Missouri this week after state health officials said the license for Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood in St. Louis was in jeopardy, meaning the clinic could have closed at midnight unless the judge granted the request for a temporary restraining order. "This is a great day for the people of Missouri, but the fight is not over," David Eisenberg, the medical director for Planned Parenthood in St. Louis, said at a news conference. "We want our patients to know that our doors are still open and we will always fight for your rights and your health care." Representatives for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services could not be immediately reached for comment. Health officials had refused to renew the clinic`s license because they said, they were unable to interview seven of its physicians over "potential deficient practices," according to documents filed in a state circuit court in St. Louis. The legal battle in St. Louis comes a week after Missouri Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, signed a bill banning abortion beginning in the eighth week of pregnancy, making Missouri one of nine US states to pass anti-abortion legislation this year. On Friday, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Michael Stelzer said the clinic`s license would remain in effect until a ruling is made on Planned Parenthood`s request for a preliminary injunction against the state. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for 9 am (10 am ET) on Tuesday. If the judge had ruled against Planned Parenthood, the clinic`s license would have expired at midnight, making Missouri the only US state without an abortion clinic since the Supreme Court`s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that established a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. Parson said the state will soon have the opportunity for a prompt legal review of what he called the "serious health and safety concerns" of regulators regarding the facility. "We are committed to and take seriously our duty to ensure that all health facilities in Missouri follow the law, abide by regulations, and protect the safety of patients," Parson said in a statement. Outside the clinic on Friday, a handful of anti-abortion protesters stood holding "Choose Life" signs. "Planned Parenthood is not above the law," said Mary Maschmeier, founder of the Defenders of the Unborn, an anti-abortion organization. "The deal is done when we have human life amendment and when Roe v. Wade is overturned." Abortion is one of the most socially divisive issues in US politics, with opponents often citing religious beliefs to call it immoral, while abortion-rights advocates say the bans amount to state control of women`s bodies. Anti-abortion activists say they aim to prompt the newly installed conservative majority on the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade by enacting laws that are virtually assured of facing court challenges. A series of prominent US media companies said they will rethink working in Georgia if a new state law takes effect, banning abortions as soon as a foetal heartbeat can be detected by doctors. That standard effectively bans abortions at about six weeks into a pregnancy, before some women would even be aware they were pregnant. Those companies include AT&T Inc`s WarnerMedia, CBS Corp, Viacom Inc, Comcast Corp`s NBCUniversal, AMC Networks Inc, Walt Disney Co and Netflix Inc.

Missouri abortion clinic to stay open for now after court order

US Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday waded into the growing debate in the United States about the hot-button <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouri-to-become-first-us-state-without-an-abortion-clinic-222383">issue of abortion,</a> urging the Supreme Court to bar "selective" abortions based on sex, race or potential disability of the fetus.

The comments by Pence, a devout Christian who signed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/alabama-senate-bans-nearly-all-abortions-including-rape-cases-218840">anti-abortion bills </a>while serving as governor of Indiana, coincide with moves by Republican-led legislatures in several states to restrict access to the procedure.

Opponents of abortion are seeking to eventually challenge the 1973 US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Roe vs Wade, which made abortion legal nationwide.

In the latest moves, the only abortion clinic in Missouri may be forced to close and the legislature in Louisiana inched closer to passing a bill that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

Early on Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld part of an Indiana law signed during Pence's tenure as governor that requires the remains of aborted fetuses to be cremated or buried, but sidestepped a separate case on the "selective" abortions clause.

A lower court had struck that segment of the law down, and the Supreme Court said it would not weigh in until other appellate courts do so.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/heated-abortion-rights-rallies-sweep-the-us-220601/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Pence's office welcomed the ruling on the disposal of remains of aborted fetuses and said it remained "hopeful that at a later date the Supreme Court will review one of numerous state laws across the US that bar abortion based on sex, race, or disability."

"Countries across the globe prohibit selective abortion -- and the United States should do the same," said the statement from Pence's press secretary Alyssa Farah.

The two Indiana cases were being closely watched as an indicator of how the top court -- which now has a conservative majority -- may eventually decide on the divisive issue, should it choose to accept a case.

The southern state of Alabama passed a bill this month that amounts to a near-total ban on ending a pregnancy, even in cases of rape and incest.

Performing an abortion would be a crime that could land doctors in prison for 10 to 99 years. Abortions would only be legal if the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus has a fatal condition.

'Public health crisis'

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has appointed two conservative justices -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- and liberal members of the court are now outnumbered five to four.

Conservative-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as the potential swing vote if the constitutionality of abortion eventually comes before the court.

In Missouri, Planned Parenthood warned Tuesday that the only abortion clinic in the midwestern state risks being shut down on Friday if the state health department does not renew its license.

"This is a real public health crisis," said Leana Wen, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which provides abortions and reproductive health care.

"Missouri would be the first state in the country to go dark -- without a health centre that provides safe, legal abortion care," said Wen, who herself is a doctor.

"More than a million women of reproductive age in Missouri will no longer have access to a health centre in the state they live in that provides abortion care."

In Louisiana, legislation is moving forward that would ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat has been detected, which can be as early as six weeks. Several other states have passed similar laws including Georgia.

The state's Democratic governor has indicated that he may sign it if it reaches his desk.

In another development, Netflix said it would reconsider its investment in Georgia should a controversial abortion law in the southern state, known as the Hollywood of the South, go into effect.

"We have many women working on productions in Georgia, whose rights, along with millions of others, will be severely restricted by this law," Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos said in a statement to Variety.

"Given the legislation has not yet been implemented, we'll continue to film there -- while also supporting partners and artists who choose not to," Sarandos said.&nbsp;

"Should it ever come into effect, we'd rethink our entire investment in Georgia."

Following adoption of the law in Georgia, where a number of blockbusters, including "Avengers: Infinity War" and "Black Panther," as well as TV series are shot, there have been mounting calls for Hollywood to snub the state.

Such a move would lead to major economic losses for Georgia, which last year reported some 92,000 jobs and an economic impact of more than $9 billion from film and TV production.

US Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday waded into the growing debate in the United States about the hot-button issue of abortion, urging the Supreme Court to bar "selective" abortions based on sex, race or potential disability of the fetus.

US Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday waded into the growing debate in the United States about the hot-button issue of abortion, urging the Supreme Court to bar "selective" abortions based on sex, race or potential disability of the fetus. The comments by Pence, a devout Christian who signed anti-abortion bills while serving as governor of Indiana, coincide with moves by Republican-led legislatures in several states to restrict access to the procedure. Opponents of abortion are seeking to eventually challenge the 1973 US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Roe vs Wade, which made abortion legal nationwide. In the latest moves, the only abortion clinic in Missouri may be forced to close and the legislature in Louisiana inched closer to passing a bill that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Early on Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld part of an Indiana law signed during Pence's tenure as governor that requires the remains of aborted fetuses to be cremated or buried, but sidestepped a separate case on the "selective" abortions clause. A lower court had struck that segment of the law down, and the Supreme Court said it would not weigh in until other appellate courts do so. × Pence's office welcomed the ruling on the disposal of remains of aborted fetuses and said it remained "hopeful that at a later date the Supreme Court will review one of numerous state laws across the US that bar abortion based on sex, race, or disability." "Countries across the globe prohibit selective abortion -- and the United States should do the same," said the statement from Pence's press secretary Alyssa Farah. The two Indiana cases were being closely watched as an indicator of how the top court -- which now has a conservative majority -- may eventually decide on the divisive issue, should it choose to accept a case. The southern state of Alabama passed a bill this month that amounts to a near-total ban on ending a pregnancy, even in cases of rape and incest. Performing an abortion would be a crime that could land doctors in prison for 10 to 99 years. Abortions would only be legal if the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus has a fatal condition. 'Public health crisis' Since taking office, President Donald Trump has appointed two conservative justices -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- and liberal members of the court are now outnumbered five to four. Conservative-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as the potential swing vote if the constitutionality of abortion eventually comes before the court. In Missouri, Planned Parenthood warned Tuesday that the only abortion clinic in the midwestern state risks being shut down on Friday if the state health department does not renew its license. "This is a real public health crisis," said Leana Wen, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which provides abortions and reproductive health care. "Missouri would be the first state in the country to go dark -- without a health centre that provides safe, legal abortion care," said Wen, who herself is a doctor. "More than a million women of reproductive age in Missouri will no longer have access to a health centre in the state they live in that provides abortion care." In Louisiana, legislation is moving forward that would ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat has been detected, which can be as early as six weeks. Several other states have passed similar laws including Georgia. The state's Democratic governor has indicated that he may sign it if it reaches his desk. In another development, Netflix said it would reconsider its investment in Georgia should a controversial abortion law in the southern state, known as the Hollywood of the South, go into effect. "We have many women working on productions in Georgia, whose rights, along with millions of others, will be severely restricted by this law," Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos said in a statement to Variety. "Given the legislation has not yet been implemented, we'll continue to film there -- while also supporting partners and artists who choose not to," Sarandos said. "Should it ever come into effect, we'd rethink our entire investment in Georgia." Following adoption of the law in Georgia, where a number of blockbusters, including "Avengers: Infinity War" and "Black Panther," as well as TV series are shot, there have been mounting calls for Hollywood to snub the state. Such a move would lead to major economic losses for Georgia, which last year reported some 92,000 jobs and an economic impact of more than $9 billion from film and TV production.

US vice president Mike Pence calls on US Supreme Court to take up 'selective' abortion

abortion

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