US abortion rights may soon be consigned to the "ash heap of history," former vice president Mike Pence told activists Tuesday on the eve of a crucial Supreme Court hearing.

As the top court -- which shifted to the right under Donald Trump -- prepares to hear a case that may roll back 50 years of abortion rights, anti-abortion activists believe their moment may have finally arrived.

And Trump's former deputy, known for his firm Christian faith and conservative family values, said he was confident the landmark 1973 court decision guaranteeing a woman's right to abortion would be struck down.

"I do believe that Roe versus Wade will be overturned, whether it's now or in the near future," the Republican said in a Washington speech.

"I believe with all my heart that day will come," added the 62-year-old.

The case before justices on Wednesday regards a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court has previously guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, which is typically around 22 to 24 weeks.

Pence said the high court has a chance to right a "historic wrong" once and for all by ultimately invalidating Roe and handing authority on the matter back to the states.

"It will not come as a surprise. It will simply be the culmination of a 50-year journey," Pence said. "We have not struggled for so long... to turn back so close to the finishing line."

A segment of the American population, particularly on the political right and religious Christians, has never fully accepted the 1973 abortion ruling and has waged a full-fledged fight to have it overturned.

Abortion opponents for years have mobilized near health clinics seeking to discourage women against terminating their pregnancies and shame doctors who perform the procedures.

At the same time, in conservative states mostly in the US South, emboldened legislatures have passed hundreds of restrictive laws, some of which directly contravene Roe's constitutional guarantee of abortion rights -- and therefore provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

The anti-abortion movement received a massive boost when Trump, aided by Republicans in the US Senate, installed three judges believed to have anti-abortion leanings on the high court, bringing the conservative majority to six of nine justices.

With such an advantage in place, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony List, said she was "very hopeful" that the court will overturn or at least "hobble" Roe.

US abortion rights may soon be consigned to the "ash heap of history," former vice president Mike Pence told activists Tuesday on the eve of a crucial Supreme Court hearing.

US abortion rights may soon be consigned to the "ash heap of history," former vice president Mike Pence told activists Tuesday on the eve of a crucial Supreme Court hearing. As the top court -- which shifted to the right under Donald Trump -- prepares to hear a case that may roll back 50 years of abortion rights, anti-abortion activists believe their moment may have finally arrived. And Trump's former deputy, known for his firm Christian faith and conservative family values, said he was confident the landmark 1973 court decision guaranteeing a woman's right to abortion would be struck down. "I do believe that Roe versus Wade will be overturned, whether it's now or in the near future," the Republican said in a Washington speech. "I believe with all my heart that day will come," added the 62-year-old. The case before justices on Wednesday regards a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court has previously guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, which is typically around 22 to 24 weeks. Pence said the high court has a chance to right a "historic wrong" once and for all by ultimately invalidating Roe and handing authority on the matter back to the states. "It will not come as a surprise. It will simply be the culmination of a 50-year journey," Pence said. "We have not struggled for so long... to turn back so close to the finishing line." A segment of the American population, particularly on the political right and religious Christians, has never fully accepted the 1973 abortion ruling and has waged a full-fledged fight to have it overturned. Abortion opponents for years have mobilized near health clinics seeking to discourage women against terminating their pregnancies and shame doctors who perform the procedures. At the same time, in conservative states mostly in the US South, emboldened legislatures have passed hundreds of restrictive laws, some of which directly contravene Roe's constitutional guarantee of abortion rights -- and therefore provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. The anti-abortion movement received a massive boost when Trump, aided by Republicans in the US Senate, installed three judges believed to have anti-abortion leanings on the high court, bringing the conservative majority to six of nine justices. With such an advantage in place, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony List, said she was "very hopeful" that the court will overturn or at least "hobble" Roe.

In US, Pence and allies eye end to 50 years of abortion rights

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state.

That would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in September that allowed the law to go into effect. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority in that ruling, asked questions suggesting that they thought the novel structure of the Texas law justified allowing the providers to challenge it.

Kavanaugh said that might amount to closing a loophole. Barrett said the law was structured to prevent the providers from presenting a “full constitutional defence.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/cop26-why-the-world-is-worried-about-china-and-co2-levels-425836">Also read |&nbsp;COP26: Why the world is worried about China and CO2 levels</a>

Such a decision would not conclude the case or address whether the law itself is constitutional. Instead, it would return the case to lower courts for further proceedings. It was, moreover, not clear whether the court would temporarily block the law while the case moved forward if it allowed either the providers or the administration to sue.

The law, which went into effect on Sept. 1, was drafted to evade review in federal court, a goal the state has so far achieved. The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks and includes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, has caused clinics in the state to turn away many women seeking the procedure.

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state.

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state. That would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in September that allowed the law to go into effect. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority in that ruling, asked questions suggesting that they thought the novel structure of the Texas law justified allowing the providers to challenge it. Kavanaugh said that might amount to closing a loophole. Barrett said the law was structured to prevent the providers from presenting a “full constitutional defence.” Also read | COP26: Why the world is worried about China and CO2 levels Such a decision would not conclude the case or address whether the law itself is constitutional. Instead, it would return the case to lower courts for further proceedings. It was, moreover, not clear whether the court would temporarily block the law while the case moved forward if it allowed either the providers or the administration to sue. The law, which went into effect on Sept. 1, was drafted to evade review in federal court, a goal the state has so far achieved. The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks and includes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, has caused clinics in the state to turn away many women seeking the procedure.

Supreme court hints it may allow challenge to Texas abortion law

After US President Joe Biden met Pope Francis, the former gave an unusual answer on Friday on being asked whether abortion was discussed in their 90-minute meeting at the Vatican. &nbsp;

When asked if "the issue of abortion [came] up at all" during the meeting, Biden told reporters, “No, it didn’t. It came up. We just talked about the fact he was happy that I was a good Catholic, and I should keep receiving communion."

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/to-settle-us-charges-of-tax-evasion-russian-billionaire-pays-500-million-425174">To settle US charges of tax evasion, Russian billionaire pays $500 million</a>&nbsp;

In the United States, the president’s pro-abortion rights stance has irked some Catholics. It includes 168 bishops, who are trying to block the president from receiving communion. In June, the Vatican shot down the suggestion. Pope Francis has still not publicly commented on the subject. &nbsp;

During the meeting, US reporters, photographers and television crews, who are traveling with the president, were barred. The Vatican supplied a heavily edited video of the event. The meeting was described as lighthearted by senior administration officials. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/prince-andrew-asks-us-court-to-dismiss-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-425176">Prince Andrew asks US court to dismiss sexual harassment lawsuit</a>

"The engagement between the two was very warm when the delegation arrived in the room. There was laughter and clear rapport between President Biden and Pope Francis," said a White House official. &nbsp;

"President Biden thanked His Holiness for his advocacy for the world’s poor and those suffering from hunger, conflict, and persecution. He also lauded Pope Francis’ leadership in fighting the climate crisis, as well as his advocacy to ensure the pandemic ends for everyone through vaccine sharing and an equitable global economic recovery," noted the White House's readout of the meeting. &nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

After US President Joe Biden met Pope Francis, the former gave an unusual answer on Friday on being asked whether abortion was discussed in their 90-minute meeting at the Vatican.

After US President Joe Biden met Pope Francis, the former gave an unusual answer on Friday on being asked whether abortion was discussed in their 90-minute meeting at the Vatican. When asked if "the issue of abortion [came] up at all" during the meeting, Biden told reporters, “No, it didn’t. It came up. We just talked about the fact he was happy that I was a good Catholic, and I should keep receiving communion." Also Read: To settle US charges of tax evasion, Russian billionaire pays $500 million In the United States, the president’s pro-abortion rights stance has irked some Catholics. It includes 168 bishops, who are trying to block the president from receiving communion. In June, the Vatican shot down the suggestion. Pope Francis has still not publicly commented on the subject. During the meeting, US reporters, photographers and television crews, who are traveling with the president, were barred. The Vatican supplied a heavily edited video of the event. The meeting was described as lighthearted by senior administration officials. Also Read: Prince Andrew asks US court to dismiss sexual harassment lawsuit "The engagement between the two was very warm when the delegation arrived in the room. There was laughter and clear rapport between President Biden and Pope Francis," said a White House official. "President Biden thanked His Holiness for his advocacy for the world’s poor and those suffering from hunger, conflict, and persecution. He also lauded Pope Francis’ leadership in fighting the climate crisis, as well as his advocacy to ensure the pandemic ends for everyone through vaccine sharing and an equitable global economic recovery," noted the White House's readout of the meeting. (With inputs from agencies)

After meeting with pope, US President Joe Biden gives bizarre answer on abortion

A fierce debate has started between human rights activists and the Catholic church in Bolivia. The topic is the fate of an 11-year-old girl, who became pregnant after being raped by a family member. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Religious groups seek to force her to complete the pregnancy and give birth while the human rights activists want just the opposite.. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/male-students-at-uk-universities-admit-to-rape-and-sexual-assault-research-reveals-425170" hreflang="en">Male students at UK universities admit to rape and sexual assault, research reveals</a>

After being repeatedly raped and suffering other sexual abuse by the father of her stepfather, the girl was impregnated in Yapacaní town in eastern Santa Cruz region, Bolivia. &nbsp;

As her parents used to work in La Paz, the girl was living with her sisters and 61-year-old step-grandfather, who is now in jail for the crime. &nbsp;

Bolivia has one of highest levels of inter-familiar sexual violence and abuse in Latin America. Some activists call it a culture of rape.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/couple-sentenced-to-10-months-jail-for-oral-sex-pic-outside-mexico-cathedral-425302" hreflang="en">Couple sentenced to 10 months jail for 'oral sex' pic outside Mexico cathedral</a>&nbsp;

After religious groups contacted the victim’s mother and persuaded her to oppose the termination of the pregnancy, the intervention of the Catholic Church is being questioned severely. This move has prompted legal action by the Bolivian human rights ombudsman’s office. &nbsp;

Ana Paola García, executive director, La Casa de la Mujer, a Bolivian women’s rights NGO, said, “The girl didn’t even know what it meant to be pregnant; she told her cousin that she felt something moving inside her tummy. Her cousin told her mother – the girl’s aunt – who reported it to the police.” &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

A fierce debate has started between human rights activists and the Catholic church in Bolivia. The topic is the fate of an 11-year-old girl, who became pregnant after being raped by a family member.

A fierce debate has started between human rights activists and the Catholic church in Bolivia. The topic is the fate of an 11-year-old girl, who became pregnant after being raped by a family member. Religious groups seek to force her to complete the pregnancy and give birth while the human rights activists want just the opposite.. Also Read: Male students at UK universities admit to rape and sexual assault, research reveals After being repeatedly raped and suffering other sexual abuse by the father of her stepfather, the girl was impregnated in Yapacaní town in eastern Santa Cruz region, Bolivia. As her parents used to work in La Paz, the girl was living with her sisters and 61-year-old step-grandfather, who is now in jail for the crime. Bolivia has one of highest levels of inter-familiar sexual violence and abuse in Latin America. Some activists call it a culture of rape. Also Read: Couple sentenced to 10 months jail for 'oral sex' pic outside Mexico cathedral After religious groups contacted the victim’s mother and persuaded her to oppose the termination of the pregnancy, the intervention of the Catholic Church is being questioned severely. This move has prompted legal action by the Bolivian human rights ombudsman’s office. Ana Paola García, executive director, La Casa de la Mujer, a Bolivian women’s rights NGO, said, “The girl didn’t even know what it meant to be pregnant; she told her cousin that she felt something moving inside her tummy. Her cousin told her mother – the girl’s aunt – who reported it to the police.” (With inputs from agencies)

Fierce abortion debate begins as 11-year-old Bolivian girl raped by family member becomes pregnant

The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on November 1 legal challenges to a restrictive abortion law passed in Texas, but meanwhile declined to block the controversial law. President Joe Biden's administration and abortion providers have been asked the court to reverse this Texas law.

US' Supreme Court refuses to block Texas' controversial abortion law

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov. 1.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent.

“For the second time, the court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas,” she wrote. “For the second time, the court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.”

But she added she welcomed the court’s decision to hear arguments in the two cases, which will apparently be limited to the procedural question of whether the Texas law, SB 8, is subject to review in federal court given its novel structure.

The court said it would decide this question in the federal government’s appeal: “May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8 from being enforced?”

The court turned down a request from officials in Texas to use the cases to decide whether to overturn the right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-american-neera-tanden-appointed-bidens-staff-secretary-reports-423070">Also read |&nbsp;Indian-American Neera Tanden appointed Biden's staff secretary: Reports</a>

That question is already before the court in a case challenging a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. Roe and other Supreme Court precedents, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The Mississippi case will be argued Dec. 1, a month after the Texas case.

The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, was designed to evade review in federal court.

Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. However, the Texas law, which makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape, bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputises private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it.

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counsellors, people who help pay for the procedure or drive them to it are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

The Supreme Court’s earlier encounter with the case left the justices bitterly divided.

In an unsigned opinion in that earlier case, the majority cited “complex and novel” procedural obstacles to blocking the law and stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the law.

The majority wrote that its ruling “in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.” Officials in Texas have said that providers can challenge the law by violating it, getting sued and asserting the law’s unconstitutionality as part of their defence.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three more liberal members in dissent in the earlier case. All four dissenting justices filed opinions.

“The court’s order is stunning,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent at the time. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

“The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation,” Sotomayor wrote. “The court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.”

Roberts wrote that he would have blocked the law while appeals moved forward.

“The statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” he wrote. “The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.”

After the Supreme Court rejected the providers’ request for emergency relief, the Justice Department then filed its own challenge to the law, one that it said was not subject to the procedural barriers the providers had faced.

On Oct. 6, Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court in Austin ruled for the federal government, granting it a preliminary injunction forbidding the state, its officials and private individuals acting in concert with them for enforcing the law.

“That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide,” he wrote. “This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”

An injunction was an appropriate response, Pitman wrote, to a law that both violated the Constitution and was designed to evade judicial review.

“Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional,” he wrote, “the state contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, stayed Pitman’s ruling, reinstating the law. The Justice Department then filed an application asking the Supreme Court to lift the stay.

“SB 8 is plainly unconstitutional under this court’s precedents,” wrote Brian Fletcher, the acting solicitor general. “Texas has not seriously argued otherwise.”

“SB 8 is an affront to the United States’ sovereign interests in maintaining the supremacy of federal law and ensuring that the traditional mechanisms of judicial review endorsed by Congress and this court remain available to challenge unconstitutional state laws,” he wrote.

Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, responded that the federal government was powerless to challenge the state’s abortion law.

“At bottom, the federal government’s complaint is that SB 8 is difficult to effectively enjoin,” Paxton wrote. “But there is no requirement that a state write its laws such that they can be easily enjoined.”

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov.

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov. 1. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent. “For the second time, the court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas,” she wrote. “For the second time, the court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.” But she added she welcomed the court’s decision to hear arguments in the two cases, which will apparently be limited to the procedural question of whether the Texas law, SB 8, is subject to review in federal court given its novel structure. The court said it would decide this question in the federal government’s appeal: “May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8 from being enforced?” The court turned down a request from officials in Texas to use the cases to decide whether to overturn the right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. Also read | Indian-American Neera Tanden appointed Biden's staff secretary: Reports That question is already before the court in a case challenging a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. Roe and other Supreme Court precedents, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The Mississippi case will be argued Dec. 1, a month after the Texas case. The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, was designed to evade review in federal court. Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. However, the Texas law, which makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape, bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputises private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it. The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counsellors, people who help pay for the procedure or drive them to it are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees. The Supreme Court’s earlier encounter with the case left the justices bitterly divided. In an unsigned opinion in that earlier case, the majority cited “complex and novel” procedural obstacles to blocking the law and stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the law. The majority wrote that its ruling “in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.” Officials in Texas have said that providers can challenge the law by violating it, getting sued and asserting the law’s unconstitutionality as part of their defence. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three more liberal members in dissent in the earlier case. All four dissenting justices filed opinions. “The court’s order is stunning,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent at the time. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.” “The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation,” Sotomayor wrote. “The court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.” Roberts wrote that he would have blocked the law while appeals moved forward. “The statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” he wrote. “The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.” After the Supreme Court rejected the providers’ request for emergency relief, the Justice Department then filed its own challenge to the law, one that it said was not subject to the procedural barriers the providers had faced. On Oct. 6, Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court in Austin ruled for the federal government, granting it a preliminary injunction forbidding the state, its officials and private individuals acting in concert with them for enforcing the law. “That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide,” he wrote. “This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.” An injunction was an appropriate response, Pitman wrote, to a law that both violated the Constitution and was designed to evade judicial review. “Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional,” he wrote, “the state contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.” A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, stayed Pitman’s ruling, reinstating the law. The Justice Department then filed an application asking the Supreme Court to lift the stay. “SB 8 is plainly unconstitutional under this court’s precedents,” wrote Brian Fletcher, the acting solicitor general. “Texas has not seriously argued otherwise.” “SB 8 is an affront to the United States’ sovereign interests in maintaining the supremacy of federal law and ensuring that the traditional mechanisms of judicial review endorsed by Congress and this court remain available to challenge unconstitutional state laws,” he wrote. Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, responded that the federal government was powerless to challenge the state’s abortion law. “At bottom, the federal government’s complaint is that SB 8 is difficult to effectively enjoin,” Paxton wrote. “But there is no requirement that a state write its laws such that they can be easily enjoined.”

Supreme Court again refuses to block Texas abortion law

The Biden administration will ask the Supreme Court to block a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while a challenge to it moves forward, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said Friday.

A ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday kept in place its own previous order last week that had temporarily allowed the law to be enforced again, overturning a federal district judge in Austin, Texas, who had temporarily blocked its enforcement.

“The Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit’s stay of the preliminary injunction against Texas Senate Bill 8,” the spokesperson, Anthony Coley, said in a statement.

The 2-1 decision by a three-judge appeals panel dealt the Biden administration a significant setback, as it seeks to undo a law that has virtually ended abortions in Texas.

The Texas law, one of the strictest in the country, bans abortions when cardiac activity is detected, which happens at around six weeks of pregnancy, a time when women may not yet know they are pregnant. It also makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

The law immediately stopped most abortions in Texas when it went into effect at the start of September, after the Supreme Court declined to intervene. Demand at clinics in nearby states such as Oklahoma has surged as women in Texas seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy have been forced to travel out of state.

The Justice Department is suing Texas over the law’s unique enforcement mechanism, which it claims violates the Constitution by using private parties to enforce the law, rather then the state. This lets Texas technically comply with court decisions that say states may not prohibit abortion.

The law encourages private parties to bring lawsuits against anyone accused of performing or aiding in an abortion that violates the statute by granting $10,000 to plaintiffs that successfully sue.

Attorney General Merrick Garland called the enforcement mechanism an “unprecedented” effort to bar women from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.

The department argued in its lawsuit that the Texas law is invalid under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which gives federal law precedence over state law, and under the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment.

A federal district judge last week granted the department’s request to halt enforcement of the law while the legal challenge makes its way through the court system, delivering a short-lived win to the Biden administration. But two days later, the appeals panel intervened.

The Biden administration will ask the Supreme Court to block a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while a challenge to it moves forward, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said Friday.

The Biden administration will ask the Supreme Court to block a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while a challenge to it moves forward, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said Friday. A ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday kept in place its own previous order last week that had temporarily allowed the law to be enforced again, overturning a federal district judge in Austin, Texas, who had temporarily blocked its enforcement. “The Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit’s stay of the preliminary injunction against Texas Senate Bill 8,” the spokesperson, Anthony Coley, said in a statement. The 2-1 decision by a three-judge appeals panel dealt the Biden administration a significant setback, as it seeks to undo a law that has virtually ended abortions in Texas. The Texas law, one of the strictest in the country, bans abortions when cardiac activity is detected, which happens at around six weeks of pregnancy, a time when women may not yet know they are pregnant. It also makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The law immediately stopped most abortions in Texas when it went into effect at the start of September, after the Supreme Court declined to intervene. Demand at clinics in nearby states such as Oklahoma has surged as women in Texas seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy have been forced to travel out of state. The Justice Department is suing Texas over the law’s unique enforcement mechanism, which it claims violates the Constitution by using private parties to enforce the law, rather then the state. This lets Texas technically comply with court decisions that say states may not prohibit abortion. The law encourages private parties to bring lawsuits against anyone accused of performing or aiding in an abortion that violates the statute by granting $10,000 to plaintiffs that successfully sue. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the enforcement mechanism an “unprecedented” effort to bar women from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. The department argued in its lawsuit that the Texas law is invalid under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which gives federal law precedence over state law, and under the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment. A federal district judge last week granted the department’s request to halt enforcement of the law while the legal challenge makes its way through the court system, delivering a short-lived win to the Biden administration. But two days later, the appeals panel intervened.

Justice dept to ask Supreme Court to block Texas’ near-total abortion ban

Health workers have a non-negotiable right to exercise conscientious objection by refusing to participate in an abortion, Pope Francis said on Thursday, calling the procedure "murder".

It was at least the third time in a month that the pope has spoken out strongly against abortion, which has become a major political issue in a number of countries, including the United States.

Last week a US&nbsp;appeals court temporarily reinstated Texas's restrictive abortion law, which bars the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy and outsources enforcement of the ban to ordinary citizens.

"Today it has become a bit fashionable to think that maybe it would be good to do away with conscientious objection (in the medical field)," he said to participants of a conference in Rome of hospital pharmacists.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/learn-to-switch-off-says-pope-francis-after-successful-surgery-398866">Also read |&nbsp;Learn to switch off, says Pope Francis after successful surgery</a>

"It (conscientious objection) should never be negotiated, it is the ultimate responsibility of heath professionals," he said, adding that it was particularly applicable to abortion.

"Know that on this I am very clear: It is murder and it is never licit to be an accomplice," he said.

Most countries have laws that provide for some form of conscientious objection by health professionals, but abortion rights activists say not all are fulfilling their duty to refer a woman to another doctor.

In some Scandinavian countries, doctors are barred from refusing to provide any medical care that is legal.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-coastline-to-be-dotted-with-wind-farms-says-biden-administration-420686">Also read |&nbsp;US coastline to be dotted with wind farms, says Biden administration</a>

Last month, Francis told reporters on the plane returning from Slovakia that abortion was "murder", even soon after conception, but appeared to criticise some US&nbsp;Catholic bishops for dealing with US&nbsp;President Joe Biden's pro-choice position in a political rather than pastoral way.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that life begins at the moment of conception.

In June a divided conference of US Roman Catholic bishops voted to draft a statement on communion that may admonish Catholic politicians, including Biden. They are due to take up the issue again next month.

Health workers have a non-negotiable right to exercise conscientious objection by refusing to participate in an abortion, Pope Francis said on Thursday, calling the procedure "murder".

Health workers have a non-negotiable right to exercise conscientious objection by refusing to participate in an abortion, Pope Francis said on Thursday, calling the procedure "murder". It was at least the third time in a month that the pope has spoken out strongly against abortion, which has become a major political issue in a number of countries, including the United States. Last week a US appeals court temporarily reinstated Texas's restrictive abortion law, which bars the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy and outsources enforcement of the ban to ordinary citizens. "Today it has become a bit fashionable to think that maybe it would be good to do away with conscientious objection (in the medical field)," he said to participants of a conference in Rome of hospital pharmacists. Also read | Learn to switch off, says Pope Francis after successful surgery "It (conscientious objection) should never be negotiated, it is the ultimate responsibility of heath professionals," he said, adding that it was particularly applicable to abortion. "Know that on this I am very clear: It is murder and it is never licit to be an accomplice," he said. Most countries have laws that provide for some form of conscientious objection by health professionals, but abortion rights activists say not all are fulfilling their duty to refer a woman to another doctor. In some Scandinavian countries, doctors are barred from refusing to provide any medical care that is legal. Also read | US coastline to be dotted with wind farms, says Biden administration Last month, Francis told reporters on the plane returning from Slovakia that abortion was "murder", even soon after conception, but appeared to criticise some US Catholic bishops for dealing with US President Joe Biden's pro-choice position in a political rather than pastoral way. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that life begins at the moment of conception. In June a divided conference of US Roman Catholic bishops voted to draft a statement on communion that may admonish Catholic politicians, including Biden. They are due to take up the issue again next month.

Pope says health workers' conscientious objection to abortion non-negotiable

A federal judge in US on Wednesday blocked a law that banned most abortions in Texas. The law is part of a conservative drive to deny access to the procedure.

The statute, which went into force on September 1, prohibits abortions as soon as a &nbsp;heartbeat is detectable, usually at around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. There are no exceptions for cases of incest or rape.

US District Judge &nbsp;Robert Pitman in Austin granted the request from President Joe Biden's administration to block enforcement of the law pending further litigation. The judge said that the law violated US constitution. The state of Texas can appeal against the ruling.

In his 113-page ruling, Pitman said Texas officials had created an "unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right."

"From the moment SB 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution," Pitman said, using the abbreviation for Senate Bill 8, the law's official name.

"This Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right."

In recent years, similar laws have been passed in other states but were struck down because they violated US Supreme Court precedent from Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, at around 22 weeks of pregnancy.

The Texas law, which thus far is the most restrictive in the country, is unique in that it empowers anyone to file a lawsuit against a person who has assisted in an abortion. They can be rewarded with $10,000 for cases that lead to prosecution, prompting charges that the law encourages Texans to act as vigilantes.

As Texas can still appeal Pitman's order, the case may end up in front of the Supreme Court.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the ruling as "a victory for women in Texas and for the rule of law."

He added: "It is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Justice to defend the Constitution. We will continue to protect constitutional rights against all who would seek to undermine them.”

(With inputs from agencies)

A federal judge in US on Wednesday blocked a law that banned most abortions in Texas. The law is part of a conservative drive to deny access to the procedure. The statute, which went into force on September 1, prohibits abortions as soon as a heartbeat is detectable, usually at around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant.

A federal judge in US on Wednesday blocked a law that banned most abortions in Texas. The law is part of a conservative drive to deny access to the procedure. The statute, which went into force on September 1, prohibits abortions as soon as a heartbeat is detectable, usually at around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. There are no exceptions for cases of incest or rape. US District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin granted the request from President Joe Biden's administration to block enforcement of the law pending further litigation. The judge said that the law violated US constitution. The state of Texas can appeal against the ruling. In his 113-page ruling, Pitman said Texas officials had created an "unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right." "From the moment SB 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution," Pitman said, using the abbreviation for Senate Bill 8, the law's official name. "This Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right." In recent years, similar laws have been passed in other states but were struck down because they violated US Supreme Court precedent from Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, at around 22 weeks of pregnancy. The Texas law, which thus far is the most restrictive in the country, is unique in that it empowers anyone to file a lawsuit against a person who has assisted in an abortion. They can be rewarded with $10,000 for cases that lead to prosecution, prompting charges that the law encourages Texans to act as vigilantes. As Texas can still appeal Pitman's order, the case may end up in front of the Supreme Court. US Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the ruling as "a victory for women in Texas and for the rule of law." He added: "It is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Justice to defend the Constitution. We will continue to protect constitutional rights against all who would seek to undermine them.” (With inputs from agencies)

US judge blocks abortion law in Texas

The Biden administration on Monday reversed a contentious policy set under President Donald Trump that barred organisations that provide abortion referrals from receiving federal family planning money.

The new rule, set to take effect Nov. 8, deals with what is known as the Title X family planning program, which was created in 1970 and subsidizes birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings and related preventive care for millions of predominantly low-income patients.

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>

“Our nation’s family planning clinics play a critical role in delivering health care, and today more than ever, we are making clear that access to quality family planning care includes accurate information and referrals — based on a patient’s needs and direction,” Xavier Becerra, the Health and Human Services secretary, said in a statement.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">President Joe Biden</a> signalled shortly after taking office that he intended to rescind the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-reinstates-rule-restricting-abortions-around-the-world-11626">Trump-era rule</a>, writing in a memorandum calling for action on women’s health issues that it put “women’s health at risk by making it harder for women to receive complete medical information."

The 2019 rule aggressively targeted organizations that offer abortions, including Planned Parenthood, and was a top priority of social conservatives during Trump’s term as president. Regulations surrounding the 1970 Title X law already banned direct funding of abortion, but organizations such as Planned Parenthood have relied on Title X money to subsidize other women’s health services, such as dispensing birth control and testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The rule allowed clinics that received federal funds to offer lists of primary care providers, including those that provide prenatal care, but they could not identify which performed abortions. It also required “physical and financial separation” between family planning and abortion services at places that offered both.

Watch |&nbsp;Rallies held across the US against abortion ban

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rallies-held-across-the-us-against-abortion-ban-417809/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo">As a result of the Trump rule, Planned Parenthood, which had received roughly $60 million every year through the Title X program, withdrew from it rather than comply. Before 2019, Planned Parenthood health centres each year served roughly 40 per cent&nbsp;of the 4 million people who used the Title X program, the organisation said Monday.</div>

Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called the new rule&nbsp;“a major victory for patients, access to sexual and reproductive health care, and health equity.”

“Title X is a critical piece of our social safety net that can, and should, ensure that people with low incomes can access essential health care without forcing providers to withhold referrals for all of the options available to them,” she said in a statement Monday.

Still, McGill Johnson criticized a feature of the Biden administration’s rule, which would allow “objecting individuals and grantees” to not be required to counsel or refer for abortions in the program.

But Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement Monday that the Trump rule had respected “the plain statutory language of Title X.”

“Democrats push this agenda at their own political peril,” she said.

More than 20 states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration in hopes of overturning the rule, including California, whose suit was led by Becerra, then the state’s attorney general.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/abortion-wombs-the-political-battleground-417992">Wombs: The political battleground</a>

In the spring of 2019, the Trump administration announced that it would give millions in Title X funds to an anti-abortion nonprofit organization funded by allies of the Catholic Church, the Obria Group. Critics cast the move as a way to defund medical clinics that provide abortions.

Announcing the policy reversal Monday, the Biden administration cited last year’s Family Planning Annual Report, which showed a precipitous drop in the number of clients served by the Title X program. The report estimated that roughly two-thirds of the decrease in family planning patients between 2018 and 2020 could be attributed to the Trump rule.

Six states currently have no Title X services, and seven others have “limited Title X capacity,” the Health and Human Services department said.

Dr Rachel L. Levine, the assistant secretary for health, said the new rule would “allow for the Title X service network to expand in size and capacity to provide quality family planning services to more clients.” Title X grants typically go to clinics run by state and local health departments, as well as to federally qualified health centres, hospital-based sites, and other private nonprofit and community-based health clinics.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-bidens-administration-urges-judge-to-block-texas-anti-abortion-law-417517">Joe Biden's administration urges judge to block Texas anti-abortion law</a>

Monday’s reversal comes as the debate over abortion rights has flared up again on Capitol Hill after the Supreme Court refused last month allowed a Texas law prohibiting most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy to take effect. With other states seeking to enact similar restrictions, and the court, now dominated by conservatives, preparing to take up a case that could overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, Democrats are making the issue a centrepiece of their campaign strategy for next year’s midterm elections.

The Biden administration on Monday reversed a contentious policy set under President Donald Trump that barred organisations that provide abortion referrals from receiving federal family planning money.

The Biden administration on Monday reversed a contentious policy set under President Donald Trump that barred organisations that provide abortion referrals from receiving federal family planning money. The new rule, set to take effect Nov. 8, deals with what is known as the Title X family planning program, which was created in 1970 and subsidizes birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings and related preventive care for millions of predominantly low-income patients. Also read | Biden set to scrap ban on US funds for abortion counseling “Our nation’s family planning clinics play a critical role in delivering health care, and today more than ever, we are making clear that access to quality family planning care includes accurate information and referrals — based on a patient’s needs and direction,” Xavier Becerra, the Health and Human Services secretary, said in a statement. President Joe Biden signalled shortly after taking office that he intended to rescind the Trump-era rule, writing in a memorandum calling for action on women’s health issues that it put “women’s health at risk by making it harder for women to receive complete medical information." The 2019 rule aggressively targeted organizations that offer abortions, including Planned Parenthood, and was a top priority of social conservatives during Trump’s term as president. Regulations surrounding the 1970 Title X law already banned direct funding of abortion, but organizations such as Planned Parenthood have relied on Title X money to subsidize other women’s health services, such as dispensing birth control and testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The rule allowed clinics that received federal funds to offer lists of primary care providers, including those that provide prenatal care, but they could not identify which performed abortions. It also required “physical and financial separation” between family planning and abortion services at places that offered both. Watch | Rallies held across the US against abortion ban As a result of the Trump rule, Planned Parenthood, which had received roughly $60 million every year through the Title X program, withdrew from it rather than comply. Before 2019, Planned Parenthood health centres each year served roughly 40 per cent of the 4 million people who used the Title X program, the organisation said Monday. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called the new rule “a major victory for patients, access to sexual and reproductive health care, and health equity.” “Title X is a critical piece of our social safety net that can, and should, ensure that people with low incomes can access essential health care without forcing providers to withhold referrals for all of the options available to them,” she said in a statement Monday. Still, McGill Johnson criticized a feature of the Biden administration’s rule, which would allow “objecting individuals and grantees” to not be required to counsel or refer for abortions in the program. But Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement Monday that the Trump rule had respected “the plain statutory language of Title X.” “Democrats push this agenda at their own political peril,” she said. More than 20 states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration in hopes of overturning the rule, including California, whose suit was led by Becerra, then the state’s attorney general. Also read | Wombs: The political battleground In the spring of 2019, the Trump administration announced that it would give millions in Title X funds to an anti-abortion nonprofit organization funded by allies of the Catholic Church, the Obria Group. Critics cast the move as a way to defund medical clinics that provide abortions. Announcing the policy reversal Monday, the Biden administration cited last year’s Family Planning Annual Report, which showed a precipitous drop in the number of clients served by the Title X program. The report estimated that roughly two-thirds of the decrease in family planning patients between 2018 and 2020 could be attributed to the Trump rule. Six states currently have no Title X services, and seven others have “limited Title X capacity,” the Health and Human Services department said. Dr Rachel L. Levine, the assistant secretary for health, said the new rule would “allow for the Title X service network to expand in size and capacity to provide quality family planning services to more clients.” Title X grants typically go to clinics run by state and local health departments, as well as to federally qualified health centres, hospital-based sites, and other private nonprofit and community-based health clinics. Also read | Joe Biden's administration urges judge to block Texas anti-abortion law Monday’s reversal comes as the debate over abortion rights has flared up again on Capitol Hill after the Supreme Court refused last month allowed a Texas law prohibiting most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy to take effect. With other states seeking to enact similar restrictions, and the court, now dominated by conservatives, preparing to take up a case that could overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, Democrats are making the issue a centrepiece of their campaign strategy for next year’s midterm elections.

Biden officials end ban on abortion referrals at federally funded clinics

Making sure that the government and all other lawmakers know their stand against the ‘inhumane’ and ‘discriminatory’ anti-abortion rules, tens of thousands of people took to streets across the United States.<o:p></o:p>

Raising their voices and slogans, nearly 10,000 people rallied in a square near the White House and marched to the White House from there.<o:p></o:p>

With placards reading ‘Mind your uterus’, ‘Hands off my body’, ‘Make abortion legal’, and more, many protestors also dressed up as the late Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was known for fighting for women’s rights.

<o:p>Have a look |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/hands-off-my-body-thousands-protests-against-anti-abortion-laws-in-us-417791">'Hands off my body': Thousands protests against anti-abortion laws in US</a></o:p>

Many people also brought out creative jackets on which they stitched names and pictures of several other women activists and politicians who have supported the right to abort in the past.<o:p></o:p>

"Women&nbsp;are humans, we are full humans, and we need to be treated like full humans," Laura Bushwitz, a 66-year-old retired Florida teacher protesting in Washington, told news agency AFP. "We should be able to have our own choice on what we want to do with our bodies. Period."<o:p></o:p>

The fight between women and lawmakers has been going on since long but has now intensified as the state of Texas passed a law that makes all abortions, at any time of the pregnancy, a crime.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rallies-held-across-the-us-against-abortion-ban-417809">WATCH |</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rallies-held-across-the-us-against-abortion-ban-417809/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Several lawmakers have also been openly and fiercely contesting these laws in the Supreme Court and media, including the President of the United States, Joe Biden. The President has made it clear on several occasions that he supports women’s right to their own bodies and does not lend support to the anti-abortion laws passed by the state of Texas.<o:p></o:p>

On Saturday, protests took place in nearly 600 cities across all 50 states where some women came out dressed in pink hats and some dressed in their most comfortable clothes to make sure they can raise their voice as loud as needed to reach the top-tier government officials.<o:p></o:p>

These protestors also clashed with another set of demonstrators in Washington who were rallying in support of the discriminatory laws. The two groups had to be segregated by the local police officials present at the scene, but nobody was injured.<o:p></o:p>

Making sure that the government and all other lawmakers know their stand against the ‘inhumane’ and ‘discriminatory’ anti-abortion rules, tens of thousands of people took to streets across the United States.

Making sure that the government and all other lawmakers know their stand against the ‘inhumane’ and ‘discriminatory’ anti-abortion rules, tens of thousands of people took to streets across the United States. Raising their voices and slogans, nearly 10,000 people rallied in a square near the White House and marched to the White House from there. With placards reading ‘Mind your uterus’, ‘Hands off my body’, ‘Make abortion legal’, and more, many protestors also dressed up as the late Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was known for fighting for women’s rights. Have a look | 'Hands off my body': Thousands protests against anti-abortion laws in US Many people also brought out creative jackets on which they stitched names and pictures of several other women activists and politicians who have supported the right to abort in the past. "Women are humans, we are full humans, and we need to be treated like full humans," Laura Bushwitz, a 66-year-old retired Florida teacher protesting in Washington, told news agency AFP. "We should be able to have our own choice on what we want to do with our bodies. Period." The fight between women and lawmakers has been going on since long but has now intensified as the state of Texas passed a law that makes all abortions, at any time of the pregnancy, a crime. WATCH | Several lawmakers have also been openly and fiercely contesting these laws in the Supreme Court and media, including the President of the United States, Joe Biden. The President has made it clear on several occasions that he supports women’s right to their own bodies and does not lend support to the anti-abortion laws passed by the state of Texas. On Saturday, protests took place in nearly 600 cities across all 50 states where some women came out dressed in pink hats and some dressed in their most comfortable clothes to make sure they can raise their voice as loud as needed to reach the top-tier government officials. These protestors also clashed with another set of demonstrators in Washington who were rallying in support of the discriminatory laws. The two groups had to be segregated by the local police officials present at the scene, but nobody was injured.

'Mind your uterus': Protests erupt in US against anti-abortion laws

(Trigger warning: Sexual assault)

While a state in the US introduced a pandora's box with strict abortion laws that are being challenged in court by the federal government, less developed countries and even small islands are introducing progressive measures.<o:p></o:p>

Abortions have always been a political hot potato in several countries and recent developments suggest the issue is far from settled.<o:p></o:p>

Interestingly, abortion has never been just about abortion. It has been, from the last few years, a topic which has managed to divide populations with the possibility of little or no compromise, in majority of the cases.

<o:p><img alt="Abortion" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="4587e9b8-5d44-4a48-9326-4dd78f8d50d5" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Abortion%201.jpg" /></o:p>

The pro-abortion movement, also known as the pro-choice movement, has more to it. Laws that hinder women’s right to choose their wellbeing of reproductive health have been a hot topic of debate for years. <o:p></o:p>

However, the anti-abortion laws represent more than reproductive health. These laws that prevent a woman from exercising her right to reproduce or not also further prevent her from exercising any of the basic human rights.<o:p></o:p>

From not being able to choose whether or not they would like to keep a baby, this topic expands to deeper issues such as whether or not a woman would even want to indulge in sexual activities with someone.

<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Never again</h2>

Khwaab*, a 30-year-old girl from Peshawar, Pakistan, was married by the age of 25 and had two unplanned children by the time she turned 28. Married to an unknown man from a distant city, the young girl was strictly told that even uttering the word 'abortion' was equivalent to committing a sin.

She told WION that she used to linger going back to her room every night due to the fear of her husband forcing himself on her with the aim of "planting a baby" in her.

<o:p><img alt="Abortion" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="d83634f3-ee85-46fb-83c0-a67eb29f8270" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Abortion.jpg" /></o:p>

"When I conceived for the first time, I was not mentally prepared to being a human being into this world. More importantly, I was suffering from acute anemia at that time," Khwaab remembered. "My doctor strictly told me in private that I will have to be extra careful about my health during my pregnancy. But, nobody in my family, including my own mother, listened to me."<o:p></o:p>

Khwaab went on to give birth to a pre-mature baby who was kept under observation for five weeks before her baby girl was discharged. <o:p></o:p>

It was not just her own health because of which she wanted to abort the child in the first month of pregnancy, but also the hatred for her husband. Night after night, her husband forced himself on her without considering if she was getting hurt or pleasured. When she opposed, she was yelled upon, or slapped and told to shut up. <o:p></o:p>

It was not just physical torture, her lack of right to choose also translated into her daily routine. From not being able to choose when to eat, what to eat, what to wear to not being able to not being able to even decide which school her children will attend — Khawaab’s basic human rights went for a toss, along with her right to choose.<o:p></o:p>

"By the time of my second child, I wanted to have another child but not with that man," Khwaab said, after leaving her husband and shifting to the UK. "Whether or not I want to reproduce is my choice, but with whom do I want to reproduce should also be my choice."<o:p></o:p>

Khwaab is not a one-off case. Hundreds of thousands of women go through this at least once in their life in several parts of the world.

<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Suffering for all</h2>

Women across Latin American cities have been demanding the right to abort for years. In September 2021, Mexico's Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to criminalise abortion. In addition to this, the government also declared that the people who have been jailed for terminating pregnancies will be released.

<o:p><img alt="Abortion" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e069c4a7-73e6-47d3-b7b0-cb3910b7a8cf" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Abortion%202.jpg" /></o:p>

San Marino became one of the recent European microstate where 77 per cent of locals backed the pro-choice movement, with the Interior Minister urging the Parliament to convert this into a law.<o:p></o:p>

However, there are still several areas where abortion is still labelled as unconstitutional, criminal and a sin.<o:p></o:p>

In Colombia, till date, abortions are allowed only in cases where the woman has been sexually assaulted/raped.<o:p></o:p>

The state of Texas in the United States goes on to set one of the worst examples for women’s rights as the state has a near total ban on abortion across the state. <o:p></o:p>

China, too, has sought out to reduce the number of abortions for all cases where the woman does not need to abort due to medical issues. Many believe the Chinese government took this decision to make sure the country is able to increase the birth rates.

<o:p><img alt="Abortion" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="916dbe93-cde8-4f25-9390-295fcf24136c" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Abortion%203.jpeg" /></o:p>

It was China that used to forcefully make women abort a few years ago to make sure all citizens abide by the one-child policy. Now, the same government is once again using women as tools to increase the country's population by ignoring women’s reproductive health and forcefully making them reproduce a child even if they do not wish to reproduce.<o:p></o:p>

The fact that majority of the governments have, at some point, used women as tools to satisfy their country's population, religious beliefs and societal emotions, is something that a lot of people have been protesting against for years but many leaders have failed to understand repeatedly.<o:p></o:p>

Many politicians around the world have also used the topic of abortion as a distraction from several other issues. Abortion rules are just another form of discrimination with a hint of racism. When powerful politicians ran out of ways to oppress minority communities around the world, they decided it was time to bring in a new issue and restricting women from practicing their basic right to reproductive health had a safety net to it because one can attack a fetus but the fetus won't ever hit back.<o:p></o:p>

Whether or not Texas' anti-abortion rules are rolled back is something which only time will tell. Will the Chinese government ever stop using women as tools of population control is a hope that only few possess. What one can do, till then, is raise your voices against these inhumane practices and make sure you practice what you preach.

<o:p>*Name changed on demand.</o:p>

(Trigger warning: Sexual assault) While a state in the US introduced a pandora's box with strict abortion laws that are being challenged in court by the federal government, less developed countries and even small islands are introducing progressive measures.

(Trigger warning: Sexual assault) While a state in the US introduced a pandora's box with strict abortion laws that are being challenged in court by the federal government, less developed countries and even small islands are introducing progressive measures. Abortions have always been a political hot potato in several countries and recent developments suggest the issue is far from settled. Interestingly, abortion has never been just about abortion. It has been, from the last few years, a topic which has managed to divide populations with the possibility of little or no compromise, in majority of the cases. The pro-abortion movement, also known as the pro-choice movement, has more to it. Laws that hinder women’s right to choose their wellbeing of reproductive health have been a hot topic of debate for years. However, the anti-abortion laws represent more than reproductive health. These laws that prevent a woman from exercising her right to reproduce or not also further prevent her from exercising any of the basic human rights. From not being able to choose whether or not they would like to keep a baby, this topic expands to deeper issues such as whether or not a woman would even want to indulge in sexual activities with someone. Never again Khwaab*, a 30-year-old girl from Peshawar, Pakistan, was married by the age of 25 and had two unplanned children by the time she turned 28. Married to an unknown man from a distant city, the young girl was strictly told that even uttering the word 'abortion' was equivalent to committing a sin. She told WION that she used to linger going back to her room every night due to the fear of her husband forcing himself on her with the aim of "planting a baby" in her. "When I conceived for the first time, I was not mentally prepared to being a human being into this world. More importantly, I was suffering from acute anemia at that time," Khwaab remembered. "My doctor strictly told me in private that I will have to be extra careful about my health during my pregnancy. But, nobody in my family, including my own mother, listened to me." Khwaab went on to give birth to a pre-mature baby who was kept under observation for five weeks before her baby girl was discharged. It was not just her own health because of which she wanted to abort the child in the first month of pregnancy, but also the hatred for her husband. Night after night, her husband forced himself on her without considering if she was getting hurt or pleasured. When she opposed, she was yelled upon, or slapped and told to shut up. It was not just physical torture, her lack of right to choose also translated into her daily routine. From not being able to choose when to eat, what to eat, what to wear to not being able to not being able to even decide which school her children will attend — Khawaab’s basic human rights went for a toss, along with her right to choose. "By the time of my second child, I wanted to have another child but not with that man," Khwaab said, after leaving her husband and shifting to the UK. "Whether or not I want to reproduce is my choice, but with whom do I want to reproduce should also be my choice." Khwaab is not a one-off case. Hundreds of thousands of women go through this at least once in their life in several parts of the world. Suffering for all Women across Latin American cities have been demanding the right to abort for years. In September 2021, Mexico's Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to criminalise abortion. In addition to this, the government also declared that the people who have been jailed for terminating pregnancies will be released. San Marino became one of the recent European microstate where 77 per cent of locals backed the pro-choice movement, with the Interior Minister urging the Parliament to convert this into a law. However, there are still several areas where abortion is still labelled as unconstitutional, criminal and a sin. In Colombia, till date, abortions are allowed only in cases where the woman has been sexually assaulted/raped. The state of Texas in the United States goes on to set one of the worst examples for women’s rights as the state has a near total ban on abortion across the state. China, too, has sought out to reduce the number of abortions for all cases where the woman does not need to abort due to medical issues. Many believe the Chinese government took this decision to make sure the country is able to increase the birth rates. It was China that used to forcefully make women abort a few years ago to make sure all citizens abide by the one-child policy. Now, the same government is once again using women as tools to increase the country's population by ignoring women’s reproductive health and forcefully making them reproduce a child even if they do not wish to reproduce. The fact that majority of the governments have, at some point, used women as tools to satisfy their country's population, religious beliefs and societal emotions, is something that a lot of people have been protesting against for years but many leaders have failed to understand repeatedly. Many politicians around the world have also used the topic of abortion as a distraction from several other issues. Abortion rules are just another form of discrimination with a hint of racism. When powerful politicians ran out of ways to oppress minority communities around the world, they decided it was time to bring in a new issue and restricting women from practicing their basic right to reproductive health had a safety net to it because one can attack a fetus but the fetus won't ever hit back. Whether or not Texas' anti-abortion rules are rolled back is something which only time will tell. Will the Chinese government ever stop using women as tools of population control is a hope that only few possess. What one can do, till then, is raise your voices against these inhumane practices and make sure you practice what you preach. *Name changed on demand.

Wombs: The political battleground

'Hands off my body': Thousands protests against anti-abortion laws in US

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care.

Deputy assistant attorney general Brian Netter, in one of the court arguments in Austin, said that the controversial statute represents "an open threat to the rule of law." The government further went on describing the ban as "a truly extraordinary law designed to outflank the federal government and to violate the constitution."

Netter said that adding a "judicial intervention" was necessary to make the law unenforceable until the case is decided.

Attorney William Thompson of the Texas Attorney General's office accused Netter of "inflammatory rhetoric" and insisted the law respects Supreme Court precedent.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/activists-say-texas-anti-abortion-law-shows-terrifying-fragility-of-womens-rights-414113">Also read |&nbsp;Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights</a>

However, the judge Robert Pitman said, "If the state's so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman's access to abortion, then why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private cause of action?"

Earlier, Biden had openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights.

"The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest."

Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades.

As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care.

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care. Deputy assistant attorney general Brian Netter, in one of the court arguments in Austin, said that the controversial statute represents "an open threat to the rule of law." The government further went on describing the ban as "a truly extraordinary law designed to outflank the federal government and to violate the constitution." Netter said that adding a "judicial intervention" was necessary to make the law unenforceable until the case is decided. Attorney William Thompson of the Texas Attorney General's office accused Netter of "inflammatory rhetoric" and insisted the law respects Supreme Court precedent. Also read | Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights However, the judge Robert Pitman said, "If the state's so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman's access to abortion, then why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private cause of action?" Earlier, Biden had openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights. "The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest." Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades. As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

Joe Biden's administration urges judge to block Texas anti-abortion law

On Saturday, there will be demonstrations across the country to protest Texas’ crowdsourced abortion ban and the Supreme Court’s refusal to enjoin it. It could be a broad mobilization. Rachel O’Leary Carmona, executive director of the Women’s March, part of the coalition organizing the protests, told me there are 650 marches planned nationwide. I’ll be happily surprised, however, if any of the events are very large. Organizers have applied for a permit for 10,000 people in Washington. That’s about 10 per cent of the people who showed up there for the third Women’s March in 2019.

Lara Putnam, a historian at the University of Pittsburgh, told me she was impressed by how many events are being planned in Pennsylvania — more than for the original Women’s March. “But are the numbers of people showing up going to be the same?” she said. “No. There’s no way they’re going to be the same.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/activists-say-texas-anti-abortion-law-shows-terrifying-fragility-of-womens-rights-414113">Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights</a>

I’ve always assumed that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, which I suspect it will next year, it would spark a furious backlash. But it turns out the Supreme Court can functionally&nbsp;suspend&nbsp;Roe without making too many waves. Maybe some people are reluctant to protest because of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/delta-is-the-fastest-covid-19-variant-and-will-pick-off-the-most-vulnerable-who-393278">delta</a>. But after four years of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> and a year and a half of a pandemic, a lot of politically committed Americans are burned out.

Of course, not all of them. Putnam has been tracking people, especially women, who were spurred to get involved in politics by horror and revulsion at Trump’s election. She told me that those who were most active — she estimates about 20 per cent of the total — are still at it. “Their lives remain utterly transformed,” she said. “They are still super involved. They are now either themselves elected officials,” or on local Democratic Party committees. “They are vastly more savvy than they were.”

But “in the outer ranks of people who became politically engaged, that’s where I see the biggest shift,” Putnam said. “Many people are just worrying about other things. It’s <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">coronavirus</a>. It’s family, it’s work.” They have, she said, “backburnered politics” for now.

Also read |&nbsp;​​​​​​​<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-lashes-out-at-us-supreme-court-for-texas-abortion-law-410322">Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law</a>

To some degree, this is both inevitable and salutary. In a healthy polity, people shouldn’t have to think about politics all the time; part of what made Trump’s presidency so nightmarish was his sick genius for monopolizing attention. And there’s nothing new about Democrats demobilizing after they win elections. Barack Obama’s impassioned movement quickly evanesced once he was in the White House.

But our polity is not healthy, and the mood today is, obviously, nothing like it was in 2009. Then, success bred complacency. People set out to make Obama president, and they did, so they felt they could relax. I know of no one who cares about politics who feels relaxed now. The problem, rather, is a sort of numb despair. “People are getting fatalistic,” said Michael Podhorzer, a political strategist at the AFL-CIO. “Maybe that’s a better word than fatigue.”

Part of the issue is that it’s increasingly hard to imagine that American life will get better anytime soon. During the last five years, it was at least possible to identify dates at which things might turn around. The midterms offered an opportunity to curb Trump. The 2020 election was a chance to get rid of him. The depredations of the pandemic had to be endured until vaccines were widely available.

But now? The Republican Party is as deranged and authoritarian as ever. Biden’s agenda is stuck in a congressional standoff that’s at once frustrating, terrifying and extremely boring. The pandemic is dragging on, without an obvious offramp. We’re completely incapable of addressing the onrushing calamity of climate change. Burnout is marked by feelings of futility, and there’s a lot of that going around.

Also read |&nbsp;​​​​​​​<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/abortion-arrives-at-the-center-of-the-american-political-maelstrom-410439">Abortion arrives at the center of the American political maelstrom</a>

“The feeling of an endpoint is not there, particularly after the last year we’ve had,” Carmona said. There were times this year, she said, when “the East Coast was under water and the West Coast was on fire. And so there are escalating crises to which there are no known solutions.”

Carmona insists that this doesn’t mean that activists don’t have hope. But it is an explanation for why some feel enervated. What’s happening in Texas — not just the broad abortion ban, but the demented system of enforcing it through bounties collected by private citizens — may be almost inconceivably dystopian, but after the unceasing emergencies of the last few years, maintaining an appropriate level of outrage has become a challenge.

Maybe that will change if the Supreme Court, which is due to hear a case arising from Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban in December, scraps Roe entirely. Should that happen, most abortions will automatically become illegal in 11 states because of “trigger laws.” Perhaps that will set off a mass movement, as women in states including Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee suddenly find themselves stripped of rights they’d always taken for granted, and conservatives start fantasizing about a national abortion ban.

Also read |&nbsp;​​​​​​​<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/texas-abortion-law-creates-a-kind-of-bounty-hunter-heres-how-it-works-412647">Texas abortion law creates a kind of bounty hunter. Here’s how it works</a>

Part of the purpose of the protests Saturday is not just to register anger at what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen in Texas, but to get ready for what’s on the way. “We’re talking about a march this weekend, and that’s important, but the real work is going to come quietly and probably out of view of most people,” Carmona said. “We’re looking to build capacity and momentum, and I think that’s really important in the fight to come.” That might be what you say when you’re trying to manage expectations, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

On Saturday, there will be demonstrations across the country to protest Texas’ crowdsourced abortion ban and the Supreme Court’s refusal to enjoin it. It could be a broad mobilization.

On Saturday, there will be demonstrations across the country to protest Texas’ crowdsourced abortion ban and the Supreme Court’s refusal to enjoin it. It could be a broad mobilization. Rachel O’Leary Carmona, executive director of the Women’s March, part of the coalition organizing the protests, told me there are 650 marches planned nationwide. I’ll be happily surprised, however, if any of the events are very large. Organizers have applied for a permit for 10,000 people in Washington. That’s about 10 per cent of the people who showed up there for the third Women’s March in 2019. Lara Putnam, a historian at the University of Pittsburgh, told me she was impressed by how many events are being planned in Pennsylvania — more than for the original Women’s March. “But are the numbers of people showing up going to be the same?” she said. “No. There’s no way they’re going to be the same.” Also read | Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights I’ve always assumed that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, which I suspect it will next year, it would spark a furious backlash. But it turns out the Supreme Court can functionally suspend Roe without making too many waves. Maybe some people are reluctant to protest because of delta. But after four years of Donald Trump and a year and a half of a pandemic, a lot of politically committed Americans are burned out. Of course, not all of them. Putnam has been tracking people, especially women, who were spurred to get involved in politics by horror and revulsion at Trump’s election. She told me that those who were most active — she estimates about 20 per cent of the total — are still at it. “Their lives remain utterly transformed,” she said. “They are still super involved. They are now either themselves elected officials,” or on local Democratic Party committees. “They are vastly more savvy than they were.” But “in the outer ranks of people who became politically engaged, that’s where I see the biggest shift,” Putnam said. “Many people are just worrying about other things. It’s coronavirus. It’s family, it’s work.” They have, she said, “backburnered politics” for now. Also read | Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law To some degree, this is both inevitable and salutary. In a healthy polity, people shouldn’t have to think about politics all the time; part of what made Trump’s presidency so nightmarish was his sick genius for monopolizing attention. And there’s nothing new about Democrats demobilizing after they win elections. Barack Obama’s impassioned movement quickly evanesced once he was in the White House. But our polity is not healthy, and the mood today is, obviously, nothing like it was in 2009. Then, success bred complacency. People set out to make Obama president, and they did, so they felt they could relax. I know of no one who cares about politics who feels relaxed now. The problem, rather, is a sort of numb despair. “People are getting fatalistic,” said Michael Podhorzer, a political strategist at the AFL-CIO. “Maybe that’s a better word than fatigue.” Part of the issue is that it’s increasingly hard to imagine that American life will get better anytime soon. During the last five years, it was at least possible to identify dates at which things might turn around. The midterms offered an opportunity to curb Trump. The 2020 election was a chance to get rid of him. The depredations of the pandemic had to be endured until vaccines were widely available. But now? The Republican Party is as deranged and authoritarian as ever. Biden’s agenda is stuck in a congressional standoff that’s at once frustrating, terrifying and extremely boring. The pandemic is dragging on, without an obvious offramp. We’re completely incapable of addressing the onrushing calamity of climate change. Burnout is marked by feelings of futility, and there’s a lot of that going around. Also read | Abortion arrives at the center of the American political maelstrom “The feeling of an endpoint is not there, particularly after the last year we’ve had,” Carmona said. There were times this year, she said, when “the East Coast was under water and the West Coast was on fire. And so there are escalating crises to which there are no known solutions.” Carmona insists that this doesn’t mean that activists don’t have hope. But it is an explanation for why some feel enervated. What’s happening in Texas — not just the broad abortion ban, but the demented system of enforcing it through bounties collected by private citizens — may be almost inconceivably dystopian, but after the unceasing emergencies of the last few years, maintaining an appropriate level of outrage has become a challenge. Maybe that will change if the Supreme Court, which is due to hear a case arising from Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban in December, scraps Roe entirely. Should that happen, most abortions will automatically become illegal in 11 states because of “trigger laws.” Perhaps that will set off a mass movement, as women in states including Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee suddenly find themselves stripped of rights they’d always taken for granted, and conservatives start fantasizing about a national abortion ban. Also read | Texas abortion law creates a kind of bounty hunter. Here’s how it works Part of the purpose of the protests Saturday is not just to register anger at what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen in Texas, but to get ready for what’s on the way. “We’re talking about a march this weekend, and that’s important, but the real work is going to come quietly and probably out of view of most people,” Carmona said. “We’re looking to build capacity and momentum, and I think that’s really important in the fight to come.” That might be what you say when you’re trying to manage expectations, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Are we too burned out to defend Roe v. Wade?

On the 'International Safe Abortion Day', women activists in Latin America hit the streets to demand that abortion be legalized. A total of 12 countries witnessed pro-choice demonstrations. Molly Gambhir gets you a report.

Gravitas: Women fight to legalise abortion

China on Monday unveiled a new set of guidelines aiming to improve sex education and strengthen post-abortion and post-childbirth family planning services, while announcing that it intends to reduce the number of abortions performed for “non-medical purposes”.

The state council released comprehensive guidelines on women’s development from 2021 to 2030, with wide-ranging targets from reducing abortions to increasing women’s access to nutrition, education, employment and higher-ranking posts in the government.

The guidelines didn’t elaborate on what constitutes a non-medical abortion.

The state council said action would also be taken to avoid unwanted pregnancies and to encourage men to “share responsibility” in preventing them.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinas-population-to-enter-negative-growth-after-2025-report-378507">China's population to enter negative growth after 2025: Report&nbsp;</a>

“The basic national policy of gender equality and the principle of giving priority to children need to be implemented in depth,” news agency Reuters quoted Huang Xiaowei, deputy director of the State Council’s National Working Committee on Women and Children, as saying.

With China’s population set to decline in the coming years, the government has taken several steps recently to try to delay that from happening.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinas-white-paper-claims-rise-in-uyghur-population-in-xinjiang-416308">China's white paper claims rise in Uyghur population in Xinjiang</a>

China has already enacted strict measures&nbsp;aimed at preventing sex-selective abortions, which have been criticised for contributing to gender inequality.

In June, Beijing said it would allow all couples to have three children instead of two, while policies designed to reduce the financial burden of raising children are also being introduced.

Although China remains the world’s most populous nation, the latest census showed population growth from 2011 to 2020 was the slowest since the 1950s. The population is expected to start to decline within a few years.

(With inputs from agencies)

China on Monday unveiled a new set of guidelines aiming to improve sex education and strengthen post-abortion and post-childbirth family planning services, while announcing that it intends to reduce the number of abortions performed for “non-medical purposes”.

China on Monday unveiled a new set of guidelines aiming to improve sex education and strengthen post-abortion and post-childbirth family planning services, while announcing that it intends to reduce the number of abortions performed for “non-medical purposes”. The state council released comprehensive guidelines on women’s development from 2021 to 2030, with wide-ranging targets from reducing abortions to increasing women’s access to nutrition, education, employment and higher-ranking posts in the government. The guidelines didn’t elaborate on what constitutes a non-medical abortion. The state council said action would also be taken to avoid unwanted pregnancies and to encourage men to “share responsibility” in preventing them. Also read | China's population to enter negative growth after 2025: Report “The basic national policy of gender equality and the principle of giving priority to children need to be implemented in depth,” news agency Reuters quoted Huang Xiaowei, deputy director of the State Council’s National Working Committee on Women and Children, as saying. With China’s population set to decline in the coming years, the government has taken several steps recently to try to delay that from happening. Also read | China's white paper claims rise in Uyghur population in Xinjiang China has already enacted strict measures aimed at preventing sex-selective abortions, which have been criticised for contributing to gender inequality. In June, Beijing said it would allow all couples to have three children instead of two, while policies designed to reduce the financial burden of raising children are also being introduced. Although China remains the world’s most populous nation, the latest census showed population growth from 2011 to 2020 was the slowest since the 1950s. The population is expected to start to decline within a few years. (With inputs from agencies)

Now, China is cracking down on abortions for 'non-medical purposes'

San Marino has voted overwhelmingly in favor of legalizing abortion in a referendum, overturning a law dating back to 1865.

San Marino celebrates historic vote, proposal to reverse 1865 abortion ban

San Marino, one of Europe's smallest countries is preparing to head to the polls on Sunday to vote in a historic referendum on abortion dating back to 1865 in the landlocked enclave.

San Marino to vote in a historic referendum on abortion

A Texas doctor disclosed Saturday that he had performed an abortion in defiance of a new state law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, setting up a potential test case of one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the nation.

In an opinion essay published in The Washington Post under the headline “Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban,” the doctor, Alan Braid, who has been performing abortions for more than 40 years, said that he performed one Sept. 6 for a woman who, although still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit.

“I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care,” Braid wrote. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”

Braid’s disclosure was the latest — and perhaps most direct — salvo by supporters of abortion rights who have been fighting to stop the law, which prohibits most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women are even aware that they are pregnant. The law makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Even before his disclosure, Braid, who has operated abortion clinics in Houston and San Antonio as well as in Oklahoma, was already challenging the law in court. His clinics were among the plaintiffs in a pending federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the measure.

On Sept. 1, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision prompted by the lawsuit, declined to immediately block Texas’ new law. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the law’s constitutionality and did not intend to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to issue an order that would prevent Texas from enforcing the law, known as Senate Bill 8, which was passed with the strong support of the state’s Republican leaders.

The Justice Department argued in its emergency motion that the state adopted the law “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights,” reiterating an argument the department made last week when it sued Texas to prohibit enforcement of the contentious legislation.

At the centre of the legal debate over the law is a mechanism that essentially deputizes private citizens, rather than government officials, to enforce the new restrictions by suing anyone who either performs an abortion or “aids and abets” the procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or to the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win. Patients themselves cannot be sued.

“I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” Braid wrote.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is already representing Braid in his clinics’ pending lawsuit, said in a statement that he had “courageously stood up against this blatantly unconstitutional law.”

“We stand ready to defend him against the vigilante lawsuits that SB 8 threatens to unleash against those providing or supporting access to constitutionally protected abortion care,” she said in a statement.

A representative for Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed the measure into law, and Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that had been seeking tips on any doctors who might be violating the new law, did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Saturday.

In an interview Saturday, Braid declined to say whether the woman whose abortion he performed Sept. 6 had been informed that her procedure could be part of a test case against the new law. “I’m not going to answer any questions about the patient in any way,” he said.

He said that he had consulted with lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights and hoped that, by publicly stating that he had performed an abortion, he might contribute to the campaign to invalidate the law.

“I hope the law gets overturned,” he said, “and if this is what does it, that would be great.”

In his opinion essay, Braid noted that his career began with an obstetrics and gynaecology residency at a San Antonio hospital on July 1, 1972, just before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.

“At the hospital that year, I saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions,” he wrote. “One I will never forget. When she came into the E.R., her vaginal cavity was packed with rags. She died a few days later from massive organ failure, caused by a septic infection.”

Roe v. Wade, he wrote, “enabled me to do the job I was trained to do.” Then, this month, “everything changed” with the Supreme Court decision not to block the Texas law.

“I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces,” Braid wrote. “I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. I have spent the past 50 years treating and helping patients. I can’t just sit back and watch us return to 1972.”

A Texas doctor disclosed Saturday that he had performed an abortion in defiance of a new state law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, setting up a potential test case of one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the nation.

A Texas doctor disclosed Saturday that he had performed an abortion in defiance of a new state law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, setting up a potential test case of one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the nation. In an opinion essay published in The Washington Post under the headline “Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban,” the doctor, Alan Braid, who has been performing abortions for more than 40 years, said that he performed one Sept. 6 for a woman who, although still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. “I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care,” Braid wrote. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.” Braid’s disclosure was the latest — and perhaps most direct — salvo by supporters of abortion rights who have been fighting to stop the law, which prohibits most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women are even aware that they are pregnant. The law makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Even before his disclosure, Braid, who has operated abortion clinics in Houston and San Antonio as well as in Oklahoma, was already challenging the law in court. His clinics were among the plaintiffs in a pending federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the measure. On Sept. 1, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision prompted by the lawsuit, declined to immediately block Texas’ new law. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the law’s constitutionality and did not intend to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it. On Tuesday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to issue an order that would prevent Texas from enforcing the law, known as Senate Bill 8, which was passed with the strong support of the state’s Republican leaders. The Justice Department argued in its emergency motion that the state adopted the law “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights,” reiterating an argument the department made last week when it sued Texas to prohibit enforcement of the contentious legislation. At the centre of the legal debate over the law is a mechanism that essentially deputizes private citizens, rather than government officials, to enforce the new restrictions by suing anyone who either performs an abortion or “aids and abets” the procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or to the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win. Patients themselves cannot be sued. “I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” Braid wrote. Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is already representing Braid in his clinics’ pending lawsuit, said in a statement that he had “courageously stood up against this blatantly unconstitutional law.” “We stand ready to defend him against the vigilante lawsuits that SB 8 threatens to unleash against those providing or supporting access to constitutionally protected abortion care,” she said in a statement. A representative for Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed the measure into law, and Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that had been seeking tips on any doctors who might be violating the new law, did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Saturday. In an interview Saturday, Braid declined to say whether the woman whose abortion he performed Sept. 6 had been informed that her procedure could be part of a test case against the new law. “I’m not going to answer any questions about the patient in any way,” he said. He said that he had consulted with lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights and hoped that, by publicly stating that he had performed an abortion, he might contribute to the campaign to invalidate the law. “I hope the law gets overturned,” he said, “and if this is what does it, that would be great.” In his opinion essay, Braid noted that his career began with an obstetrics and gynaecology residency at a San Antonio hospital on July 1, 1972, just before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. “At the hospital that year, I saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions,” he wrote. “One I will never forget. When she came into the E.R., her vaginal cavity was packed with rags. She died a few days later from massive organ failure, caused by a septic infection.” Roe v. Wade, he wrote, “enabled me to do the job I was trained to do.” Then, this month, “everything changed” with the Supreme Court decision not to block the Texas law. “I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces,” Braid wrote. “I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. I have spent the past 50 years treating and helping patients. I can’t just sit back and watch us return to 1972.”

Texas doctor says he performed an abortion in defiance of new state law

The US Justice Department has sued Texas over a new state law that bans most abortions, arguing that it was enacted “in open defiance of the Constitution.”

US Justice Department sues Texas over state's new abortion law

Young French women under the age of 25 will now be offered free contraception from next year, country’s health minister recently announced.

All women under the age of 25 will not be charged for medical appointments, medicines, tests and all other medical procedures related to birth control.

"This will cover hormonal contraception, biological tests that go with it, the prescription of contraception and all care related to this contraception up until the age of 25,"&nbsp;Olivier Véran said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-zealand-jacinda-ardern-warns-hospitals-to-not-let-covid-patients-have-sex-with-visitors-411852">Ardern warns hospitals to not let Covid patients have sex with visitors</a>

The decision was taken after the government noticed a stark decline in usage of contraception in certain age groups and many locals admitted that the reason was solely financial.

"There is a decline in the use of contraception among a certain number of young women and the main reason for this is financial. It costs too much. It is unacceptable that women cannot protect themselves, cannot have contraception if that’s their choice obviously, because they cannot afford it,"&nbsp;Véran explained.

Another reason that the government chose the age cap to be 25 is that from the age of 25, young people are no longer part of their parents’ complementary health insurance, which is also known as mutuelle in France.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/republicans-in-six-states-to-adopt-law-similar-to-texas-anti-abortion-law-410641">Republicans in six states to adopt law similar to Texas anti-abortion law</a>

Experts believe that due to that, women were opting out of contraception as they felt it was getting expensive for them.

This new programme will cost the French government’s health system, also known as the Assurance Maladie, nearly €21m a year.

Last year, the government noticed that nearly 1,000 girls aged between 12 and 14 had conceived a child and 770 of those had opted for abortion.

Since 2013, contraception has been free for women aged 15 to 18 and since August 2020 it was extended to under 15s too. This programme had led to a decline in number of abortions in the country.

The government is hoping that this new initiative for under 25 women will help them practice safe sex without having to compromise on their health.

Young French women under the age of 25 will now be offered free contraception from next year, country’s health minister recently announced. All women under the age of 25 will not be charged for medical appointments, medicines, tests and all other medical procedures related to birth control.

Young French women under the age of 25 will now be offered free contraception from next year, country’s health minister recently announced. All women under the age of 25 will not be charged for medical appointments, medicines, tests and all other medical procedures related to birth control. "This will cover hormonal contraception, biological tests that go with it, the prescription of contraception and all care related to this contraception up until the age of 25," Olivier Véran said. Also read | Ardern warns hospitals to not let Covid patients have sex with visitors The decision was taken after the government noticed a stark decline in usage of contraception in certain age groups and many locals admitted that the reason was solely financial. "There is a decline in the use of contraception among a certain number of young women and the main reason for this is financial. It costs too much. It is unacceptable that women cannot protect themselves, cannot have contraception if that’s their choice obviously, because they cannot afford it," Véran explained. Another reason that the government chose the age cap to be 25 is that from the age of 25, young people are no longer part of their parents’ complementary health insurance, which is also known as mutuelle in France. Also read | Republicans in six states to adopt law similar to Texas anti-abortion law Experts believe that due to that, women were opting out of contraception as they felt it was getting expensive for them. This new programme will cost the French government’s health system, also known as the Assurance Maladie, nearly €21m a year. Last year, the government noticed that nearly 1,000 girls aged between 12 and 14 had conceived a child and 770 of those had opted for abortion. Since 2013, contraception has been free for women aged 15 to 18 and since August 2020 it was extended to under 15s too. This programme had led to a decline in number of abortions in the country. The government is hoping that this new initiative for under 25 women will help them practice safe sex without having to compromise on their health.

French women under the age of 25 to be given free contraception: Government

Republican leaders in as many as six US states are rushing to follow the lead of Texas in adopting an extreme abortion ban that has been slammed as unconstitutional and built to encourage vigilantism among the public.

On Wednesday, the law went into effect in Texas, banning abortion past six weeks of a pregnancy, including for victims of incest or rape.

The law also gave any private citizen the option to sue someone providing an abortion or anyone even believed to be peripherally assisting someone to get an abortion.

Within a day of the law going into effect, six other states, including North Dakota, Mississippi, Indiana, Florida, South Dakota and Arkansas have said they are looking to adopt a similar ban.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-lashes-out-at-us-supreme-court-for-texas-abortion-law-410322">Also read |&nbsp;Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law</a>

Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden has openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law.

Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights.

"The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest."

Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades. 
&nbsp;

Republican leaders in as many as six US states are rushing to follow the lead of Texas in adopting an extreme abortion ban that has been slammed as unconstitutional and built to encourage vigilantism among the public.

Republican leaders in as many as six US states are rushing to follow the lead of Texas in adopting an extreme abortion ban that has been slammed as unconstitutional and built to encourage vigilantism among the public. On Wednesday, the law went into effect in Texas, banning abortion past six weeks of a pregnancy, including for victims of incest or rape. The law also gave any private citizen the option to sue someone providing an abortion or anyone even believed to be peripherally assisting someone to get an abortion. Within a day of the law going into effect, six other states, including North Dakota, Mississippi, Indiana, Florida, South Dakota and Arkansas have said they are looking to adopt a similar ban. Also read | Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden has openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights. "The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest." Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades.

Republicans in six states to adopt law similar to Texas anti-abortion law

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

Near-total abortion ban comes into effect in Texas

The Supreme Court did not take action early Wednesday on a request to block a Texas law prohibiting most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, allowing the most restrictive abortion law in the nation to go into effect.

The law, known as Senate Bill 8, amounts to a nearly complete ban on abortion in Texas, one that will further fuel legal and political battles over the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. The law makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/heartbeat-bill-restrictive-texas-abortion-law-poised-to-take-effect-409788">'Heartbeat bill': Restrictive Texas abortion law poised to take effect</a>

An emergency application from abortion providers seeking to block the law remains pending, and the court is expected to rule on it shortly.

In the application, abortion providers wrote that the law “would immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas, barring care for at least 85 percent of Texas abortion patients (those who are six weeks pregnant or greater) and likely forcing many abortion clinics ultimately to close.”

Supreme Court precedents forbid states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/heartbeat-bill-texas-passes-strict-anti-abortion-law-386154">Heartbeat bill: Texas passes strict anti-abortion law</a>

But the Texas law was drafted to make it difficult to challenge in court. Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. But the Texas law bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it.

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure, even an Uber driver taking a patient to an abortion clinic are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who need not have any connection to the matter or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

In its next term, which starts in October, the Supreme Court is already set to decide whether Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, should be overruled in a case from Mississippi concerning a state law banning abortions after 15 weeks.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/global-leaders-call-for-end-on-abortion-barriers-390467">Global leaders call for end on abortion barriers</a>

The Texas and Mississippi laws are among many measures enacted by Republican-controlled state legislatures intended to test the durability of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe’s core holding and said states may not impose an “undue burden” on the right to abortion before fetal viability.

The lawmakers behind the various state-based measures are betting that the Supreme Court’s recent shift to the right will lead it to sustain the new laws. The court now includes three members appointed by former President Donald Trump, who had vowed to name justices prepared to overrule Roe v. Wade.

One of them, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, a cautious supporter of abortion rights. Another, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who viewed access to abortion as essential to women’s autonomy and equality.

Senate Bill 8 was signed into law in May by Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican. It prohibits doctors from performing abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Such activity starts at around six weeks, before many women are even aware that they are pregnant.

The Supreme Court did not take action early Wednesday on a request to block a Texas law prohibiting most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, allowing the most restrictive abortion law in the nation to go into effect.

The Supreme Court did not take action early Wednesday on a request to block a Texas law prohibiting most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, allowing the most restrictive abortion law in the nation to go into effect. The law, known as Senate Bill 8, amounts to a nearly complete ban on abortion in Texas, one that will further fuel legal and political battles over the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. The law makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape. Also read | 'Heartbeat bill': Restrictive Texas abortion law poised to take effect An emergency application from abortion providers seeking to block the law remains pending, and the court is expected to rule on it shortly. In the application, abortion providers wrote that the law “would immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas, barring care for at least 85 percent of Texas abortion patients (those who are six weeks pregnant or greater) and likely forcing many abortion clinics ultimately to close.” Supreme Court precedents forbid states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks. Also read | Heartbeat bill: Texas passes strict anti-abortion law But the Texas law was drafted to make it difficult to challenge in court. Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. But the Texas law bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it. The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure, even an Uber driver taking a patient to an abortion clinic are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who need not have any connection to the matter or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees. In its next term, which starts in October, the Supreme Court is already set to decide whether Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, should be overruled in a case from Mississippi concerning a state law banning abortions after 15 weeks. Also read | Global leaders call for end on abortion barriers The Texas and Mississippi laws are among many measures enacted by Republican-controlled state legislatures intended to test the durability of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe’s core holding and said states may not impose an “undue burden” on the right to abortion before fetal viability. The lawmakers behind the various state-based measures are betting that the Supreme Court’s recent shift to the right will lead it to sustain the new laws. The court now includes three members appointed by former President Donald Trump, who had vowed to name justices prepared to overrule Roe v. Wade. One of them, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, a cautious supporter of abortion rights. Another, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who viewed access to abortion as essential to women’s autonomy and equality. Senate Bill 8 was signed into law in May by Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican. It prohibits doctors from performing abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Such activity starts at around six weeks, before many women are even aware that they are pregnant.

Texas’ near-ban on abortions takes effect after Supreme Court fails to act

Texas is set to take effect a new law forbidding abortion after six weeks. Unless a court steps in, this legislation will come into effect on Wednesday.

In May, Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill that would make Texas became one of&nbsp;a dozen states&nbsp;to ban abortion upon detection of the fetal heartbeat,&nbsp;which is usually around the sixth week of pregnancy.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/heartbeat-bill-texas-passes-strict-anti-abortion-law-386154">Heartbeat bill: Texas passes strict anti-abortion law</a>

The so-called "Heartbeat bill" does not leave any exceptions for rape or incest and would make Texas one of the most difficult states to get an abortion in.

"Approximately 85 to 90 per cent of people who obtain abortion in Texas are at least six weeks into pregnancy, meaning this law would prohibit nearly all abortions in the state," the American Civil Liberties Union said.

A coalition of organisations including Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and others have petitioned the Supreme Court asking it to intervene and block the law's implementation.

Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, has prevented other states from enacting regulations on abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. According to it, abortion can be performed as long as the fetus is not viable, typically until the 22nd and 24th week of pregnancy.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/global-leaders-call-for-end-on-abortion-barriers-390467">Global leaders call for end on abortion barriers</a>

However, Texas's law is distinctive in that it allows the public to enforce the ban instead of just state officials, such as prosecutors and health departments.

The Texas law "creates a bounty hunting scheme that encourages the general public to bring costly and harassing lawsuits against anyone who they believe has violated the ban," the ACLU said.

"Anyone who successfully sues a health center worker, an abortion provider, or any person who helps someone access an abortion after six weeks will be rewarded with at least $10,000, to be paid by the person sued," it said.

"Anti-abortion groups in Texas have already set up online forms enlisting people to sue anyone they believe is violating the law and encouraging people to submit 'anonymous tips' on doctors, clinics, and others who violate the law," it said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-support-for-legal-abortion-went-mainstream-in-argentina-354020">How support for legal abortion went mainstream in Argentina</a>

The Center for Reproductive Rights president Nancy Northup says that the law forces women to leave the state during times of pandemics in order to receive constitutionally guaranteed healthcare.

"Many will not be able to afford to," Northup said. "It's cruel, unconscionable, and unlawful."

Plans Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson says the Supreme Court is being called upon to uphold 50 years of precedent and ensure Texans don't lose their constitutional right to abortion.

A case involving a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, subject to medical necessity or severe fetal anomalies, will also be heard by the Supreme Court this fall.

It will be the first abortion case considered by the nation's high court since former president Donald Trump cemented a conservative majority on the nine-member panel.

(With inputs from agencies)

Texas is set to take effect a new law forbidding abortion after six weeks. Unless a court steps in, this legislation will come into effect on Wednesday. In May, Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill that would make Texas became one of a dozen states to ban abortion upon detection of the fetal heartbeat, which is usually around the sixth week of pregnancy.

Texas is set to take effect a new law forbidding abortion after six weeks. Unless a court steps in, this legislation will come into effect on Wednesday. In May, Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill that would make Texas became one of a dozen states to ban abortion upon detection of the fetal heartbeat, which is usually around the sixth week of pregnancy. Also read | Heartbeat bill: Texas passes strict anti-abortion law The so-called "Heartbeat bill" does not leave any exceptions for rape or incest and would make Texas one of the most difficult states to get an abortion in. "Approximately 85 to 90 per cent of people who obtain abortion in Texas are at least six weeks into pregnancy, meaning this law would prohibit nearly all abortions in the state," the American Civil Liberties Union said. A coalition of organisations including Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and others have petitioned the Supreme Court asking it to intervene and block the law's implementation. Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, has prevented other states from enacting regulations on abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. According to it, abortion can be performed as long as the fetus is not viable, typically until the 22nd and 24th week of pregnancy. Also read | Global leaders call for end on abortion barriers However, Texas's law is distinctive in that it allows the public to enforce the ban instead of just state officials, such as prosecutors and health departments. The Texas law "creates a bounty hunting scheme that encourages the general public to bring costly and harassing lawsuits against anyone who they believe has violated the ban," the ACLU said. "Anyone who successfully sues a health center worker, an abortion provider, or any person who helps someone access an abortion after six weeks will be rewarded with at least $10,000, to be paid by the person sued," it said. "Anti-abortion groups in Texas have already set up online forms enlisting people to sue anyone they believe is violating the law and encouraging people to submit 'anonymous tips' on doctors, clinics, and others who violate the law," it said. Also read | How support for legal abortion went mainstream in Argentina The Center for Reproductive Rights president Nancy Northup says that the law forces women to leave the state during times of pandemics in order to receive constitutionally guaranteed healthcare. "Many will not be able to afford to," Northup said. "It's cruel, unconscionable, and unlawful." Plans Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson says the Supreme Court is being called upon to uphold 50 years of precedent and ensure Texans don't lose their constitutional right to abortion. A case involving a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, subject to medical necessity or severe fetal anomalies, will also be heard by the Supreme Court this fall. It will be the first abortion case considered by the nation's high court since former president Donald Trump cemented a conservative majority on the nine-member panel. (With inputs from agencies)

'Heartbeat bill': Restrictive Texas abortion law poised to take effect

Gibraltar&nbsp;was voting Thursday on plans to ease draconian abortion laws in a referendum delayed for over a year by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">coronavirus pandemic</a>.

The issue has exposed sharply opposing views within the tiny, normally closely-knit British enclave at the southernmost tip of Spain, which is home to some 32,000 people.&nbsp;

The referendum was initially slated for March 19, 2020, but was postponed as virus cases began spiralling at the start of the pandemic.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/global-leaders-call-for-end-on-abortion-barriers-390467">Global leaders call for end on abortion barriers</a>

After the polls opened at 9:00 am (0700 GMT), a line of socially distanced voters waited to cast their ballots at Inces Hall theatre, its facade covered with a vibrant mural.&nbsp;

Heading towards the theatre, voters passed two banners, one with a scan of an unborn baby saying "Their lives are in your hands. Vote no!" and a smaller green placard reading "Yes for care compassion and change."

Except in cases where it would save the mother's life, abortion is currently banned in&nbsp;Gibraltar&nbsp;on pain of life imprisonment, although such a penalty has not been applied in modern times.

The government is proposing changes to the law to allow abortion where a woman's mental or physical health is at risk, such as in cases of rape or incest, or when foetuses have fatal physical defects.

"It’s very important to give value to every single life, and yes of course, women have got rights, but so have the babies," 67-year-old pensioner Marie-Luisa Bruzon told AFPTV after voting against it.

Although the changes have already been approved by&nbsp;Gibraltar's the referendum will decide whether or not the amended law is brought into force.&nbsp;

Under the changes, a woman would be able to undergo an abortion up to 12 weeks into her pregnancy if her mental or physical health is deemed at risk, or beyond if such damage would be grave and permanent.&nbsp;

The question voters must answer is: "Should the Crimes (Amendment) Act 2019, that defines the circumstances which would allow abortion in&nbsp;Gibraltar, come into force?"

'Very extreme'

"This law is very extreme. It removes all protection from unborn children all the way up to the nine months," Karenza Morillo, a "No" campaigner told AFPTV.&nbsp;

"On paper it looks restrictive but in practice it will not be."

But Celina Victory, a 19-year-old campaigner for a "Yes" vote said the opposite.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VoteYes?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VoteYes</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MobiliseToModernise?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MobiliseToModernise</a> <a href="https://t.co/rouzbiuHYo">pic.twitter.com/rouzbiuHYo</a>
— Fabian Picardo (@FabianPicardo) <a href="https://twitter.com/FabianPicardo/status/1407804912789037060?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 23, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"It’s not going to open the gates to abortion on demand at all," she said.&nbsp;

"There is a broad range of grounds before 12 weeks, which is fine and we don’t have an issue with that. It is still stricter than most of the legislation in Europe."

Until now, women wanting to have an abortion have had to travel to Spain or Britain to undergo the procedure.

If the changes are approved, the law is expected to take effect fairly quickly although officials have not yet laid out a timeline.

'In&nbsp;Gibraltar's best interests'&nbsp;

Ahead of the vote, Chief Minister Fabian Picardo and two other party leaders released a video urging people to vote "Yes".

"My personal, professional &amp; political opinion on the abortion referendum: it is in #Gibraltar's best interests to #VoteYes on Thursday 24th June," Picardo tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
1/2 My personal, professional &amp; political opinion on the abortion referendum: it is in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Gibraltar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Gibraltar</a>'s best interests to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VoteYes?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VoteYes</a> on Thursday 24th June. I have joined with Joseph Garcia &amp; Marlene Nahon MP to record this message supporting <a href="https://twitter.com/GibraltarforYes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GibraltarforYes</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NoMoreShame?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NoMoreShame</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrustWomen?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TrustWomen</a> <a href="https://t.co/BWGPABWxoZ">pic.twitter.com/BWGPABWxoZ</a>
— Fabian Picardo (@FabianPicardo) <a href="https://twitter.com/FabianPicardo/status/1406367300782018566?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 19, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The proposed changes came after Britain's Supreme Court ruled in June 2018 that Northern Ireland's abortion laws, which at the time were almost identical to&nbsp;Gibraltar's, were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gay-marriage-abortion-laws-liberalised-in-northern-ireland-257395">Gay marriage, abortion laws liberalised in Northern Ireland</a>

"It is therefore clear that if the equivalent law on abortion in Northern Ireland was in breach of the Convention, our identical, archaic law is too," wrote Picardo in Wednesday's&nbsp;Gibraltar&nbsp;Chronicle.

"It is our duty to vote to stop this ongoing breach."

Picardo has said he believed the changes are long overdue and would be approved "by a very large majority".

Gibraltar was voting Thursday on plans to ease draconian abortion laws in a referendum delayed for over a year by the coronavirus pandemic. The issue has exposed sharply opposing views within the tiny, normally closely-knit British enclave at the southernmost tip of Spain, which is home to some 32,000 people.

Gibraltar was voting Thursday on plans to ease draconian abortion laws in a referendum delayed for over a year by the coronavirus pandemic. The issue has exposed sharply opposing views within the tiny, normally closely-knit British enclave at the southernmost tip of Spain, which is home to some 32,000 people. The referendum was initially slated for March 19, 2020, but was postponed as virus cases began spiralling at the start of the pandemic. Also read | Global leaders call for end on abortion barriers After the polls opened at 9:00 am (0700 GMT), a line of socially distanced voters waited to cast their ballots at Inces Hall theatre, its facade covered with a vibrant mural. Heading towards the theatre, voters passed two banners, one with a scan of an unborn baby saying "Their lives are in your hands. Vote no!" and a smaller green placard reading "Yes for care compassion and change." Except in cases where it would save the mother's life, abortion is currently banned in Gibraltar on pain of life imprisonment, although such a penalty has not been applied in modern times. The government is proposing changes to the law to allow abortion where a woman's mental or physical health is at risk, such as in cases of rape or incest, or when foetuses have fatal physical defects. "It’s very important to give value to every single life, and yes of course, women have got rights, but so have the babies," 67-year-old pensioner Marie-Luisa Bruzon told AFPTV after voting against it. Although the changes have already been approved by Gibraltar's the referendum will decide whether or not the amended law is brought into force. Under the changes, a woman would be able to undergo an abortion up to 12 weeks into her pregnancy if her mental or physical health is deemed at risk, or beyond if such damage would be grave and permanent. The question voters must answer is: "Should the Crimes (Amendment) Act 2019, that defines the circumstances which would allow abortion in Gibraltar, come into force?" 'Very extreme' "This law is very extreme. It removes all protection from unborn children all the way up to the nine months," Karenza Morillo, a "No" campaigner told AFPTV. "On paper it looks restrictive but in practice it will not be." But Celina Victory, a 19-year-old campaigner for a "Yes" vote said the opposite. #VoteYes#MobiliseToModernise pic.twitter.com/rouzbiuHYo — Fabian Picardo (@FabianPicardo) June 23, 2021 × "It’s not going to open the gates to abortion on demand at all," she said. "There is a broad range of grounds before 12 weeks, which is fine and we don’t have an issue with that. It is still stricter than most of the legislation in Europe." Until now, women wanting to have an abortion have had to travel to Spain or Britain to undergo the procedure. If the changes are approved, the law is expected to take effect fairly quickly although officials have not yet laid out a timeline. 'In Gibraltar's best interests' Ahead of the vote, Chief Minister Fabian Picardo and two other party leaders released a video urging people to vote "Yes". "My personal, professional & political opinion on the abortion referendum: it is in #Gibraltar's best interests to #VoteYes on Thursday 24th June," Picardo tweeted. 1/2 My personal, professional & political opinion on the abortion referendum: it is in #Gibraltar's best interests to #VoteYes on Thursday 24th June. I have joined with Joseph Garcia & Marlene Nahon MP to record this message supporting @GibraltarforYes #NoMoreShame #TrustWomen pic.twitter.com/BWGPABWxoZ — Fabian Picardo (@FabianPicardo) June 19, 2021 × The proposed changes came after Britain's Supreme Court ruled in June 2018 that Northern Ireland's abortion laws, which at the time were almost identical to Gibraltar's, were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Also read | Gay marriage, abortion laws liberalised in Northern Ireland "It is therefore clear that if the equivalent law on abortion in Northern Ireland was in breach of the Convention, our identical, archaic law is too," wrote Picardo in Wednesday's Gibraltar Chronicle. "It is our duty to vote to stop this ongoing breach." Picardo has said he believed the changes are long overdue and would be approved "by a very large majority".

Gibraltar votes in postponed abortion referendum

President Joe Biden went to church Saturday in his hometown a day after US Roman Catholic bishops issued a challenge to him over his support for&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;rights.

Biden and first lady Jill Biden spent time at St. Joseph on the Brandywine Church in Wilmington.&nbsp;They also visited the church graveyard where the president's first wife Neilia, son Beau and infant daughter Naomi are buried.

Biden, 78, is a devout Catholic who attends mass at least once a week, and he supports the landmark 1973 US Supreme Court decision affirming a woman's right to an&nbsp;abortion.

On Friday US bishops agreed to draft a statement on the meaning of holy communion which could potentially be used to deny that sacrament to the American leader.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brazilians-protest-bolsonaros-role-in-half-a-million-covid-19-deaths-392661">Also Read |&nbsp;Brazilians protest Bolsonaro's role in half a million COVID-19 deaths</a>

The Eucharist, also known as the holy communion, is among the most sacred rituals in the Catholic Church and there have been calls from some conservative church leaders to deny the sacrament to politicians who support&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;rights.

Biden on Friday seemed to dismiss the possibility that he could be denied communion. "That's a private matter and I don't think that's going to happen," he told reporters.

It is up to each local bishop to decide who receives communion in their diocese.

In 2019, a priest at a Catholic church in South Carolina refused holy communion to Biden because of his stance on&nbsp;abortion.

The Catholic News Service reported in May that the Vatican had warned US bishops to proceed cautiously with policies designed "to address the situation of Catholics in public office who support legislation allowing&nbsp;abortion, euthanasia or other moral evils."

President Joe Biden went to church Saturday in his hometown a day after US Roman Catholic bishops issued a challenge to him over his support for abortion rights.

President Joe Biden went to church Saturday in his hometown a day after US Roman Catholic bishops issued a challenge to him over his support for abortion rights. Biden and first lady Jill Biden spent time at St. Joseph on the Brandywine Church in Wilmington. They also visited the church graveyard where the president's first wife Neilia, son Beau and infant daughter Naomi are buried. Biden, 78, is a devout Catholic who attends mass at least once a week, and he supports the landmark 1973 US Supreme Court decision affirming a woman's right to an abortion. On Friday US bishops agreed to draft a statement on the meaning of holy communion which could potentially be used to deny that sacrament to the American leader. Also Read | Brazilians protest Bolsonaro's role in half a million COVID-19 deaths The Eucharist, also known as the holy communion, is among the most sacred rituals in the Catholic Church and there have been calls from some conservative church leaders to deny the sacrament to politicians who support abortion rights. Biden on Friday seemed to dismiss the possibility that he could be denied communion. "That's a private matter and I don't think that's going to happen," he told reporters. It is up to each local bishop to decide who receives communion in their diocese. In 2019, a priest at a Catholic church in South Carolina refused holy communion to Biden because of his stance on abortion. The Catholic News Service reported in May that the Vatican had warned US bishops to proceed cautiously with policies designed "to address the situation of Catholics in public office who support legislation allowing abortion, euthanasia or other moral evils."

Biden goes to church a day after challenge from bishops on abortion

Belgium’s Prime Minister, Alexander de Croo, and five other government ministers from European countries have signed an open letter demanding an end to all legal barriers to abortion.

The letter has been signed by ministers from France, Canada, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands have raised their voices to support women’s right to safe and legal abortion.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mount-recyclemore-sculptor-makes-structure-out-of-electronic-waste-before-g7-summit-390448" hreflang="en">'Mount Recyclemore': Sculptor makes structure out of electronic waste before G7 summit</a>

Along with other 29 politicians, the letter senders asked for re-introduction of legal abortion clinics, which, they believe, were being targeted by misinformation leading to closure.

"No woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term; and no woman should die due to pregnancy or childbirth. The foundation of a fair and equal world for women and girls in all their diversity is the right to decide about their own bodies. Every woman everywhere has the right to safe, legal abortion, maternal and obstetric healthcare, comprehensive sexuality education and contraception," the letter reads.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinese-students-hold-principal-hostage-for-30-hours-during-protests-390397" hreflang="en">Chinese students hold principal hostage for 30 hours during protests</a>

It further highlights the problems that women are facing and the negative impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on women’s health.

"Right now, across the world, women and girls are routinely denied full access to their sexual and reproductive rights and freedoms. The disproportionate impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly on women’s economic empowerment, and&nbsp;increased sexual and gender-based violence, makes the need to secure gender equality more pressing than ever," the letter explains.

They also stressed that the road to safe abortions is only if the anti-abortion campaigns are silenced by giving a legal nod to abortions all around the world.

Belgium’s Prime Minister, Alexander de Croo, and five other government ministers from European countries have signed an open letter demanding an end to all legal barriers to abortion.

Belgium’s Prime Minister, Alexander de Croo, and five other government ministers from European countries have signed an open letter demanding an end to all legal barriers to abortion. The letter has been signed by ministers from France, Canada, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands have raised their voices to support women’s right to safe and legal abortion. Also read | 'Mount Recyclemore': Sculptor makes structure out of electronic waste before G7 summit Along with other 29 politicians, the letter senders asked for re-introduction of legal abortion clinics, which, they believe, were being targeted by misinformation leading to closure. "No woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term; and no woman should die due to pregnancy or childbirth. The foundation of a fair and equal world for women and girls in all their diversity is the right to decide about their own bodies. Every woman everywhere has the right to safe, legal abortion, maternal and obstetric healthcare, comprehensive sexuality education and contraception," the letter reads. Also read | Chinese students hold principal hostage for 30 hours during protests It further highlights the problems that women are facing and the negative impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on women’s health. "Right now, across the world, women and girls are routinely denied full access to their sexual and reproductive rights and freedoms. The disproportionate impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly on women’s economic empowerment, and increased sexual and gender-based violence, makes the need to secure gender equality more pressing than ever," the letter explains. They also stressed that the road to safe abortions is only if the anti-abortion campaigns are silenced by giving a legal nod to abortions all around the world.

Global leaders call for end on abortion barriers

A Salvadoran woman, who had served nearly a third of her 30-year prison sentence on charges of terminating her pregnancy and violating El Salvador's harsh abortion ban, was released on Monday, activists said.

Sara Rogel was arrested in October 2012 after going to a hospital with bleeding injuries caused by what she said was a fall while carrying out chores at home. Then a 22-year-old student, Rogel was prosecuted and sentenced for killing her unborn daughter.

"Sara never deserved to be in prison," feminist activist Morena Herrera said. "While in mourning for the heartbreaking loss of her pregnancy, Sara should have been with her family. Instead, she was unjustly imprisoned for nine years."

Her release from a jail in Zacatecoluca, 35 miles (56 km) southeast of capital San Salvador, was initially ordered a week ago, but Rogel was forced to remain in detention until a deadline passed for the Attorney General's office to appeal her release.

El Salvador has one of the world's strictest bans on abortion. It does not permit exceptions, even for rape or if the mother's life is at risk, and prison sentences can stretch up to 40 years.

In recent years, some rulings have been reversed, with several women released&nbsp;from jail after serving parts of their long sentences.

Still, women are often prosecuted for stillbirths and abortions induced because of medical emergencies.

(With inputs from agencies)

A Salvadoran woman, who had served nearly a third of her 30-year prison sentence on charges of terminating her pregnancy and violating El Salvador's harsh abortion ban, was released on Monday, activists said.

A Salvadoran woman, who had served nearly a third of her 30-year prison sentence on charges of terminating her pregnancy and violating El Salvador's harsh abortion ban, was released on Monday, activists said. Sara Rogel was arrested in October 2012 after going to a hospital with bleeding injuries caused by what she said was a fall while carrying out chores at home. Then a 22-year-old student, Rogel was prosecuted and sentenced for killing her unborn daughter. "Sara never deserved to be in prison," feminist activist Morena Herrera said. "While in mourning for the heartbreaking loss of her pregnancy, Sara should have been with her family. Instead, she was unjustly imprisoned for nine years." Her release from a jail in Zacatecoluca, 35 miles (56 km) southeast of capital San Salvador, was initially ordered a week ago, but Rogel was forced to remain in detention until a deadline passed for the Attorney General's office to appeal her release. El Salvador has one of the world's strictest bans on abortion. It does not permit exceptions, even for rape or if the mother's life is at risk, and prison sentences can stretch up to 40 years. In recent years, some rulings have been reversed, with several women released from jail after serving parts of their long sentences. Still, women are often prosecuted for stillbirths and abortions induced because of medical emergencies. (With inputs from agencies)

Salvadoran woman freed from jail after 30-year abortion sentence

A day on, Twitter has still not explained why it filtered a conversation on Abortion. In an interview to WION's Palki, academician Vivek Wadhwa explains why social media platforms are behaving like British colonial masters.

Gravitas: Why did Twitter restrict a conversation on abortion?

abortion

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