Amid abortion rights causing a flutter in the United States, World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned that restricting access to abortion will lead to unhealthy and unsafe procedures.

Without mentioning the US case, Tedros in a tweet said, “Women should always have the right to choose when it comes to their bodies and their health. Restricting access to #abortion does not reduce the number of procedures — it drives women and girls towards unsafe ones.”

“Access to safe abortion saves lives.”

The comments come in the backdrop of a US Supreme Court ruling draft that got leaked a few days ago.

According to the draft, the majority of the conservative-controlled Supreme Court bench are in favour of banning abortions.

In the draft opinion document&nbsp;leaked to the media, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling was “egregiously wrong from the start” and that the US Constitution “does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion”.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: US top court is set to overturn abortion rights, reveals leaked document

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-top-court-is-set-to-overturn-abortion-rights-reveals-leaked-document-476191/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Meanwhile, furious women gathered on the court premises to protest in Washington just minutes after the news broke late on Monday night, and more were there on Tuesday, with larger protests planned.

According to the Guardian, anti-abortion demonstrators prayed and celebrated but pro-choice protesters lit candles, chanted in support of reproductive rights and shouted expletives about Samuel Alito.

Barriers were erected in front of the court shortly after the leaked report was made public.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-abortion-us-supreme-court-may-go-after-contraception-same-sex-marriage-say-experts-476339">After abortion, US Supreme Court may go after contraception, same-sex marriage, say experts</a>

Abortion has long been a contentious issue in the US, even though polling finds that a clear majority of the public believes it should be legal.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-biden-urges-americans-to-oppose-possible-anti-abortion-ruling-476167">US President Joe Biden urges Americans to oppose possible anti-abortion ruling</a>

The supreme court has a 6-3 majority of deeply conservative justices.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Decode the geostrategy, diplomacy, and ideologies of the world’s unending wars. Catch our special series ‘World at War’ every Saturday at 8:30 PM IST and Sunday at 10:30 PM IST only on WION.&nbsp;

Amid abortion rights causing a flutter in the United States, World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned that restricting access to abortion will lead to unhealthy and unsafe procedures.

Amid abortion rights causing a flutter in the United States, World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned that restricting access to abortion will lead to unhealthy and unsafe procedures. Without mentioning the US case, Tedros in a tweet said, “Women should always have the right to choose when it comes to their bodies and their health. Restricting access to #abortion does not reduce the number of procedures — it drives women and girls towards unsafe ones.” “Access to safe abortion saves lives.” The comments come in the backdrop of a US Supreme Court ruling draft that got leaked a few days ago. According to the draft, the majority of the conservative-controlled Supreme Court bench are in favour of banning abortions. In the draft opinion document leaked to the media, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling was “egregiously wrong from the start” and that the US Constitution “does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion”. Watch | Gravitas: US top court is set to overturn abortion rights, reveals leaked document Meanwhile, furious women gathered on the court premises to protest in Washington just minutes after the news broke late on Monday night, and more were there on Tuesday, with larger protests planned. According to the Guardian, anti-abortion demonstrators prayed and celebrated but pro-choice protesters lit candles, chanted in support of reproductive rights and shouted expletives about Samuel Alito. Barriers were erected in front of the court shortly after the leaked report was made public. Also read | After abortion, US Supreme Court may go after contraception, same-sex marriage, say experts Abortion has long been a contentious issue in the US, even though polling finds that a clear majority of the public believes it should be legal. Also read | US President Joe Biden urges Americans to oppose possible anti-abortion ruling The supreme court has a 6-3 majority of deeply conservative justices. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE Decode the geostrategy, diplomacy, and ideologies of the world’s unending wars. Catch our special series ‘World at War’ every Saturday at 8:30 PM IST and Sunday at 10:30 PM IST only on WION.

‘Access to safe abortion saves lives’: WHO chief comments amid row

With speculations rife that the US Supreme Court may reverse the Roe v&nbsp;Wade verdict after a draft of the order went viral, legal experts now opine that other laws related to marriage, sexuality and family life, including access to contraception, might see an overhaul.

According to the draft ruling, which was disclosed in a leak, the majority of the court seemed to be veering towards upholding a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The experts believe that if the court adopts the draft's legal reasoning when it issues its eventual ruling by the end of June, it could imperil the right to access contraception, Griswold v Connecticut.

“If this [draft] opinion becomes the opinion of the court, Griswold is imperilled – no question,” Wendy Parmet, faculty co-director for the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University told The Guardian.

Justice Samuel Alito, in his draft decision, argues that Roe is a faulty law.

Roe is based on the 14th amendment, as are decisions like Obergefell v Hodges on same-sex marriage, Loving v Virginia on interracial marriage, and Lawrence v Texas on consensual sex, the UK-based newspaper reported.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: US top court is set to overturn abortion rights, reveals leaked document

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-top-court-is-set-to-overturn-abortion-rights-reveals-leaked-document-476191/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences," Alito wrote in the draft, adding that Roe and a 1992 decision that reaffirmed it have only "deepened division" in society.

On Tuesday, the court acknowledged the authenticity of the leaked draft, but sought a preliminary probe into the leak.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-leak-row-what-really-is-the-issue-476216">US Supreme Court abortion ruling leak row: What really is the issue?</a>

Some commentators indicated that Alito, through his leaked draft, has provided a road map for future attempts to eliminate other guaranteed liberties.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-biden-urges-americans-to-oppose-possible-anti-abortion-ruling-476167">US President Joe Biden urges Americans to oppose possible anti-abortion ruling</a>

"On interracial marriage, contraception and same-sex marriage, for one reason or another there is no likelihood the court is going to revisit those decisions," Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis told Reuters.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Decode the geostrategy, diplomacy, and ideologies of the world’s unending wars. Catch our special series ‘World at War’ every Saturday at 8:30 PM IST and Sunday at 10:30 PM IST only on WION.&nbsp;

With speculations rife that the US Supreme Court may reverse the Roe v Wade verdict after a draft of the order went viral, legal experts now opine that other laws related to marriage, sexuality and family life, including access to contraception, might see an overhaul.

With speculations rife that the US Supreme Court may reverse the Roe v Wade verdict after a draft of the order went viral, legal experts now opine that other laws related to marriage, sexuality and family life, including access to contraception, might see an overhaul. According to the draft ruling, which was disclosed in a leak, the majority of the court seemed to be veering towards upholding a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The experts believe that if the court adopts the draft's legal reasoning when it issues its eventual ruling by the end of June, it could imperil the right to access contraception, Griswold v Connecticut. “If this [draft] opinion becomes the opinion of the court, Griswold is imperilled – no question,” Wendy Parmet, faculty co-director for the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University told The Guardian. Justice Samuel Alito, in his draft decision, argues that Roe is a faulty law. Roe is based on the 14th amendment, as are decisions like Obergefell v Hodges on same-sex marriage, Loving v Virginia on interracial marriage, and Lawrence v Texas on consensual sex, the UK-based newspaper reported. Watch | Gravitas: US top court is set to overturn abortion rights, reveals leaked document "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences," Alito wrote in the draft, adding that Roe and a 1992 decision that reaffirmed it have only "deepened division" in society. On Tuesday, the court acknowledged the authenticity of the leaked draft, but sought a preliminary probe into the leak. Also read | US Supreme Court abortion ruling leak row: What really is the issue? Some commentators indicated that Alito, through his leaked draft, has provided a road map for future attempts to eliminate other guaranteed liberties. Also read | US President Joe Biden urges Americans to oppose possible anti-abortion ruling "On interracial marriage, contraception and same-sex marriage, for one reason or another there is no likelihood the court is going to revisit those decisions," Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis told Reuters. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE Decode the geostrategy, diplomacy, and ideologies of the world’s unending wars. Catch our special series ‘World at War’ every Saturday at 8:30 PM IST and Sunday at 10:30 PM IST only on WION.

After abortion, US Supreme Court may go after contraception, same-sex marriage, say experts

Supreme Court dealt a death blow to the sectarian view on personal choice and creative expression in the context of Padmavaat and Hadiya cases by restoring faith in the principle of individual right. Both controversies are different in origin but are linked by a common thread. Both issues are a result of muscular cultural nationalism which India is witnessing since 2014 in the name of political redemption and cultural renaissance. Both controversies are also laced with patriarchy and communitarian view of the power, gender and justice.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;The muscular cultural nationalism worked at two levels in both cases. In the case of Padmavat (which is a case of literature), the controversy became, allegedly, a matter of honour for the Rajput community. It also became an attempt to correct the history in context of the present politics. Even the defeat at the hand of Khilji becomes a moral victory. A victory of character which surpasses the physical and historical fact of defeat.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;In the case of Hadiya, interfaith marriage between two individuals became a conspiracy to change the demographic reality of India. It became an act of subversion, conspiracy by a section of the community, allowing the state to separate the couple. The discourse did not differentiate between criminal conspiracy by few and love marriage between the two.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Both simultaneously undermine individual right in the context of the argument that no liberty is absolute. Both issues represent a sense of political redemption in terms of course correction of body politics in the present as well as claims of cultural renaissance by positing essence in core values related to a particular period, excluding medieval from ancient by stopping the clock of history. Both also represent shift within the discourse of nationalism. In India, the shift has been tangible. It has become cultural and community-centric, shifting from the civic and the constitutional.

&nbsp;

Once the focus shifts from the civic body to the community, it acquires the power to subsume issues unrelated to it. For example, both Hadiya and Padmawati, apart from communitarian in nature is also very patriarchal. I doubt if the man would have been a Hindu and the woman Muslim in Hadiya case, there would have been an issue. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Padmavati becomes problematic on two counts. Rajput valour is both an accepted and a contested fact. It is accepted as a code of honour and contested because Rajputs, like any other royalties, made basic compromises to survive whether it was getting incorporated into Mughal mansabdari system or acquiescing to the British paramountcy.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The honour of the Rajput community becomes embedded in Padmavati&rsquo;s body, wherein &lsquo;Talwar&rsquo; and &lsquo;Kangan&rsquo; become symbols of honour, sacrifice and resolve. Most fascinating part is that Rajput becomes interchangeable with Hindu. Rajput becomes a Hindu in the context of a Muslim and posited as the royalty in context of the other Hindu castes. Surprisingly, this sensibility is neither ancient or medieval. It is modern and product of communitarian sensibility, which wants to assert over and above the individual and his rights enshrined in the Constitution.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Both discourses challenge the constitutional power. Padmavaat and the Hadiya coerce constitutional authorities to do their bidding. Padmavaat receives support from popular governments in the name of law and order and Hadiya from investigating agencies as it sees it as a threat to the state. Both do not differentiate between criminal intent and individual acts of choice and creativity.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The debate gets locked between the binary of us and them wherein the majority community feels that all creative expression gets reserved for them and minority community is allowed far greater religious and cultural expression. This sense of injustice subverts constitutional power with the tacit support of the governments sustaining tension at grass root level.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;This politics is also an assault on the justice system. Justice becomes subservient to popular sentiment. Popular sentiment becomes a cheaply available commodity, amplified over the Internet and TV to be milked at right time and place. It subverts judicial pronouncements in the name of cultural expression and asserts the authenticity of the community over the modern nation-state. In the process, the commitment of the Constitution to an individual becomes a contested fact and the responsibility of the nation and law towards the community becomes mandatory. It reflects the subversion of letter and spirit of the law.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;In both the cases, the Court has played a better role than lawmakers who have fallen prey to sectional sentiments. Democracy should represent, accommodate and care for all sections and their sentiment but should never become a hostage to it.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

Community wins, individual loses as nation fights over Hadiya and Padmavaat.

Supreme Court dealt a death blow to the sectarian view on personal choice and creative expression in the context of Padmavaat and Hadiya cases by restoring faith in the principle of individual right. Both controversies are different in origin but are linked by a common thread. Both issues are a result of muscular cultural nationalism which India is witnessing since 2014 in the name of political redemption and cultural renaissance. Both controversies are also laced with patriarchy and communitarian view of the power, gender and justice. The muscular cultural nationalism worked at two levels in both cases. In the case of Padmavat (which is a case of literature), the controversy became, allegedly, a matter of honour for the Rajput community. It also became an attempt to correct the history in context of the present politics. Even the defeat at the hand of Khilji becomes a moral victory. A victory of character which surpasses the physical and historical fact of defeat. In the case of Hadiya, interfaith marriage between two individuals became a conspiracy to change the demographic reality of India. It became an act of subversion, conspiracy by a section of the community, allowing the state to separate the couple. The discourse did not differentiate between criminal conspiracy by few and love marriage between the two. Both simultaneously undermine individual right in the context of the argument that no liberty is absolute. Both issues represent a sense of political redemption in terms of course correction of body politics in the present as well as claims of cultural renaissance by positing essence in core values related to a particular period, excluding medieval from ancient by stopping the clock of history. Both also represent shift within the discourse of nationalism. In India, the shift has been tangible. It has become cultural and community-centric, shifting from the civic and the constitutional. Once the focus shifts from the civic body to the community, it acquires the power to subsume issues unrelated to it. For example, both Hadiya and Padmawati, apart from communitarian in nature is also very patriarchal. I doubt if the man would have been a Hindu and the woman Muslim in Hadiya case, there would have been an issue. Padmavati becomes problematic on two counts. Rajput valour is both an accepted and a contested fact. It is accepted as a code of honour and contested because Rajputs, like any other royalties, made basic compromises to survive whether it was getting incorporated into Mughal mansabdari system or acquiescing to the British paramountcy. The honour of the Rajput community becomes embedded in Padmavati’s body, wherein ‘Talwar’ and ‘Kangan’ become symbols of honour, sacrifice and resolve. Most fascinating part is that Rajput becomes interchangeable with Hindu. Rajput becomes a Hindu in the context of a Muslim and posited as the royalty in context of the other Hindu castes. Surprisingly, this sensibility is neither ancient or medieval. It is modern and product of communitarian sensibility, which wants to assert over and above the individual and his rights enshrined in the Constitution. Both discourses challenge the constitutional power. Padmavaat and the Hadiya coerce constitutional authorities to do their bidding. Padmavaat receives support from popular governments in the name of law and order and Hadiya from investigating agencies as it sees it as a threat to the state. Both do not differentiate between criminal intent and individual acts of choice and creativity. The debate gets locked between the binary of us and them wherein the majority community feels that all creative expression gets reserved for them and minority community is allowed far greater religious and cultural expression. This sense of injustice subverts constitutional power with the tacit support of the governments sustaining tension at grass root level. This politics is also an assault on the justice system. Justice becomes subservient to popular sentiment. Popular sentiment becomes a cheaply available commodity, amplified over the Internet and TV to be milked at right time and place. It subverts judicial pronouncements in the name of cultural expression and asserts the authenticity of the community over the modern nation-state. In the process, the commitment of the Constitution to an individual becomes a contested fact and the responsibility of the nation and law towards the community becomes mandatory. It reflects the subversion of letter and spirit of the law. In both the cases, the Court has played a better role than lawmakers who have fallen prey to sectional sentiments. Democracy should represent, accommodate and care for all sections and their sentiment but should never become a hostage to it. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Who wins when India fights over Hadiya and Padmavaat?