A Global Milestone

In 2019, Iceland passed a new law on the termination of pregnancy. Passed with a solid majority and the support of a cross-political coalition, the new law provides pregnant people with the right to decide on a termination, without having to get prior permission from medical personnel, as had previously been the case. The law was a huge step forward to ensure the protection of sexual and reproductive rights in Iceland, but there still remains room for improvement, for example with regard to the rights of trans people and the access of uninsured people to the service. The success of the legislation was also remarkable for the cross-political support it enjoyed, largely based on women’s solidarity as 18 of 22 women in parliament, from nearly all parties, supported the law.

A Decade of Implementation

Uruguay gained international praise in 2012 when it passed one of the most liberal abortion laws on the continent. While the law undoubtedly represents a step in the right direction, ten years have passed, and the law and its implementation could not live up to the expectations. The Uruguayan abortion law over-medicalizes, paternalizes, and imposes a series of very burdensome requirements on people wishing to access abortion services, in violation of human rights law.

The Long Road to Reproductive Justice

In North Macedonia, abortion law changes when the government does. The practices of the past years vividly demonstrate that abortion is not only a private matter but also a political issue. Depending on whether right or left-wing parties are in power, the law on abortion fluctuates between difficult-to-access and more liberal procedures.

The Force of Social Mobilization

On December 30th, 2020, the Argentinean Congress legalized abortion up to the 14th week. Its legalization in Argentina took place after the rising of the so-called green tide in 2018, which transformed the longstanding movement for abortion rights in the country into a mass phenomenon, and the abortion issue, which used to be a taboo, into a main topic of public discussion. The new law has been challenged through judicial actions without success so far, and it has changed the conditions for the implementation of lawful abortions throughout the country.

A Promising Future?

The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996 (Choice Act) provides the legislative framework that regulates access to abortion in South Africa. It is noted for its liberal stance on abortion and for this reason South Africa ‘serves as a global role model of reform in the area of abortion laws’. Despite its celebrated reproductive rights affirming approach, there are several on-ground issues that undermine the aims of the Act and the reproductive rights and health of those seeking abortion care. In this blog, I position the Choice Act within its historical and contemporary context which provides the necessary backdrop to demonstrate why the Act offers a ground-breaking approach to legislative regulation of abortion care. Thereafter, I explore some of the barriers to access and consider some key state efforts to overcome these issues, thus demonstrating a commitment to ensuring access to abortion care as part of the continuum of sexual and reproductive health care.

Constitutional but Criminal

In the last two years, India has witnessed significant changes in the legal regulation of abortion. In 2021, Parliament comprehensively amended the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP” Act) to ensure “access of women to safe and legal abortion without compromising on the safety and quality of care,” along with securing “dignity, autonomy, confidentiality and justice for women who need to terminate pregnancy.” Additionally, in September 2022, the Supreme Court of India delivered a path-breaking judgment on abortion, locating access to safe abortion within the fundamental rights to dignity, autonomy, privacy, and health. Despite these changes, the law and practice of abortion continue to deny pregnant persons access to safe and comprehensive abortion care.

Under Black Skies

Since the Indian state unilaterally abrogated the autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in August 2019, human rights defenders (HRDs) have been confronted with an unprecedented closing of civic spaces, forcing them to restrict or stop their engagement. While HRDs have been subjected to state repression for more than 30 years since the onset of the 1989 insurgency in J&K, the developments in 2019 mark a turning point, both in strategy and methods employed by the Indian state.

»Tuhindi Article« (»The Articles Were Yours”)

Through what was described with war-time imageries of a “constitutional surgical strike” and a “constitutional siege”, in August 2019 a radical change was made to what innocuously appeared earlier in the Constitution of India as Article 370. This blog post will attempt to problematise the use of the Indian constitutional framework in the engagement with Jammu and Kashmir. It will also hint towards an alternative role where the use of the Constitutional framework can, despite its limitations, make space for questions of self-determination, and contested sovereignties.

Suppressing Political Dissent

The administrative preventive detention law Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) is one of the most stringent laws to uphold in what is referred to as the “security of the state and the public order.” For decades, thousands of Kashmiris have been incarcerated under this law for expressing political views contrary to official state narratives. Creating a state of exception where people are not ordinary criminals but extraordinary criminals who pose a threat to the national integrity of the Indian state, the PSA has stripped countless individuals of their basic rights.

Фрагментарне реагування на загрозу свободі 3МІ в ЄС

Як відомо, шляхи польського та угорського урядів розійшлися щодо відповідей на російсько-українську війну. Однак на внутрішньому рівні обидві країни продовжують покладатися на схожі структурні зміни в медіа-середовищі, які допомагають їм впливати на виборців і підривають чесність виборів. Реакція ЄС на кризу свободи та плюралізму 3MI в Угорщині та Польщі була більш стриманою та якісно відрізнялася від реакції на кризу суддівської незалежності або загрози академічним свободам та правам меншин.