News Analysis India

Tag: abortion

  • Britney Spears writes of abortion while dating Justin Timberlake in excerpts from upcoming memoir

    By Associated Press

    Britney Spears wrote that she had an abortion while dating Justin Timberlake more than 20 years ago, according to a peek inside her hotly anticipated memoir.

    “If it had been left up to me alone, I never would have done it,” she writes of the procedure, according to the excerpt from “The Woman in Me” published Tuesday in People magazine. “And yet Justin was so sure that he didn’t want to be a father.”

    The pregnancy “was a surprise, but for me, it wasn’t a tragedy,” she wrote in the excerpt, saying that she had wanted to start a family with Timberlake — it was just earlier than expected.

    “But Justin definitely wasn’t happy about the pregnancy. He said we weren’t ready to have a baby in our lives, that we were way too young,” she wrote. The couple broke up in 2002. It’s unclear when the pregnancy happened.

    Representatives for Spears declined to offer further comment. Representatives for Timberlake did not respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press. The AP has not been able to independently review a copy of the “The Woman in Me” yet.

    Spears, a prolific user of social media, has not posted to Instagram or X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, since the People stories were published.

    In the excerpt published in People, she characterized the abortion as “one of the most agonizing things I have ever experienced in my life.”

    Spears’ long-awaited memoir will be published Oct. 24, just months after her divorce from Sam Asghari was announced and promising to shed light on the 41-year-old’s tumultuous decades in the spotlight.

    “NO ONE KNOWS WHAT I REALLY THOUGHT … UNTIL NOW,” reads a teaser for the book she posted Sunday. The audiobook will be narrated by actor Michelle Williams.

    Hailing from Kentwood, Louisiana, Spears rose to fame as a tween on “The Mickey Mouse Club,” alongside other future stars like Ryan Gosling and Timberlake — a trajectory chronicled in other excerpts published by People.

    Despite some further attempts at acting — in the People excerpts, she says the lead in “The Notebook” came down to her and Rachel McAdams and that she was relieved when 2002’s “Crossroads” was “was pretty much the beginning and end of my acting career” — she found indelible stardom with her music career, starting with 1999’s “…Baby One More Time.”

    She had two sons with Kevin Federline, but was placed under a court-ordered conservatorship — mostly under the supervision of her father — that controlled her life, money and voice after public breakdowns. That conservatorship would last nearly 14 years, ending in late 2021, after a swelling #FreeBritney movement that helped secure new limits on conservatorships in California.

    Many of Spears’ allegations against her father and others who operated the conservatorship are expected to be heard in a civil trial scheduled for next year.

    A 2021 documentary, “Framing Britney Spears,” included an old interview in which Timberlake spoke of sleeping with a former girlfriend and indicated he ridiculed her in his “Cry Me A River” music video.

    That sparked a backlash in which fans accused the former NSYNC member of contributing to Spears’ breakdown and also renewed ire about his role in Janet Jackson’s so-called wardrobe malfunction during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. Subsequently, he apologized to Spears and Jackson “because I care for and respect these women and I know I failed.”

    A few months later, as Spears revealed long-guarded secrets about what she described as an “abusive” conservatorship in court, Timberlake tweeted his support.

    “After what we saw today, we should all be supporting Britney at this time,” he posted in June 2021. “Regardless of our past, good and bad, and no matter how long ago it was… what’s happening to her is just not right.” Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

    Britney Spears wrote that she had an abortion while dating Justin Timberlake more than 20 years ago, according to a peek inside her hotly anticipated memoir.

    “If it had been left up to me alone, I never would have done it,” she writes of the procedure, according to the excerpt from “The Woman in Me” published Tuesday in People magazine. “And yet Justin was so sure that he didn’t want to be a father.”

    The pregnancy “was a surprise, but for me, it wasn’t a tragedy,” she wrote in the excerpt, saying that she had wanted to start a family with Timberlake — it was just earlier than expected.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); });

    “But Justin definitely wasn’t happy about the pregnancy. He said we weren’t ready to have a baby in our lives, that we were way too young,” she wrote. The couple broke up in 2002. It’s unclear when the pregnancy happened.

    Representatives for Spears declined to offer further comment. Representatives for Timberlake did not respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press. The AP has not been able to independently review a copy of the “The Woman in Me” yet.

    Spears, a prolific user of social media, has not posted to Instagram or X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, since the People stories were published.

    In the excerpt published in People, she characterized the abortion as “one of the most agonizing things I have ever experienced in my life.”

    Spears’ long-awaited memoir will be published Oct. 24, just months after her divorce from Sam Asghari was announced and promising to shed light on the 41-year-old’s tumultuous decades in the spotlight.

    “NO ONE KNOWS WHAT I REALLY THOUGHT … UNTIL NOW,” reads a teaser for the book she posted Sunday. The audiobook will be narrated by actor Michelle Williams.

    Hailing from Kentwood, Louisiana, Spears rose to fame as a tween on “The Mickey Mouse Club,” alongside other future stars like Ryan Gosling and Timberlake — a trajectory chronicled in other excerpts published by People.

    Despite some further attempts at acting — in the People excerpts, she says the lead in “The Notebook” came down to her and Rachel McAdams and that she was relieved when 2002’s “Crossroads” was “was pretty much the beginning and end of my acting career” — she found indelible stardom with her music career, starting with 1999’s “…Baby One More Time.”

    She had two sons with Kevin Federline, but was placed under a court-ordered conservatorship — mostly under the supervision of her father — that controlled her life, money and voice after public breakdowns. That conservatorship would last nearly 14 years, ending in late 2021, after a swelling #FreeBritney movement that helped secure new limits on conservatorships in California.

    Many of Spears’ allegations against her father and others who operated the conservatorship are expected to be heard in a civil trial scheduled for next year.

    A 2021 documentary, “Framing Britney Spears,” included an old interview in which Timberlake spoke of sleeping with a former girlfriend and indicated he ridiculed her in his “Cry Me A River” music video.

    That sparked a backlash in which fans accused the former NSYNC member of contributing to Spears’ breakdown and also renewed ire about his role in Janet Jackson’s so-called wardrobe malfunction during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. Subsequently, he apologized to Spears and Jackson “because I care for and respect these women and I know I failed.”

    A few months later, as Spears revealed long-guarded secrets about what she described as an “abusive” conservatorship in court, Timberlake tweeted his support.

    “After what we saw today, we should all be supporting Britney at this time,” he posted in June 2021. “Regardless of our past, good and bad, and no matter how long ago it was… what’s happening to her is just not right.” Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

  • SC castigates Gujarat HC for adjourning rape survivor’s abortion plea

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI:   The Supreme Court in a special Saturday hearing castigated the Gujarat High Court over its delay in deciding a rape victim’s plea for medical termination of her 27-week pregnancy. The woman had approached the Gujarat High Court on August 7 seeking permission to abort her 26-week-old fetus. The court on August 8 constituted a medical board to ascertain her health.

    The board submitted its report the next day. Although it was taken on record on August 11, the matter was posted for hearing on August 23 —12 days later.

    The court also rejected the listing of the case on August 17. A bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that there should be some sense of urgency in such cases, adding valuable time was lost due to the high court adjourning the case by 12 days despite the medical report supporting her plea for safe abortion.

    “In such cases, there must be a sense of urgency and not a lackadaisical attitude…adjourning it like a normal case, we’re sorry to make these remarks,” the bench said. The bench directed the medical board to submit a fresh medical report by Sunday evening. “The same shall be put up before this court on Monday. List this case on Monday as the first item,” it said.

    NEW DELHI:   The Supreme Court in a special Saturday hearing castigated the Gujarat High Court over its delay in deciding a rape victim’s plea for medical termination of her 27-week pregnancy. The woman had approached the Gujarat High Court on August 7 seeking permission to abort her 26-week-old fetus. The court on August 8 constituted a medical board to ascertain her health.

    The board submitted its report the next day. Although it was taken on record on August 11, the matter was posted for hearing on August 23 —12 days later.

    The court also rejected the listing of the case on August 17. A bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that there should be some sense of urgency in such cases, adding valuable time was lost due to the high court adjourning the case by 12 days despite the medical report supporting her plea for safe abortion.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    “In such cases, there must be a sense of urgency and not a lackadaisical attitude…adjourning it like a normal case, we’re sorry to make these remarks,” the bench said. The bench directed the medical board to submit a fresh medical report by Sunday evening. “The same shall be put up before this court on Monday. List this case on Monday as the first item,” it said.

  • Supreme Court says non-cisgender women may also require access to safe termination of pregnancy

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said women, other than cisgender women, may also require access to safe medical termination of pregnancies while expanding the scope of the MTP Act to include unmarried women with 20-24 weeks of pregnancy for abortion.

    Cisgender is a term for describing people whose sense of personal identity and gender is the same as their birth sex.

    The top court in its landmark decision expanded the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and the corresponding rules to include unmarried women for abortion between 20-24 weeks of pregnancy, saying limiting the provision to cover only married women will render it discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala said the statutory right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act is relatable to the constitutional right to make reproductive choices under Article 21 (The right to protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

    “Before we embark upon a discussion on the law and its application, it must be mentioned that we use the term “woman” in this judgment as including persons other than cis-gender women who may require access to safe medical termination of their pregnancies,” Justice Chandrachud said, while writing the 75-page verdict on behalf of the bench.

    The top court’s verdict came on an appeal of a woman from the North East challenging the Delhi High Court order denying her permission to abort her pregnancy out of a consensual relationship after her partner refused to marry and left her.

    The court said depriving women of autonomy not only over their bodies but also over their lives would be an affront to their dignity.

    “The right to choose for oneself- be it as significant as choosing the course of one’s life or as mundane as one’s day-to-day activities – forms a part of the right to dignity. It is this right which would be under attack if women were forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies,” the bench said.

    It added the MTP Act recognises the reproductive autonomy of every pregnant woman to choose medical intervention to terminate her pregnancy.

    “Implicitly, this right also extends to the right of the pregnant woman to access healthcare facilities to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It is meaningless to speak of the latter in the absence of the former. Reproductive health implies that women should have access to safe, effective, and affordable methods of family planning and enabling them to undergo safe pregnancy, if they so choose,” it said.

    The court noted the crisis of unsafe abortions still looms large despite the enactment of the MTP law in 1971 and unsafe abortions are a leading but preventable cause of maternal mortality and morbidity.

    “However, despite the enactment of the MTP Act in 1971, unsafe abortions continue to be the third leading cause of maternal mortality, and close to eight women in India die each day due to causes related to unsafe abortions,” the bench said, while referring to a report of United Nations Population Fund.

    It said the absence of sexual health education in the country means that most adolescents are unaware of how the reproductive system functions as well as how contraceptive devices and methods may be deployed to prevent pregnancies.

    ALSO READ: Marital rape still not an offence say activists post SC’s abortion ruling

    “The taboos surrounding pre-marital sex prevent young adults from attempting to access contraceptives.

    The same taboos mean that young girls who have discovered the fact that they are pregnant are hesitant to reveal this to their parents or guardians, who play a crucial role in accessing medical assistance and intervention,” the court noted.

    The Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution, it said, lay down the fundamental principles in the governance of the country and press upon the state to apply them while making laws.

    The bench went on to say the state must ensure that information regarding the reproduction and safe sexual practices is disseminated to all parts of the population and it must see to it that all segments of society are able to access contraceptives to avoid unintended pregnancies and plan their families.

    “Medical facilities and Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP) must be present in each district and must be affordable to all. The government must ensure that RMPs treat all patients equally and sensitively.”

    “Treatment must not be denied on the basis of one’s caste or due to other social or economic factors. It is only when these recommendations become a reality that we can say that the right to bodily autonomy and the right to dignity are capable of being realized,” the bench said.

    It, however, clarified that nothing in the judgment must be construed as diluting the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said women, other than cisgender women, may also require access to safe medical termination of pregnancies while expanding the scope of the MTP Act to include unmarried women with 20-24 weeks of pregnancy for abortion.

    Cisgender is a term for describing people whose sense of personal identity and gender is the same as their birth sex.

    The top court in its landmark decision expanded the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and the corresponding rules to include unmarried women for abortion between 20-24 weeks of pregnancy, saying limiting the provision to cover only married women will render it discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala said the statutory right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act is relatable to the constitutional right to make reproductive choices under Article 21 (The right to protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

    “Before we embark upon a discussion on the law and its application, it must be mentioned that we use the term “woman” in this judgment as including persons other than cis-gender women who may require access to safe medical termination of their pregnancies,” Justice Chandrachud said, while writing the 75-page verdict on behalf of the bench.

    The top court’s verdict came on an appeal of a woman from the North East challenging the Delhi High Court order denying her permission to abort her pregnancy out of a consensual relationship after her partner refused to marry and left her.

    The court said depriving women of autonomy not only over their bodies but also over their lives would be an affront to their dignity.

    “The right to choose for oneself- be it as significant as choosing the course of one’s life or as mundane as one’s day-to-day activities – forms a part of the right to dignity. It is this right which would be under attack if women were forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies,” the bench said.

    It added the MTP Act recognises the reproductive autonomy of every pregnant woman to choose medical intervention to terminate her pregnancy.

    “Implicitly, this right also extends to the right of the pregnant woman to access healthcare facilities to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It is meaningless to speak of the latter in the absence of the former. Reproductive health implies that women should have access to safe, effective, and affordable methods of family planning and enabling them to undergo safe pregnancy, if they so choose,” it said.

    The court noted the crisis of unsafe abortions still looms large despite the enactment of the MTP law in 1971 and unsafe abortions are a leading but preventable cause of maternal mortality and morbidity.

    “However, despite the enactment of the MTP Act in 1971, unsafe abortions continue to be the third leading cause of maternal mortality, and close to eight women in India die each day due to causes related to unsafe abortions,” the bench said, while referring to a report of United Nations Population Fund.

    It said the absence of sexual health education in the country means that most adolescents are unaware of how the reproductive system functions as well as how contraceptive devices and methods may be deployed to prevent pregnancies.

    ALSO READ: Marital rape still not an offence say activists post SC’s abortion ruling

    “The taboos surrounding pre-marital sex prevent young adults from attempting to access contraceptives.

    The same taboos mean that young girls who have discovered the fact that they are pregnant are hesitant to reveal this to their parents or guardians, who play a crucial role in accessing medical assistance and intervention,” the court noted.

    The Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution, it said, lay down the fundamental principles in the governance of the country and press upon the state to apply them while making laws.

    The bench went on to say the state must ensure that information regarding the reproduction and safe sexual practices is disseminated to all parts of the population and it must see to it that all segments of society are able to access contraceptives to avoid unintended pregnancies and plan their families.

    “Medical facilities and Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP) must be present in each district and must be affordable to all. The government must ensure that RMPs treat all patients equally and sensitively.”

    “Treatment must not be denied on the basis of one’s caste or due to other social or economic factors. It is only when these recommendations become a reality that we can say that the right to bodily autonomy and the right to dignity are capable of being realized,” the bench said.

    It, however, clarified that nothing in the judgment must be construed as diluting the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

  • Woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status: Supreme Court

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: “A woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status,” the Supreme Court said on Thursday, underlining the right to decisional autonomy also means women may choose the course of their lives.

    The top court said a woman is often enmeshed in complex notions of family, community, religion, and caste and such external societal factors affect the way she exercises autonomy and control over her body, particularly in matters relating to reproductive decisions.

    In its landmark decision, the top court expanded the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and the corresponding rules to include unmarried women for abortion between 20-24 weeks of pregnancy, saying limiting the provision to cover only married women will render it discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala said besides the physical consequences, unwanted pregnancies, which women are forced to carry to term, may have cascading effects on the rest of their lives by interrupting their education, career, or affecting their mental well-being.

    ALSO READ: Married or single, all women, are entitled to safe, legal abortion, says Supreme Court

    “A woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status. In case the pregnancy is wanted, it is equally shared by both partners. However, in case of unwanted or incidental pregnancy, the burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman affecting her mental and physical health,” it said.

    The top court’s verdict came on an appeal of a woman from the North East challenging the Delhi High Court order denying her permission to abort her pregnancy out of a consensual relationship after her partner refused to marry and left her.

    The bench added that Article 21 of the Constitution recognises and protects the right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake.

    “Importantly, it is the woman alone who has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion,” it said.

    Justice Chandrachud, while writing the 75-page verdict on behalf of the bench said the ambit of reproductive rights is not restricted to the right of women to have or not have children.

    ALSO READ: Marital rape still not an offence say activists post SC’s abortion ruling

    “It also includes the constellation of freedoms and entitlements that enable a woman to decide freely on all matters relating to her sexual and reproductive health.”

    “Reproductive rights include the right to access education and information about contraception and sexual health, the right to decide whether and what type of contraceptives to use, the right to choose whether and when to have children, the right to choose the number of children, the right to access safe and legal abortions, and the right to reproductive healthcare,” the judgement said.

    The court noted that women must also have the autonomy to make decisions concerning these rights, free from coercion or violence, but they are often enmeshed in complex notions of family, community, religion, and caste.

    “Societal factors often find reinforcement by way of legal barriers restricting a woman’s right to access abortion. The decision to have or not to have an abortion is borne out of complicated life circumstances, which only the woman can choose on her own terms without external interference or influence,” it said.

    ALSO READ: What did the Supreme Court say on abortion, marital rape, and ‘persons other than cis-women’?

    The bench added that reproductive autonomy requires that every pregnant woman has the intrinsic right to choose to undergo or not to undergo abortion without any consent or authorisation from a third party.

    “The right to reproductive autonomy is closely linked with the right to bodily autonomy. As the term itself suggests, bodily autonomy is the right to make decisions about one’s body. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy on a woman’s body as well as her mind cannot be understated.”

    “The foetus relies on the pregnant woman’s body for sustenance and nourishment until it is born”, the bench said.

    ALSO READ: Social changes take time, easier to bring law but difficult to persuade society: SC on dissolution of marriages

    It added the biological process of pregnancy transforms a woman’s body to permit this and she may experience swelling, body ache, contractions, morning sickness, and restricted mobility, to name a few of a host of side effects.

    “A mere description of the side effects of pregnancy cannot possibly do justice to the visceral image of forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, the decision to carry the pregnancy to its full term or terminate it is firmly rooted in the right to bodily autonomy and decisional autonomy of the pregnant woman,” the court underlined.

    NEW DELHI: “A woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status,” the Supreme Court said on Thursday, underlining the right to decisional autonomy also means women may choose the course of their lives.

    The top court said a woman is often enmeshed in complex notions of family, community, religion, and caste and such external societal factors affect the way she exercises autonomy and control over her body, particularly in matters relating to reproductive decisions.

    In its landmark decision, the top court expanded the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and the corresponding rules to include unmarried women for abortion between 20-24 weeks of pregnancy, saying limiting the provision to cover only married women will render it discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala said besides the physical consequences, unwanted pregnancies, which women are forced to carry to term, may have cascading effects on the rest of their lives by interrupting their education, career, or affecting their mental well-being.

    ALSO READ: Married or single, all women, are entitled to safe, legal abortion, says Supreme Court

    “A woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status. In case the pregnancy is wanted, it is equally shared by both partners. However, in case of unwanted or incidental pregnancy, the burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman affecting her mental and physical health,” it said.

    The top court’s verdict came on an appeal of a woman from the North East challenging the Delhi High Court order denying her permission to abort her pregnancy out of a consensual relationship after her partner refused to marry and left her.

    The bench added that Article 21 of the Constitution recognises and protects the right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake.

    “Importantly, it is the woman alone who has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion,” it said.

    Justice Chandrachud, while writing the 75-page verdict on behalf of the bench said the ambit of reproductive rights is not restricted to the right of women to have or not have children.

    ALSO READ: Marital rape still not an offence say activists post SC’s abortion ruling

    “It also includes the constellation of freedoms and entitlements that enable a woman to decide freely on all matters relating to her sexual and reproductive health.”

    “Reproductive rights include the right to access education and information about contraception and sexual health, the right to decide whether and what type of contraceptives to use, the right to choose whether and when to have children, the right to choose the number of children, the right to access safe and legal abortions, and the right to reproductive healthcare,” the judgement said.

    The court noted that women must also have the autonomy to make decisions concerning these rights, free from coercion or violence, but they are often enmeshed in complex notions of family, community, religion, and caste.

    “Societal factors often find reinforcement by way of legal barriers restricting a woman’s right to access abortion. The decision to have or not to have an abortion is borne out of complicated life circumstances, which only the woman can choose on her own terms without external interference or influence,” it said.

    ALSO READ: What did the Supreme Court say on abortion, marital rape, and ‘persons other than cis-women’?

    The bench added that reproductive autonomy requires that every pregnant woman has the intrinsic right to choose to undergo or not to undergo abortion without any consent or authorisation from a third party.

    “The right to reproductive autonomy is closely linked with the right to bodily autonomy. As the term itself suggests, bodily autonomy is the right to make decisions about one’s body. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy on a woman’s body as well as her mind cannot be understated.”

    “The foetus relies on the pregnant woman’s body for sustenance and nourishment until it is born”, the bench said.

    ALSO READ: Social changes take time, easier to bring law but difficult to persuade society: SC on dissolution of marriages

    It added the biological process of pregnancy transforms a woman’s body to permit this and she may experience swelling, body ache, contractions, morning sickness, and restricted mobility, to name a few of a host of side effects.

    “A mere description of the side effects of pregnancy cannot possibly do justice to the visceral image of forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, the decision to carry the pregnancy to its full term or terminate it is firmly rooted in the right to bodily autonomy and decisional autonomy of the pregnant woman,” the court underlined.

  • All women entitled to safe, legal abortion, says Supreme Court

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that all women, irrespective of their marital status, are entitled to safe and legal abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and AS Bopanna delivered the verdict on the interpretation of the MTP Act, and whether unmarried or single women can be allowed like their married counterparts the benefit of abortion up to 24 weeks.

    The top court said the distinction between married and unmarried women under the abortion laws is “artificial and constitutionally unsustainable” and perpetuates the stereotype that only married woman are sexually active.

    The bench, on August 23, had reserved its verdict on interpretation of the MTP Act provisions which makes a distinction between married and unmarried women on the issue of abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that all women, irrespective of their marital status, are entitled to safe and legal abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and AS Bopanna delivered the verdict on the interpretation of the MTP Act, and whether unmarried or single women can be allowed like their married counterparts the benefit of abortion up to 24 weeks.

    The top court said the distinction between married and unmarried women under the abortion laws is “artificial and constitutionally unsustainable” and perpetuates the stereotype that only married woman are sexually active.

    The bench, on August 23, had reserved its verdict on interpretation of the MTP Act provisions which makes a distinction between married and unmarried women on the issue of abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy.

  • ‘Unmarried women’ now in Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday expanded the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP) to include “unmarried woman” and allowed a woman to abort her 24-week pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and AS Bopanna directed the AIIMS director to set up a medical board of two doctors to examine the woman by Friday under the provisions of the MTP Act. It also asked the board to determine whether the pregnancy, if terminated could risk the life of the woman or not. “We request the AIIMS director to constitute a medical board in terms of provisions of Section 3(2)(d) MTP Act by tomorrow (Friday). In the event the medical board concludes that the foetus can be aborted without any danger to the life of the petitioner (woman), the AIIMS shall carry out the abortion in terms of the petition…,” the bench said.

    The SC sought the report of the medical board within one week of the procedure and said the order of the Delhi High Court stands modified to the above extent. The bench said provisions of the MTP Act amended in 2021 include the word “partner” instead of “husband” in the explanation to section 3, which shows the intent of Parliament that it was not to confine the situations arising only out of matrimonial relationships.

    It said the use of the word “partner” ascribes to an intention of Parliament to cover “unmarried woman” under the act, which is in consonance with the Constitution. It added that the Delhi HC had taken an unduly restricted view by not allowing the woman to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at 23 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship on the ground that she was “unmarried”.

    The bench sought the assistance of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati on the interpretation of the provisions of the act and observed that allowing the petitioner woman to suffer an unwanted pregnancy will be contrary to the object and spirit of the legislation.

    It said the petitioner should not be denied the benefit of the law merely on the ground that she is an unmarried woman. In an order issued on July 16, a Delhi HC bench refused to grant permission to the woman to abort the 23-week foetus, saying it is not permitted under the abortion law after 20 weeks for pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship.

    The petitioner, a 25-year-old woman, had told the court that her partner, with whom she was in a consensual relationship, had refused to marry her. She had stressed that giving birth outside the wedlock would cause her psychological agony as well as social stigma and she was not mentally prepared to be a mother.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday expanded the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP) to include “unmarried woman” and allowed a woman to abort her 24-week pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship.

    A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and AS Bopanna directed the AIIMS director to set up a medical board of two doctors to examine the woman by Friday under the provisions of the MTP Act. It also asked the board to determine whether the pregnancy, if terminated could risk the life of the woman or not. “We request the AIIMS director to constitute a medical board in terms of provisions of Section 3(2)(d) MTP Act by tomorrow (Friday). In the event the medical board concludes that the foetus can be aborted without any danger to the life of the petitioner (woman), the AIIMS shall carry out the abortion in terms of the petition…,” the bench said.

    The SC sought the report of the medical board within one week of the procedure and said the order of the Delhi High Court stands modified to the above extent. The bench said provisions of the MTP Act amended in 2021 include the word “partner” instead of “husband” in the explanation to section 3, which shows the intent of Parliament that it was not to confine the situations arising only out of matrimonial relationships.

    It said the use of the word “partner” ascribes to an intention of Parliament to cover “unmarried woman” under the act, which is in consonance with the Constitution. It added that the Delhi HC had taken an unduly restricted view by not allowing the woman to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at 23 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship on the ground that she was “unmarried”.

    The bench sought the assistance of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati on the interpretation of the provisions of the act and observed that allowing the petitioner woman to suffer an unwanted pregnancy will be contrary to the object and spirit of the legislation.

    It said the petitioner should not be denied the benefit of the law merely on the ground that she is an unmarried woman. In an order issued on July 16, a Delhi HC bench refused to grant permission to the woman to abort the 23-week foetus, saying it is not permitted under the abortion law after 20 weeks for pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship.

    The petitioner, a 25-year-old woman, had told the court that her partner, with whom she was in a consensual relationship, had refused to marry her. She had stressed that giving birth outside the wedlock would cause her psychological agony as well as social stigma and she was not mentally prepared to be a mother.

  • SC overturns Delhi HC order, allows unmarried woman to terminate pregnancy at 24 weeks

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: In a significant order, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a woman cannot be denied an opportunity to terminate her pregnancy just because she is unmarried, reports said.

    The court passed an ad-interim order to allow an unmarried woman to abort her pregnancy of 24 weeks arising out of a live-in relationship, subject to a medical board constituted by the AIIMS Delhi concluding that the foetus can be aborted without risk to the life of the woman, Live Law reports.

    The court was reportedly hearing a plea by a 25-year-old unmarried woman, who questioned the Delhi High Court’s July 16 order declining her request to terminate her 24-week foetus in view of her consensual relationship.

    A bench led by Justices DY Chandrachud observed that the Delhi High Court took an “unduly restrictive” view of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules while declining the woman interim relief.

    Noting that after the 2021 amendment, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act uses the word “partner” instead of “husband” in the explanation to Section 3, the Court said that this shows the legislative intent to cover “unmarried woman” under the Act.

    According to the PTI, the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, and AS Bopanna directed the AIIMS director to set up a medical board of two doctors to examine the woman by Friday under the provisions of the MTP Act. It asked the board to determine whether the pregnancy if terminated could risk the life of the woman or not.

    “We request the AIIMS director to constitute a medical board in terms of provisions of section 3(2)(d) MTP Act by tomorrow (Friday). In the event the medical board concludes that the foetus can be aborted without any danger to the life of the petitioner (woman), the AIIMS shall carry out the abortion in terms of the petition,” the bench said.

    The top court sought the report of the medical board within one week of the procedure and said that the order of the Delhi High Court stands modified to the above extent.

    The top court said that the woman who was in a consensual relationship in the month of June had come to know about her pregnancy and during the examination, it was found that she was 22 weeks pregnant and she decided to terminate the pregnancy.

    The Delhi high court had denied the permission to abort saying that it virtually amounts to killing the foetus.

    In an order issued on July 16, a Delhi HC bench refused to grant permission to the woman to abort the 23-week foetus, saying it is not permitted under the abortion law after 20 weeks for pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship.

    The high court, however, sought the Centre’s response on the woman’s contention that the exclusion of unmarried women from being allowed to undergo medical termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks, was discriminatory.

    The petitioner, a 25-year-old woman, had told the court that her partner, with whom she was in a consensual relationship, had refused to marry her.

    She had stressed that giving birth outside the wedlock would cause her psychological agony as well as social stigma and she was not mentally prepared to be a mother.

    The high court, while dealing with the plea, had said the court cannot go beyond the statute while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

    ALSO READ | Govt notifies new rules for allowing abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy for certain categories of women

    “The petitioner, who is an unmarried woman and whose pregnancy arises out of a consensual relationship, is clearly not covered by any of the clauses under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003,” the high court noted in its order dated July 15.

    “As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (which excludes unmarried women) stands, and this court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot go beyond the statute,” it had said.

    Before passing the order, the high court had suggested that the petitioner can be kept “somewhere safe” until she delivers the child who can subsequently be given up for adoption.

    “We will ensure that the girl is kept somewhere safe and she can deliver and go. There is a big queue for adoption,” the court had said.

    After the lawyer turned down the court’s suggestion, it said that it would pass an order on the petition.

    NEW DELHI: In a significant order, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a woman cannot be denied an opportunity to terminate her pregnancy just because she is unmarried, reports said.

    The court passed an ad-interim order to allow an unmarried woman to abort her pregnancy of 24 weeks arising out of a live-in relationship, subject to a medical board constituted by the AIIMS Delhi concluding that the foetus can be aborted without risk to the life of the woman, Live Law reports.

    The court was reportedly hearing a plea by a 25-year-old unmarried woman, who questioned the Delhi High Court’s July 16 order declining her request to terminate her 24-week foetus in view of her consensual relationship.

    A bench led by Justices DY Chandrachud observed that the Delhi High Court took an “unduly restrictive” view of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules while declining the woman interim relief.

    Noting that after the 2021 amendment, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act uses the word “partner” instead of “husband” in the explanation to Section 3, the Court said that this shows the legislative intent to cover “unmarried woman” under the Act.

    According to the PTI, the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, and AS Bopanna directed the AIIMS director to set up a medical board of two doctors to examine the woman by Friday under the provisions of the MTP Act. It asked the board to determine whether the pregnancy if terminated could risk the life of the woman or not.

    “We request the AIIMS director to constitute a medical board in terms of provisions of section 3(2)(d) MTP Act by tomorrow (Friday). In the event the medical board concludes that the foetus can be aborted without any danger to the life of the petitioner (woman), the AIIMS shall carry out the abortion in terms of the petition,” the bench said.

    The top court sought the report of the medical board within one week of the procedure and said that the order of the Delhi High Court stands modified to the above extent.

    The top court said that the woman who was in a consensual relationship in the month of June had come to know about her pregnancy and during the examination, it was found that she was 22 weeks pregnant and she decided to terminate the pregnancy.

    The Delhi high court had denied the permission to abort saying that it virtually amounts to killing the foetus.

    In an order issued on July 16, a Delhi HC bench refused to grant permission to the woman to abort the 23-week foetus, saying it is not permitted under the abortion law after 20 weeks for pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship.

    The high court, however, sought the Centre’s response on the woman’s contention that the exclusion of unmarried women from being allowed to undergo medical termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks, was discriminatory.

    The petitioner, a 25-year-old woman, had told the court that her partner, with whom she was in a consensual relationship, had refused to marry her.

    She had stressed that giving birth outside the wedlock would cause her psychological agony as well as social stigma and she was not mentally prepared to be a mother.

    The high court, while dealing with the plea, had said the court cannot go beyond the statute while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

    ALSO READ | Govt notifies new rules for allowing abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy for certain categories of women

    “The petitioner, who is an unmarried woman and whose pregnancy arises out of a consensual relationship, is clearly not covered by any of the clauses under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003,” the high court noted in its order dated July 15.

    “As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (which excludes unmarried women) stands, and this court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot go beyond the statute,” it had said.

    Before passing the order, the high court had suggested that the petitioner can be kept “somewhere safe” until she delivers the child who can subsequently be given up for adoption.

    “We will ensure that the girl is kept somewhere safe and she can deliver and go. There is a big queue for adoption,” the court had said.

    After the lawyer turned down the court’s suggestion, it said that it would pass an order on the petition.

  • Singer Halsey reveals suffering three miscarriages, says ‘abortion saved my life’ in op-ed

    By ANI

    WASHINGTON: American singer Halsey has stated that giving birth to her first child after suffering multiple pregnancy losses did not lessen her support for abortion rights.

    According to E! News, Halsey penned an op-ed in Vogue on July 1 amid the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the Roe. v. Wade ruling that had recognized the constitutional right to abortion in the United States for nearly 50 years.

    “Many people have asked me if, since carrying a child to term after years of struggling to do so, I have reconsidered my stance on abortion. The answer is firmly no. In fact, I have never felt more strongly about it,” Halsey wrote.

    Previously, she had spoken out publicly about one of her past miscarriages, saying she suffered one while on tour in 2015. In the op-ed, Halsey wrote that she “miscarried three times” before her24th birthday, adding, “It seemed a cruel irony that I could get pregnant with ease but struggled to maintain a pregnancy.”

    “One of my miscarriages required ‘aftercare,’ a gentle way of saying that I would need an abortion because my body could not terminate the pregnancy completely on its own and I would risk going into sepsis without medical intervention. During this procedure, I cried. I was afraid for myself and I was helpless. I was desperate to end the pregnancy that was threatening my life,” continued the 27-year-old singer.

    Medical terms for miscarriages–used in billing and insurance claims–include “spontaneous abortions,” “missed abortions” and “incomplete abortions,” according to E! News.

    If the patient does not pass an unsuccessful pregnancy naturally, they may be made to wait longer, take pills to try to speed along the process or undergo a surgical procedure with or without sedation. The latter two methods are also typically used in elective abortions of successful pregnancies.

    “My abortion saved my life and gave way for my son to have his,” Halsey wrote. “Every person deserves the right to choose when, if, and how they have this dangerous and life-altering experience. I will hold my son in one arm, and fight with all my might with the other.”

    As per E! News, on June 26, two days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Halsey performed a scheduled concert in Phoenix, Arizona and spoke out against the ruling, prompting many people to walk out.

  • I’ve lost 9 children by miscarriage: Hollywood actress Sharon Stone

    By IANS

    LOS ANGELES: ‘Basic Instinct’ star Sharon Stone has opened up about losing nine children by miscarriage, and she says women are made to feel that losing a baby is “something to bear alone and secretly.The 64-year-old actress said women are made to feel that losing a baby is “something to bear alone and secretly with some kind of sense of failure”, but the actress says anyone who has suffered a miscarriage requires “compassion and empathy and healing”, reports femalefirst.co.uk.

    ALSO READ | Billie Eilish slams U.S. Supreme Court abortion verdict on stage, calls it a ‘dark day’In an Instagram comment, she wrote: “We, as females don’t have a forum to discuss the profundity of this loss. I lost nine children by miscarriage. It is no small thing, physically nor emotionally yet we are made to feel it is something to bear alone and secretly with some kind of sense of failure.”Instead of receiving the much-needed compassion and empathy and healing which we so need. Female health and wellness left to the care of the male ideology has become lax at best, ignorant in fact, and violently oppressive in effort.”

    ALSO READ  | US abortion ruling sparks global debate, polarizes activists

    Stone made the comment on People magazine’s Instagram post promoting a joint interview with ‘Dancing with the Stars’ professionals Peta Murgatroyd and her husband Maks Chmerkovskiy.In the chat, the 35-year-old star opened up to the publication about suffering a miscarriage while her husband, 42, was in Ukraine.He said: “I’m just here to make sure that everything goes well, regardless of what it is. I feel like that’s my job. And then when everybody’s fine, I get to be tended to. But it was crazy. It makes you feel helpless. And for a dude like me, like all my priorities have completely shifted.”

    ALSO READ  | US Supreme Court ruling on abortion ‘huge blow’ to women’s human rights, gender equality: UNHR ChiefPeta also suffered miscarriages twice before.Speaking about her first miscarriage, she told the magazine: “I was completely embarrassed, ultimately ashamed. I didn’t even know how to utter the words and have that sentence come out of my mouth: I had a miscarriage.”I’m somebody who prides herself on health wellness. I exercise every single day. But as I came to realise, that doesn’t really go hand-in-hand with the reproductive system.”

  • Billie Eilish slams U.S. Supreme Court abortion verdict on stage, calls it a ‘dark day’

    By ANI

    WASHINGTON: After the United States Supreme Court gave its verdict to end the constitutional right to abortion, Billie Eilish spoke out strongly against the decision from her position on stage at Glastonbury.

    As per Deadline, the 20-year-old singer told the enormous crowd in front of the Pyramid Stage, “Today is a really, really dark day for women in the US. I’m just going to say that because I can’t bear to think about it any longer.”

    She then dedicated her song ‘Your Power’, a song about older men who take advantage of their position, to all those affected by the decision announced on Friday.

    Eilish’s appearance on the Glastonbury stage made her the youngest solo artist to ever headline in the Festival’s history.

    Another performer to protest the decision was folk star Phoebe Bridgers, who made her debut on the John Peel stage and slammed the old Supreme Court justices “who try to tell us what to do with our bodies,” as per Deadline.

    The ruling reverses 50 years of precedent since the landmark 1973 case that gave women in the United States the right under federal law to terminate a pregnancy, and a subsequent 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which largely retained the right.

    “The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition,” read the Court’s announcement on Friday.