Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Reproductive Rights”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 577 records · Page 32Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

A woman's choice.

Abortion is now the most common gynaecological operation in New Zealand and Australia. Early legal abortion is a safe procedure whether carried out surgically or medically. In contrast, the traditional use of abortifacients has been mostly unscientific, illegal and shrouded in secrecy. Mifepristone as an option for induced abortion has only recently become available in New Zealand and is not yet available in Australia. The reasons for the delay in introducing a significant new abortion technique are political, professional, legal, socioeconomic and commercial. Istar, a not-for-profit company, was formed in New Zealand in 1999 to import mifepristone. The drug was approved for use in New Zealand on 30 August 2001. It was first used in October 2001 in Wellington for mid-trimester abortions and in April 2002 for early medical abortions. Legal ambiguities were clarified in a High Court Judgment on 10 April 2003. The experience with mifepristone raises concerns about the introduction of new drugs for reproductive health care, given the commercial risks associated with their development. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has a role to play in ensuring that safe abortion services are available for women. Advocates of women's rights in reproductive health care have made a significant impact in the last three decades and the conclusion that abortion must be the woman's choice is strongly supported.

Abortifacient Agents↗
PubMed2004

From anti-natalist to ultra-conservative: restricting reproductive choice in Peru.

This article examines Peru's population policy since the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development and assesses to what extent its policies and programmes have affected reproductive health and rights. It is drawn from data collected during ongoing monitoring of sexual and reproductive health policies and programmes in Peru since 1998 for the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE). Accomplishments since 1994 in Peru demonstrate good faith on the port of the government and foreign donors to make progress towards fulfilling the ICPD agenda by addressing key reproductive health concerns and promoting women's rights. Unfortunately, this progress has not been consistent. It has been overshadowed by two periods of anti-choice policies and interventions. The first, in 1996--97 under the Fujimori government, was a demographic approach that used numerical targets and undue pressure on women to accept sterilisation as the government's main poverty reduction strategy, which led to documented abuses. The second, in 2001--03 under the Toledo government, was a far-right approach that worked to limit access to essential services, including emergency contraception, condoms and post-abortion core. In spite of their contradictory nature, these two policy approaches have been the greatest obstacles to making long-lasting improvements to reproductive health and rights in Peru.

Female↗
PubMed1992

Adding constitutional depravation to untimely death: South Dakota's living will pregnancy provision.

In 1991, the South Dakota Legislature enacted a living will statute. Included is a pregnancy provision that prevents pregnant women from obtaining the full benefit of the statute. A South Dakota Attorney General's opinion was released discussing the conflict of laws problems posed by the statute. That opinion, however, did not address the more important question of the constitutionality of the pregnancy provision. This comment analyzes the pregnancy provision under the Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Establishment Clauses and concludes that South Dakota's pregnancy provision is unconstitutional under all three doctrines.

Abortion, Induced↗