Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned whether a woman with intellectual disability has no right to become a mother.

A division bench of Justices R V Ghuge and Rajesh Patil was hearing a petition filed by a 27-year-old woman’s father, seeking permission for medical termination of her 21-week pregnancy on the ground that she was of a mentally unsound mind and unmarried.

The man in his plea submitted that his daughter wanted to continue the pregnancy.

The bench had last week directed that the woman be examined by a medical board at the state-run JJ Hospital in Mumbai.

As per the report submitted by the medical board on Wednesday, the woman is not mentally unsound or ill but was diagnosed with borderline intellectual disability with an IQ of 75 per cent.

The bench noted that the woman’s parents had not made her go through any psychological counselling or treatment, but only kept her on medication since 2011.

The medical board’s report said there were no abnormalities or anomalies in the foetus and the woman was medically fit for continuation of the pregnancy.

The report, however, also said that termination of the pregnancy could be done.

Additional government pleader Prachi Tatke submitted to the court that consent of the pregnant woman is of paramount importance in such matters.

The bench took note of the fact that the medical board report has clearly stated the woman is not mentally disabled or of an unsound mind.

“The observation (in the report) is that she has below-average intelligence. Nobody can be super intelligent. We are all human beings and everybody has different levels of intelligence,” the court said.

“Just because she has below-average intelligence, does she have no right to be a mother? If we say that persons with below average intelligence do not have the right to be parents, it would be against the law,” the HC said.

As per provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, a pregnancy beyond the 20-week gestation period is allowed in cases where the woman is mentally ill, it said.

“Borderline case cannot be said to be a mental disorder. She (the pregnant woman in the present case) has not been declared as mentally ill. It is only a borderline case of intellectual functioning,” the bench said.

The advocate of the petitioner informed the HC that the woman has now disclosed to her parents the identity of the man with whom she is in a relationship and who was responsible for the pregnancy.

The court then asked the woman’s parents to meet the man and interact with him to see if he was willing to marry her.

“As parents, take the initiative and talk to the man. They are both adults. It is not an offence,” the court said.

The parents adopted the woman when she was five-month-old infant, and must now do their duty as parents, it said.

The court posted the matter for further hearing on January 13.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

It’s not just the Harris-Trump show: US voters this November 5 will cast ballots for new members of Congress, tens of thousands of state and local officials, and in multiple referendums on topics including hot-button issues like abortion.

Here is a look at who and what is up for a vote beyond the choice between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris.

Congress 

In addition to choosing a president, millions of US voters will decide the fate of Congress: both in the House of Representatives — where all seats are up for grabs — and the Senate, where one-third are.

The House of Representatives has 435 members, with each representing a Congressional district and elected for a two-year term. Republicans hold the House by a small margin, but with Harris’s entry into the race, Democrats are hoping to benefit from a surge in enthusiasm to recapture the lower house.

Thirty-four of the Senate’s 100 seats are in play. The Senate consists of two senators from every state, who hold six-year terms. Democrats are in control now, but Republicans are hoping to reverse the situation.

If the same party were to win the presidency and both houses of Congress, it would have the power to push through the president’s agenda without support from opposition lawmakers.

 Governors 

Gubernatorial elections will occur in 11 of the 50 US states, with key races in New Hampshire, North Carolina and Washington state. 

The governor is the top executive at the state level, where most powers that do not belong to the federal government lie.

 Referendums 

Since the federal right to an abortion was overturned in 2022 by the Supreme Court, the issue has been ever-present on the political landscape. 

Democrats have often used the debate over reproductive rights to dissuade women voters from casting ballots for Republicans.

Abortion rights will be the subject of referendums in 11 states, 10 of which are on whether to establish state-level abortion guarantees. Voters in Nebraska will decide whether the possibility of abortion should be limited to the first trimester.

In dozens of states, voters are being asked to decide on a variety of other issues.

In Colorado, for example, voters will vote on whether or not to ban “trophy hunting” of the mountain lion, bobcat and lynx. 

And in Maine, voters will decide if they want to change their state flag.

Local elections 

Thousands of local offices will also be up for election, including state-level lawmakers, judges, mayors, city council members, county officials, sheriffs and others.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Republican candidate Donald Trump with Democratic candidate Kamala Harris during a presidential debate at the National Constitution Centre in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 10.
| Photo Credit: AFP

With exactly 30 days to go before Election Day in the United States, the two principal contestants for the post of the 47th President of the country are trying to frame the election on the single issue that favour them – for Democrat Kamala Harris, that is abortion rights, and for Republican Donald Trump, that is immigration. Simultaneously, both are trying to reposition themselves on the issue that put them on the defensive — Ms. Harris wants to appear tougher than she has been on the issue of illegal immigration and Mr. Trump wants to appear softer than he used to be on the question of abortion. This contest to frame the contest remains deadlocked as neither has been able to completely overwhelm the American public discourse. Opinion polls point to a photo-finish on November 5.

Both Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump would like to sharpen polarisation on one, and diffuse the debate on the other. Mr. Trump was President from 2017 to 2021; and Ms. Harris has been Vice President since 2021. Both of them have to disown part of their legacies, and amplify parts to present a curated image that they think suits them the most. Both sides misrepresent each other in pursuit of a favourable framing of the contest. In the chaotic mess of issues that confuse Americans – from inflation to global wars to fracking and climate — these are two issues that both parties hope can help them build clarity in their favour.

The abortion debate has been politically rewarding for the Democrats and costly for the Republicans in recent past. In the 2022 mid-term elections that followed the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that abortion was not a constitutionally guaranteed right, Democrats retained control of the Senate and performed above expectations in House of Representatives contests. This was attributed largely to an increased support among women for the Democrats. According to an American University poll this week, Ms. Harris is increasing her favourability lead over Mr. Trump among women voters, and 86% of women disapprove of any government intervention in reproductive choices. Mr. Trump who had earlier claimed credit for the overturning of the constitutional right to abortion by the SC, is now trying to mellow down. His running mate J.D. Vance, appearing in a debate with his opponent Tim Walz this week, admitted that the Republicans need to do “so much better… at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue, where they frankly just don’t trust us”. Mr. Vance said he no longer supported any nationwide regulation of abortion and shared with his opponent the anguish over the death of two women due to limited access to abortion. Mr. Trump’s wife Melania is reportedly in support of protecting abortion in her memoir slated for release on October 8. A recent New York Times-Siena College Poll found abortion rights are one question that Ms. Harris has a significant advantage over Mr. Trump. While Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance are trying to moderate their position on abortion, the Harris campaign accuse them of planning to enforce a nationwide ban or regulation of abortion. “Their Project 2025 is going to have a registry of pregnancies,” Mr. Walz said in the debate. Project 2025, an ultra conservative vision document, has been disowned by the Trump campaign and according to a CNN fact check, it does not propose such a registry.

The Trump campaign seeks to link nearly all problems of America to the influx of unauthorised people. Mr. Vance said: “…in communities all across this country, you’ve got schools that are overwhelmed, you’ve got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you’ve got housing that is totally unaffordable, because we’ve brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans..” According to official estimates, around 10 million people entered the U.S. illegally during the Biden-Harris administration. The Trump campaign alleges this number is 22 million and tries to pin the entire blame on Ms. Harris, who they wrongly say was in charge of securing the border. Ms. Harris has been promising a strong border policy besides blaming Mr. Trump for blocking border management measures proposed by the Biden administration. Balancing her position on this is perhaps the most difficult act for Ms. Harris as a majority of Americans want regulated admission of new people, but a strong segment of Democrats oppose controls vehemently.

In reality, both abortion and immigration are questions of detail than principle for most Americans, multiple polls show. Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans support some sort of access and some sort of restrictions with regard to both abortion and immigration. Public views on both these issues are spread over a wide spectrum and the disagreements are essentially about details. For instance, until what stage of pregnancy should abortion be legal or how to manage the admission of new entrants into the U.S., and how many of them should be allowed. Erasing all nuances from the positions, of self and the opponent, appears to be the strategy of both campaigns to gain political mileage.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) here to constitute a medical board to ascertain the physical condition of a woman and her 25-week foetus she wants aborted citing financial constraints.

A vacation bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma ordered the medical board to furnish its report by May 27.

The bench passed the order on a plea of the woman, who claimed that she came to know about her pregnancy on May 17.

“She has come all the way from Dubai and is currently staying in a hotel here. She is not that financially strong,” the counsel said and urged the bench to allow her to terminate her pregnancy.

The bench said it will list the matter for next Monday.

Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, aborting a foetus that is more than 24 weeks old can be allowed only in cases of substantial foetal abnormality as diagnosed by a medical board or if an opinion is formed in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the pregnant woman.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The Supreme Court has allowed a 14-year-old rape survivor to terminate her 30-week pregnancy, overturning an order by the Bombay High Court. The court called it an “exceptional case” and allowed the abortion on the basis of a hospital report.

Indian law requires the court’s permission to undergo abortion beyond 24 weeks of pregnancy.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that while undergoing abortion at this stage involves some risk, medical experts in this case have opined that the threat to life is not higher than the risk of full-term delivery.

“We will allow the medical termination since she is 14 and it is a rape case and this is an exceptional case,” the CJI said.

The teenager’s mother had appealed in the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court refused to allow her abortion on April 4.

A top court bench, comprising the CJI and Justice JB Pardiwala, held an urgent hearing last Friday in this matter. Stating that the medical report that the high court relied upon regarding the sexual assault failed to assess the physical and mental condition of the teenager, it ordered a fresh check-up at a Maharashtra hospital.

The medical board at a Sion hospital opined in favour of the abortion. Based on it, the court allowed the abortion by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers it to pass an order needed to ensure justice in any case pending before it.

“The medical board at Sion has opined that continuation of pregnancy against will of minor may impact negatively on the physical and mental well-being of the minor, while some risk is involved, the medical board opined that threat to life is not higher than the risk of full-term delivery,” said the Chief Justice.

Passing the order, the court noted that the teenager was unaware of her pregnancy till a very late stage. The court was also informed that a rape case had been filed in this matter along with charges under the stringent POCSO law.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 permits medical termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks with the opinion of a registered medical practitioner, and up to 24 weeks in some cases. In cases beyond that upper limit, one has to approach the court.

Prague:

A Prague hospital offered apologies on Thursday to a patient on whom it had performed an involuntary abortion after mixing her up with another patient last week.

One of the women came to the hospital for a regular check as she was pregnant, while the other arrived for curettage, a tissue removal procedure, which is also a method of terminating a pregnancy.

Both were Asian with a permanent residence in the Czech Republic, local media have said.

Hospital staff mixed them up and performed the surgery on the pregnant patient, who lost her foetus as a result.

“Unfortunately, it was a human error, a human failure,” Jan Kvacek, head of the Bulovka hospital in Prague, told reporters on Thursday.

Kvacek said the hospital was “deeply sorry” for what he called a “tragic” mix-up and said the institution also offered psychological and legal assistance to the patient.

“She is no doubt entitled to receive compensation,” he added, blaming a language barrier as playing a role in the incident.

Michal Zikan, head of the hospital’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, said the patient had signed a document in Czech which, however, belonged to the other patient.

“Three days earlier, the patient was told in great detail, in the presence of an interpreter, what she would undergo, that it’s just a check,” Zikan told journalists.

He added the surgeons had “no reason to believe they were dealing with a different patient”.

The hospital has suspended one employee and ordered another one to work under expert supervision as a result.

The case resembles that of Thi-Nho Vo, a Frenchwoman of a Vietnamese origin, who lost her baby in 1991 after a similar patient mix-up in Lyon.

Thi-Nho lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, claiming the hospital had committed involuntary homicide.

But the court ruled in 2003 that the involuntary abortion of a foetus does not constitute manslaughter, setting a precedent on the legal status of unborn babies.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

In strong observations while hearing a woman’s request to terminate a 26-week pregnancy, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked if the petitioner wanted permission to kill the child through a court order.

The Supreme Court has asked the woman’s counsel and the centre’s lawyer to speak to her before the next hearing tomorrow morning.

The three-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India is hearing the married woman’s petition for the permission to abort the 26-week pregnancy. A mother of two, the woman has said she is suffering from depression and is not in a position to raise a third child, emotionally or financially.

On October 9, the court had allowed her to proceed with the pregnancy. The centre then sought a recall of the order, citing the advice of a panel of doctors at AIIMS Delhi against the abortion. Yesterday, a two-judge bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna gave a split verdict. Following this, the Chief Justice of India-led bench took up the matter.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has placed on hold an order allowing the termination of a 26-week pregnancy after the government submitted a medical report indicating the foetus is “viable”, i.e., it shows signs of life and has a strong possibility of survival. The court, hearing a government plea to recall its order, said it wanted to hear from the woman before passing the new order.

The hearing is to resume at 2 pm.

The top court, which yesterday allowed the termination, was irked by the last-minute AIIMS report, and demanded to know why it had not been presented sooner. “Why only after our order? Why were they not candid earlier? Which court wants to stop a foetus with a heartbeat? Certainly not us, for heaven’s sake,” Justice Hima Kohli said.

On Tuesday, a different bench of the Supreme Court allowed the couple to abort their 26-week-old pregnancy after the petitioner argued that the woman, who is a mother of two children, is suffering from various health issues and from postnatal depression.

The woman said she is financially, emotionally and socially not in a position to raise a third child while she is already breastfeeding her second child.