Chile government proposes to legalize abortion up to 14 weeks
In Chile, abortions are only permitted for three reasons: a threat to the life of the mother, serious malformation of the foetus, or rape.
'Thirty-six years after therapeutic abortions (terminations due to medical necessity) were banned in our country... we are opening the debate in Congress,' Minister for Women Antonia Orellana told reporters.
She was referring to dictator Augusto Pinochet's 1989 repeal of a law allowing abortions on health grounds, which ushered in a total ban on terminations for over 25 years.
The bill unveiled by the government on Wednesday comes a year after Boric announced plans to decriminalize all abortions.
His minority Frente Amplio (Broad Front) party faces an uphill battle to get the bill through parliament, with the conservative opposition vehemently opposed to expanding abortion rights.
Orellana admitted it would be 'naive' to think that abortions would be legal before Boric's presidency ends in March 2026.
Decriminalizing abortion under all circumstances is a long-standing demand of feminist groups in Chile.
A poll by the Centre for Public Studies showed, however, that only 34 percent of Chileans back the right to abortions regardless of circumstances, whereas 50 percent believe terminations should only be allowed in special cases.
Boric, who became Chile's youngest-ever leader in 2021 aged 35, failed in his bid to put expanded abortion rights in a new proposed constitution in 2022.
Voters however rejected the draft charter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
13 hours ago
- The Sun
Brazilians protest Trump tariffs with effigy burnings
BRASÍLIA: Brazilians set fire to effigies of Donald Trump in protests across several cities Friday, denouncing the US president's politically motivated trade tariffs. Anti-Trump demonstrations were held in Brasília, São Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro, signaling worsening relations between two of the Americas' largest economies. The protests, though modest in attendance, reflected widespread anger over Trump's decision to impose a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian exports and sanction Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The US president openly admitted the measures were retaliation for Brazil's prosecution of his political ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro, a far-right leader, is currently on trial for allegedly plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election. His supporters stormed Brazil's Congress in January 2023, echoing the US Capitol attack by Trump supporters two years earlier. A Brazilian general testified that the alleged conspirators also planned to assassinate leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and other officials. Trump dismissed the trial as a 'witch hunt' and sanctioned Moraes, who has been a vocal critic of Bolsonaro and tech billionaire Elon Musk over online disinformation. The US Treasury Department also froze Moraes' assets and imposed a travel ban. Moraes, presiding over Bolsonaro's coup trial, vowed to remain firm. 'This Court, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Federal Police will not bow to these threats,' he said in a rare public statement. He emphasized Brazil's commitment to democracy and national sovereignty. The 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods is set to take effect on August 6. Meanwhile, Bolsonaro faces strict conditions, including an electronic ankle monitor, a nighttime curfew, and a social media ban pending his trial, where he could receive a 40-year sentence. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Moraes of human rights violations, including arbitrary detentions and suppression of free speech. The escalating dispute highlights deepening political and economic tensions between the US and Brazil. - AFP
Malay Mail
14 hours ago
- Malay Mail
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
WASHINGTON, Aug 2 — The US Supreme Court signalled yesterday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority US congressional districts in the state from one to two. The justices said they will consider whether it violates the US Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the US civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue 'violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution.' The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. 'This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case,' Hasen wrote. 'This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar.' The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six US House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as 'non-African American' sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to US District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people. — Reuters
The Sun
a day ago
- The Sun
Smithsonian removes Trump impeachment display label
WASHINGTON: The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History removed a label referencing Donald Trump's two impeachments last month following pressure from the White House, The Washington Post reported. Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice -- first in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, then in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. He was acquitted by the Senate both times. The label referencing his impeachments was introduced in 2021 to an exhibition about the American presidency at the Smithsonian, according to The Washington Post. The removal of the label 'came about as part of a content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director,' the Post wrote, citing a source not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The exhibit has reverted to a 2008 label stating that 'only three presidents have seriously faced removal' -- referring to Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974 before he could be impeached. The Smithsonian later said in a statement that 'a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments,' the paper reported, without specifying when. Since starting his second term in January, the Republican president has moved to control major cultural institutions -- slashing arts and humanities funding, and cutting the National Park Service's budget. In March, Trump signed an executive order to 'restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness' and 'remove improper ideology.' The order accused the institution of having 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' and argued the shift has promoted narratives that portray American values as 'inherently harmful and oppressive.' In the order, Trump instructed Vice President JD Vance -- who sits on the Smithsonian's board -- to coordinate with Congress to ban funding for exhibits or programs that 'degrade shared American values, divide Americans by race, or promote ideologies inconsistent with Federal law.' He has also accused Washington's John F. Kennedy Center of being too 'woke,' fired its board members, and appointed himself chairman. - AFP
