Latest news with #womensRights
CTV News
16-07-2025
- CTV News
Those facing intimate partner violence urged to seek help
In light of recently reported incidents, the Sudbury Women's Centre is urging those facing intimate partner violence to seek help. Madison Marier reports.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Women's rights face 'full-on assault' due to UN and aid funding cuts
By Olivia Le Poidevin and Emma Farge GENEVA (Reuters) -Four major international reports on women's rights, including recommendations on how to prevent domestic violence and discrimination, will not be published this year, a U.N. document showed, part of what rights groups describe as a broader backlash against gender equality. Voluntary funding for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is down $60 million this year due to unpaid contributions and major U.S. foreign aid cuts under President Trump, around 14% of its total income last year. An OHCHR document circulated to member states and reviewed by Reuters shows that 13 human rights reports have been delayed, four of them specifically concerning women, putting off both investigations and discussions on how policies can be improved. "We're silencing policy dialogue," Pooja Patel, Programme Director at the International Service for Human Rights in Geneva, told Reuters. One in four countries reported a backlash on women's rights last year, a U.N. report in March said, something rights groups said made monitoring and recommendations all the more important. "It really does affect the everyday lives of women and girls when these reports and mechanisms are not functioning," said Claire Somerville, a lecturer and Executive Director of the Gender Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute. Several countries raised concerns at the 59th Session of the Human Rights Council on Tuesday, where the resolution to pause the mandates was passed by consensus. Ecuador warned in a informal HRC meeting in Geneva in June the decision could send the wrong message amidst a "huge backlash" against the rights of women and girls. The OHCHR faced new calls on Tuesday to increase transparency regarding the criteria behind its funding decisions after earlier criticism of its choice to halt the launch of a U.N.-mandated commission investigating suspected human rights violations and war crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Volker Turk and his office would provide a comprehensive update on the feasibility of implementing the paused mandates before the next session in September, according to the U.N. document. In a letter seen by Reuters, Turk told Council members the situation was "deeply regrettable" and expressed concern about the impact funding cuts would have on the protection of human rights. In May the leading U.N. agency for gender equality, U.N. Women, reported that 90% of women's rights organizations in crisis-affected countries have been hit by cuts. "They signal a broader de-prioritisation of gender equality at a global level," said Laura Somoggi, Co-CEO of Womanity, a private foundation in Geneva for advancing gender equality. The OHCHR announced on Friday that the next meeting of the Commission on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, ongoing since 1979, would not take place due to liquidity issues with future ones "to be confirmed". Somerville called it a "huge setback" among many others. "We can describe this as a full-on assault on gender and the rights of women and girls," she said.
The Guardian
02-07-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Planned Parenthood may not survive the Trump administration
Planned Parenthood, the massive, 108-year-old network of women's and reproductive health clinics that operates almost 600 health centers across the United States, may not survive the Trump administration. Long a hated symbol on the right, and unable to summon enthusiastic support from the left, the medical network has nevertheless remained a symbolic and material cornerstone of women's equality, serving millions of patients – many of them indigent or low-income – each year, and housing one of the biggest feminist and pro-choice lobbying and litigation shops in America, in addition to being one of the nation's largest healthcare providers. Since returning to power in January, the Trump administration has made repeated cuts targeting Planned Parenthood's clinics, excluding the group from the vast Title X family planning program, on the pretext of scurrilous claims that they have violated federal anti-discrimination law by adopting resolutions stressing their 'commitment to Black communities' and by providing medical treatment to undocumented immigrants. Now, the supreme court has struck another blow. Last week, the court ruled that patients cannot sue to challenge their states' exclusion of Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. The ruling threatens to transform the Medicaid program, giving states leeway to ban Medicaid reimbursements to any practice that provides politically disfavored medicine – notably abortion, but potentially also including contraception, IVF, gender-affirming care, or HIV treatment. The court functionally nullifies a clause in the bill that established the Medicaid program, which gives patients the right to seek care from 'any qualified provider' of their choosing. Now, the choice of provider can be dramatically limited by the state on the basis of that provider's political beliefs. The ruling also dramatically weakens section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, a landmark Reconstruction-era law that allows for citizens to sue states that deprive them of federally protected rights – raising the troubling prospect that the court will look askance at citizens' ability to enforce their constitutional rights against states that are disdainful of them. In the process, the court provided states with yet another way to choke off Planned Parenthood's funding, and to deprive their residents – particularly women – of the healthcare that they need to live safe, healthy and dignified lives. Many states – most – will now probably proceed to do so. The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, concerns South Carolina's decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. State funding of abortions is not at issue: abortion is banned in South Carolina, and even before it was, the state did not provide Medicaid coverage for abortions out of its state funds. (Federal money is not used to pay for abortions, either: a budget rider known as the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal Medicaid funding from covering abortion care since 1977, in effect prohibiting low-income women from accessing the procedure under their government healthcare plans.) What is at issue, rather, is whether Planned Parenthood, which provides a wide array of services for a disproportionately low-income clientele, can be prohibited from receiving reimbursement for other services that they provide – like pap smears, prenatal care and STD testing. Planned Parenthood challenged their own exclusion by the law in tandem with a Medicaid patient who went to them seeking birth control; because she chose a provider that her state government had a disdain for, she was denied. The suit questioned whether the plaintiffs could sue to enforce the right of patients to choose their own providers. Writing for the court's six-justice majority of Republican-appointed judges, Neil Gorsuch found that they can't. In practice, this decision enables an aggressive expansion of the states' power to put the political preferences of Republican lawmakers between women and gender-nonconforming people and their doctors. Delivered the day after the third anniversary of Dobbs, the decision expands the court's attack on abortion rights by granting states broad latitude to exclude abortion providers from the government subsidy programs that structure much of American healthcare: in practice, this will make abortion provision even more prohibitively expensive and onerous for doctors and practices, and will shutter many clinics. The ruling also comes on the heels of Skrimetti, the court's ruling upholding bans on transition-related healthcare for minors, on the absurd claim that such laws are somehow not sex discrimination. Collectively, the cases illustrate a judicial agenda that is not just vehemently anti-choice, but aggressively gender prescriptive: willing to use the levers of medicine and its regulation to enforce a narrow and regressive vision of gender roles, from identity to sexuality to gestation. The decision comes at a moment when Donald Trump's domestic policy agenda, known humiliatingly as the 'big, beautiful bill,' is working its way through the Senate, which among other things is considering a provision to ban Planned Parenthood from all Medicaid reimbursements nationwide. The organization has said that as a result of the supreme court and Trump administration actions, nearly a third of their clinics – about 200 – may have to close; the group has already decided to close 20 clinics just this year. The result is a de facto ban not just on abortion, but on any healthcare provision by pro-choice providers for vast swaths of American women. One in three women in the US has received services from Planned Parenthood; more than half of American Black women have. When combined with the independent reproductive health clinics that will also be excluded from Medicaid due to their abortion politics, that number rises higher. These Medicaid-enrolled women have now been denied the right to choose a doctor for their most intimate care based on their own comfort and values: instead, they will be forced to choose one based on the whims and bigotries of elected Republicans. In her dissent for the court's three Democratic appointees, Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision will strip patients 'of a deeply personal freedom: 'the ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable''. Instead, those vulnerable patients will probably be pushed, in growing numbers, toward religiously affiliated groups that deceive rather than treat. While abortion-providing medical practices like Planned Parenthood are being pushed out of Medicaid, the program is giving more and more money to crisis pregnancy centers, the Christian fake clinics that lure in frightened women, lie to them about their health, do not provide comprehensive care, and often lack any doctors on staff. These fake clinics, which are lavishly funded and outnumber real reproductive health centers nationwide at a rate of three to one, are not a substitute for real healthcare. But they are a means of restricting women's freedom. For the court, that's good enough. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
Daily Mail
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
EUAN McCOLM: Harsh reality has failed to penetrate Swinney's armour, but it's time he reconnected with reality over gender turmoil
Anas Sarwar's U-turn on self-ID for trans people was humiliating but entirely necessary. Having whipped his MSPs to support the SNP Government's crackpot plan to dismantle women's rights and allow anyone to enter the single-sex spaces of their choosing, the Scottish Labour leader later came to his senses. Interviewed on the Holyrood Sources podcast in February, Mr Sarwar said that, had he known at the time of the gender reform vote in December 2022 what he later learned, he would not have backed a change in the law. The Labour's boss's volte face coincided with public outcry over the case of nurse Sandie Peggie, who was subjected to a disciplinary procedure by NHS Fife after she complained that she should not have to share a changing room with trans-identifying doctor, Beth Upton. After two weeks of tribunal hearings in February, Ms Peggie's claims of discrimination and harassment against the health board and Dr Upton will resume on July 16. Former Conservative Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack, has already saved MSPs from themselves on the issue of self-ID. In 2023, he blocked reform of the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland on the grounds that such a change in the law would negatively impact with the UK-wide Equality Act of 2010. But First Minister John Swinney remains solidly convinced that the failed law - which would have destroyed women's sex-based rights - was wise. Appearing last week on the Holyrood Sources podcast, Mr Swinney was asked about Mr Sarwar's U-turn. Would the First Minister have supported reform of the Gender Recognition Act in 2022 if he'd known what he does now? Harsh reality cannot penetrate the First Minister's armour. 'Yes, I would,' said Mr Swinney. And then he used a line favoured by weasels who reject the idea that allowing men to identify as women might bring with it come complications. The First Minister told the podcast that he was 'trying to improve the lives of a very small number of people in our society who I think have an incredibly hard time.' Gender activists have long focused on the relatively small number of trans-identifying individuals as if this fact makes their ideology any less dangerous. The fact is the demands of these activists impacts everyone, particularly women. Take women's sport, for example. The entry into a women's race or boxing tournament of a biological male disadvantages every female participant. Likewise, every time someone born male is permitted to take a woman's place on a protected short-list or to enter a single-sex space such as a changing room or a domestic violence shelter, others pay a heavy price. But the pernicious effect of gender ideology is felt far beyond 'flashpoints' such as arguments over single-sex spaces. In fact, it has seeped into every aspect of modern life. Organisations across the public and private sectors have ignored their legal responsibilities in order to permit self-ID, despite the law being quite clear that, when it comes so single-sex safe spaces, biology trumps all else. The publication, today, of a new report into the impact of gender ideology on the world of academia shows just how deeply the 'trans women are women' mantra of gender activists has penetrated universities across the country. Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London was commissioned by the UK Government to examine the effect of gender ideology on academic freedom. Her findings make for deeply disturbing reading. Professor Sullivan's report - 'Barriers to research on sex and gender' - was commissioned by the UK Government's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The academic found that the last decade has seen the emergence of a culture of hostility towards anyone who shares so-called 'gender critical' views. Across 17 categories, including 'self-censorship' and 'bullying, harassment and ostracism', Professor Sullivan found academics had been silenced on issues of sex and gender. John Swinney may be able to content himself that to acquiesce to the demands of trans activists is to do no more than offer assistance to a few vulnerable people, but Professor Sullivan's report shatters that idea. In the course of her research, the academic - who previously published a report exposing the damage caused by inaccurate recording of sex by UK institutions - found that vital scientific research, including studies on the effects of medical interventions like puberty blockers, and data collection on sex - has been undermined by universities' failure to address coordinated campaigns to silence academics deemed guilty of such wrong-think as 'a woman is an adult human female.' Professor Sullivan says her research raises 'stark concerns' and highlights cases where researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex. Among the many academics interviewed by Professor Sullivan was Sarah Pedersen, Professor of Communication and Media at Robert Gordon University, who was targeted by activists after expressing the perfect rational view that biological sex is real. Professor Pedersen says the 'cancellation' of high-profile gender-critical academics has damaged the entire higher education sector. 'My personal experiences of disruption, no-platforming and personal attacks,' she adds, 'have impacted not just my academic career but also my work for third-sector organisations, who were warned away from working with me, meaning they could no longer benefit from my expertise.' Professor Sullivan has made a list of 20 recommendations to the UK Government and to academic institution which she hopes will defend research and protect individual academics from both professional and personal attacks. These include such simple steps as agreeing to prioritise the search from truth over adherence to political agendas and enabling 'genuine' academic debate. The Scottish Government should pay attention. In a fortnight, Sandie Peggie's tribunal will recommence in Dundee. The devastating impact of gender ideology on the lives of ordinary people will, once again, dominate the news agenda. John Swinney is a fool if he thinks voters still buy the line that reforming gender laws will impact a tiny proportion of the population. Ms Peggie's case shows clearly the harms done to women by the removal of long-established boundaries. In workplaces across the country, the demands of trans activists have made the lives of women miserable. Those same campaigners have been allowed to destroy the careers of dedicated academic and wreck important research, all in the name of making life easier for 'a very small number of people.' It's time for John Swinney to reconnect with reality and stop pandering to activists whose demands do nothing but harm.
Telegraph
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour's pick for equalities chair backs gender-critical feminists
Labour's choice to be the next chairman of the equalities watchdog has championed the right of women who oppose gender ideology to speak out. Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson said 'freedom of expression' was very important to her, as she spoke out against women being 'harassed or sacked from their jobs for peaceful expression of legally protected beliefs'. Appearing before MPs and peers, she criticised trans rights activists' attempts to 'no platform' women's rights groups as part of their 'attempts to close down debate'. Dr Stephenson, the director of the Women's Budget Group, is the Government's pick to lead the Equality and Human Rights Commission when Baroness Falkner, the incumbent, steps down later this year. 'Attempts to close down debate' But supporters of trans rights have criticised the choice, accusing her of having attended women's rights conferences at which gender-critical views were aired. On Tuesday she was challenged at a joint meeting of the Lords and Commons' equalities committees over her decision to sign a letter calling for open, non-violent discussion on gender issues, a letter which some activists have described as transphobic. 'They were about my opposition to practices of no platforming and attempts to close down debate,' she said. 'I started my professional career at Article 19 which is an international human rights organisation which focuses on freedom of expression. It's a really important value to me. 'I don't think freedom of expression should be an absolute value but it should be restricted in very limited circumstances, and I think that attempts to close down debate in any area is generally a mistake. 'To be honest I think that had we been able to have better dialogue on some of these issues 10 years ago we might be in a better position than we are in now.' Employment tribunal Dr Stephenson defended her decision to donate to a lawyer who was discriminated against at work for opposing trans self-ID. She also donated £25 to the legal fund of Allison Bailey, a barrister who took her chambers to court after they asked her to remove two gender-critical tweets. An employment tribunal found she had been discriminated against after clerks gave her less work to do. 'The donation was very specifically because I was upset at seeing women being harassed or sacked from their jobs for peaceful expression of legally protected beliefs,' she said. Dr Stephenson added: 'The debate has been so toxic that people just stepped away… so you end up with discussions taking place on social media.'
