[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia (ACLU) [advocacy website] on Friday filed a suit [press release] to block the state's new abortion law from taking effect next month. The challenged law, HB 954 [text], bans abortions after 20 weeks and contains a narrow exception for medical emergencies. The ACLU argues that, although abortions after 20 weeks are rare, women have many reasons for choosing to have them after that point, and this law will create obstacles to obtaining necessary procedures. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, who signed the bill into law in May, said [press release] the law "provides humane protection to innocents capable of feeling pain, while making an important exception for in the case of medically futile pregnancies." The law is set to take effect on January 1.

Numerous states have changed their abortion laws to restrict the availability of abortion recently, usually leading to legal challenges. Last month, Montana voters passed a referendum [JURIST report] requiring facilities and doctors to inform parents of minors 16 to 48 hours before a planned abortion procedure. Also last month, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments [JURIST report] on a challenge to Arizona's law which, like Georgia's law, bans abortions after 20 weeks. Planned Parenthood [advocacy website] also sued Texas [JURIST report] in October claiming that its law preventing state funding from going to any clinics affiliated with providing abortions violates another state law.

The second case the court agreed to hear is Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett [cert. petition, PDF], which presents the issue of whether federal law preempts state law design-defect claims against pharmaceutical companies. In this case, the plaintiff sustained permanent injuries from ingestion of a generic drug made by Mutual Pharmaceuticals. The main argument from the plaintiff in his petition to the Supreme Court is that the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] contradicted Supreme Court precedent in ruling [opinion] that federal law did not preempt the plaintiff's design-defect claim. In 2011, the Supreme Court decided in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that federal regulations on warning labels preempt state law on warning labels. The First Circuit differentiated these cases in ruling that the Supreme Court has not addressed the specific issue of design-defect claims.

Because the maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman is a legitimate state interest, because the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage is rationally related to furthering that interest, and because the challenged laws neither withdraw any existing rights nor effect a broad change in the legal status or protections of homosexuals based upon pure animus, the State is entitled to summary judgment.

Same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] has been a controversial issue recently both in the US and around the globe. In November voters in Maryland, Maine and Washington legalized same-sex marriage [JURIST reports]. In the same election Minnesota voters struck down a ballot initiative that would have outlawed same-sex marriage in the state. Also in November JURIST guest columnist Douglas NeJaime opined [JURIST op-ed] that recent voter approval of state referenda legalizing same-sex marriage makes it difficult for opponents to use democratic principles to argue against judicial action on the issue. Earlier that month Nigeria's House of Representatives passed a bill that criminalizes same-sex marriage [JURIST report]. Earlier that week Malawi's government changed its position [JURIST report] on a decision to suspend its laws barring same-sex marriage and homosexuality after being pressured by a number of churches.

Many people interviewed during the visit question the extent to which the political will exists to bring perpetrators to book. Likewise, while some commendable initiatives are being taken, domestic violence against women, for example in the form of so-called honour killings, is also not curbed effectively by prosecution or other measures. ... This situation persists against a background where there has been little accountability for the large number of killings that took place during the 1990s. Where prosecutions take place, it is largely for offences against the State, rather than for violations of the right to life.

Turkey has faced international criticism recently for its human rights record. Last month the UNHRC chastised Turkey [JURIST report] for prosecuting activists under the country's vague counterterrorism law. In October the European Court of Human Rights ruled [JURIST report] in X. v. Turkey that a gay man was detained in violation of Articles 3 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In July a Turkish court ordered [JURIST report] the release of 16 individuals detained on accusations of having links to Kurdish militants. Also in July UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants Francois Crepeau called on the government of Turkey and authorities in the EU to respect the rights of migrants [JURIST report]. In June the Turkish ruling party planned to abolish the special courts [JURIST report] used in coup and terrorism trials. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) plans to present a reform package including the proposed abolition of special courts to the country's parliament before the recess.