 |
|

Legal news from Friday, February 1, 2013 |
 |
|


UN urges Russia lawmakers to reject bill banning promotion of homosexuality
Benjamin Minegar on February 1, 2013 12:07 PM ET

[JURIST] A group of UN human rights experts on Friday urged [press release] Russian lawmakers to reject proposed legislation banning the dissemination of homosexual "propaganda" to minors. Independent experts joined with UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression, human rights defense, cultural rights and the right to health to caution legislators in the Russian State Duma [official website, in Russian] that the proposed law has the potential to subvert fundamental human rights to freedom of expression by specifically targeting and restricting the activity of "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people." Experts portend that the bill's broad scope will lead to judicial constructions that "unduly restrict" and stigmatize the efforts of those advocating for LGBT rights in an already "difficult environment." Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Anand Grover [official website], specifically challenged the bill's inclusion of children in asserting that broad constructions may extend to programs promoting sexual and reproductive health among the LGBT community and may prevent children from accessing information that could help to "safeguard" mental and physical health. Lawmakers approved the first reading [JURIST report] of the bill in January, but it is slated to go before lawmakers for two more readings before a final vote. UN experts urged lawmakers to reject the bill while "the window is still open."
Russian lawmakers introduced the bill [JURIST report] in March. The proposed legislation calls for fines of up to 500,000 rubles (USD $16,500) for promoting the homosexual lifestyle and appears to be aimed at media outlets which lawmakers blame for "promoting gay lifestyles as 'normal behavior.'" Earlier that month, the City Hall of St. Petersburg in Russia announced that the city's governor signed into law [JURIST report] a similar bill that would impose fines against people convicted of promoting homosexuality, including gays or lesbians who are open about their sexuality. The St. Petersburg bill was introduced in November 2011 [JURIST report], and sponsors claim it is necessary because homosexual propaganda "threatens" Russia and "sexual deviation" negatively impacts Russian children. Several advocacy groups has challenged the bills as discriminatory. In January, Human Rights Watch called on authorities to veto the Moscow legislation [JURIST report], which they called a "discriminatory and dangerous initiative." However, Russian legal scholars have asserted that the Russian Constitution may allow limitations to be placed on the rights of homosexuals due to the constitutional ability to balance the interests of society and limit rights of a social group if they infringe upon the rights of another social group.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Obama administration allows religious nonprofits to opt out of birth control coverage
Samuel Franklin on February 1, 2013 12:05 PM ET

[JURIST] The Obama administration [official website] issued a new rule [text] on Friday detailing a broader exemption to the contraception mandate, allowing for religious nonprofits that object to providing health insurance coverage for birth control to opt out of the requirement. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [text, JURIST backgrounder], enacted in 2010, requires employer-provided health care [Bloomberg report] to cover government-recommended preventive services, including birth control pills and sterilization procedures, without co-payments. Since the Act's conception, the Obama administration has been faced with numerous lawsuits [Huffington Post report] from private companies as well as state Attorney Generals' Offices [JURIST report]. According to Health and Human Services (HSS) [official website] Secretary Kathleen Sebelius [official profile], the new regulation [HHS press release] is an effort to provide women with cost-free coverage of recommended preventive care while respecting religious concerns. The rule, jointly-issued by Departments of the Treasury, Labor and HHS, states[T]he rule would amend the criteria for the religious employer exemption to ensure that an otherwise exempt employer plan is not disqualified because the employer's purposes extend beyond the inculcation of religious values or because the employer serves or hires people of different religious faiths. [Also], the rule would establish accommodations for health coverage established or maintained by eligible organizations, or arranged by eligible organizations that are religious institutions of higher education, with religious objections to contraceptive coverage. Under these accommodations, a religious nonprofit would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.
In December the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] temporarily enjoined [JURIST report] the enforcement of the PPACA's contraception mandate for an Illinois construction company, serving as the first time that a federal court had done so for a company operated by strongly religious owners. This ruling came on the heels of several businesses, including Hobby Lobby, Inc. and Mardel, Inc. [corporate websites], refusing to comply with a US Supreme Court [official website] order denying an injunction [JURIST reports] against the contraceptive coverage mandate. In June the Supreme Court upheld [JURIST report] PPACA, focusing on the "individual mandate" provision [text] of the act which requires every person, with some exceptions for religious and other reasons, to purchase some form of health insurance by January 1, 2014, or be subject to a fee equal to either a percent of that individual's income or flat rate of $695.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UN women's rights chief denounces rising violence against women in Egypt
Max Slater on February 1, 2013 10:21 AM ET

[JURIST] The UN top women's rights advocate on Friday denounced escalating violence against women in Egypt [statement]. Michelle Bachelet [official profile], the Executive Director of UN Women [advocacy website] expressed particular concern about a recent protest in Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo, in which 25 women were reportedly sexually assaulted [UN News Centre report]. In her statement, Bachelet urged Egypt's government to enact legislation to ensure that women and girls are protected from violence:UN Women calls upon the Government and people of Egypt to take a firm stand against all forms of violence against women and girls, and to promote human rights for all, including the rights of women to live free of violence and discrimination and to participate fully in social, economic and political life. Earlier this week UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] deplored the sexual violence [press release] that occurred in Tahrir Square.
Violence against women has been a long-standing issue around the world. Last month UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged India's government [JURIST report] to strengthen critical services for rape victims, expressing sympathy for the family of the 23-year-old medical student who died from injuries sustained in a gang-rape in December. Police in New Delhi charged six men [JURIST report] with rape and murder of the woman. In December the UN released a report declaring that women in Afghanistan [JURIST report] are still suffering abuse at the hands of men. In November the UN urged countries to implement policies that will end violence against women [JURIST report]. Also in November the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly approved a resolution calling for a global ban on female genital mutilation [JURIST report]. At the same time, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] released a report detailing violence and obstacles women are facing in Colombia [JURIST report], where the legal framework is often not properly applied despite the government's progress in enacting legislation to protect violence against women.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UN human rights office seeking $130.4 million in donations
Sarah Paulsworth on February 1, 2013 9:36 AM ET

[JURIST] The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] is seeking USD $130.4 million in donations to compensate for a budget shortfall that has been ongoing for three years, according to a recent statement [text] by High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile]. "Our budget for 2013 has already been reduced by 12 percentsome US $17 millionto cope with the lack of funds," Pillay said on Thursday. "As a result, 46 posts have been cut or frozen, a decision which will affect our ability to respond to ongoing challenges, such as discrimination, climate change, HIV-related issues, protection of human rights defenders and support for various key human rights bodies." In her statement, Pillay also noted this year marks the twentieth anniversary of the OHCHR's work and presented the OHCHR's Annual Appeal [UN materials], which describes the Office's budget and planned activities for this year. According to this document, "In recent years, voluntary contributions to [Pillay's] Office have stagnated at around US $110 million. Yet requests for [the Office's] assistance, from governments, civil society and the international community at large, continue to grow."
Recently the OHCHR, among other work, has released a statement on the turmoil in Mail, and expressed concern about the ongoing violence in Syria and Colombia's proposed constitutional reform to their military justice system [JURIST reports]. According to the OHCHR's Annual Report for 2011 [text, PDF], the OHCHR had 58 field presences: 13 country/stand-alone offices, 15 human rights components of peace missions, 12 regional offices and 18 human rights advisers within United Nations Country Teams (UNCTs). OHCHR's 2012 report will be available in May 2013.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Arkansas senate approves bill banning abortions after fetal heartbeat detected
Max Slater on February 1, 2013 9:28 AM ET

[JURIST] The Arkansas Senate [official website] approved a bill [SB 134, PDF] by a vote of 26-8 on Thursday that would prohibit abortions after the first fetal heartbeat is detected, which could be as early as five weeks into the pregnancy. The bill, known as the Human Heartbeat Protection Act, would also require women to undergo a vaginal probe to detect a heartbeat. Planned Parenthood [advocacy website] announced its opposition to the bill, contending [Reuters report] that women should be able to make their own decisions about their pregnancies without interference from politicians. However, the bill's lead sponsor, Senator Jason Rapert [official profile] declared that the Human Heartbeat Protection Act was necessary to protect the unborn:It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that abortions are currently being performed in Arkansas on unborn children with detectable heartbeats; and that this act is immediately necessary because to protect the lives of unborn children with detectable heartbeats. The bill will now go to the Republican-controlled Arkansas House of Representatives [official website].
Numerous states have changed their abortion laws to restrict the availability of abortion recently, usually leading to legal challenges. In December a state judge in Georgia enjoined a law [JURIST report] banning doctors from providing abortions for women pregnant beyond 20 weeks. In November 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 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.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|