This is the third in a series of posts by LSRJ alum Heather Sager (’10, Indiana University Maurer School of Law) who recently took a position at the Human Rights Law Network in India. Heather will be bringing us along on her journey through the field of international reproductive rights work.

I’ve mentioned before that part of my work with HRLN focuses on holding public tribunals. At these tribunals, we host people who have approached the State Human Rights Commissions and were ignored. Since we can only host a limited number of complainants, we choose based on a variety of factors, one of which is the inclusion of a variety of human rights violations. We try to focus on some of the most pervasive issues within whatever state we’re working. One of the most common, disturbing problems we see across the board is rape.

Part of my research into any human rights issue includes looking into the relevant legal and procedural background. In the process of researching rape, which I believe to be worsened by largely systemic issues within the country, I began to write about some of the more all-encompassing legal and social problems. This introduced me to rape investigation procedure in India.

Last September, Human Rights Watch issued a report calling attention to the use of the per vaginum examination (or, ‘finger test’ as it has been affectionately dubbed) in examining rape survivors in India. The report called for Indian legislation to introduce a standardized method of examining women and for the government to ban the use of a cruel, archaic process.

The per vaginum examination has been a controversial method of post-rape examination for some time. The method requires that a doctor insert his fingers into the vagina. Through this, he determines whether the hymen is present or absent, the ‘laxity’ of the vaginal tissue, the general shape and consistency of the vagina.

Until recently, this method was used across the board, in every case of reported rape where a medical examination was performed. In many instances, the per vaginum examination was performed without the woman’s prior knowledge or consent.

The per vaginum examination has long been discredited as a reliable test for medical purposes. Not just highly subjective, with unpredictable results, because of the test’s methodology (if we’re being generous with the word), it’s particularly cruel when administered immediately following a traumatic sexual assault.

But despite the widely agreed-upon fact that a finger does very little to serve as a consistent standard, the state has done very little to see that this practice is stopped. In March of this year, the Union Health Ministry of India issued new standards of post-sexual assault examination that, while improved, are greatly lacking.

The good news is that the new standards have barred using such helpful medical determinants as how well the woman is dressed and how well she keeps up her oral hygiene. The bad news is that the guidelines only limit the use of the finger test, allowing medical personnel significant leniency in deciding whether a situation warrants the use of the test.

Arguments that the test could still be of some use have been put forth, and the Ministry seems to have been listening. I wonder if they were also listening when the courts have used ‘finger test’ results in rape proceedings, calling attention to whether the woman is ‘habituated to sexual intercourse.’ Although the Supreme Court of India ruled in 2003 that a woman could not be cross-examined on her moral character in a rape case, courts across the country have continued to issue opinions on the general believability of her testimony, based in part on whether she may or may not have been sexually active.

Although my work in Delhi doesn’t focus solely on women’s rights issues, we deal very heavily in the area. As part of the Tribunals we hold, I’ve met with rape survivors here who were beaten by their attackers, refused help by the police, and ignored by the Commissions whose responsibility it is to protect them. Let’s add to this the doctors who may or may not decide this “test” is necessary in order to examine them and a court that may or may not use her ‘vaginal laxity’ to determine her reliability as a witness.

And the standard that decides whether one is ‘habituated to sexual intercourse’? Two fingers.

This is the second in a series of posts by LSRJ alum Heather Sager (’10, Indiana University Maurer School of Law), who recently took a position at the Human Rights Law Network in India. Heather will be bringing us along on her journey through the field of international reproductive rights work. Click here to read her first entry.

In my post two weeks ago, I introduced the work I’ve been doing in India, with the Human Rights Law Network. Specifically, I wrote:

For the last month and a half I’ve been part of a small team that plans and executes public hearings on the National and State Human Rights Commissions throughout India. We bring in victims, activists, lawyers and experts, hold a hearing in every state with a Human Rights Commission, publish analysis of our findings, and perform various legal and individual case follow-up within the Commissions and court system. While every case is heart-wrenching, my personal focus remains on those involving women’s and reproductive rights.

Let me explore that a bit. (more…)

Psychologist Joseph Nicolosi is the author behind the book, Parents Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, as well as an “expert” in what is called reparative therapy, which seeks to “repair” one’s homosexuality. The CNN featured series, “The Sissy Boy Experiment” includes personal stories and reflections by Nicolosi’s former patients who, as young boys, were sent to Nicolosi to “bring out the heterosexuality in them,” leading to emotionally detrimental effects. (more…)

This is the first in a series of posts by LSRJ alum Heather Sager (’10, Indiana University Maurer School of Law), who recently took a position at the Human Rights Law Network in India. Heather will be bringing us along on her journey through the field of international reproductive rights work.

The spring of my 2L year, I was thrilled to receive the news that I had been selected as one of LSRJ’s International Interns. At the time, the program placed summer interns with an organization abroad. What an incredible service! I remember very clearly speaking on the phone with Cari Sietstra, “How do you feel about India?” I was, to say the least, ecstatic.

I knew that summer would be a big turning point for me, but I’m certain I couldn’t have been aware of just how big of a turn things would take. I spent my entire 2L summer working for an India-wide NGO based in New Delhi. Beginning my internship at the Human Rights Law Network was, from the moment I walked in, like jumping into a giant pool of hectic, all-encompassing work, with culture-shock to boot. The unit I worked in, Reproductive Rights, was headed at the time by a fabulous woman named Jameen Kaur. She allowed her interns a huge amount of autonomy, and I was able to spend my summer fact-finding, traveling, researching, and eventually drafting a sizeable writ petition on access to blood services and maternal mortality. The entire experience was exhilarating, exhausting, frustrating, and extremely fulfilling. (more…)

Last month, the world was captivated by Egypt, and rightly so (and to an extant it still is). In less then two weeks a leaderless youth-driven revolution brought the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak to its knees. I will not recount all the facts as they are widely known (hopefully), but will direct you to this fantastic article for a recap.

The situation in Egypt is changing everyday. Right now, there seems to be a focus on how the country should transition from an oppressive dictatorship to a democratic and/or constitutional state. For this reason, many people seem to be asking where the lawyers are and how they can assist in Egypt’s transition.

Whatever involvement lawyers will have in this process, I think it is important that RJ lawyers are a part of it. (more…)

This is Part 2 in a two part series about the recent ABC v. Ireland decision out of the European Court of Human Rights. Click here for Part 1.

The buzz following oral arguments was incredibly polarized – some were certain of an “activist opinion” while others feared the ECHR would go on record stating that there should be no more challenges to Ireland’s abortion laws. Personally, I was anxious about the fact that this case substantially raised the bar in asserting women’s rights with regard to abortion. These women were claiming entitlement to quality of life, not just actual physical life. The ECHR had given some spankings – for instance, it had found article 8 required Poland to provide a lawful exception for abortions where the mother’s health is threatened (the applicant in that case had almost gone blind) – but it had punted a lot of issues, particularly regarding state sovereignty. It was anyone’s guess whether the Court would join these women in taking it to the next level.

The decision came down last month, one year and one week after oral arguments were heard before the Grand Chamber. Though the six years it took from filing to judgment is not terrifically uncommon for cases before the ECHR, I can tell you, it made me pretty nervous since the Court had gone on record “expecting” a judgment in 2010. (more…)

This is Part 1 in a two part series about the recent ABC v. Ireland decision out of the European Court of Human Rights.

Since 1980, almost 140,000 women have traveled to the United Kingdom from Ireland to receive a safe and legal abortion, meaning approximately 5,000 women per year make a clandestine journey to obtain health care that, at home, has carried a penalty of life in prison for 150 years.  Until recently, even making the journey carried the same penalties.  Many women are entirely responsible for the costs (around $900 USD), have to make a series of lies or excuses to those around them (or suffer anything from minor disapprobation to domestic violence to the possibility of criminal charges), are sought out by pro-life groups on the boat to London, and face potentially serious complications without assurances of follow-up care.

Although Ireland theoretically respected a woman’s right to choose when her life was at risk – a so-called “grave circumstances” exception courtesy of European and Irish courts – the government took an interesting approach in demonstrating that requisite gesture.  It opted to keep the public in a state of perpetual ambiguity so no one could say for sure what circumstances were sufficiently grave.  A woman would have no idea whether she was a criminal or even if she would be helped if something went wrong.  If the Irish authorities later determined a procedure was not performed under the strict, but ephemeral and subjective “grave circumstances” exception, the physician would face license revocation and life in prison.

And so, reminiscent of pre-Roe America, women had to cross borders to receive basic health care (not to mention some respect).  And, in 2005, three of those women took Ireland to court. (more…)

On page 12 of the September/October, 2010 issue of Mother Jones, an inset feature called “Conspiracy Watch” details the efforts of various pro-life groups to propagate the idea that abortion is a racist genocidal plot. This is, sadly, not a belief confined to the lunatic fringe of a shadowy misogynist far-right coalition. Unfortunately, there is a very real and unsettling history of reproductive injustices that range from Planned Parenthood’s early ties to the eugenics movement to the Supreme Court’s notorious holding in Buck v. Bell (upholding the forced sterilization of a woman said to be mentally retarded, an opinion in which Justice Holmes famously wrote “Three generations of imbeciles is enough”). If these tactics were embraced by pro-choice movements today, it would legitimately be seen as a dangerous movement, circumscribing the rights of populations of women who tend to be low income and/or people of color. But it is much worse than misleading to imply that the pro-choice movement continues to hew to such ideals. (more…)

Film actress and television host Ricki Lake, twice pregnant (in real life and also in the movie Mrs. Winterbourne, alongside his royal hotness, Brendan Fraser), brings one of her birth experiences to the silver screen in The Business of Being Born.  Upset with the hospital birth experience the first time, Ms. Lake opts for a home birth the second time (Go Ricki! Go Ricki! Go Ricki!).  Her second son, Owen Sussman (now 9 years old), greets the world in gooey glory about 45 minutes into the movie, so you know it’s good.  The only thing that might have made it better is, as is the case for all movies, Brendan Fraser.

Somewhere between Frontline and Fahrenheit 911, this documentary presents a fact-based albeit slightly sanctimonious (and one-sided) examination of midwifery (mid-whiff-er-ee) and birthing options in America.  The statistics are frequently sobering – the one that really stuck with me was that, in 1900, 95% of all U.S. births took place at home, which was down to 50% by 1938 and <1% by 1955 (where it is today).  The movie partially credits hippy communes with the “rebirth” of midwifery in the U.S., noting necessity and the empowerment aspects of home birth.  (more…)

I am not a worthless piece of trash, but rather a valuable asset to people, families, the community—and the world. I hope that my story will help to alleviate the disgraceful practice of shackling women during labor, which in turn will help alleviate the negative behaviors of prison guards and hospital staff toward women who give birth while incarcerated.—Kimberly Mays

As of this spring, thanks to women like Kimberly Mays and fellow reproductive justice advocates across the state, Washington state can boast two large victories against the practice of shackling pregnant incarcerated women. On March 23, 2010, the Governor signed into law HB 2747 which bans the use of restraints on female inmates in labor or post-partum recovery, making Washington only the 7^th state in the nation to pass anti-shackling legislation. Just a couple of weeks ago, Legal Voice, a women’s rights organization based out a of Seattle, sent a press-release confirming that on May 3, 2010, the federal district court agreed that shackling laboring women violates the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The Department of Corrections also agreed to pay plaintiff, Casandra Brawley, $125,000 to settle her lawsuit. But, nationwide, jails and prisons and immigration detention centers continue to put non-violent women in restraints such as leg irons and wrist shackles during childbirth. Pregnant women are shackled on the way to the hospital, while they are giving birth, and during recovery.

(more…)