Health

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Abortion rights advocates vow to fight on after supreme court hearing

      by

      Abortion rights advocates vow to fight on after supreme court hearingLeaders say they will look to statehouses and lower courts if justices allow undermining of Roe v Wade In the wake of Wednesday’s supreme court hearing in which a majority of justices appeared willing to significantly curb abortion rights, reproductive rights advocates said they would continue to fight in statehouses and lower courts for the right to choose.The supreme court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, widely regarded as the most important abortion rights case in nearly five decades.The case before the court pits Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s last abortion clinic, also known as the “Pink House”, against the state health director, Dr Thomas Dobbs. A decision is expected in June 2022.Conservative US supreme court justices signal support for restricting abortion in pivotal caseRead moreMississippi intends to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, a move blocked so far by lower courts.While a significant blow to abortion rights is far from a foregone conclusion, questions from the supreme court’s conservative justices on Wednesday appeared to show a willingness to allow restrictions on abortion at 15 weeks and perhaps earlier in a pregnancy.The case also requests the court overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 supreme court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion and is the only safeguard for such rights in dozens of conservative US states.Under present law, pregnant people have a right to terminate a pregnancy up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb, widely regarded as 24 weeks gestation. A full-term pregnancy is considered 39 weeks gestation.In a consensus shared across the political spectrum, at least five justices appeared divided over whether to significantly curb or overturn Roe v Wade.Six of the nine justices lean to the right, with three of them nominated by Donald Trump during his one-term presidency. “Congress could fix the issue right now,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the organization that represented abortion providers in the supreme court on Wednesday.Although abortion was legalized in 1973 and has been relied upon by women nationally since then, Congress has never affirmed the right to abortion in legislation. That left the Roe v Wade precedent as the principle protection of the option for termination, while anti-abortion campaigners have brought many legal challenges and also pushed laws undermining access to the procedure.“All these bans and undue burdens in abortion care would be addressed by the Women’s Health Protection Act,” Northup said, referring to a bill recently passed by the US House of Representatives. “That would make sure women can access abortion without unnecessary bans.”Thus far, the bill has been viewed as highly unlikely to pass into law because it would need to overcome the Senate filibuster rule, requiring a 60-vote majority in the evenly divided chamber, where the Republicans would oppose it.Joe Biden said on Wednesday: “I support Roe v Wade. I think it’s a rational position to take.”Julie Rikelman, CRR’s litigation director, who argued before the justices, said campaigners would continue to fight if the supreme court went against reproductive choice. “We will continue to make every argument we can in the federal courts, we will continue to litigate in the state courts … we will not stop fighting, because it is just too important,” Rikelman said.Shannon Brewer, the director of the Pink House, said the coming months would be tough, with her providers “sitting and waiting and twiddling our thumbs” in anticipation of a decision.“It was a difficult day for everybody [but] I listened to the arguments and I think they did a great job at representing women today,” Brewer said.Following what was widely viewed as a hearing favorable to anti-abortion forces, conservatives chimed in.“What we want to see is the court do the right thing and overturn Roe,” said Chip Roy, a Republican US representative from Texas. He decried fears over a threat to choice as a “wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left”.Sam Brownback, the former US ambassador at large for international religious freedom under Trump, said it was time to overturn Roe “and let states address the issue”.Overturning Roe v Wade would effectively return the issue to be decided at state level, where swaths of the south and midwest would be “certain or likely” to ban most abortion. Already, several states have banned abortion at six weeks, though all those laws have been blocked by courts, with the prominent exception of Texas.Some reproductive rights advocates remained optimistic.Schaunta James-Boyd, co-executive director of Trust Women, an organization dedicated to providing abortions in underserved states, said her group “look[s] forward to a positive outcome later in 2022”.The pressure to legislate an affirmative right to abortion in states not openly hostile is likely to increase as a supreme court decision nears. While 26 states are “certain or likely” to outlaw abortion if Roe v Wade were overturned, states such as New York and Illinois have worked to protect abortion rights. Polling shows about six in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal in “all or most” circumstances.Meanwhile, the House speaker and California Democrat Nancy Pelosi said: “The House is committed to defending women’s health freedoms and to enshrining into law our House-passed Women’s Health Protection Act, led by Congresswoman Judy Chu, to protect reproductive health care for all women across America.”She added that the supreme court “has the opportunity and responsibility to honor the constitution, the law and this basic truth: every woman has the constitutional right to basic reproductive healthcare”.TopicsAbortionHealthGenderUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in UK Politics

      Government’s Nervtag advisers ‘can’t rule out’ omicron causing biggest wave yet of Covid infections

      by

      The omicron variant could see a surge in new Covid-19 infections across Britain even bigger than previous waves, a key group of government advisers has warned.Scientists in the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), which advises Boris Johnson’s government, met last week to discuss the impact of the new variant in the UK.“We cannot exclude that this wave would be of a magnitude similar, or even larger, than previous waves,” the advisers stated in minutes from the 25 November meeting.In a stark warning for the NHS, they said “a large wave of infections will be accompanied by a wave of severe cases, and the subgroup cannot rule out that this may be sufficient to overwhelm NHS capacity.”The experts also called for “early and robust actions” to limit the transmission of the variant first detected in South Africa in the UK.It follows leaked minutes from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) which warned that omicron could see a “very large wave” of infections in the UK and may need tougher restrictions to protect the NHS.The Sage warning added: “This would in turn lead to a potentially high number of hospitalisations even with protection against severe disease being less affected.”Although the top scientists remain unsure how big a wave of omicron infection might be, Sage advisers warned that a “very stringent response measures” may be needed from Downing Street.No 10 said ministers make “balanced” judgements on scientific advice received after the leaked Sage papers suggested testing people for Covid before they travel to the UK would be “valuable”.Asked if the government had ignored the guidance, the prime minister’s official spokesman said: “At all times we take account of any clinical advice we receive, and then we need to make a balanced judgement on what is right.”Labour said the lack of pre-departure testing for those flying to the UK from abroad was an “obvious gap in the country’s defences” against the Omicron variant – demanding “strong action at the border now”.No 10 was also challenged on whether it was now government policy that party-goers take a lateral flow test before events, after health secretary Sajid Javid earlier suggested that people could take a test before attending parties.The PM’s official spokesman said: “I think he was very clear about what he was saying. He was setting out that we do have a significant testing capacity, and if people wanted further reassurance they could use that.”Results of detailed laboratory studies on omicron are expected in the coming weeks, but both Sage and Nervtag groups have warned it is likely the new variant can escape immunity from existing vaccines “to some extent”.The Nervtag advisers said mutations observed in the variant “include some that are known to be associated with enhanced transmissibility” and are also “highly likely to result in reduced neutralising ability of antibodies”. More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Omicron: Passengers from South Africa were not tested and ‘got home in normal way’, Sajid Javid admits

      by

      Air passengers from South Africa were not tested on arrival on Friday, despite fears they could be carrying the Omicron variant, Sajid Javid has conceded.They travelled on from airports in normal ways – including on public transport – and were only then asked to take Covid tests and to go into isolation if they tested positive, the health secretary said.It means the UK does not know how many arrivals from South Africa were infected – after a staggering 10 per cent of people on one flight into the Netherlands did test positive.Quizzed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr Javid admitted there was no testing but insisted: “It’s fair to say that, as the UK, we could not have acted more swiftly.”But, asked how the passengers “got home from the airport”, he acknowledged: “They would have they would have got home in the normal way.”Mr Marr asked him: “To be clear, you didn’t test them as they came into Heathrow and then they were allowed to disperse around the country without being tested?“And, if the Dutch experience is anything to go by, 10 per cent of them had the new variant of coronavirus?”The health secretary said the “appropriate thing to do” was to contact the passengers afterwards, to ask them to take tests. Flights were banned later on Friday. Mr Javid also revealed that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation will advise within a few days on expanding booster jabs to under-40s and cutting the six-month gap after a second jab.And he defended not adopting a work from home rule – despite the Sage advisory group concluding it is the most effective Covid-curbing measure – saying: “They give advice and ministers need to decide.”Mr Javid said advice would be updated if it proves to be the case that the symptoms of Omicron are different, causing extreme fatigue but no loss of taste or smell.Earlier, he said England is “nowhere near” introducing tougher Covid restrictions such as social distancing, or working from home.Mask-wearing will be compulsory in shops and on public transport from Tuesday. Day 2 PCR tests for all arrivals will be re-introduced from 4am that day.New coronavirus regulations will be laid in parliament on Monday, but a vote will not be held until up to 28 days later – long after the measures take effect.A number of backbench Tories are likely to stage a rebellion but, with Labour supporting the restrictions, there is no danger that the vote will be lost.But the doctor who discovered the Omicron variant said the UK is “panicking unnecessarily” and that the symptoms are “extremely mild”.Dr Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, said: “What we are seeing clinically in south Africa, and remember I’m at the epicentre – that’s where I’m practising – it’s extremely mild. For us, that’s mild cases.” More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in UK Politics

      Omicron: Mask-wearing back for shops and transport and PCR tests for all arrivals, PM announces

      by

      People will be ordered to wear masks in shops and on public transport in England again in response to the arrival of the Omicron variant.Boris Johnson also announced that contacts of Omicron cases must isolate for 10 days – and the return of day 2 PCR tests for all international arrivals, who must isolate until they receive a negative result.Calling the measures “temporary and precautionary”, until the danger from the variant’s mutations are known, he told a press conference: “We will review them in 3 weeks.”Asked why he was not imposing the government’s full ‘plan B’ – also including vaccine passports and working from home – Mr Johnson insisted the UK is still in a “much, much stronger position” than earlier in the pandemic.Omicron could be tackled by efforts to “slow the seeding with the tough measures we are taking at the border” – while more booster jabs are delivered, to beef up protection.But he did not rule out further festive restrictions, saying only: “I’m absolutely confident that this Christmas will be considerably better than last Christmas. That will do for the time being.”Speaking after the first two Omicron cases were found – in Essex and Nottingham – Mr Johnson also revealed moves to expand booster jabs to under-40s and cut the six-month gap between a second jab and a booster.The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has been asked to consider the changes – in a clear sign that ministers want them to happen – although the prime minister called it “an independent body”.“Clearly we hope we will get some answers for everybody as soon as possible,” he told the press conference in Downing Street.Mask-wearing is already compulsory in shop and on public transport in the rest of the UK, which is expected to follow England in imposing the PCR test crackdown for travellers.Mr Johnson also rejected criticism that the spread of the new variant in southern Africa showed the folly of rich nations failing to deliver vaccines to poorer nations.He claimed the problem in such countries has “not been supply, but hesitancy and lack of take-up”, arguing the UK has been “leading” the world in sharing jabs.Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, warned of “a reasonable chance of some type of vaccine escape” from the Omicron variant, but said jabs should still offer protection against serious disease.One member of the Sage advisory group, psychologist Susan Michie, was quick to criticise the moves, saying: “This is plan B lite and we should have had plan B plus.”And Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, tweeted that the measures should not “have been relaxed” in the first place, adding: “It will now be harder, and take longer, to get levels of compliance up to where we need them to be.”But Mr Johnson said the measures – all to be brought in “next week“ – would “buy time for our scientists to understand exactly what we are dealing with”, in a very uncertain situation.And he sought to reassure the public, saying: “Though case numbers have remained relatively high, we’re seen falling hospitalisations and falling numbers of deaths.”The latest Covid figures revealed a further 39,567 lab-confirmed cases in the UK and 131 deaths within 28 days of a positive test – bringing the UK total to 144,724.Earlier, the health secretary Sajid Javid said the two detected Omicron cases were “linked” and had been traced to travel to southern Africa, as he announced targeted sequence testing of other cases in the areas concerned.Four more countries – Angola, Mozambique, Malawi, and Zambia – are being added to the travel ‘red list’ from Sunday, requiring arrivals to quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.Early evidence suggest Omicron may be more transmissible than the Delta variant, the current dominant strain, and that current vaccines may be less effective against it.However, some scientists have downplayed the dangers. The leading microbiologist Professor Calum Semple, who also sits on Sage, said some horror headlines were “hugely overstating the situation”. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in UK Politics

      Covid: Sajid Javid to outline new measures to fight Omicron variant

      by

      Sajid Javid is expected to announce more details on the measures being brought in after the emergence of the Omicron coronavirus variant.As two cases of the heavily mutated variant – feared to potentially be more transmissible and evasive of vaccines – were discovered in the UK on Saturday, and four more countries were added to the travel red list, Boris Johnson held a press conference at Downing Street. The prime minister announced a range of new “temporary and precautionary” restrictions in England, including the return of mandatory mask wearing in shops and on public transport, and self-isolation for contacts of cases and for all international arrivals until they receive a negative PCR test result.But the following morning, it still remained unclear exactly when these measures would come into force, amid sparse detail on how the travel isolation requirement would be implemented.The health secretary is expected to outline the policies in more detail during broadcast interviews on Sunday morning in appearances on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show and Sky News’s Trevor Phillips on Sunday programme.MPs will be given a subsequent vote on the new measures, which Mr Johnson said would be reviewed in three weeks’ time – the week before Christmas.Mr Javid, who in his first significant comments as health secretary vowed there would be “no going back” into lockdowns shortly before he axed nearly all Covid measures in England, had struck a somewhat starker tone in the Commons on Friday as he warned that the variant discovered by scientists in southern Africa was of “huge international concern”, telling MPs: “We must move quickly.”And he told the BBC on Saturday: “This is a real reminder to us all that this pandemic is far from over. “If there’s one thing that everyone can be doing right now is, if they’re eligible, please take your vaccine when it’s your first shot, your second shot, or your booster jab. If you’re eligible, please take a vaccine.”He added: “We know this is new out there. We don’t know enough about it yet. But for what we do know that we know that the protections that we have, especially the vaccines are hugely important.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US legislation banning ‘forever chemicals’ far from certain as Senate fight looms

      by

      US legislation banning ‘forever chemicals’ far from certain as Senate fight loomsDespite mounting evidence of the chemicals’ toxicity, a similar bill that passed the House was filibustered in the Senate Bipartisan legislation introduced this week in Congress would ban PFAS “forever chemicals” in US food packaging and significantly reduce exposure to the highly toxic compounds, supporters say, but its passage is far from certain as a fight with industry allies in the Senate looms.‘Forever chemicals’: the hidden threat from the toxic PFAS on your shelfRead morePFAS are a class of compounds that are used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, heat, stains and grease. The chemicals are especially common in food packaging because they repel grease and liquid, which prevents paper products from disintegrating.They get their nickname because of their immense longevity in the environment.“We cannot continue to be poisoned by these chemicals,” said Michigan Democratic congresswoman Debbie Dingell, who introduced the bill in the House. “Chemical manufacturers are going to try to get senators to stop PFAS from being banned, but there’s enough data that shows that it’s a threat to people … so we need to do something.”Researchers have found PFAS are frequently used in sandwich wrappers, paper straws, baking papers, carryout containers and molded fiber products like “clam shells”. The chemicals have been detected in products from a range of businesses, including fast food restaurants like McDonald’s, Subway and Chipotle; grocery chains like Whole Foods; and independent restaurants and grocers that use packaging products marketed as “green”.PFAS are also commonly applied to nonstick aluminum wrap and in bulk plastic containers used to store flavorings. Studies show that the chemicals can leach from packaging into food and are linked to cancer, liver disease, kidney problems, decreased immunity, birth defects and other serious health problems.“People don’t realize that the chemicals are coming in contact with food that they’re eating and that’s a way that PFAS is getting into their bodies,” Dingell said.Despite mounting evidence of the chemicals’ toxicity over the last 10 years, a similar bill that passed the House last legislative session was filibustered in the Senate, though it’s unclear who killed it because Senate rules allow members to anonymously filibuster.PFAS manufacturers have spent heavily on lobbying and campaign contributions in recent years, and public health advocates say industry’s efforts have paid off. Last session, chemical company allies in the GOP defeated about 100 other pieces of legislation designed to reign in the chemicals’ use, and Donald Trump had promised to veto any that made it through.“It’s the dark and invisible hand of big money in politics,” said Erik Olson, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which supports the new proposed ban.Among industry allies who have opposed PFAS legislation is Senator Jim Inhofe, who sits on the environmental committee and has received at least $60,000 from PFAS producers, including $14,000 last session that was donated as legislation was referred to committee.Senate armed forces committee member Thom Tillis last session cast the deciding vote against legislation that would have helped hold PFAS manufacturers accountable for pollution around military bases. Chemical giants DuPont and Honeywell donated to his campaign in the days after the vote.Advocates say they expect similar opposition this time around, despite growing public pressure to act.“I don’t think the chemical or food packaging industries are retreating even though there’s mounting evidence that there’s a lot of the chemical in food packaging,” Olson said. “Clearly there’s a big problem with an evenly divided Senate and the opportunity to filibuster.”Even if Congress fails to pass the ban, similar legislation has been enacted in seven states, including in California, New York and Vermont, though most only prohibit the chemicals’ use in paper products, not plastic. Several other state legislatures are considering similar bills, which advocates say is putting pressure on industry to stop using the chemicals.Companies like Chipotle, Freshii, McDonald’s, Panera Bread, Sweetgreen, Trader Joe’s, Wendy’s and Whole Foods have committed to stop using packaging with the chemicals. But Olson said PFAS in food packaging “is an issue that’s not going away”, even if legislation fails again.“Until we get toxic forever chemicals out of our food supply, there will continue to be mounting pressure to move legislation,” he said.TopicsUS CongressUS politicsHealthUS SenateHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Social care architect ‘very disappointed’ and ‘uncomfortable’ with government changes to cost cap

      by

      A leading architect of the government’s social care reforms said he is “very disappointed” and “uncomfortable” with watered-down proposals for the social care cap that hit less affluent households.Sir Andrew Dilnot told MPs that changes to the Social Care Act, due to be voted on next week, would mean the poorest households in the country will not actually benefit from the cap.He told the House of Commons treasury committee on Thursday that the changes will mean pensioners “will be much less protected against catastrophic risk.”“A very large proportion of the population needing care will find itself materially less protected by the proposals the government has announced then they would’ve been,” he said. Those with less valuable houses but facing significant care journeys will be much less protected against catastrophic risk and the sale of their house if this amendment were made”.Sir Andrew, a former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said there is likely to be a north-south divide as “people living in northern and other less high house prices are likely to be harder hit.”In 2019 Prime Minsiter, Boris Johnson promised “no one would have to sell their house” to pay for social care. However the new proposals will mean some pensioners will have to use up 80 per cent of their wealth to cover care costs before the threshold kicks in.Sir Andrew said: “That would mean you certainly would have to sell your house.” However, he said that while the current financial settlement for social care was “inadequate,” it would nonetheless “deliver a significant increase in long line spending in social care.”He added: “Now, there is a whole set of areas — particularly yesterday’s announcement — on which I feel very uncomfortable, but it is striking is that it’s the first time it’s happened.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Catastrophic implications’: UN health expert condemns US over threat to abortion rights

      by

      Abortion‘Catastrophic implications’: UN health expert condemns US over threat to abortion rightsSpecial rapporteur Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng argues in brief filed in a US court that overturning abortion rights would violate international human rights treaties ratified by the US Jessica Glenza@JessicaGlenzaMon 8 Nov 2021 05.00 ESTLast modified on Mon 8 Nov 2021 12.50 ESTThe United Nations special rapporteur on the right to health has called on the US supreme court to uphold the right to abortion in America or risk undermining international human rights law and threatening that right elsewhere in the world.The special rapporteur, Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng, is one of just a handful of global observers whose mandate is to travel the world defending human rights.Mofokeng has argued in a brief filed in a US court that overturning abortion rights would violate international human rights treaties ratified by the US, including the convention against torture, should women be forced to carry pregnancies to term.In an interview, Mofokeng told the Guardian she could have filed a brief on abortion rights, “in any other court, in any other abortion case,” globally. However, she chose the US courts because of the direct threat posed to abortion rights in the supreme court’s upcoming session.“We have this joke among us that when the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a [cold],” said Mofokeng. “So we know that politically that what happens in the United States… does have an impact in precedents elsewhere in the world.”Mofokeng’s brief was filed ahead of oral arguments in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case advocates fear will undermine abortion rights nationally. Dobbs poses a direct threat to Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 case that established a Constitutional right to abortion based in privacy.Roe invalidated dozens of state abortion bans and restrictions, and allowed people to terminate a pregnancy up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb, generally understood to be about 24 weeks gestation. A full term pregnancy is 39 weeks.“If that gets overturned, it has catastrophic implications, not just for the US,” said Mofokeng, who said she feared overturning Roe would embolden global attacks on reproductive rights.Mofokeng is also a practicing doctor and well-known sex-positive author in South Africa. Most often, she goes by “Dr T”, an informal title which underscores the empathy in her academic analysis. Her most recent UN report outlined the challenges Covid-19 posed to reproductive rights, and how colonialism continues to affect global policies on reproduction, from sterilization to abortion bans.“It means that even those people who are conservative, who are anti-rights, in any country in the world, will actually now start referencing the US court as an example of jurisprudence that should be followed,” said Mofokeng. “And this is why this is so dangerous”.In Dobbs, the court will consider whether Mississippi can ban abortion at 15 weeks gestation. For the court to uphold Mississippi’s law, it would require the court to rewrite standards that determine whether abortion restrictions are constitutional. Advocates fear that could once again allow states to severely restrict or ban abortion.A majority of the court’s nine justices would need to agree to rewrite such standards. Conservative justices hold a 6-3 supermajority on the court. Many observers view the court’s decision to take the Mississippi case as an ominous sign. About six in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal in “all or most cases”.“If Roe … [were] overturned, many US states will implement bans or near-bans on abortion access that will make individual state laws irreconcilable with international human rights law,” the brief argued. “This would cause irreparable harm to women and girls in violation of the United States’ obligations under the human rights treaties it has signed and ratified.”While the US has not ratified several United Nations treaties, it has ratified the convention against torture, which Mofokeng’s brief argued would be violated if states were allowed to ban abortion.“The denial of safe abortions and subjecting women and girls to humiliating and judgmental attitudes in such contexts of extreme vulnerability and where timely health care is essential amount to torture or ill treatment,” Mofokeng’s brief said, citing a 2016 report by the rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.Conversely, Mofokeng’s brief argued, contrary to Mississippi’s assertions, that “the right to life emanating from human rights treaties does not apply prenatally,” and that the “overwhelming trend for the past half-century has been toward the liberalization of abortion laws worldwide”.Further, since the court has accepted the Dobbs case, it also allowed a six-week abortion ban to go into effect in Texas in September, effectively allowing the nation’s second largest state to nullify Roe within its borders. Experts estimate that if Roe were overturned, roughly two dozen US states mostly in the south and midwest would immediately ban abortion.Such bans would have immediate and direct consequences for women and people seeking abortions.In one recent analysis, the Guttmacher Institute found 26 states are certain or likely to outlaw abortion should Roe be overturned. In just one example, that would require a woman seeking a legal abortion in Louisiana to travel to Kansas to access care.“The rise in global anti-gender and anti-women’s rights is such that people will grasp at anything that seems to make their case solid,” said Mofokeng. And, she said, the case before the supreme court now relies on “non-medical, non-scientific” misinformation.“It means we have a risk of now having global jurisprudence – or at least influences in the global world – using jurisprudence that’s ill-informed. And that’s very dangerous,” said Mofokeng. “To undo the court’s decisions takes decades, sometimes a lifetime – and that’s why it’s dangerous.”TopicsAbortionUnited NationsHealthUS politicsUS supreme courtfeaturesReuse this content More