Comparing US and Indias Abortion Laws

Comparing US and Indias Abortion Laws A REFLECTION OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE ON THE INDIAN MILIEU OF LIBERALISED ABORTION POLICIES Abortion laws originated in the United Kingdom as early as 1803, but the credit of revolutionizing abortion laws and recognizing the inherent, perhaps inextricable right and liberty of women over their bodies can only be given to the United States—more specifically to the American Judiciary. From as early as Roe v. Wade, the American Judiciary has been reiterating womens rights as constitutional persons to terminate her pregnancy in the earlier stages and thereafter the State being given a role to play; hence making abortion legal for the first time in the Unites States in 1973. Even though senators and other policy-makers in several, if not all, states of the United States have tried to whittle down the basic premise of Roe v. Wade, it had been emphatically upheld in subsequent cases. After more than thirty years of taking firm root of the pro-abortion movement in the West, anti-abortion groups have again taken a radical stand by trying to control abortions through the introd uction of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Bill of 2005(commonly known as Fetal Pain Legislation) and as many as twenty-three states in the USA have passed it to be an Act, which would require that abortionists disclose to women the reality that killing an unborn baby by abortion causes pain to the child. It would also require that women who were pregnant for more than twenty weeks would be given the choice of adopting anesthesia for their fetuses. Interestingly this move by the legislatures was said to find its basis on the judgments in Gonzales v. Carhart whereby the Supreme Court had held that the federal legislation banning partial-birth abortion was constitutional on its face. The issue of fetal pain arose amidst the partial-birth abortion debate. Supporters of the federal legislation argued that partial-birth abortion was excruciatingly painful for the fetus and that banning this abortion procedure would further the States legitimate interest in protecting the unborn child. Opp onents of the federal ban argued that there was no conclusive scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that a fetus is even capable of feeling pain. As a result of this partial-birth abortion controversy, legislations aimed at acknowledging and assuaging fetal pain during abortion came into being. In India, the debate on abortion laws as embodied in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 has been swirling since the Bombay High Courts decision in Dr. Nikhil Dattar Ors. v. Union of India, whereby the Court going by a strict interpretation of the provisions in the Statute, refused to give a lady pregnant with a malformed fetus to abort since she was already in her twenty-fourth week of pregnancy as mandated by the Statute. Since then there have been urgent calls to amend the Statute as long-standing critiques of the policy were brought to the fore-front again. It has become critical at this juncture to look at the development of abortion law and policies in the West, part icularly in the United States, to gauge where India stands at this moment and whether, if at all, India should be inspired from the western counterpoint or take caution from the developments therein to better further its own interests in striking the perfect balance between liberty, autonomy and freedom of the individual versus the States right to interfere. I. INTRODUCTION The issue of abortion presents itself to the modern sensibility and understanding as a perplexing cocktail of moral, spiritual and legal questions. Indeed, the problem of regulating abortion is inherently an exercise in seeking out the equilibrium between an ever-increasing degree of medical empiricism that time and technology continually bring into the fluid domains of moral, religious and legal normativeness. Some of the several facets of the question, by their very nature, would fail to turn up with any one answer under the scrutiny of any court—normative questions of when life truly begins, whose life is more valuable and the relative â€Å"sanctity† of human life, potential and existing, are, as the courts themselves have recognized [1]—complex considerations of such a personal nature that courts had better leave them off their consideration list and if absolutely required to deal with such questions, then exercise the highest possible degree of sensitivity in dealing with them. The application of lenses as varied as the feminist, the medical, the bioethical and moral, the religious[2] and the legal (and more specifically constitutional) yield many resultant views to the issue. Any lasting resolution, legal or otherwise, then must come from a nuanced, holistic view of the multiple facets of the problem. Indeed, the founding notions of the larger abortion debate, personhood, bodily integrity and autonomy, and the relative significance of rights (individual, fetal and of the putative father) and their holders, are issues of interdisciplinary concern. On the central issue of personhood, for instance, which has found resonance in the Courts specifically in context of the fetal status, it has been remarked that the law and indeed society ignores the personhood of the woman[3], who in that regard at least should have been granted full and unquestioned constitutional standing at par with other women and men. Conversely, when the question of fetal personhood is detached from a moral or spiritual context and is viewed under the medical and bioethical lens in measurable and empirical terms, it is defeated.[4] While the debate rages on with passionate voices and legitimate concerns on either side of the divide, and the groundswell of reason and rhetoric shows no sign of ebbing, it has been recognized that the entire compass of the debate boils down to only the lesser of two difficult tragedies[5]. In this article we shall seek to address the extensive analysis and documentation of the evolution of the abortion jurisprudence as has evolved in the United States of America and then compare as to where India with its fledgling abortion laws stands in perspective. Above all, however, even as we take reader through the rhetoric as it deepens into more and more specific concerns, such as those dealt with in the latter part of this article, the exercise brings home the sobering realization that the law, as a tool, can take us only so far in settling the fundamentals of and the issues surrounding the abortion debate[6]. II. ABORTION: THE PAST AND THE PRESENT A. THE PRE-ROE LANDSCAPE Attitudes towards abortion in the ancient world were, in the whole, accepting of abortion, with few qualms about its practice. Ancient religion placed no bar on abortion and fetal rights were largely unrecognized.[7] Interestingly, however, one of the basic requirements of the Hippocratic Oaths is a categorical one to refrain from the practice of abortion in any form.[8] Early common law, influenced as it was by the philosophic and theological debates of its own of when the fetus was to be considered â€Å"alive†, recognized abortion as a crime only after â€Å"quickening†, that is the point in time at which the fetus becomes capable of discernable and independent movement in utero.[9] This was usually considered to occur between the time frame of 16 and 18 weeks into pregnancy, although no entirely empirical basis for this was offered. When England adopted its first legislation in 1803—Lord Ellenboroughs Act[10]—as it was known, it retained the notion of â€Å"quickening†; using it to mark the distinction between a simple felony, before the incidence of quickening and a capital offence once the fetus is quick. Compare this with the scenario eighteen years after the passage of Ellenboroughs Act. Across the Atlantic in 1821, the US state of Connecticut became the first to adopt an abortion legislation which read much like Ellenboroughs Act. Meanwhile, the state of New York in 1828 passed laws recognizing abortion as an offence (which were to become the prototypical model for early legislation across the United States), albeit of different degrees, both before and after quickening. Further, it recognized and included â€Å"therapeutic abortion† as valid and excusable, thereby guaranteeing some safety measures to expectant mothers in cases where their physicians had reason to believe the mothers own life was at risk.[11] Within the span of a hundred years, however, by the middle of the 20th century, the majority of US States had enacted a complete ban on abortion, save for cases in which the mothers life was at risk. The notion of quickening, a pervasive concept forming the fundamental basis for abortion laws in the not very distant past, came to vanish entirely from the rulebook. In the 1960s and 70s, many US States were beginning to adopt some version or variation of the American Law Institutes Model Penal Code[12], (hereinafter referred to the A.L.I. Model) in which the abortion laws were decisively less stringent than before. In a very broad sense and in only very small measure, womens right to abortion began to reclaim some of its early efficacy. The laws, however, despite their new form, allowed far less opportunity to procure a medical termination of pregnancy than in the past. It was only in 1967 that Colorado became the first state to legalize abortion. [13] This movement towards the A.L.I. Model and more liberalized laws in general was, it must be noted, however, a growing but not universal trend of the time. The State of Texas, which enacted its first abortion legislation in 1840[14], was among the majority which made no movement toward liberalizing their abortion laws. Laws banning abortion, except in the case of tangible risks to the mother, remai ned in place in the majority of US States. Thus before even the rise of an opportunity for a stand-off between the legislature and the judiciary as we shall see in the forthcoming part, there were slow and decisive vacillations in abortion laws which sometimes favored the pro-choice and sometimes favored the pro-life with varying degrees over time. B. ROE v. WADE: THE CONTEXT, CRITICISMS, CONCLUSIONS AND CONSEQUENT DECISIONS Against the backcloth elucidated above, it might be pertinent to look into the landmark judgment and decision of Roe v. Wade.[15](Hereinafter referred to as Roe) Herein an unmarried, pregnant woman, under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, instituted a federal action â€Å"on behalf of herself and all other women† in the March of the year 1970 against the District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging the very constitutionality of the Texas Criminal Abortion Laws. She stated her intent to procure a ‘legal abortion â€Å"performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions†[16] and that she would not be able to travel to a jurisdiction which would allow her to obtain an abortion of the aforementioned nature. The case came in federal appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States in December 1971, and on the 22nd of January 1973, the Courts historic seven-two judgement was enunciated by Justice Blackmun. This decision ha s since then taken the shape of a veritable cornerstone in any commentary of the protracted history of abortion debates in the United States. Justice Blackmun gave on behalf of the majority the Courts opinion.[17] The Court recognized, following the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut[18], that a general right to privacy exists, although nowhere explicitly stated, in the US Constitution, and that it is protected by the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause. It read the said right as a â€Å"fundamental† one, being â€Å"broad enough† to cover a womans right to choose whether or not to abort, and only subject to government regulation in the face of some â€Å"compelling† interest of the state ( both the life of the mother and the â€Å"potential life† of the fetus were recognized as â€Å"legitimate† interests). The Court held that State interference in pregnancy is justifiable in the second trimester only to protect maternal health, since at this point; the risks of abortion are greater than those associated with childbirth itself. However, it is only once fetal viability is reached th at the State is granted a â€Å"compelling† interest. At this stage, the complete prohibition of abortion, other than in cases of risk to the expectant mothers health or life, is permissible. The dissenting opinion, given by Justice Rehnquist, however lays down certain criticisms of the judgement. Firstly, that the Court went too far in formulating and applying constitutional rules in terms which were significantly broader than the precise facts of the case warranted. Secondly, the application of the right to privacy in this case was seen as difficult to justify and thirdly, he conceded the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process clause to legislations such as the one at hand but goes on to find troubling the Courts â€Å"sweeping invalidation† of restrictions in the first trimester. Further, he stated that the Court had perhaps taken its task too far, leaving the boundaries of judicial judgement and entering onto legislative turf. The resolution of this and other cases by no means signalled the end of the pro-choice journey. As recognized by the courts, safe abortions remain a function of such considerations as race and income. The United States has seen violent attacks against abortion clinics and stigma remains a very real challenge. In spite of it being touted as a landmark judgement, Roe continues to attract criticism from all quarters. Drawing their main premises from the Rehnquist dissent, many, be it proponents or opponents of abortion alike, have questioned the sound basis of the judgement and the consequences of its overly broad and vague contentions[19]. The construction of the doctor-patient relationship and the rights and roles of the two parties (the woman seeking abortion and the medical practitioner) as depicted by the Court was also criticized. There have also been several attempts to overturn the Roe decision. In fact in about a decade leading up to 1992, the United States approached the Court as amicus curiae in five separate cases, to overrule Roe, but the judgment was resoundingly upheld in what would be touted as another landmark: the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.[20](hereinafter referred to as Casey) The courts decision was given, in this case, by a triad of judges. This case is one among a very small group to hold that distinction. Justices OConnor, Kennedy and Souter, in their joint opinion, had the following to say: â€Å"After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed.†[21] Casey, as is evident from the above, upheld the fundamental grounds of the majority decision in Roe. It has even been said that the (joint) opinion has definitively and decidedly put all doubts about the â€Å"basic constitutional question of abortionà ¢â‚¬ .[22]After Casey, the constitutional basis of the womans (qualified) right to abort was no longer negotiable, and no likelihood remained of the Court reconsidering or overturning Roe while, for example, in another, earlier case, the consideration of Roes constitutional merits were only left off for another day[23].It must be noted, however, that the judges in Casey made clear that they were by no means offering an unqualified affirmation of Roe. The Court denounced the prescriptive medical trimester system laid down in Roe and, in its place, enunciated the test of â€Å"undue burden†. Under this test, the State may justifiably place regulations on the procurement of abortion pre-viability as well, in furtherance of its interest in the life (or potential life) of the foetus, provided that the regulations imposed lay down no undue burden on the womans right to procure the abortion, if she so chooses. This right exists even in spite of the fact that the States interests we re deemed in Roe to become compelling only in the third, last trimester of pregnancy, when the court could prohibit abortion, other than when the womans life was in danger. The Courts holdings in Casey came in the context of Pennsylvanias state laws which required parental or spousal notification if a woman desired to procure an abortion. The provisions regarding the former were upheld on the grounds that that they did not impose an undue burden on the pregnant woman and her rights, while the latter was declared unconstitutional by the Court. The broad constitutional questions surrounding the abortion having been addressed in Roe and settled in Casey, more specific issues began to appear before the Courts. In Stenberg v. Carhart[24] (hereinafter referred to as Carhart I), at issue was a Nebraska state statute[25] criminalizing the performance of partial-birth abortions, a particular form of abortion in which the living fetus is delivered partially into the vagina, aborted and then delivery is completed. The statute afforded no exception for cases in which the womans life is at risk. Dr. Leroy Carhart, a medical doctor in the state of Nebraska who performed abortions, brought this suit contending that the provisions of the statute violate the US Federal Constitution. The case came in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court, in its opinion delivered by Justice Breyer on the 28th of June, 2000, found that the statutes were unconstitutional firstly, because the requisite exception in respect of grave risks to maternal life was entirely absent and secondly, because, in its complete restriction of access to a particular method of abortion, the statute was seen to place an undue burden on the womans right to choose abortion itself. The breadth of the judgement spans a consideration of the various abortion methods available, partial birth abortion being only one among them, and the validity of the ban on partial birth abortion under the statute, referring, as the District Court before it had, to medical definition and policy of the American Medical Association. The judgement also contained a further restatement of the Courts as affirmation of the principles in Roe and Casey. The decision in Carhart I derives much of its value from the fact that the substance of the decision invalidated, for all intents and purposes, similar bans which were at the time in force in the majority of US States. But, subsequently, on the 5th of November, 2003 the United States Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[26](hereinafter referred to as the Partial Birth Act) criminalizing the performance of partial birth abortions. In spite of the decision in Carhart I, this piece of legislation contained, as did the Nebraska statute which was the subject of the dispute, no exception for the health of the woman. It has also been noted that the language of the Partial Birth Act was very similar to the Nebraska statute[27]. The validity of the Partial Birth Act came up for question in yet another case brought to the courts by Dr. Carhart (and others) challenging its constitutional validity and seeking a permanent injunction against its enforcement, this decision we now call Carhart II[28]. In this instance, Carhart II on appeal from the Eighth Circuit Court and another case, also involving US Attorney General Gonzales and the question of the validity of the Partial Birth Act (such cases w ere referred to as â€Å"facial† attacks or challenges to the statute)[29], with specific reference to the requirement of an exception for cases involving maternal health, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation Of America, Inc.[30], on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, were consolidated and heard by the Court. The case was closely fought, and the opinion deeply divided. With a majority of five as against four,[31] the judgement went in favour of Attorney General Gonzales—the Act was upheld. As in Carhart I, Justice Kennedy in his statement of the Courts opinion for the majority began with an exposition on the various methods of abortion. The plurality opinion in Casey in relation to State interest was resurrected, but Justice Kennedy made a clear distinction: the Act merely regulated one method of abortion. It placed restrictions on the procurement of abortion itself and, therefore: â€Å"The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion.†[32]The specific statement of the validity of the Act was justified by Justice Kennedy. He held that the Act was â€Å"not void for vagueness, does not impose an undue burden from any over breadth, and is not invalid on its face.†[33] Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia concurred, and the former in his concurrence states, crucially, that: â€Å"I write separately to reiterate my view that the Courts abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, has no basis in the Constitution.†[34] Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer joined, in an emphatic dissent was in her words â€Å"alarmed†[35] by the Courts decision. She further recognised the weight of the precedent which, in upholding the Act, the Court was ignoring and could not find any fathomable justification for the same. Thirdly, she pointed out the Courts complete and unjustifiable terms, which showed no regard for or recognition ,express or implied, of the hitherto firmly entrenched notion of viability and the distinction and consequences of pre- and post-viability abortion decisions. Lastly, she expressed complete disagreement with what amounted to an absolute sanction of federal intervention and legislation contrary to a specialist bodys, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG), professional view that such a procedure was in specific cases required and necessary. Notwithstanding Justice Ginsburgs specific premises of dissent, several others exist. One strong objection to Carhart II is this: Thirty four years after Justice Blackmuns decision in Roe, Justice Kennedys enunciation of the majority opinion in Carhart II marked a return of the Court to its initial stance on the relationship of the woman, vis-à  -vis medical practitioners. The construction of the woman slid from casting her as the primary stakeholder and decision maker as regards termination of pregnancy, as explicitly established in Casey among several other decisions of the Court, to one in which the she acted as her doctor chose. It seems that Carhart II is, by its statements with respect to the womans status and their implications at least, a return to Myra Bradwell[36]-esque rhetoric and reasoning[37], where the womans status and function in society and societal interaction is reduced to a narrow definition, accounting for only her ability to procreate and her role in maternity and child rearing. Another (related) criticism also stems from Justice Kennedys statement as regards the consequences for the prospective mother upon the actual performance of a medical abortion: â€Å"Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.†[38] No empirical foundation is offered for such an inference; indeed, doubts surrounding the very question of existence of a scientific basis are admitted: the absence of â€Å"reliable data to measure the phenomenon† is explicitly conceded. Roe, since its passage three and a half decades ago, has been a touchstone in the evolution of the body of laws that governed medical termination of pregnancy. Its full scope was whittled down early in its existence, most visibly and explicitly in Casey. But, despite that, its basic premises, its spirit unambiguously prevailed in all of the US Supreme Courts deliberations and pronouncements on the subject. It is a foreseeable consequence, however, that, after Carhart II, movements, especially pro-life advocacy, and their founding impetus will grow in favor of overthrowing Roe or circumventing it, most likely through legislation, as is already beginning to emerge in several US states[39]. The question of whether the vast body of abortion jurisprudence in the United States Courts system will finally at all, let alone conclusively, amount to â€Å"progress† in the field of gender rights and, more particularly, for the cause of female reproductive autonomy has, now, especially aft er Carhart II and Casey taken on a significantly diametric range of possible answers as compared to those that were presumed likely prior to the resolution of these cases. The precise answer is, at this juncture at least, only a product of time. II. FOETAL PAIN LEGISLATION—CONTRACTION OF AUTONOMY FOR PREGNANT WOMEN â€Å"The essence of civilization is this: The strong have a duty to protect the weak. We know that in a culture that does not protect the most dependent, the handicapped, the elderly, the unloved, or simply inconvenient become increasingly vulnerable.† George W. Bush[40] A. A SHORT ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS ACT OF 2005 AND THE NEED FOR SUCH A LEGISLATION Though the then Governor Bush who would later become the President of the United States of America was not talking of abortion at all, he was perhaps echoing the sentiments of another President of a by-gone era: Ronald Reagan. The latter in an address had famously said that: â€Å"Medical science doctors confirm that when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.†[41] With such lofty intentions in mind, to protect the vulnerable perhaps, the Fetal Pain Legislation was introduced in the Senate. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was introduced by Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas in the US Senate on 24th January 2005; being Senate Bill no. 51.[42] This Act aims to punish physicians heavily should they fail to advise women of the potential for fetal pain after 20 weeks gestation.This is done by amending by adding a new chapter titled â€Å"Title XXIX—Unborn Child Pain Awareness† to the Public Health Service Act, first enacted in 1946. There has been a considerable furor over this particular provision in the Act as the medical fraternity is continuously making itself heard that at this stage of gestation, the fetus does not develop the necessary biological mechanism to feel pain as such. Case in point would be a wing of physicians, specialized in embryology and neuro-anatomy, who assert that pain fibers do not start penetrating the cortex before the fetus is 26 weeks old and the sensation of pain would not begin before the 29th week.[43] Nevertheless the Congress ignoring well proven ideas on the same issue, state in the Findings which are a part of the Act that at 20 weeks after fertilization, fetuses have the capability to feel pain and to make the ambit even wider—since the concept of what the fetuses might be ‘feeling might not be ‘pain at all—the Congress in its Findings mentioned that such fetuses might show such stimuli as may be interpreted to show feelings of pain if observed in infants or adults.[44] The requirement of informed consent as laid down is Sec. 2902 of the Act provides for some very stringent and conformist ideas about intimating the pregnant woman regarding the consequences of her action. The provision states the abortion provider or an agent must provide to the pregnant lady with the information that after however many weeks her fetus is into gestation (provided it is more than 20 weeks), such fetus has the necessary physical structures present to feel pain and that such fetus shall feel pain irrespective of whether the pregnant lady has been given pain-averting drugs or general anesthesia. The pregnant lady is to be then given a brochure to be designed by the Department of Health and Human Services and also made to necessarily sign a decision form whereby her decision as to whether or not pain alleviating drugs shall be administered to the fetus directly are recorded for official purposes. This step-by-step method is not only to be compulsorily followed but the pro vision also mentions what the abortion provider or the agent must say in such situations in as many words.[45] The only exception provided to this is in case of Medical Emergencies and such situations which would fall under this exception have also been defined in the Act. As such Medical Emergencies are to mean such situations in the reasonable medical opinion of an abortion provider of imposing a â€Å"serious risk of causing grave and irreversible physical health damage entailing substantial impairment of a major bodily function† if abortion is delayed.[46] Penalties for not substantially following the mandates of these provisions have also been laid down in the Act itself and range from monetary fines to cancelling of licenses.[47] The Act also grants a private right of action to the woman on whom an abortion is performed in violation of the provisions of this Act or her legal guardians in case of an minor or unemancipated woman, to commence a civil action against such ab ortion provider who has acted recklessly or knowingly for actual and punitive damages.[48] If we were to adopt a simple assumption that given a choice between a procedure which would result in inflicting pain upon a fetus and another maybe more expensive procedure which might alleviate the pain a fetus may feel, most women would prefer the latter procedure. If that were to be true, then physicians would regularly administer pain relieving medicines to fetuses as a part of late term abortion procedures. However there is at present no such indication that it happens.[49] Doctors however have been found to routinely providing fetal pain relief drugs quite routinely while performing in-utero surgeries.[50]And here lies precisely the need for a fetal legislation. To explain more elaborately, we can pinpoint the reasons for physicians not administering fetal relief medicines due to broadly three reasons. The first and very pertinent reason would be that physicians do not look at fetuses as their patients and hence do not bother themselves with the problem of alleviating their pain. Secondly, physicians and patients would not be willing to venture into pain relieving methods which would involve higher costs as well as some health risks associated with longer periods of sedation.[51] Also because discussing fetal pain before an abortion might be uncomfortable, even for a physician accustomed to having conversations about sensitive matters with patients, as such abortion has as its purpose the destruction of the fetus, and physicians naturally prefer to discuss matters that patients find reassuring, the default arrangement seems to be that physicians provide no information on fetal pain or fetal pain relief. Thirdly and perhaps a disconnected reason from the other two at that, is the fact that most women did not have enough awareness to realize that there is a possibility, albeit a minor one, that the fetus she is aborting might feel pain during the procedure, much less asking for means to alleviate that pain. However if perhaps women could be provided with the required information that their fetuses may and in all probability do suffer fetal pain while undergoing abortion[52], then they would in most circumstances be persuaded to administer drugs to the fetus. This is assuming that such women would not be indifferent as to whether their fetuses feel pain or not. This would in fact be in line with the testimony of most women who opted for late-term abortions saying that they had to opt for a tragic end to much wanted pregnancies due to other considerations.[53] Even with such factors for women to want administration of pain relieving drugs to the fetus, it has been suggested that they mi ght not be in a position to actively seek out information about the issue of fetal pain, keeping in mind that they have innumerable such considerations clamoring for attention in their minds.[54] Thus legislation requiring the abortion providers to necessarily supply pregnant women of such information and seek their informed consent to administer pain alleviating drugs might right the current skew in the society. B. HOW THE LEGISLATION COULD PASS CONSTITUTIONAL

Urine Therapy :: Health Medicine Papers

Urine Therapy At the end of the winter of 1996, something historic occurred. During that February in India, the First World Conference on Urine Therapy took place. Scholars around the world gathered together to discuss the age-old practice of "urine therapy." Although urine therapy had been around for thousands of years, it had fallen into obscurity over the last century. Now, urine therapy was officially back in business. So what exactly was this alternative practice that dealt with one’s own bodily fluid? And how does it help? What are the claims of effectiveness? What does the scientific and medical world have to say about it? How does it work? Does it work? These, were the questions that demanded discussion. What is urine therapy? The basic definition of "urine therapy" is using (your own) urine internally or externally as a way to aid or sustain your health. Urine therapy, which includes drinking, injecting, massaging with-, and/or bathing in- urine, is an ancient practice that is used today, not only in times of sickness, but also in times of good health for preventive health maintenance. It has been claimed to have proven helpful in a great number of varying illnesses, ranging from a simple cold and a throat-ache, to tuberculosis and asthma, from minor skin problems such as itching to major skin problems such as eczema, psoriasis and even skin cancer. But you probably ask, "How can your own urine benefit your health? Besides, isn’t it toxic?" Urine as a lifesaver: During the NBC Nightly News on October 16, 1992, Tom Brokaw reported that, "In Egypt, rescue workers found a 37-year old man alive in earthquake rubble. He survived almost 82 hours by drinking his own urine. His wife, daughter and mother would not and they died" (http://www.all-natural.com/urine.html ). We’ve all heard stories of individuals who have either lived or died by being trapped in places without food or water for days. In those stories, the survivors were always the ones that drank their own urine. The ones that died probably could not overcome the misguided thoughts that urine is an unhealthy waste product of the body. But it’s not; urine is simply a substance that the body does not need at the time, and a substance that the body secretes. And sometimes, it’s a lifesaver. What’s in urine? Urine, 95% of which is water, 2.5% of which is urea, and 2.5% of which is a mixture of minerals, salts, hormones, and enzymes, is not a toxic waste product.

Advantages and Disadvantages of International Trade Essay

Introduction Textile industries are significant segment, which distinguished country’s success by which nations establish to accomplish its respective aimed goal. International trade of textile is the exchange of textile between countries. The trade of textile contributes to the economy of the world. In which the prices of textiles, and their supply and demand, that affect and get affected by global events. Trading textiles globally provide countries and consumer the opportunity to expose to services and goods not available in their own country. Almost every quality of textile can be found in international trade. A textile that can be sold in the global market is called as an exporter, and textile which can be bought from the global market is called as an importer. Export and import are accounted for current account of country’s in the balance of payment When there is no trade between the rest of the world and China Exporting means manufacturing goods or services within the country and trading or selling them to another country. Whereas, importing means the acquisition and sale of services or good from acquired from another country and selling those acquired good within the country. If there is no trade activity between China and the rest of the world, i.e. import and export of  product or services, then in this case there will be no importer or exporter of textile as there is no such activities between these two countries. Since, the prices of textile in china are lower than the textile price, which are offered in the rest of the world. China has capacity for improvement as its improving living style, bringing increased demand in both quality and quantity of textile product, and its manufacturing process is cheaper as compared to the rest of the world. Also, there will be no effect over the price of textile in China and the rest of the world. Because both of them are selling the textile domes tically to their local consumers. When there is a trade between the rest of the world and China When the trade is allowed to take place freely between the two countries, then import and export activities take place. China and the rest of the world will be able to sell its textile globally enabling them to import and export textile. The textile industry serves as a pillar of China’s economy due to the factor endowment and market scale. The competitive advantage of Chinese textile industry as compared to the world is their cheap labor cost and their technology. China’s textile industry display obvious scale economy and possess cost effects in supplying of material, labor cost, quality of product, compatibility between down and up stream, which pay for its dynamic export competitive advantage. However, the abolition of textile quotas in 2005 is helpful for textile sector in china to win access to foreign market, and helpful in constructing the opportunity for scale expansion and industry upgrade. The second main advantage of globalization in china is due to the super iority of China in material supply. China is the world largest producer of cloth, cotton, natural fiber and yarn due to the status of her superiority in resources and agriculture. Whereas, the richness in natural fiber and growth in the chemical fiber sector brings superiority advantage for the Chinese textile industry as compared to those developed countries. Comparison of china textile industry as compared to the developed countries. China’s textile industry is largely curtailed from comparative advantage in natural resource endowment and advantage in labor supply. Due to the integrated industrial chain and cheaper labor cost, the textile product of china is most competitive and main exports. However, the developed countries’ advantage in textile lies in the R&D, brand and matured marketing  channels and abundant capital, which is the expensive resources as compared to Chinese traditional resources. As China is a major consumer and producer of textile product. It has a great potential in consumption and production opens a vast market of medium and textile, textile machinery from developed countries, which results in advance interdependence among textile industries on both sides. As the production of Chinese textile industry is comparatively lower than those of developing countries. The production process of the USA is mainly concerned with high wages of employees, high research and development cost, and excess cost of the advertisement, as compared to the cost incurred by the Chinese. The introduction of China into the global market will cause the prices of the textile to decrease because of the above factors. Thus increasing the competition in the industry and pressure exerts by the US consumer over their textile industry to lower the prices in order to remain in the market. In this way China will enjoy the benefit more than the developed nation due to its competitive advantage as other developed nations, including the USA will face loss in a form of expenditure incurred and high cost of textile as compared to China. This loss can result in a decrease of profitability or list of customers. Free trade is the best trade policy Free trade is a policy made by international markets in which government of the country does not restrict imports and export. Free trade can be exemplified by the European union and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is created to establish open markets. However, most of the government in order to protect local employment impose protectionist policies that are intended to support them, such as subsidies to export or applying tariffs to imports. Most of the economist is in favor of free trade. Free trade improves lives of people’s. Through it each person can specialize in what they do best. Free trade promotes competition in the supply of services and goods, which results in motivates people to develop better, less expensive services and goods. Policy-makers have learned how important is freedom to trade in order to improve and increase the welfare and standard of living. According to the world trade organization, the applied tariff in the developed countries has fallen by 10% in 1980 to under 5% per day. Due to the fall of these barriers, the flow of trade has  increased dramatically. The removal of trade barriers, particularly in some fast moving economies enables more than 500 million people to lift themselves up from the poverty, including 400 million in china and million of people in india. Free trade hard to achieve Independent nations negotiate trade agreements, which are in their own interest and value in mind. Other than maximizing the global output level, there are values and interest among the independent nations. Following are the reasons why it is hard to achieve the free trade. International trade required more resources to distribute, as delivering products on the other side of the world has an environmental impact because it uses fossil fuel in delivery from overseas, as compared to local delivery. Economic disruption will also produce by the shortage of fuel energy and increase in fuel price as it is a finite resource that is being depleted. The influence of foreign firm will be made in developing countries, in subsidizing local corporation offers accusation of Protection by free trade advocates, while businesses to foreign corporation are portrayed as a mere balanced incentive. Free trades are opportunity to dominate the market by the developed countries, only developed countries can take advantage of it. But developing nations, it undermines their relative advantage. Developing countries solely focus on elementary and simple industries, because their comparative advantage is always a cheap labor. They are concerned that they may keep suffering at the root of international division of labor if they bear by the static principle.

Leadership Model Has Influenced Our Own Leadership

As a professional leader, role models are an important source of inspiration and development. The ability to deliberately aim to improve as a leader is equally important. In the Army, the Leadership Requirements Model found in doctrine provides the framework necessary to make those deliberate improvements. This framework presents the opportunity to analyze our leadership role models using the Leadership Requirements Model and assess how that leader has contributed to the Army or the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Corps. Additionally, it is important to apply the same analysis to how that role model has influenced our own leadership. Lastly, with these considerations in mind, leaders can project into the future and determine what kind of legacy they wish to leave. The purpose of this analysis is to explore these opportunities and the relationships between doctrinal leadership, a legacy leader, and my own leadership and legacy. My father, retired Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2) Nelson St ydinger, had a significant influence on the profession during his own service. He also represents my most important leadership influence throughout my career and his record informs the type of legacy I would like to leave as an Army leader. CW2 Stydinger served in a variety of roles and jobs during his 23-year career, from field wireman in Vietnam to strategic debriefing technician in Munich, Germany. There are many instances throughout his career that demonstrate the attributes and competenciesShow MoreRelatedTheories Of Leadership And Leadership Theory Essay1278 Words   |  6 PagesOF LEADERSHIP. Traditional theories of leadership were more concentrated on behaviours and traits of leaders, and how they affect subordinates in the workplace. Then came contingency theories, which took into account situational/contextual factors. Newer theories have come up, which introduced the idea that leader-subordinate relationships are individually different. These newer theories are Contemporary theories of leadership. They include Leader-Member exchange Theory, Implicit Leadership TheoryRead MoreReflection Of A True Leader1027 Words   |  5 Pages Leadership can be defined as â€Å"the action of leading a group of people or an organization.† However, when I reflect upon leadership, I see something much more. I see an individual who is willing to step out of their area of comfort and take charge. A leader is not afraid to stand out and make a difference. A leader is an optimistic individual who works hard to see the good in everything. To me, leadership simply isn’t gathering people and leading them. Leadership has a much larger concept. LeadersRead MoreThe Theory Of Ethical Leadership929 Words   |  4 PagesExplanation of Ethical Leadership The research of Thomas W. H. Ng and Daniel C. Feldman provides quantitative data, which validates the effectiveness of Ethical Leadership through the meta-analysis of 101 ethical leadership related studies conducted over the last 15 years. Somewhat in nascent form, Ethical Leadership (Ng Feldman, 2015) is viewed as conduct predicated on exhibiting positive role mode actions while promoting moral member conduct through collaboration, communication, and reinforcingRead MoreThe Key Concepts Of Leadership1560 Words   |  7 PagesDefining leadership and the qualities associated with leading is a frequently debated topic, with many theorists focusing on different areas that they consider are the most important or relevant to leadership. Leadership is an inherent requirement of all members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Furthermore, the development of leadership abilities is an individual journey; however, to better enhance this journey the basic leadership principles and behavi ours need to be considered. Over the pastRead MoreThe Core Essence Of Servant Leadership From A Biblical Perspective1605 Words   |  7 Pageschallenges, in becoming an effective leader in ministry and our society today. Therefore, this research paper will attempt to articulate the core essence of ‘Servant Leadership’ from a Biblical perspective, which might be able to provide practical, theological, and hermeneutical insights in order to develop leadership competency and a healthy prosperous ministry, as oppose to the current secular ‘leadership’ myths and fascination in our church, culture and society. Admittedly, over the years I haveRead MoreComponents of Transformational Leadership Theory Essay909 Words   |  4 PagesTransformational leadership theory conceptualized in the late 1970’s, proposed that leaders could motivate followers through shared vision and mutual interest to uplift the entire organization to a higher morality (Burns, 197 8). Morality was defined as leaders and followers working together to fulfill organizational goals and achieve higher performances within a context of change and innovation. Leaders would surpass their own self-interest, in order to, foresee, foster, and indoctrinate a new organizationalRead MoreLeadership Style That Changed Over The Years1716 Words   |  7 PagesLeadership is often an ambiguous term used to describe those individuals who are managing people and processes. There are as many styles of leadership as there are industries who utilize them. Most often, the culture of an industry creates a particular type of leader or manager, and individuals who wish to become leaders must change their style to reflect that of the culture. However, I believe that everyone has a leadership style that reflects who they are, and if provided the opportunity to utilizeRead MoreTheories Of Organizational Succession Planning Essay1327 Words   |  6 Pagesdetermining how each of these topic s relates to the researcher’s own study. A systematic presentation of the literature forms the foundation of the study. 2.1 THEORECTICAL FRAMEWORK There are different theories on organizational succession planning, each identifying own paradigm and concept. Some of these theories include Trait Theory, Path-Goal Theory, Game Theory and Leadership Model Theory. (A) Trait Leadership Theory Trait leadership theory suggests that all leaders are born with or display certainRead MoreLeadership : Effective And Effective Leadership848 Words   |  4 PagesFollowership Effective followership is an essential component of effective leadership in that, without good followers, the leader’s work is difficult and cumbersome. The role of the follower is many times understated. As illustrated by Kelley (1998), â€Å"effective followers are thinkers; energetic and assertive, self-starters, independent problem solvers, and carry out their tasks with these characteristics (p. 143). Effective followers also are characterized by their ability to perform tasks withRead MoreThe Statement Of The Leadership Team1555 Words   |  7 PagesTalentWorX. On behalf of the leadership team, it is my pleasure to introduce our newly branded firm, previously Target Search Selection, and highlight a few of the driving forces behind us being compelling advisors to competitive organisations. ‘Competitive’ doesn’t only equate to large and enterprise businesses, we pay special attention to niche and smaller business equally motivated to disrupt. Talent Management now has a proverbial seat at the boardroom table; Leadership bench strength - or the