Court Orders Nepal to Improve Women’s Access to Abortion

Center for Reproductive Rights
www.reproductiverights.org<http://www.reproductiverights.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                            FOR MORE INFORMATION:
May 20, 2009                                                              Dionne Scott, dscott@reprorights.org<mailto:dscott@reprorights.org>
(917) 637-3649

Court Orders Nepal to Improve Women’s Access to Abortion
Government must set up abortion fund and promote availability of abortion services.

New York—Today, Nepal’s Supreme Court ordered the Nepal government to enact a comprehensive abortion law to guarantee that women have access to safe and affordable abortion services.  Since 2002, Nepalese law has permitted abortion under most circumstances, but multiple barriers—including the government’s failure to implement its own policy, prohibitive costs, and inadequate availability of abortion providers—have prevented women from accessing safe abortion services. Under the court ruling, the government must set up a fund to cover the cost of abortion for poor and rural women; and invest enough resources to meet the demand for abortion services and to educate the public and health service providers of the existing abortion law.

“This is one of the most important legal victories for women in Nepal in almost a decade,” said Melissa Upreti, regional manager and legal adviser for Asia at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Thousands of women in Nepal either die or suffer health complications every year from unsafe abortion. Many are forced to suffer in silence due to their inability to pay for safe services or the lack of information. This decision shows that protecting women’s health and lives means more than just keeping reproductive health services legal – it means ensuring that those services are in fact available to everyone who needs them.”

The Center worked with its partners in Nepal, Forum for Women, Law, and Development, to file the case in the Supreme Court in 2007. At the center of the petition was Nepali citizen Lakshmi Dhikta.  Dhikta, who comes from an extremely poor household in the rural western region of Nepal, could not afford to pay the fee charged for abortion at a public hospital and as a result, was forced to continue an unintended pregnancy. The Center  filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the case and Upreti, also from Nepal, joined as a petitioner.

According to the World Disasters Report, neo-natal and maternal mortality claim twenty-five times more lives each year than the lives claimed yearly in Nepal’s decade-long conflict. Complications from unsafe abortion are estimated to account for 20 percent of maternal deaths in health facilities alone—not counting the women who never make it to a hospital. An abortion in a government hospital can cost more than the average monthly salary, and 80 percent of rural women are not even aware that abortion is legal.

The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global legal organization dedicated to advancing women’s reproductive health, self-determination and dignity as basic human rights.

How to sue in small claim courts in Texas?

How to sue in small claim courts in Texas[1]?

Sirjana Sharma

WHAT IS SMALL CLAIMS COURT?

Small claims court is the real “People’s Court.” The purpose of small claims court is to provide an informal, uncomplicated proceeding to resolve small disputes that do not involve enough money to warrant the expense of formal litigation. Most people who appear in small claims court do not have a lawyer but represent themselves. In small claims court, the amount you seek to recover can not exceed $ 5,000.

WHAT TYPE OF CASE CAN BE BROUGHT IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT?

Not all disputes can be heard in small claims court. Small claims court cannot hear disputes involving more than $ 5,000. No matter how important the case in to you, and no matter how well you convince the judge that you deserve to recover more, the judge in small claims court simply cannot rule on a dispute for more than $ 5,000 plus court costs.

If u wish to recover more than $ 5,000 you must consider another court, and in most cases, the assistance of an attorney. You cannot just say you will take less to get into small claims court. In many cases, however, a claim may be reduced to enable you to file in small claims court. If the transaction giving rise to your dispute can be divided into parts, you can sue for damages based on some of the divisible parts. For example, if you purchased several different items in one transaction, you may be able to sue for damaged to some, but not all of those items.

Small claims court can only award money. It cannot, for example, order a mechanic to fix your car correctly. The court could only award you the monetary damages you suffered because your car was not repaired the way that was promised. Similarly, the court cannot order your ex-husband to stop harassing you. The court cannot order a store to deliver the television set you paid for but never received. The court cannot order your roommate to move out of your apartment for failing to pay the rent. You cannot ask the court to order the other party to do anything, or to refrain from doing something. If you need an order to make someone do something or to stop doing something, other courts are available. If you win a small claims court, all you get is money (up to $ 5,000 plus court costs.)

Some examples of the most common types of disputes that find their way into small claims court are:

Nepal in transition: abolishing the monarchy [JURIST]

Nepal in transition: abolishing the monarchy

Santosh Giri [advocate/human rights lawyer, Supreme Court of Nepal]: “The abolition of Nepal’s nearly 240-year-old monarchy and declaration of Nepal as a “federal, democratic, republican state” was made by an overwhelming majority in the interim parliament late last month. 270 members in the 329-member House of Representatives voted on December 27, 2007 in favor of ending the monarchy (3 pro-monarchists cast against the motion while the rest abstained). However, Nepal will become a republic only after the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, which is due to be elected by mid-April next year. The decision also serves to put the peace process back on track and paves the way for elections notwithstanding the fact that elections have been postponed three times since June 2006. Constituent Assembly seats has been increased from 497 to 601, of which 335 (58%) will be elected on the basis of proportional representation, with 240 to be directly elected and 26 to be nominated by the country’s cabinet.

Background

Since 1990 restoration of democracy, there were 3 elections in 1991, 1996 and 1999. Numerous governments were formed and numerous failed. The parliament was dissolved in 2002 which paved way for an absolute monarchy again. In 2005, the king staged a coup d’état. Seven major political parties united and formed an alliance with the Maoists to overthrow the king in April 2006 after dozens of innocent killings. In April 2006, the king restored the parliament which eventually led to abolishment of the monarchy. The November 2006 agreement between the political parties and the Maoists came as a peace pact which enabled a cease-fire and temporarily ending the conflict in which more than 13,000 people died since 1996. In January 2007 the Maoists entered the parliament and the cabinet in April 2007. In September 2007, the Maoists walked out of the government citing differences and demanding fulfillment of their demands of abolishment of monarchy and restructuring of the electoral system. They also threatened to quit the parliament in December 2007 if their demands were not met. Meanwhile the Constituent Assembly elections were postponed thrice, firstly citing lack of preparedness, secondly unfavorable security situation and thirdly the Maoists opposition. In December 2007, a new accord was signed which agreed on both demands and the Maoists reentered the cabinet. In December 2007, the parliament with a majority decision abolished the monarchy (subjected to ratification by the Constituent Assembly Parliament) and restructured the electoral system.

Read More at: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/index.php#723612406984734682

Article: Intellectual Property Law

By Sirjana Sharma – LL.M.: Dedman School of Law – SMU

Overview

In the modern world we have different kinds of property which we want to protect under the law. Apart from the individual’s property like own cars, computers, house, land or other tangible goods, individuals have ownership right upon their own invention and, creative works and, they want to protect the investment. These all new forms of properties are protected by the intellectual property law in the new arena of legal development.

 

According to the Robert Spinard, Xerox Corp. there are two types of intellectual property which we want to protect. First, the brilliant invention, the idea, the notion that makes a new product and the insight that makes a whole new industry. Next, we want to protect the investment and the hard work. This is the grunt work. This is the pick-and-shovel engineering that turns the idea, the prototype, into a reliable, distributable, maintainable, documented and supportable product.[1]

 

Intellectual Property is generally characterized as non-physical property that is the product of cognitive processes and whose value is based upon some idea or collection of ideas[2].