Search

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the budget of the Indian family planning programme from a human rights perspective. Family planning services play an important role in the realisation of the reproductive rights of women. In India, the family planning programme is one of the largest in the world with thousands of patients, mostly women, accessing services every year. Although the Indian legal system guarantees the right to health, Indian women from marginalised sections of society still battle inadequate services and the absence of health care that respects their right to reproductive autonomy and choice. Therefore, the question is: in the presence of a strong legal framework, what are the factors that contribute to this phenomenon? Design/methodology/approach: The authors have gathered data from the project implementation plans at the state level comparing year-wise expenditure for family planning against overall expenditure for reproductive, maternal and child health expenditure. The data are then compared to the number of women using sterilisation to suggest a relationship between both. Finally, the article relies on desk research to review scholarship on the Indian family planning programme and applicable human rights obligations. Findings: The paper finds that social-economic rights such as the right to health are applicable to government spending and budgeting. It also finds current spending in the NHM is insufficient to guarantee women's reproductive rights as the vast majority of resources are spend on sterilisation, thus limiting women's ability to choose the number and spacing of children. Research limitations/implications: The data used in this research bears one limitation: the propensity of the government to change the guidelines as to how States should present their budgets in the project implementation plans. The authors have adjusted the data so that it remains comparable. However, the adjustment was not possible for all expenditure data, which is why the current study is limited to the family planning programme alone. Practical implications: The paper argues that to be human rights compliant, health budgets of the NHM need to be geared towards the specific needs of women in terms of family planning. Finally, the article briefly outlines the role played by human rights and human rights litigation in impacting government budgets. Originality/value: India's family planning programme has been examined from a performance and medical standpoint, focussing on medical indicators such as total fertility rate, unmet needs for family planning, amongst others. Academic scholarship has investigated through statistical analysis patterns of contraceptive use and contraceptive mix. What is absent, however, is an assessment of the programme from a right-based perspective by looking at the human rights obligations of India and their normative implications for the Indian family programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family planning providers anticipate positive changes to the Title X program as President Biden announced his administration would roll back the Trump rules that forced hundreds of family planning clinics out of the program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent Title X changes have proven devastating to women depending on family planning centers for their reproductive healthcare needs. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upheld the Trump administration's gag rule that prohibits Title X providers from referring patients for abortion care or even answering questions about abortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the study that investigates the effectiveness of the family planning services, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in decreasing unintended pregnancy and abortions in the U.S. The topics discussed include the changes proposed by U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump on ACA by eliminating the safety net of family planning services and defunding the Planned Parenthood, the reduction of access to contraception, and the implications of the said changes on women.

In October, 2015, China's one-child policy was replaced by a universal two-child policy. The effects of the new policy are inevitably speculative, but predictions can be made based on recent trends. The population increase will be relatively small, peaking at 1·45 billion in 2029 (compared with a peak of 1·4 billion in 2023 if the one-child policy continued). The new policy will allow almost all Chinese people to have their preferred number of children. The benefits of the new policy include: a large reduction in abortions of unapproved pregnancies, virtual elimination of the problem of unregistered children, and a more normal sex ratio. All of these effects should improve health outcomes. Effects of the new policy on the shrinking workforce and rapid population ageing will not be evident for two decades. In the meantime, more sound policy actions are needed to meet the social, health, and care needs of the elderly population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In less than one generation, a unique demographic transition has taken place in Iran. A population growth rate of 4.06% in 1984 fell to 1.15% in 1993 and a total fertility rate of 6.4 births per woman in 1984 declined to 1.9 in 2010. In 2012, Iranian policymakers shifted away from a birth control policy towards a pro-natalist policy. At first glance, this may seem reasonable since its goal is to avoid the consequences of an aging population. However, we argue that the policy package raises serious public health, socioeconomic, environmental and ethical concerns and is likely to fail on its own terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We assessed the impact on depot medroxyprogesterone continuation when a large care provider was banned from a state-funded family planning program.Study Design: We used three methods to assess the effect of the ban: (a) In a records review, we compared how many state program participants returned to two Planned Parenthood affiliates for a scheduled dose of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) immediately after the ban; (b) We conducted phone interviews with 224 former Planned Parenthood patients about DMPA use and access to contraception immediately after the ban; (c) We compared current contraceptive method of our interviewees to that of comparable DMPA users in the National Survey of Family Growth 2006-2010 (NSFG).Results: (a) Fewer program clients returned for DMPA at a large urban Planned Parenthood, compared to a remotely located affiliate (14.4%, vs. 64.8%), reflecting different levels of access to alternative providers in the two cities. (b) Among program participants who went elsewhere for the injection, only 56.8% obtained it at no cost and on time. More than one in five women missed a dose because of barriers, most commonly due to difficulty finding a provider. (c) Compared to NSFG participants, our interviewees used less effective methods of contraception, even more than a year after the ban went into effect.Conclusions: Injectable contraception use was disrupted during the rollout of the state-funded family planning program. Women living in a remote area of Texas encountered more barriers.Implications: Requiring low-income family planning patients to switch healthcare providers has adverse consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on history, development and importance of the Jewish law, which promotes human reproduction and the protection of human health. It discusses the effectiveness of the U.S. government regulations that supports the Jewish law in context to family planning subjects including abortion, contraception, cloning, genetic engineering, and other alternative reproductive technologies.

Abstract: Since the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, the human rights movement has embraced the concept of reproductive rights. These are often pursued, however, by means to which objection is taken. Some conservative political and religious forces continue to resist implementation of several means of protecting and advancing reproductive rights. Individuals'' rights to grant and to deny consent to medical procedures affecting their reproductive health and confidentiality have been progressively advanced. However, access to contraceptive services, while not necessarily opposed, is unjustifiably obstructed in some settings. Rights to lawful abortion have been considerably liberalized by legislative and judicial decisions, although resistance remains. Courts are increasingly requiring that lawful services be accommodated under transparent conditions of access and of legal protection. The conflict between rights of resort to lawful reproductive health services and to conscientious objection to participation is resolved by legal duties to refer patients to non-objecting providers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Sterilisation is the most desired method of contraception worldwide. In 1996, the Brazilian Congress approved a family planning law that legitimised female and male sterilisation, but forbade sterilisation during childbirth. As a result of this law, procedures currently occur in a clandestine nature upon payment. Despite the law, sterilisations continue to be performed during caesarean sections. The permanence of the method is an important consideration; therefore, information about other methods must be made available. Tubal sterilisation must not be the only choice. We argue that review of this restriction will not contribute to the increase in caesarean sections but will allow for greater sterilisation choice for men and women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from the latest release of the National Survey of Family Growth supports that the contraception coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act has resulted in a decrease in the incidence of unintended pregnancy, particularly among women with government coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the finalization of family planning laws and regulations under the U.S. social health care program Medicaid. This includes the access to and use of effective methods of contraception, against of abortion, and Medicaid enrollees receives coverage of Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion.