Discussing the relationships between homoparenthood and health. / Problematizando as relações entre homoparentalidade e saúde.

The present article aims to bridge the gaps or deepen the debate to discuss the relationship between homoparenthood and health. This essay is anchored in specific literature. We seek to work on the following questions throughout the text: (i) How is the central theme of this discussion historically outlined? (ii) How does homoparenthood appear in scientific health production in general? (iii) What sociopolitical dimensions emerge around homoparenthood-health relationships? and (iv) What are the limitations and possibilities for exercising reproductive rights between same-sex couples? Among the conclusions, we underscore the challenge of facing the strangeness of homoparenthood against the idea of the so-called called "normal" family based on heteronormative logic. Even in countries with some legal apparatus assuring the rights to homoparental families, their members suffer prejudice, discrimination, and violence.

Buscando preencher lacunas e/ou aprofundar o debate, o artigo objetiva problematizar aspectos que envolvem as relações entre homoparentalidade e saúde. O desenho metodológico é o de ensaio, ancorado em literatura específica. Ao longo do texto procura-se trabalhar as seguintes questões: (i) Como se esboça historicamente a temática central desta discussão? (ii) Como se afigura a homoparentalidade no campo da produção científica da saúde em geral? (iii) Quais dimensões sociopolíticas emergem em torno das relações homoparentalidade-saúde? e (iv) Quais são os limites e as possibilidades para o exercício dos direitos reprodutivos entre casais homoafetivos? Dentre as conclusões, destaca-se o desafio de se enfrentar o estranhamento da temática homoparentalidade para a ideia da família denominada de "normal", configurada a partir da lógica heteronormativa. Mesmo nos países em que há algum aparato jurídico que garanta direitos às famílias homoparentais, seus integrantes são alvo de preconceitos, discriminações e violências.

The Alabama Embryo Decision-The Politics and Reality of Recognizing "Extrauterine Children".

This Viewpoint discusses the Alabama Supreme Court's opinion on in vitro fertilization and how it plays into a larger push for fetal and embryonic personhood.

Social egg freezing and reproductive rights justification: A perspective from China.

Divergences and controversies are inevitable in the discussion of freedoms and rights, especially in the matter of reproduction. The Chinese first social egg freezing lawsuit raises the question: is the freedom to freeze eggs for social reasons justified because it is an instance of reproductive rights? This paper accepts social egg freezing as desirable reproductive freedom, but following Harel's approach and considering two theories of rights, the choice and interest theories of rights, we argue that social egg freezing is not a reproductive right because one cannot justify a right or an instance of rights via merely describing the function of those instances that have been justified as right, that is, the choice theory lacks justifying normativity. Since reserving fertility and a suspension from reproduction do not serve reproductive ends per se, the sufficient reason for demanding social egg freezing as a right should be found in other ends rather than in right-to-reproduce, that is, the interest theory denies the demand as a right-to-reproduce. Permitting it on any grounds without guaranteeing adequate and accessible resources, especially in light of cross-border reproductive care, raises serious questions about reproductive equality and violates the idea of reproductive rights. Therefore, any ground for social egg freezing should be weighed against whether more pressing reproductive needs, specifically those that are justified as rights, have been met. It would be social progress to shoulder these burdens for the vulnerable and then allow social egg freezing-if right-to-reproduce were not the only privilege of the few.

Why a good law is not always good enough: a global review of restrictions to supportive laws for sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Laws and regulations provide the framework for implementing sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR)-related policies, programmes and services. They can promote the fulfilment of health and human rights; however, they may also limit the achievement of these goals. This study uses data collected under Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 5.6.2 to analyse SRHR-related laws and restrictions from 153 countries. Looking beyond the existence of supportive laws to assess the constellation of legal restrictions and contradictions such as criminalisation and plural legal systems provides a more nuanced understanding of factors involved in achieving full and equal access to SRHR.The interaction between restrictions and contradictions within the law disproportionately impacts some populations' health access and outcomes. Restrictions based on third-party authorisations and age are the most common restriction types, disproportionately impacting young women. Contraception, emergency contraception and abortion face the greatest number of restrictions, indicating a significant layering of barriers to family planning services. Further, plural legal systems commonly contradict guarantees of contraceptive services and emergency contraception. Our analyses suggest that one of the populations most affected by restrictions to SRH services as they appear in legal and regulatory frameworks is adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa seeking abortion or contraceptive services.Study findings provide a critical starting point for advocacy to address legal barriers to SRH services and evidence for future policy and programming. For individual countries, this study can serve as a model for analysis of their own legal and regulatory frameworks to identify priority areas for reform efforts.

Law Commission of India report on the age of consent: Denying justice and autonomy to adolescents.

The 22nd Law Commission of India (henceforth, the Commission) [1], in its recent 283rd report, offered its recommendation on the question of age of consent (AoC) to sexual activity. Two High Courts which have seen several cases of non-exploitative consensual sex involving adolescent girls, filed by the police under "sexual assault", had referred this issue to the Commission. The substantive matter before the Commission was whether to lower the AoC to prevent unnecessary prosecutions and resolve the contradictions in sexual violence laws. In this regard, we find the report rather disappointing. It is a lost opportunity to decriminalise adolescent sexuality, to restore the autonomy of adolescent girls over their bodies, uphold their sexual and reproductive rights, and respect their evolving capacity to exercise their sexuality. The Commission has also let go of a chance to undo a highly protectionist clause in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 [2] which renders all sexual activity of individuals under the age of 18 an offence. It failed to reiterate the progressive recommendations made by the Justice Verma Committee Report in 2013 [3] in this regard, which had come after extensive deliberations and were widely welcomed by stakeholders.

School health-care team members' reflections of their promotion of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR): Important but neglected.

OBJECTIVE: Young people are prioritized regarding the promotion and safeguarding of sexual and reproductive health and rights - SRHR. In Sweden, the school is seen as an important arena with members of the school health-care or SHC team as vital actors in this work. This study explored SRHR-related work in SHC teams in Sweden. METHODS: Within an explorative qualitative design, structured interviews were conducted with 33 nurses, counsellors, SHC unit managers and headmasters. Reflexive thematic analysis was applied, and two main themes found. RESULTS: SHC team members see SRHR as an urgent topic, but address it only 'when necessary', not systematically - and they experience a shortage of guidance and cooperation regarding SRHR-related work. Even in a country with agreement on the importance of SRHR for all and on providing holistic comprehensive sex education in schools, young people are left to chance - i.e., to the SRHR competence in the professionals they meet. CONCLUSION: SHC team members in Sweden see SRHR as an urgent topic but do not address it systematically. Moreover, they experience a shortage of guidance for their work. To avoid any professional stress of conscience and for equitable school health care regarding SRHR to be realized, research-informed policy needs to underline systematic, comparable and proactive practice.

Attitudes and Laws About Abortion Are Linked to Extrinsic Mortality Risk: A Life-History Perspective on Variability in Reproductive Rights.

Abortion policy is conventionally viewed as a political matter with religious overtones. This article offers a different view. From the perspective of evolutionary biology, abortion at a young age can represent prioritization of long-term development over immediate reproduction, a pattern established in other animal species as resulting from stable ecologies with low mortality risk. We examine whether laws and moral beliefs about abortions are linked to local mortality rates. Data from 50 U.S. states, 202 world societies, 2,596 adult individuals in 363 U.S. counties, and 147,260 respondents across the globe suggest that lower levels of mortality risk are associated with more permissive laws and attitudes toward abortion. Those associations were observed when we controlled for religiosity, political ideology, wealth, education, and industrialization. Integrating evolutionary and cultural perspectives offers an explanation as to why moral beliefs and legal norms about reproduction may be sensitive to levels of ecological adversity.

The ubiquity of 'self-care' in health: Why specificity matters.

Despite increased interest in self-care for health, little consensus exists around its definition and scope. The World Health Organization has published several definitions of self-care, including in a 2019 Global Guideline rooted in sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), later expanded to encompass health more generally. To establish a robust understanding of self-care, this exploratory study inventorises, consolidates, presents and analyses definitions of self-care beyond the SRHR field. A pragmatic review identified definitions and conceptualisations of self-care from peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2009 and 2021. The search identified 91 definitions of self-care from 116 relevant publications. Data extraction informed analysis to identify recurring themes and approaches, revealing three key areas of variation: self-care being: (1) defined directly or descriptively; (2) situated within individual, interpersonal or structural contexts; (3) defined broadly or topic-specifically. A multilevel conceptualisation can guide a more broadly applicable understanding of self-care: first, as an aspect of healthcare; second, as a concept operating at individual, interpersonal and institutional levels; third, as a concept that impacts specific health fields and contexts differently. A comprehensive but adaptable framework works in service of improving health and wellbeing for all, acknowledging the linkages between self-care and health-related human rights.

Achieving Reproductive Justice Within Family Planning.

There is a long-standing history of reproductive oppression in the United States which impacts how patients, particularly those from marginalized communities, receive reproductive health services today. The reproductive justice (RJ) framework is a tool to support people to become pregnant, to not become pregnant, and to parent in safe communities. In this review, the authors provide essential background about this history and how those in reproductive health care can use the RJ framework through an intersectional lens to achieve inclusive reproductive goals and advocate for comprehensive access to family planning care, including contraceptive and abortion care.