Re: Submission of the sub-section for women and girls with disabilities to MSJE

[Anita Ghai]

Thanks

Supported with a suggestion 

Anita Ghai

Anita Ghai

 The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house,"  Audre Lorde (1979).

Blessed are the hearts that can bend; they shall never be broken. 
Albert Camus 

 

Permanent Address

Department Of Psychology
Jesus and Mary College
Resi:- J12/68 B Rajouri Garden
New Delhi, 110027 India
110027

On 23 June 2015 at 22:29, nidhi goyal <nidhig...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Greetings from Mumbai.

As you all know, the standing committee report has recommended a special sub-section on girls and women with disabilities to be incorporated in the RPD  Bill. it would be extremely helpful if MSJE gave a serious consideration to this recommendation. Therefore we are submitting a draft of the proposed sub-section for girls and women with disabilities- major parts of which are directly  from the NALSAR draft of 2011.

It will be extremely helpful if you could look through the draft and send in your feedback/ recommendations if any. We would also like to know if you wish to support this proposal, so that we could incorporate your name in the submission.

We have very limited time to make this submissions so responses by tomorrow night will be appreciated.

Look forward to hearing back from you.

Cheers,

Nidhi Goyal

Disability and gender rights activist

+919820529792

I tweet: @saysnidhigoyal

 

[Amba Salelkar]

Prof. Mandal, and Jo (sorry for the late clarification)

Thank you for your inputs.

Section 105 (f) reads as follows:

Whoever

(f) performs, conducts or directs any medical procedure to be performed on a woman with disability which leads to or is likely to lead to termination of pregnancy without her express consent except in cases where medical procedure for termination of pregnancy is done in severe cases of disability and with the opinion of a registered medical practitioner and also with the consent of the guardian of the woman with disability,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

Many women with disabilities have expressed strong reservations against the wording of this provision and the fact that it created an opening wherein women with disabilities could face threats to their reproductive rights.

Since the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 regulates the laws on abortions our feeling was that it is best left to the MTP, and the SC interpretation of the provisions of the MTP were seen to be quite beneficial to women with disabilities. Of course, the provision recognizes that women of unsound mind (formerly lunatics) can have their pregnancies terminated without their consent. That, I suppose, is a separate battle, as are other provisions of the MTP. The MTP provisions are to be read with the IPC provisions on terminations of pregnancy, I think, in case they are violated. The MTP has a clause which permits termination of pregnancies for all women in case there is a threat to the woman's life.

A reformulation of the section to say: "105. Whoever (f) performs, conducts or directs any medical procedure to be performed on a woman with disability which leads to or is likely to lead to termination of pregnancy without her express consent...will be imprisoned etc." is a possible idea, in that case.

As for rewriting the clause to permit removal of uteruses for 'clinical reasons' - I have my reservations, admittedly on anecdotal grounds, to incorporating a clause on these lines. Can you propose a formulation?

Best,

Amba.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Saptarshi Mandal <sap...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not sure if it is advisable to delete the entire Section 105(f). Only the second part is problematic...because it is worded in such broad terms, it takes away what is given by the first part of the clause. If the entire clause is deleted, a crucial violation will be removed from the ambit of legal protection.

At the same time, I think the exception (second part of 105f) needs to retained, though in a tighter form, to take care of those instances where removal of uterus of someone who is unable to give express consent is recommended for clinical reasons.

I support the recommendations, with the above caveat.

Saptarshi Mandal

Assistant Professor

Jindal Global Law Schhol

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Ritika Sahni <trinayan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Nidhi 

Thank you for sharing... Definitely support the submission. Please include our name. 

Regards 

Ritika

Founder-Trustee

Ritika Sahni

https://www.facebook.com/trinayani2006?ref=hl

http://www.ritikasahni.com/

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29 PM, nidhi goyal <nidhig...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Greetings from Mumbai.

As you all know, the standing committee report has recommended a special sub-section on girls and women with disabilities to be incorporated in the RPD  Bill. it would be extremely helpful if MSJE gave a serious consideration to this recommendation. Therefore we are submitting a draft of the proposed sub-section for girls and women with disabilities- major parts of which are directly  from the NALSAR draft of 2011.

It will be extremely helpful if you could look through the draft and send in your feedback/ recommendations if any. We would also like to know if you wish to support this proposal, so that we could incorporate your name in the submission.

We have very limited time to make this submissions so responses by tomorrow night will be appreciated.

Look forward to hearing back from you.

Cheers,

Nidhi Goyal

Disability and gender rights activist

+919820529792

I tweet: @saysnidhigoyal

 

--

Assistant Professor

Editor, Law & Policy Brief

Jindal Global Law School 

Office # 397, T3

O.P. Jindal Global University

Sonepat, Haryana - 131001, India
Phone: +91 8396907229

E-mail: sapt...@jgu.edu.in

[Amar Jain]

Just a suggestion: include the term "financial" in section 6, so to
fully capture the various aspects of abuse (as are captured in
definitions clause).

In agreement with the submissions and fully support the same.

Regards,
Amar Jain

On 6/24/15, Jo <jomcgow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could someone please share the text of the clause? I'm traveling and don't
> have access to the document.
>
> __________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________
>
> *
> *
>
> Jo Chopra | Latika Roy Foundation | Dehradun, India
>
> www.latikaroy.org www.latikaroy.org/jo
>
>
> __________________________________________

--
Amar Jain.
Website: www.amarjain.com

[Dlu South]

Dear Nidhi, Amba and friends,

Please endorse Disability Legislation Unit (South), Vidya Sagar for the submission on the sub-section for women and girls with disabilities in the RPD. 

Thanks, 

Smitha Sadasivan

On 25 June 2015 at 15:22, nidhi goyal <nidhig...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks to all for the support and the suggestions. Amba and I are in the process of finalizing the draft with the recommendations

Cheers,

Nidhi Goyal

Disability and Gender Rights Activist

+919820529792

I tweet: @saysnidhigoyal

 

 

From: pavan...@gmail.com [mailto:pavan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:30 PM
To: nidhi goyal
Cc: Amba Salelkar; Samarthyam; Vaishnavi Jayakumar; Sudhir Badami; people with disabilities of India...on air travel We; Muralidharan (NPRD, India); Javed Abidi; secretary.rvm; rajive.raturi; Jo; Dipendra Manocha; Basavaraju; Sayaji Hande; Dheepakh Srinivas; Reena Sen; Anuroopa Giliyal; hansadhwani saba prateeksha; Radhika Alkazi; Meenu Bhambhani; Trinayani Ritika Sahni; indumathi rao; Sunil Abraham; Manisha Gupte; VIDYA SAGAR; kanchanpamnani; Narayanan NAD; Murali Padmanabhan; <gen...@nabkarnataka.org>; Asif Iqbal; <nav...@rediffmail.com>; Sai Padma.Murthy; Syamala G; Saptarshi Mandal; <dipthi...@gmail.com>; Jeeja Ghosh; Reshma Val; Suranjana Ghosh Aikara; Mitra Jyothi; Shakeel Mohammed; ian cardozo; JP Gadkari; Punitha Suresh; Dr. Sam Taraporevala; <juv...@tiss.edu>; Shivani Gupta; Nilesh Singit; Prasanna Kumar; <pbma...@gmail.com>; <nfbind...@hotmail.com>; anindita btamta; sudha kaul; Nazir; Deepak Thanumalaya meenakshi nathan; Anandhi Viswanathan; Vibha Krishnamurthy; Rajiv Rajan; Anil Joshi; <maha...@samarthanam.org>; Ruma Banerjee; Shanti Auluck; To: Amar Jain; <za...@senseintindia.org>; Sudha Ramamoorthy; Ramakrishnan; srinu vasulu; Maneesh Gupta; Charudatta Jadhav; Anita Ghai; <sli...@tiss.edu>; Arman Ali; sudha; H PKotian; Rishikesh K; Vijayakumar Advocate; Nirmita Narasimhan; Kakarla Nageswaraiah; Action for Autism; Santosh Kumar Rungta; Chidambaranathan; Jayshree Raveendran; Andhjan Kalyan Trust Dhoraji; Aarth Astha; s...@nish.ac.in,poonamnatarajan; shekhar borker; Mrinalini Ravi; Dlu South; <nab.k...@gmail.com>; <akmi...@rediffmail.com>; viakalathur sunder; <socialw...@ummeed.org>; socialw...@ummeed.org; disability-studies-india; Soumya Vinayan; Kalpana Kannabiran; V Bhargavi; Equals CPSJ; AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues concerning the disabled.; SMRC
Subject: Re: Submission of the sub-section for women and girls with disabilities to MSJE

 

I agree with the recommendations this is pollen you can include my name thank you

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Jun 2015, at 22:29, nidhi goyal <nidhig...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Greetings from Mumbai.

As you all know, the standing committee report has recommended a special sub-section on girls and women with disabilities to be incorporated in the RPD  Bill. it would be extremely helpful if MSJE gave a serious consideration to this recommendation. Therefore we are submitting a draft of the proposed sub-section for girls and women with disabilities- major parts of which are directly  from the NALSAR draft of 2011.

It will be extremely helpful if you could look through the draft and send in your feedback/ recommendations if any. We would also like to know if you wish to support this proposal, so that we could incorporate your name in the submission.

We have very limited time to make this submissions so responses by tomorrow night will be appreciated.

Look forward to hearing back from you.

Cheers,

Nidhi Goyal

Disability and gender rights activist

+919820529792

I tweet: @saysnidhigoyal

 

<proposed Sub Section on Girls and women with disabilities June 23 2015.docx>