Connect with us

News

Women’s Groups Fight for Better Access to Abortion in Thailand

Women's Groups Fight for Better Access to Abortion in Thailand

Although Thai law was revised last year to allow abortions up to 12 weeks and again this year under some conditions up to 20 weeks, it remains difficult for Thai women to obtain a free and safe abortion.

“If you believe that abortions have become available for all pregnant women who wish to exercise their legal right to an abortion, you are mistaken,” Tamtang Group founder and coordinator Supecha Baotip remarked.

Her organization has long advocated for women’s right to safe abortions, but despite legalization in February 2021, access to abortion services remains extremely limited.

According to Tamtang Group data, about 100 medical facilities provide legally safe abortions. However, the vast majority of them are private clinics. Abortion is unavailable in any governmental hospital in Bangkok, making it out of reach for most Thais in the capital.

“Yet, according to calls to counsellors, Bangkok has the highest number of undesired pregnancies,” Supecha said. “We can recommend the nearest state hospital in Singburi province.”

Abortion in Thailand

Struggling to get an abortion

Pure travelled more than 100 kilometers from Bangkok to Singburi province for a free termination at a government hospital nearly two years ago.

Abortion was illegal in Thailand at the time unless the pregnancy resulted from rape or affected the mother’s mental or physical health.

“I couldn’t imagine having a child back then.” “I was just 24 at the time, and my relationship with my partner was unstable,” Pure explained.

Her choice to terminate the pregnancy was also motivated by concerns about her ability to be a good mother. She was also concerned about leaving her job to care for the baby.

“Abortion appeared to be the best option,” she explained.

She contacted the Aids Access Foundation’s 1663 hotline for assistance, but getting an appointment at the Singburi hospital took several weeks. She was five weeks pregnant when she decided to terminate her pregnancy, but by the time she arrived at the hospital, she was eight weeks pregnant.

“I needed to be diagnosed with depression to show that the pregnancy was harming my mental health,” she explained. “My claim also needed to be supported by a witness, in my case, my then-boyfriend.”

Pure successfully terminated her pregnancy and ended her relationship. In retrospect, she believes she made the best option for herself.

She is also glad that the law and Thai society have become more accepting of abortion, formerly considered taboo in the Buddhist-majority country.

Abortion in Thailand

Counseling and advice to women

The Aids Access Foundation provides counselling and advice to women experiencing unplanned pregnancies through various channels, including the 1663telephonecsg Facebook page and also the 1663 hotline.

In the 6 months from October last year to March this year, the hotline received phone calls from 41,542 women, 2,947 of whom lived in Bangkok.

Meanwhile, from June to March 31 of 2022, the Tamtang Group answered 1,177 calls for assistance from women, 277 of whom lived in Bangkok.

Both groups assist women seeking abortions in connecting with qualified medical institutions to guarantee their pregnancy is safely ended. Since 2020, the National Health Security Office (NHSO) has covered 3,000 baht for every abortion at public hospitals.

The Planned Parenthood Association of Thailand, which has 9 offices throughout the country, also provides women with counselling and abortion services.

“We provide them with options while also empowering them to make decisions,” said Warunee Tungsiri, deputy director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Thailand’s northeastern branch.

Abortion in Thailand

Access to safe abortions

Supecha believes Thailand should do more to guarantee women have access to safe abortions. She stated that while the legislation has already changed, people’s attitudes, particularly those of doctors, should also shift.

Dr. Boonyarit Sukrat, director of the Public Health Ministry’s Bureau of Reproductive Health, stated that abortions are not provided in all hospitals because some patients and doctors oppose the change. He said that some medical workers are uncomfortable terminating pregnancies.

Doctors from the Public Health Ministry, the NHSO, the National Security Office, and the BMA should also take a firm stand on this,” Supecha said.

As a first measure, she advised that authorities distribute letters notifying medical workers of the risks of death or serious harm from improper abortions.

Supecha stated that some medical professionals had only consented to engage with her organization anonymously because they were concerned about Thai society’s sentiments about abortion.

She noted that if their names or jobs were known, it would be extremely difficult for her organization to schedule appointments for women seeking abortions.

Warunee believes that changing people’s opinions should be done gradually to prevent inciting severe opposition from those who oppose abortion.

“We must also respect the rights of medical service providers,” she added.

Abortion in Thailand

Women still face unsafe abortions

Prof Dr. Orawee Chintanakan, who works for the Referral System for Safe Abortion (RSA), admitted that she, like many Thais, once thought abortion was a sin. She stated that her belief was influenced by Thai legislation and the religion and mythology she had learned as a child.

“However, in my years of practice, I’ve seen women lose their lives due to unsafe abortions,” Orawee added. “As a result, I believe it is preferable to give women access to safe abortions performed by doctors.”

RSA now employs 174 doctors and over 700 additional volunteers. Cases are referred through Line, and the network has a fund to assist women in need.

Assistant Professor Dr. Thanapan Choobun, who teaches gynecology and obstetrics at Prince of Songkla University, stated that he was formerly reluctant to perform abortion services.

“However, my horizons broadened after speaking with folks from all occupations and backgrounds.” My mindset has also shifted as a result of my personal experience. “I’ve seen patients I turned down return with issues from unsafe abortion services,” he added.

According to Warunee, even older people in rural villages now acknowledge that abortions should be considered when their financial situation prevents them from helping raise grandkids.

“They do not have financial security.” “They claim that monthly state payments for the elderly [ranging between 600 and 1,000 baht] cannot finance child upbringing,” she explained.

Source: Thai PBS

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

google

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

google

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

Continue Reading

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

Supreme Court

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

SEE ALSO:

Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.

Scientists Awarded MicroRNA The Nobel Prize in Medicine.

US Inflation will Comfort a Fed Focused on Labor Markets.

Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

shkreli

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

shkreli

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

shkreli

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP

Continue Reading

Trending