Mizoram seminar to combat drug menace
Aizawl: The chief executive officer of Shalom de-addiction centre, Chawnglungmuana, on Thursday made a startling revelation that there are some drug addicts among school-going children in Mizoram and emphasised that it has become extremely important to create mass awareness among young people not to be initiated to drugs, reports HC Vanlalruata.
Chawnglungmuana, while speaking at the 'One Day Seminar on Drug Abuse', organised by the Mizoram State AIDS Control Society (MSACS), said Article 47 of the Constitution and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, accord responsibilities to all the citizens of the country to combat drug menace.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Time of India
Mizoram seminar to combat drug menace
Aizawl: The chief executive officer of Shalom de-addiction centre, Chawnglungmuana, on Thursday made a startling revelation that there are some drug addicts among school-going children in Mizoram and emphasised that it has become extremely important to create mass awareness among young people not to be initiated to drugs, reports HC Vanlalruata. Chawnglungmuana, while speaking at the 'One Day Seminar on Drug Abuse', organised by the Mizoram State AIDS Control Society (MSACS), said Article 47 of the Constitution and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, accord responsibilities to all the citizens of the country to combat drug menace.
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Time of India
HC allows 12-yr-old rape survivor to terminate 28-week pregnancy
Nagpur: Affirming the woman's reproductive autonomy, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed she can become pregnant by choice, irrespective of her marital status, and cannot be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The bench was hearing a plea filed on behalf of a 12-year-old rape survivor seeking medical termination of her 28-week pregnancy. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Sachin Deshmukh observed that in cases of unwanted or incidental pregnancies, especially those resulting from sexual assault, the physical and mental burden overwhelmingly falls on the pregnant individual. The judges underscored that forcing a victim to continue such a pregnancy would be a direct assault on her dignity and autonomy, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Quoting extensively from recent Supreme Court judgments, the judges reiterated that the right of bodily autonomy rests solely with the woman or girl in question, irrespective of marital status. "It's the woman alone who has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion," the judges said. The minor approached the HC through counsel Soniya Gajbhiye seeking permission for termination of her late-stage pregnancy, which resulted from rape allegedly committed by her cousin uncle. The offence was registered on June 5 under various sections of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso). The medical board constituted by the govt medical college and hospital (GMCH) in Akola, expressed caution, noting the procedure would be high-risk due to the survivor's age and the advanced gestational stage. However, the Board did not flag a life-threatening risk. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It advised that a hysterotomy could be performed with high-risk parental consent and the patient's assent. Acknowledging these findings, the justices said: "There is no opinion that the life of the victim is at risk. Perhaps, the patient may develop complications. However, we are equally required to be sensitive to submissions of the petitioner's counsel that the victim and her parents are prepared to undergo the risk." The court further directed the GMCH dean to conduct the termination procedure "at the earliest" while strictly following safety protocols. It specified the team should include a paediatric surgeon, a gynaecological surgeon, and, if possible, a paediatric anaesthesiologist. Crucially, the court noted the legal route taken by the minor's family through the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was both appropriate and necessary, given the extraordinary nature of the case and fundamental rights involved. In its concluding remarks, the judges emphasized that no authority, including the state, could compel a woman to carry a pregnancy that she does not wish to continue. "Such compulsion would strip her of the right to determine the immediate and long-term path her life would take," the bench ruled. The petition was allowed, and the court recorded the parents' undertaking to furnish the required high-risk consent, as well as the minor victim's assent to the procedure. Key Takeaways of HC Verdict Right to abortion is part of personal liberty and dignity under Article 21. Unwanted pregnancy affects mental and physical health State cannot force victim to carry a pregnancy against her wish No life threat to the victim; hysterotomy allowed with high-risk consent. Safety protocol must be strictly followed by an expert medical team. Assent of minor & parental consent to be recorded in the medical file
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
U.S. top court upholds ban on gender-affirming care for minors
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 18, 2025) upheld a state law banning gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors – an issue at the heart of the American culture wars. The court voted 6-3 to uphold a Tennessee law barring hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender transition surgery for those under the age of 18. The six conservative justices on the top court rejected a challenge to the law while the three liberals dissented. Two dozen Republican-led states have enacted laws restricting medical care for transgender youth, and the case will have repercussions for the prohibitions across the country. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,' wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the majority opinion. 'The Court's role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' (of the law) but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees,' Mr. Roberts said. 'It does not. Questions regarding the law's policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,' he added. The Supreme Court heard the case in December, and the Justice Department of then-president Joe Biden joined opponents of the law, arguing that it violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause since it denies transgender minors access to medical treatments permitted to others. Republican President Donald Trump has since taken office, and he signed an executive order in January restricting gender transition procedures for people under the age of 19. While there is no U.S.-wide law against gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youth, the Mr. Trump order ended any federal backing for such procedures. Reacting to the ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said it 'sets a dangerous precedent for legislative interference in the practice of medicine.' 'Gender-affirming care is medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria and is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience, and scientific consensus,' the AAP said. 'Denying patients access to this care not only undermines their health and safety, but it also robs them of basic human dignity.' 'Must end' The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group, welcomed the ruling as a 'huge win for children' and a 'step toward ending dangerous experiments on kids.' During oral arguments in December, Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice told the court the law was designed to 'protect minors from risky, unproven medical interventions' with 'often irreversible and life-altering consequences.' Chase Strangio, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing three transgender adolescents, their parents, and a Memphis-based doctor, countered that the law has 'taken away the only treatment that relieved years of suffering.' 'What they've done is impose a blunderbuss ban, overriding the very careful judgment of parents who love and care for their children and the doctors who have recommended the treatment,' said Mr. Strangio, the first openly transgender lawyer to argue before the court. Mr. Trump, in his inauguration speech, said his government would henceforth only recognise two genders – male and female – and he issued his executive order a week later restricting gender transition procedures for minors. 'Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilising a growing number of impressionable children,' the executive order said. 'This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation's history, and it must end.' Mr. Trump's order said it would now be U.S. policy that it would 'not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another.' The order bars funding for gender transition under the Medicaid health insurance program for poor families, the Medicare scheme used by retirees, and Defense Department health insurance that covers some two million children. According to a study by UCLA's Williams Institute, an estimated 1.6 million people aged 13 and older in the United States identify as transgender.
