Edited by Rafaela Prifti/

High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell and Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi issued a joint statement on the 27th anniversary of the genocide of Srebrenica. Drawing an analogy between Russia’s unjustified aggression and mass killings in Ukraine with the Srebrenica genocide, the statement read in part:

“We honor for the 27th year the memory of all victims and of all those still missing of the genocide of Srebrenica. We stand together, in grief, with their relatives and friends who survived the genocide. However, still today we cannot take peace for granted. Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine has brought back a brutal war to our continent. The mass killings and war crimes we see in Ukraine bring back vivid memories of those witnessed in the war in the Western Balkans in the 1990s,” the statement said.

It is more than ever our duty to remember the genocide of Srebrenica, as part of our common European history.”

Borrell and Várhelyi underscore the importance of defending peace and standing up for human rights globally. “As we see the security and stability of Europe and the international rules-based order profoundly shaken, we are reminded of the need to stand up to defend peace, human dignity and universal values.”

“Europe has not forgotten what happened in Srebrenica and our own responsibility for not being able to prevent and to stop the genocide. In Srebrenica, Europe failed and we are faced with our shame,” the statement said.

Rafaela Prifti/

President Biden signed on Friday an executive order aimed at protecting access to abortion nationwide despite efforts by some states to outlaw or severely restrict it.

Council Member Marjorie Velasquez introduced legislation aiming to improve reproductive health care in the city. She has a personal appreciation for the issue now as Ms. Velasquez is starting her own family. The press release issued by her office states: “Following the Supreme Court’s opinion restricting reproductive care and accessibility, the Committee on Health and the Committee on Hospitals held a joint hearing to address the need for reproductive justice throughout New York City. I introduced legislation to make New York City a safe haven for families seeking care and advocated for a judicial protections for abortion providers. Our slate of legislation is a bold action to curb the maternal mortality rates and improve reproductive health care. As someone in the process of starting my family this is a very personal matter to me.”  Was the issue of reproductive care a non-personal matter in previous times particularly in the 19 century which seems to be the golden age with regard to the criminalization of abortion? What does history tell us about 19th century? 

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision overruling 50 years of constitutional protection of women’s right to get an abortion deploying arguments based on several historical precedents using the phrase “history and tradition” regularly. 

 “In 1803, the British Parliament made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy and authorized the imposition of severe punishment.”

“In this country during the 19th century, the vast majority of the States enacted statutes criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy.”

By 1868, the year when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,” Justice Alito concludes, “three-quarters of the States, 28 out of 37, had enacted statutes making abortion a crime.”

Maurizio Valsania of the University of Torino writes that in Alito’s particular selection of historic facts, there is no reflection on what “historians consider a set of fundamental questions: Why was abortion eventually criminalized during that time? What was the broad cultural and intellectual context of that period? Is there something peculiar about the 19th century?” 

Valsania’s essay underscores the transformation of the historical circumstances that impacted women’s self determination two centuries ago.  Here is a summary of  his presentation:

As far as women’s bodies and abortion are concerned, the 19th century saw a decrease in the trust in, and power of, women themselves.

17th- and 18th-century legal authorities Edward Coke, Matthew Hale and William Blackstone had all advocated for or condoned abortion. They fretted only when the procedure was carried out after ” quickening” the moment when the mother realizes that the fetus moves in her womb, approximately the fourth month of pregnancy.

As a medical procedure, abortion was widespread in Colonial and 18th-century America. By using more or less safe techniques, midwives and medical practitioners performed many types of operations on their patients. The woman could easily die, of course; but when she sought an abortion, no social, legal or religious force would have blocked her.

Also, a woman could choose from many available remedies rather than have an operation. Derived from juniper bushes, “savin,” or Juniperis Sabina, was one of the most popular abortifacients. Other herbs and concoctions were similarly taken: pennyroyal, tansy, ergot, Seneca snakeroot or cotton root bark.

Benjamin Franklin inserted an abortion recipe in a popular textbook he republished in Philadelphia in 1748. He didn’t prompt any scandal.

The truth is that America’s founders, together with their contemporaries, had a rather democratic understanding of the female body. They believed that women, physiologically speaking, weren’t qualitatively different from men; the two sexes were equal and complementary.

Medical doctors argued that men’s and women’s composition was identical in essence – the only difference was anatomical. 

Just like the male, the female was thought of as fully in control of the workings of her physiology, including her sexuality especially when it came to procreation. The 18th-century woman was active and in control. 

And crucially, only she could detect whether quickening had taken place in her womb. Consequently, she could immediately tell whether terminating a pregnancy at a given time was acceptable. Or if it was a crime. 

In the 19th century the understanding of physiology and the mechanisms of the female body underwent a deep transformation. European and American doctors, now, saw women as essentially different from men. 

Women’s level of self-determination decreased accordingly. Suddenly, they were not only weaker or softer than men, but inherently passive, too. They were thus recast as pure, chaste and modest. Commendable women were virgins, wives, mothers. Or else they were prostitutes, nearly criminals, which reflects the Victorian dualistic mindset. 

Anti-abortion campaigns began in earnest in the mid-19th century. They were waged mostly by the American Medical Association, founded in 1847, and were fundamentally anti feminist. 

Anti-abortion campaigns were targeted against midwives and tried to discredit women’s firsthand experience of pregnancy. Male doctors claimed pregnancy as a medical terrain – a realm that belonged to them exclusively. Dr. Horatio R. Storer, the leader of the medical campaigns against abortion, described quickening as “a sensation.” In such a context, it could no longer be framed as the basis from where all moral, social and legal standards emerged.

In the Dobbs decision, Judge Alito says: “The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” This is a historical fact: Protection of the right to abortion wasn’t around in America before Roe. The criminalization of abortion, the decentralization of the woman’s experience, plus the medicalization that led to that decision, are facets that belong to the long-gone 19th century. In order to find justification for the ruling, Judge Alito refers to two centuries ago without any reference to the 21th century we all live in. And when the US Constitution was ratified, women had much more autonomy over abortion decisions than during 19th century. 

by Rafaela Prifti

The Group of Seven (G7) opened a three-day summit n the Bavarian Alps last Sunday to protect the economies of the global coalition while further isolating Russia, now in its fourth month of the invasion of Ukraine. The discussions centered on introducing price caps in the energy sector. The revenues from Russian oil and gas directly fuel Moscow’s war efforts. Prior to the gathering, Russian missile strikes were launched at two residential buildings in Kiev, where there had been no military assault in three weeks.

President Biden formally announced a global infrastructure partnership, a $600 billion initiative that aims to counter China’s influence and investment in the developing world. The leaders acknowledged the importance of their resolve as the economic reverberations from the war take a toll around the globe in inflation, food shortages and other issues. Meeting with President Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who holds the G-7′s rotating presidency and is hosting the gathering said “Germany and the U.S. will always act together when it comes to questions of Ukraine’s security.” .

British PM Boris Johnson urged fellow leaders not to give in to “fatigue”. He praised the “huge strides” made by Germany to arm Ukraine and cut imports of Russian gas. Leaders echoed praises of coalition unity.

The Head of the European Union’s Council of Governments Charles Michel said the 27-member bloc maintains “unwavering unity” in backing Ukraine against Russia’s invasion with money and political support, but that “Ukraine needs more and we are committed to providing more.”

European Council President said EU governments were ready to supply “more military support, more financial means, and more political support” to enable Ukraine to defend itself and “curb Russia’s ability to wage war.”

Since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU has imposed six rounds of sanctions against Russia. The latest is a ban on 90% of Russian crude oil imports by the end of the year.

The G-7 nations will ban imports of gold from Russia. According to news reports, a formal announcement is expected Tuesday as the annual summit wraps up.

PM Johnson said the ban will “directly hit Russian oligarchs and strike at the heart of Putin’s war machine….”starving the Putin regime of its funding.”

According to the White House, gold has been the top Russian export after energy — reaching almost $19 billion or about 5% of global gold exports, in recent years.

90% of Russian gold exports was consigned to G-7 countries. More than 90% of those exports, or nearly $17 billion, was exported to the U.K. The United States imported less than $200 million in gold from Russia in 2019, and under $1 million in 2020 and 2021.

The G7 is an informal grouping of advanced democracies that meets annually to coordinate global economic policy and address transnational issues.

Russia’s membership was suspended in 2014 over the annexation of Crimea.

Source: AP News