Denmark is easing its abortion law for the first time in 50 years to allow women to terminate their pregnancies up to the 18th week.
The government announced Friday it has reached an agreement with four other parties — the Socialist People’s Party, the Red–Green Alliance, the Danish Social Liberal Party and The Alternative — to raise the abortion limit from the current 12 weeks.
The new rules will also allow 15 to 17-year-olds to have an abortion without parental consent and will replace the five regional abortion consultations with a new national abortion board, to avoid local differences.
“It is about the freedom of the individual woman, about the right to decide over her own body and her own life. It is a historic day for women’s equality,” said Danish Minister for Digitalization and Gender Equality Marie Bjerre.
The right to abortion was introduced in Denmark in 1973. The 12-week limit was established “partly due to the fact that at that time all abortions were surgical, and at that time an abortion after 12 weeks carried a greater risk of complications,” the health ministry said. But since then “a lot has happened.”
“After 50 years, it is time for abortion rules to move with the times, and we are now strengthening women’s right to self-determination,” Danish Minister of the Interior and Health Sophie Løhde said.
The government will now amend the Health Act with the new rules, which will enter into force on June 1, 2025.
Listen on Spotify Apple Music Google Play EN_Google_Podcasts_Badge Created with Sketch. Stitcher Acast In a special anniversary episode 25 years on from the agreement that…
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/Obw695ncoIEMCUlP9Uo27Xn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court allows Trump to ban transgender people from military" title="Supreme Court allows Trump to ban transgender people from military"> <p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to enforce a Department of Defense policy prohibiting transgender people from serving in the U.S. military. With the court’s three Democratic appointees indicating that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/050625zr_6j37.pdf">the justices paused an order</a> by a federal judge in Washington state that had barred the government from implementing the policy anywhere in the United States. </p> <p>Shortly after taking office in 2021, then-President Joe Biden signed an executive order that allowed transgender troops to serve openly in the military. On Jan. 20 of this year, President Donald Trump revoked Biden’s order and issued another order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to put into effect a ban on “individuals with gender dysphoria” – the medical term for the psychological distress caused by a conflict between the sex someone is assigned at birth and that person’s gender identity. </p> <span id="more-505752"></span> <p>On Feb. 26, the Department of Defense <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Spotlight/2025/Guidance_For_Federal_Policies/Prioritizing_Military_Excellence_and_Readiness_P&R_Guidance.pdf">issued that ban</a>, which generally disqualifies anyone who either has gender dysphoria or has undergone medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria from serving in the military. The department explained that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.” </p> <p>Seven current transgender members of the armed forces, along with one transgender person who would like to join the military and a nonprofit with members who either are transgender troops or would like to be, went to federal court to challenge the new policy. The lead plaintiff in the case, Commander Emily Shilling, has been a naval aviator for nearly two decades, and she estimates that the Navy has spent $20 million on her training. </p> <p>U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle agreed with the plaintiffs that the ban violated (among other things) the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. He called the policy a “de facto blanket ban on transgender service.” </p> <p>After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected the government’s request to freeze Settle’s order while the government’s appeal went forward, the Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on April 24. </p> <p>Without the Supreme Court’s intervention, the Trump administration told the justices, the district court’s order will stay in place while litigation continues in the 9th Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. That is, the Trump administration said, “a period far too long for the military to be forced to maintain a policy that it has determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the Nation’s interests.” </p> <p>The challengers countered that if the Supreme Court were to pause Settle’s order, it would “upend the status quo by allowing the government to begin discharging thousands of transgender servicemembers, including” them, “thereby ending distinguished careers and gouging holes in military units.” </p> <p>In a brief unsigned order issued on Tuesday afternoon, the court granted the Trump administration’s request to pause Settle’s order while the government’s appeal proceeds in the 9th Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. As is often the case for emergency appeals, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision. </p> <p>The court’s three Democratic appointees – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – indicated that they would have denied the government’s request. But they too did not explain their reasoning. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-ban-transgender-people-from-military/">Supreme Court allows Trump to ban transgender people from military</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
