By Latrishka Thomas
In a packed courtroom that underscored the deeply divisive nature of the issue, Antigua’s High Court yesterday set the stage for a landmark legal battle over the nation’s restrictive abortion laws.
The case, which pits reproductive rights advocates against the government, has the potential to dramatically reshape the country’s legal landscape surrounding women’s health and rights.
The constitutional challenge, initiated a few months ago by a group of campaigners led by prominent local gynaecologist Dr Dane Abbott, aims to overturn Antigua’s long-standing anti-abortion legislation.
At the heart of the dispute is the Offences against the Person Act, a law dating back to 1861, which imposes severe penalties for abortion.
Under the current statute, women who terminate pregnancies face up to 10 years’ imprisonment, while those assisting in the procedure could serve two years. The law only permits abortion in cases where the mother’s life is at risk.
Abbott et al are hoping the court will rule that the 163-year-old law is unconstitutional.
Yesterday’s hearing, presided over by Justice Jan Drysdale, saw attorneys David Dorsette and Carla Brooks Harris representing the Attorney General’s office, while Sherrie-Ann Bradshaw appeared on behalf of the applicants challenging the law.
The courtroom was filled not only with legal representatives but also with members of various church bodies, who appeared to have gathered to support the Evangelical Alliance’s stance against repealing the abortion laws.
Alliance members were present in court and have filed an application to be named as an interested party in the matter.
The case was adjourned as the AG’s chambers filed an application to strike out the constitutional motion some months ago on the basis that the abortion law was already repealed. It is on that premise that Justice Drysdale ordered skeleton arguments to be filed within 14 days. A hearing on the application is to take place on October 16.
The case has ignited passionate debate across Antigua. Supporters of the challenge argue that the current law is outdated and infringes on women’s rights and health care access.
Opponents, primarily represented by religious groups, contend that the law protects the sanctity of life and should remain in place.
Footnote: An earlier version of this article erroneously named the presiding judge as Justice Nicola Byer. It also erroneously stated that Carla Brooks Harris was not present at the September 17 hearing. The article has been amended accordingly.
