
A coalition of girls' rights and health advocates has voiced disappointment after the Minister of Health and Child Care directed the removal of a provision aimed at liberalizing abortion from the Medical Services Amendment Bill. Clause 11, which sought to align medical legislation with court judgments, was unexpectedly absent during the Bill's Second Reading in the Senate, despite being present in earlier versions. Deputy Minister of Health and Child Care, Sleiman Kwidini, stated the Ministry was surprised by its inclusion in the Senate. Advocates argue that the removal, attributed to misinformation, is a setback for reproductive justice and fails to comply with the Constitution of Zimbabwe and High Court rulings. They clarify that Clause 11 was an administrative reform to remove colonial-era barriers to medical services already legal under the Termination of Pregnancy Act, not an attempt to legalize abortion on demand. Loveness Rukuni, a girlsโ rights advocate, emphasized that the clause aimed to ensure timely care for sexual violence survivors and those with life-threatening complications. Onward Chironda, Executive Director of My Age Africa Trust, highlighted the reality of 70,000 unsafe abortions annually in Zimbabwe, stressing that a right existing only on paper is not a real right. The coalition plans to continue engaging the Senate and Parliament to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act and educate the public to counter misinformation, awaiting Constitutional Court co
Free daily or weekly digest of the most important stories from across 10 countries. No spam, unsubscribe any time.
This summary was AI-generated from a story originally published by NewsDay Zimbabwe.

The Karo Platinum Project is progressing as planned, with the group actively clearing the open-pit area and advancing crucial infrastructure works. These efforts are aimed at mitigating execution and operational risks, thereby ensuring the project remains on schedule for its anticipated production start in 2027.
Must ReadThe 2026 conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has revealed that hosting American military bases in Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait no longer guarantees national security. Instead, these bases have made host countries prime targets for retaliatory strikes, challenging the long-held belief that a US military presence deters regional threats. During the conflict, Iran targeted infrastructure within Gulf states housing US troops, including radar installations, personnel sites, data centers, energy facilities, and desalination plants, rather than directly attacking the US homeland. This created an asymmetric security dilemma where Gulf populations bore the consequences of US policies. The conflict also led to significant economic disruption, with multinational corporations withdrawing from the Middle East, projected GDP losses of $120 billion to $194 billion for Gulf states, and a 27% drop in international tourist arrivals. The redeployment of US THAAD and Patriot anti-missile systems from Gulf states to Israel further exposed the conditional nature of US alliance commitments, leaving Gulf airspace vulnerable. The article suggests that Israel's asymmetric influence on US Middle East policy prioritizes Israeli security interests, often at the expense of Gulf states. A comparison of security strategies shows that Kuwait, with full alignment to the US, suffered extensive damage, while the UAE, balancing it