(click on title for piece)
Basically looking at the Lakshmi Dhikta v. Nepal case, and what this has/hasn't achieved. I'm still curious about the implications of the outcome of that case with respect to funding/financing -- since healthcare here is covered by private costs (I'm still trying to understand how the subsidies that exist work!), what does it mean to have a "right" to abortion? That the government must provide the money (eg the 1130 NRs in L. Dhikta's case) when the family cannot cover or bear the costs?
This also makes me wonder about other medical expenditures. While I am very glad that abortions here are now effectively legal (and M has kept me abreast of at least some of the realities around it in Kathmandu), and I think that the victory FWLD et al. scored in this particular case is pretty glorious, I think that one's "right to life" should also be taken into consideration for other types of medical care and coverage...