Search

Historically, Indigenous women have been the target of violence at an alarming rate compared to the non-Indigenous population. This work explores how Indigenous women have used the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to call for the end of this abuse. The United States and Canada are two North American Federal governments with a strong presence of Indigenous Peoples. Even though Canada and the United States have signed UNDRIP, in North America as many as four in five Indigenous women experience violence in their lifetime. This work looks at how and why there is still such a significant rate of violence against Indigenous women in the U.S. and Canada. In addition, this article surveys the current extent of Indigenous women's participation in the policymaking process. It then explores what changes in law and policy should flow from Indigenous women's activism and in what ways Indigenous women can and should become more involved in the decision-making process. This work also aims to reflect on how the law and policies in the U.S., in Canada and at an international level could more efficiently address the issue. Indigenous women have historically been absent from the decision-making process and even when they are given a voice and their rights are emphasized, for instance with UNDRIP, countries are not complying with their responsibilities on the matter. Consequently, Indigenous women are de facto denied the possibility to participate in the debate, and their claims are left unheard. This article concludes that they should be empowered to advocate for enhanced accountability of the individual countries and the international community alike. In fact, increased participation of Indigenous women in the decision-making process increases the opportunity for Indigenous voices to be heard, in a quest to fight the widespread issue of violence against Indigenous women.

How do we guarantee dignity and quality of life to individuals with Down syndrome? If a family cannot commit to granting a dignified life, or if there are other health concerns at issue, how do we balance the right of the mother, parents, and unborn child? This article offers a comparative perspective of the disability legal framework in the U.S. and Italy, focusing on Down syndrome. In Italy, healthcare is public and universal, while in the United States healthcare is mostly privatized. In this context, in the U.S. people with mental and physical disabilities are particularly vulnerable due to the high costs of healthcare, stigma, and the need for additional advocacy. This work compares the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the U.S., the Legge 104/1992 in Italy, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) internationally. Numerous policy considerations impact the lives of individuals with Down syndrome, from conception to delivery, and from early childhood throughout development. There is a controversial legal debate concerning abortion if the fetus has an identified genetic abnormality. Additionally, once individuals with Down syndrome are born, how does the legal framework support these children and their families? Law and policy regarding access to care make a big difference in the quality of life of people with Down syndrome. At first glance, the standpoint of protecting and supporting a child with Down syndrome, and that of protecting the parents' right to terminate a pregnancy, might seem antithetical. However, they are, in fact, part of the same (difficult) conversation. By adopting a person-centered approach, paired with a relationship-centered care approach, we can pursue the holistic and humanistic ideals that our society aspires to achieve.