Where are we now? Bit by bit, abortion decriminalization advances in Chile


By Erin Becker

Chile’s Senate voted January 25 to consider the Ley Tres Causales, legislation that would overturn a 1990 law and decriminalize abortion in three limited circumstances: fetal non-viability, to save the life of the pregnant woman; and for pregnancies resulting from rape.

Senators were given until early April to suggest modifications (see a recent Safe Abortion Women’s Right newsletter for more details on the Senators’ suggestions). Now, the legislation is being discussed in the Senate Health and Constitutional Commissions.

The Ley Tres Causales has been one of the major legislative priorities of Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, who served as head of UN Women between her first and second terms. But with Bachelet’s presidency coming to a close at the year’s end, it remains to be seen whether the administration will achieve its goal.

While legislators debate, women in Chile continue to seek abortions. Precise statistics on abortion in the country are hard to come by, but estimates range from 60,000 to 300,000 procedures each year. Chile is a major and quite high-tech market for the medical abortion drug misoprostol, with vendors running sleek ads on Instagram and communicating with potential clients via WhatsApp. Yet black-market misoprostol is an imperfect, stop-gap solution in a country lacking access to safe, legal abortion. Some vendors are unscrupulous; the drugs can be difficult to access for those who live outside the capital; and prices prove expensive or even prohibitive for middle- and lower-income Chileans.

Access to surgical procedures is also fraught with inequalities. Helia Molina, a former Chilean minister of health, was forced out of her post after implying that wealthy Chileans had access to safe, discreet abortions in expensive clinics, while their poorer counterparts did not. Yet her taboo statement spoke to the lived reality for women in Chile under the current law. As Molina said, upper-class Chileans have the resources to seek out safe abortions, either in Chile or abroad, while those living in poverty continue to feel the law’s full weight.

Despite popular opinion siding with the Ley Tres Causales––seventy percent of Chileans see a need for legislation addressing abortion access in the three cited circumstances––there has long been vehement legislative and religious opposition to any pro-choice measures in the country. The Catholic church holds significant political and cultural sway in Chile. An ultra-conservative prelature, Opus Dei, has been one source of the anti-choice resistance. Opus Dei owns a large university and hospital in Chile’s capital city, and counts five current legislators amongst its members.

The abortion ban itself has its roots in Catholic doctrine. Though Chile’s abortion laws have always been highly restrictive, therapeutic abortion was permitted from 1931 to 1990. In certain hospitals, this provision was at times applied quite liberally, especially during the presidency of Salvador Allende. In the late 1980s, naval admiral José Toribio Merino, member of the military junta and the ban’s primary architect, was encouraged by the Vatican to craft legislation that would ban abortion outright, including when necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Merino was a firm believer in Christian law, which he called perfect, unmalleable, and unchangeable. But a total ban on abortion seemed extreme, even within General Augusto Pinochet’s right-wing regime. Still, Merino persisted, writing a letter to his colleagues waxing poetic about the grave responsibility God had bestowed upon them. Three and a half months later, abortion under any circumstances became punishable by law.

Since Chile’s return to democracy in 1991, activists, legislators, and NGOs have been trying to overturn this legislation. Yet it has proven one of the dictatorship’s most enduring legacies: the Ley Tres Causales marks Chile’s 29th attempt to pass legislation weakening the ban. Though far from ideal, the law will be groundbreaking for Chile if it succeeds. Supporters of women’s rights should keep a close eye on the Chilean Senate to see what happens next.


Erin Becker is a writer living in the south of Chile.

Disability, sex selection and the right to choose

Alice Finden

International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion

18 April 2017

There have been a number of articles written recently debating ideas of sex selection and disability and their relation to abortion. The first one that may come to many minds in the UK is a recent BBC documentary and article by actor Sally Phillips. Phillips asks us whether we really want a world without Downs syndrome. She worries that a new screening method called the Non-Invasive  Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in the UK will lead to a “world without Downs”. Her concerns follow the results of the widespread use of this method in Iceland, which saw 100% of Downs syndrome pregnancies terminated.

When explaining her stance on screening for Downs Syndrome, Sally Philips makes a simplistic link between prenatal screening, abortion and disability, in which she implicitly suggests that abortion is discriminatory and ableist, and that everyone who has an abortion following a Downs Syndrome diagnosis must hate people with disabilities.

Philips’ opinion is one that has been moulded around her love for her son, who has Downs syndrome. She is keen to “make people aware of the fact that a Down’s syndrome child does not need to be in the ‘defect’ category”. Challenging social stigma around disability is an immensely important thing to do. However, Philips neglects to consider the intersectional lives of people with disabilities. She does not consider that some women are disabled, and some disabled people are women, all of whom have the same right to claim ownership over their own body and choice. And some of whom will have had or will have an abortion after a diagnosis of fetal abnormality, thanks to prenatal screening methods. In fact, by conflating fetuses that carry Downs syndrome, and real people living with the disability, Philips blurs the line between fetus and human being, and feeds into anti-abortion rhetoric that claims life and rights begin at conception.

In doing this, Philips’ argument holds abortion rights or women’s rights and disability rights in opposition to each other. It claims that you are a bad person, a person who does not care about disabled people, if you choose to abort your pregnancy because it has been diagnosed with a disability. This argument further does nothing to uncover or challenge the structures of society that shame women for having abortions at the same time as shaming people with disabilities. Meanwhile, Philips is “keen to emphasise that she is pro-choice”…

In actuality, it is social stigma and shaming of disabled people that Philips (and all of us) should decry, not abortion. This is shown in a 2012 journal article by Annelies Kusters. The article charts the reaction to a 1975 law introduced in the village of Adamorobe in Ghana, that said deaf people, who were the majority of people in the village, could not marry each other. The rule was introduced explicitly in order to lower the chances of women having more deaf children. Kusters describes how it was the stigma from people living outside the village of Adamorobe that influenced attitudes towards deaf people in the village, and led to the eventual criminalisation of marriage between deaf people in the village. Access to abortion provided deaf villagers with agency: it allowed them to defy the law and continue to marry other deaf people, without giving birth to a deaf child. Furthermore, deafness was not interpreted as a disability within the community of the village until outsiders’ social stigma informed the way deafness was thought about. Prior to that, deaf and non-deaf community members found their own means of communication that avoided exclusion.

Similarly, in regard to sex selection, it is social stigma and discrimination against girl children and women that activists should be trying to decry, and not abortion. Professor Wendy Savage was recently hounded by the press for supposedly condoning sex selective abortion: again, her comments come from the right to choose abortion, no matter what the circumstance. It is societal structures that have a problem with disability and gender discrimination from the outset, it is not abortion and it is not prenatal screening, and it is certainly not the individual who chooses to abort.

The problem with the view that prenatal screening will lead to the abortion of fetuses with abnormalities, and that that in turn will reduce the number of disabled people, is that it creates rifts between women and disabled people, when what we actually need is to work together to challenge societal stigma. This is exactly the same argument as applied to sex selection. What ties debates on sex selective abortion and abortion based on a diagnosis of fetal anomaly together is that they have a preconceived idea of the moral standing of a person who chooses to abort their pregnancy for these reasons. It is this that allows people to say ‘I am pro-choice… but only in these circumstances…’. In reality, being pro-choice should not derive from stipulations of when and why; the only thing that matters is the right to choose.

Other sources used:


Northern Territory Australia’s new abortion law: a great victory despite a few caveats

Marge Berer

International Coordinator, International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion

4 April 2017

The new Northern Territory (NT) Australia abortion law was a great victory and its supporters were celebrating their achievement last week. Now, the analysis will begin. Here is mine:

The news reports mention that three women members of the NT Parliament who supported the bill all shared stories of deciding to have an abortion during the debate, which was described in one news report as emotional and in another as passionate. Telling personal stories in a parliamentary debate on abortion has only happened one other time I’m aware of, in Ireland in July 2016, where one woman member of Parliament spoke about her personal experience of needing an abortion for fetal anomaly and having to travel to England. The law wasn’t changed in that instance, but the tenor and reporting of the debate were affected considerably.

This is highly unusual, to say the least, and creates a new challenge to parliamentarians who may be opposed to making abortion safe and legal, especially when the parliament in question has 50% women as in NT. It would take quite some nerve to discount such stories if in the future more women parliamentarians put their personal experience into the debate.

The bill has some praiseworthy clauses that will support providing most abortions. Thus, it removed the requirement for all abortions to occur in a hospital, especially as there are only a few hospitals in a territory that is 1.4 million sq km, that is, over 6 times bigger than the UK.

Previously, only surgical abortion was available. Now, both surgical and medical abortion will be made available and in non-hospital clinical facilities. However, this is only up to nine weeks of pregnancy, which is disappointing. Moreover, according to one local news report, the initial clinical guidelines may “only allow medical terminations within two hours drive of a hospital”.[1] However, the clinical guidelines have not been finalised, let alone published, so hopefully this will not turn out to be true. If it is true, however, such a restriction has not been applied since the introduction of medical abortion in Great Britain in 1991, where it was never found to be necessary.

The WHO Safe Abortion Guidance (2012)[2] says vacuum aspiration abortion can safely be provided at primary care level to 12 weeks and with a bit of extra training up to 14 weeks, while the US FDA approved medical abortion use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy in 2016. Their guidance isn’t comprehensive either, so it’s not surprising that the NT bill is also out of date even before it’s been signed and sealed.

Medical abortion is still new in Australia. Mifepristone was only approved in 2012 and at a reasonable price only in 2013.[3] In many parts of the country they still call it RU486, its ID number in France in the 1980s at Roussel-Uclaf, where it was first developed. Let’s hope best practice from countries like France, Norway and Sweden, who allow nurse/midwife provision due to ease of use and safety is taken fully on board. The very good news is that the new law should allow the Tabbot Foundation, who provide medical abortion consultations by phone and send women medical abortion pills by post all over Australia, except to Northern Territory up to now, to promote their services in NT too, after the new law is published on 1 July 2017. (Personal communication, Lynette Shumack, Tabbot Foundation, March 2017).

In addition, the new law applies to “a woman of any age”; hence, it is thought adolescents no longer need the consent of their parents to decide on abortion. That’s in line with the best thinking about the evolving capacity of adolescents to make decisions about their own lives, a concept introduced by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The legislation also mandates safe access zones 150m around abortion clinics, where it will be an offence to harass anyone entering or leaving. By the end of November 2015, three Australian jurisdictions – Tasmania, ACT and Victoria – had introduced safe access zones around abortion clinics.[4] Northern Territory has become the fourth, in line with best practice in Australia.

The new law also allows conscientious objection to abortion, but requires health care providers to refer patients to a doctor who doesn’t. Sometimes that works; often it doesn’t, however, and to women’s detriment. Yet, conscientious objection is permitted in most laws on abortion today, with the exception of Sweden, Finland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Iceland.[5] The basis for allowing it is that the health care provider gets first choice – i.e. not to provide an abortion. The basis for not allowing it, according to the Swedish Association of Midwives, is that the health professional always has a choice (s/he can choose another profession); the patient’s choice must always come first. This is a conflict of interest that, like the wider fight for women’s rights, has a long future ahead of it.

One of the two places where the new law falls down most, however, is in requiring the approval of one doctor for abortions up to 14 weeks (instead of two as previously), while it retains the approval of two doctors between 14 and 23 weeks of pregnancy. Although one doctor is of course better than two, this firmly maintains doctors’ control over the abortion decision, which is a lost opportunity. I think it is past due time for doctors to refuse to act as gatekeepers with the power over women’s access to abortion and for lawmakers to stop using them to control women’s decisions. Hopefully, NT will at least allow nurses and midwives to take over providing all but the most complicated abortions, as per WHO guidance,[6] and will also allow home use.

The other really disappointing bit is that the law only allows abortions up to 23 weeks of pregnancy unless the woman’s life is at risk. At the very least, it should have allowed abortions after 23 weeks in cases of serious risk to the woman’s health, pregnancy due to rape or incest, and where fetal anomaly has been diagnosed later, and also for those women and girls who have been unable to find an abortion earlier There are so few of them, and they are all in a highly vulnerable state. Make exceptions, damn it. Have a heart!

Equally problematic, the law contains criminal penalties of up to 7 years in prison for anyone who is “unqualified, who causes an abortion”. This might be worth imposing in a country like South Africa where abortion has been legal on broad grounds for 20 years but where illegal and unsafe clinics are still flourishing. But whose fault is that? In South Africa, it’s the government and health system who are responsible for not making abortion services universally accessible, which is the only way to make illegal clinics disappear. But in Australia? It seems the fear of full decriminalisation of abortion runs deep, and that’s not just in NT.

On the other hand, regarding criminal penalties, the new law explicitly says it does not apply to “a woman who consents to, or assists in, the performance of a termination on herself”. Hence, it does not criminalise self-use of medical abortion pills. This is a major positive step for other countries to emulate.

Which allows me to end on a very high note: Heartfelt congratulations to all those who put so much time and energy into making this bill into law.

[1] NT News 24 March 2017, quoting Darwin GP Dr Jacqueline Murdoch.

[2] World Health Organization. Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems. Geneva: WHO; 2012. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70914/1/9789241548434_eng.pdf

[3] Sifris R. State by state, ‘safe access zones’ around clinics are shielding women from abortion protesters. The Conversation, 30 November 2015. 

[4] Sifris, op cit, ref 2.

[5] Heino A, et al. Conscientious objection and induced abortion in Europe. See comment in PubMed Commons belowEur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2013;18(4):231-3. doi: 10.3109/13625187.2013.819848

[6] Health Worker Roles in Providing Safe Abortion Care and Post-Abortion Contraception: WHO, 2015

No woman takes the decision to have an abortion dancing and singing

By Diakhoumba Gassama, Vice-President, West African Network of Young Women Leaders

This post is a translated transcription of a talk by Diakhoumba Gassama at a debate organised by WATHI, Citizens Think-Tank of West Africa.  You can watch the original in French here.

Today, in 2017, there are innumerable reports and studies carried out – by government, by researchers in universities, by the UN, by the African Union – on reproductive health. What does this research tell us? In many countries, especially in West Africa, women, whether married or not, do not have access to family planning services. Girls and boys, adolescents and young people do not have or cannot access integral sexual education. In the context of Senegal, a majority Muslim country, there are many Muslim intellectuals and writers today who remind us that in the origins of Islam, contrary to other religions, two key points are acknowledged (in the context of marriage): firstly, that human beings are sexual beings; secondly, that sexual desire is one of the most profound feelings of the human being.

However, there is a problem with proscribing abstinence before marriage. In our country, marriage is far from free. The young population doesn’t live in socio-economic conditions that would allow them to marry when and how they like. So, what is effectively being said is: you must stay abstinent before you marry, but in order to marry, you must wait because you do not have the financial means.

We mustn’t forget that there is a high rate of sexual violence in our country. Here in Senegal, you cannot open a newspaper without reading: ‘Young girl violated by her uncle… students sexually abused’, etc. Saying to a women with an unwanted pregnancy, ‘sort yourself out’ is not a solution. Whether they are sexually active or victims of sexual violence, saying ‘sort yourself out’ is effectively telling them to have a clandestine abortion.

According to the official statistics of the Ministry of Health in Senegal every day five Senegalese women die from clandestine abortion. It is one of the primary causes of maternal mortality in Africa. If there is not a clandestine abortion, what happens? There is an unwanted child. We are seeing a huge increase in the rate of infanticide. Infanticide is the primary cause of imprisonment of women in our country, and in the region. An alternative consequence is the abandonment of children, which means that the children become the responsibility of the state or the community.

It is important to remember that Senegal is one of the world’s regional, continental and international leaders as regards the ratification and signing of international conventions on human rights. In August 2015, Senegal was called to account by the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women regarding unsafe abortion; in order for Senegal to fully implement its regional, sub-regional and international commitments, they said, it must decriminalise abortion.

A country that has suffered from war as well as from the Ebola epidemic, and is much poorer than ours according to the development indexes, is Sierra Leone: our brother country and friend. In 2015, a law that legalizes abortion was unanimously adopted in their national assembly. Why? Because the Sierra Leonean authorities and the Sierra Leonean civil society want to save the lives of women and girls and to save the future of their country [editors note: this law has not yet been signed in by the president].

It is important to say that there is no lightheartedness in choosing abortion. No woman is dancing and singing when she takes the decision to have an abortion: it is one of the most traumatizing things that can happen to a woman, especially an African woman in a context of clandestine abortion. Imagine the young woman, or the mother of a family, who asks what is going to happen to her in the process of getting a clandestine abortion? Will it go wrong? Will I be able to have more children? What place will I have in society?

What is the future of this issue? The UN Committee on Civil and Political Rights has declared that the right to abortion is a human right. It is a human right because it is a question of the dignity of the person. We cannot accept a situation in which women find themselves being accused of being murderers. I have read comments from people who say ‘to decriminalize abortion is to permit homicide’. In reality, to criminalize abortion is to permit infanticide. And that is the important point.

My colleagues in the Association of Women Jurists have struggled for years to find a juridical solution in working to reform our repressive law. In Senegal, a country of human rights, accessing abortion is limited to when the health of the pregnant women is in danger. Many people say: ‘So, it’s already in place’. However, the decision to allow an abortion must be taken by a committee of doctors in Dakar; if they agree, the woman still has to find a willing doctor to carry out the abortion.

And here is my challenge to everyone who watches this video, find me one woman in Senegal who has been able to abort a pregnancy legally.



Comments or thoughts? Chat to us on Facebook or twitter.

Media Guidelines for Writing on Abortion

DO use bona fide evidence from the country or region you are covering, so that your publication is grounded in the most accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date statistical information and health data. The best sources of international and country data are the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute. At country level, national health statistics may also be available. Where abortion is legally restricted, statistics are estimates but a lot of work has been done to try to make them accurate.

DON’T repeat false information that abortion is risky. Abortion is one of the safest medical and surgical procedures with the support of a trained person, who may be a community health worker, a nurse, a midwife, a general practitioner or an obstetrician–gynaecologist. Abortion is unsafe if it is provided by an untrained person who does not know how to do a safe surgical procedure or who offers fake, ineffective or dangerous pills or other dangerous methods, or does not know how to use medical abortion pills safely and effectively.

DO report that bona fide medical abortion pills, mifepristol+misoprostol, or misoprostol alone, are very safe. Indeed, they are so safe and so important for women’s health that they are on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Misoprostol is also on the list for prevention and treatment of post-partum haemorrhage and for treating incomplete abortion, which may occur after a delivery, a spontaneous miscarriage or an induced abortion.

DON’T include photos of very late pregnancies when the article is about abortion. This is completely misguiding as most abortions take place in the first trimester or early second trimester of pregnancy. Avoid photos of very pregnant bellies which exclude the woman’s head and face and the rest of her body. This robs pregnant women of their humanity as persons and treats them as vessels.

DO acknowledge that most abortions happen early, long before a woman is showing any visible outward signs of pregnancy. Make sure your article has photographs of people, events, action, posters that call for safe abortion as a public health issue and also as a human rights issue. Acknowledge that women have a human right to life and to health, and that unsafe abortion is a serious public health problem, responsible for at least one in six maternal deaths.

DON’T allow a photo of a fetus in a womb that leaves out the woman carrying it, because this:

  1. treats the embryo/fetus as if it is independent and not part of a woman on whose life it is completely dependent;
  2. misrepresents the fetus as a fully formed infant when it is not;
  3. associates the outlet you are writing for with the anti-abortion movement, even though you do not wish to imply any association.

DO highlight that abortion is a women’s health issue and should not be governed by criminal law. Do report cases of women and safe abortion providers who have been arrested, tried and imprisoned for abortion and publish details of efforts to free them. Use your writing to challenge laws that criminalise abortion, because they kill women.

DON’T describe abortion as unusual or atypical. Abortion is one of the world’s most frequent medical procedures/processes. One-in-three to one-in-five women has an abortion in her lifetime. 56.3 million women have abortions annually. This tells us that abortion is an integral part of being female/having a uterus/having sex with a man/being able to get pregnant. These numbers speak to the need to normalise abortion.

DO challenge abortion stigma. Stigma is stirred up by those who are opposed to abortion, it is not a social fact. Women who have abortions believe they are a necessity. Abortion is a responsible decision when women feel they cannot support/cope with a child at that moment. Without a choice, pregnancy and motherhood would be forced on women – that would be immoral. After abortion there is relief above all, because women can get their lives back again.

DON’T say that only those who object to abortion are ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-family’.   The same women who have abortions also have children. These are not mutually exclusive. Those who support the right to safe abortion are pro-women, pro-family and pro-choice as well. Abortion and motherhood are not opposites; they happen to the same women. They happen to our mothers, our wives, our daughters, our sisters and our friends.

DO frame abortion as a legitimate and positive choice and credit women’s reproductive decision-making. If pregnancy and abortion are safe, women can decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy. If abortion is unsafe and illegal, only those who are opposed to abortion have a choice.

DON’T imply that only a ‘certain type’ of woman has abortions or use language that sets them apart from the rest of society.  Show the rationality of women’s decisions – precisely because they want to be responsible about bringing children into the world.

DO publish personal testimonies of women who want to share their stories so others can know what to expect, know they are not alone and feel reassured. The absence of the perspectives of women who have had an abortion can lead to narrow representations of abortion and deny the complexities of women’s experiences.

DON’T glorify or dramatize the experience of abortion. Use testimony in a responsible and sensitive way. Anonymity may be best in many settings. Don’t expose women to danger by naming them in telling their stories.

DO use accurate images of the reality of women’s lives and of those who seek abortions: for example, married women with children often have abortions, as well as young, single women. Some adolescents may be pregnant due to sexual abuse; others have consensual relationships with boyfriends but may not have used contraception or condoms effectively and are too young to become mothers.

DO tell the truth about the tragedy of death and injury from dangerous abortions in countries where abortion is against the law. Do share positive stories about the health professionals who provide safe abortion services because they save women’s lives, and we are grateful to them. Do not forget that men also cause unintended and unwanted pregnancies, but they do not have to pay with their lives for it.

DO provide information on where girls and women can have access to a safe abortion in case it is ever needed – including how to find a safe abortion provider, phone numbers and social media addresses for safe abortion information hotlines, websites and contact details for clinics and pro-choice groups that provide accurate information on abortion and support universal access to safe abortion for everyone who requests it, because they have good reasons.

We’ve put together these guidelines as a starting point – if you have any suggested additions or changes please email us at socialmedia@safeabortionwomensright.org OR press@safeabortionwomensright.org.

You can also start a conversation with us on facebook or twitter!

On World Day of Social Justice, why is access to safe abortion a social justice issue?

A socially just society is one where human rights are manifest and in which opportunities, wealth and privilege are equally distributed. The United Nations World Day of Social Justice site says that social justice struggles are those that “remove barriers that people face because of gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, culture or disability.”

Abortion is a social justice issue in that criminalising, restricting or stigmatising abortion creates barriers that women with unwanted pregnancies face in exercising body autonomy. Often these barriers are even greater for women of colour, young  women and poor women.

Specifically, the human rights outlined in Articles 3,4, and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are denied or violated when access to safe abortion is restricted.

Article 3, “Right to life, liberty and security of person”, is denied to women whose pregnancies present a serious risk to their lives in countries where abortion is illegal with no exceptions. These include El Salvador, Malta, Vatican, Chile, Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua. Even in countries where abortion is allowed under limited conditions, women’s lives, liberty and security are often placed at risk because the restrictions mean that few legal abortions are in fact provided. Criminalising abortion does not decrease the incidence of abortion; instead, it increases the incidence of unsafe abortion as women are forced to seek services that are extra-legal and may be unsafe. Restrictions on abortion almost always affect poor and young women disproportionately as wealthier women can afford to pay  for safe care.

Article 4 says, “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude”. Forcing women to continue pregnancies that they do not want, have children and become mothers is a form of forced labour. The day that was chosen as the international day of action for the decriminalisation of abortion in 1990, 28 September, was historically the Day of the Free Womb, the day on which the children born to slave mothers in Brazil were freed in 1871. The decriminalisation of abortion is still called for every year on 28 September,  as International Safe Abortion Day. While most women do have children at some moment in their lives, it must be up to the individual  to decide whether, when and how many children to have. To force women to have children they do not wish to have is a form of slavery.

Finally denial of access to abortion goes against Article 5, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Report of Juan Méndez, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, presented to the Human Rights Council’s 31st session in 2016, included the following:

Where access to abortion is restricted by law, maternal mortality increases as women are forced to undergo clandestine abortions in unsafe and unhygienic conditions. Short- and long-term physical and psychological consequences also arise due to unsafe abortions and when women are forced to carry pregnancies to term against their will (A/66/254). Such restrictive policies disproportionately impact marginalized and disadvantaged women and girls. Highly restrictive abortion laws that prohibit abortions even in cases of incest, rape or fetal impairment or to safeguard the life or health of the woman violate women’s right to be free from torture and ill-treatment (A/HRC/22/53, CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1). 

The denial of safe, legal abortion is denial of human rights. This is why access to abortion is a social justice issue. Every woman with an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to a safe abortion, without discrimination, barriers or restrictions.

Image credit: © Andrea Pippins

To create this piece, Andrea Pippins was inspired by the Tuskuteesh movement and their efforts to break the silence surrounding all kinds of sexual violence against Arab women. Source: AWID

1 2