Challenging the US Supreme Court's Majority Ruling on Roe v. Wade at the International Human Rights Level.

This paper proposes that US human rights experts and abortion rights advocates challenge the striking down of Roe v. Wade in June 2022 by the majority of US Supreme Court justices because of the multiple human rights violations it has engendered. The paper has three parts. The first part summarizes the compelling response of the three dissenting Supreme Court justices to the majority ruling, which spells out those violations in detail. The second part offers a history of cases of violations of human rights related to abortion in other countries that have been heard and adjudicated by a range of human rights bodies in the last 20 years, and their outcomes. It shows that working on these cases has created working relationships between national and international human rights experts and advocates. Based on this information, the third part proposes that US human rights and abortion rights advocates take a case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the US Supreme Court ruling, asking the commission to direct the US government to void the majority ruling on Roe v. Wade-on the grounds that it violates the human rights of anyone who seeks an abortion and potentially also of those whose wanted pregnancies become a risk to their health and life and need to be terminated. And if the United States does not agree, the commission should refer the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Reconceptualizing safe abortion and abortion services in the age of abortion pills: A discussion paper.

At the conference "Developing an Advocacy Agenda for Abortion in the 21st Century and Making Change Happen" held on 5-7 September 2018, Lisbon, Portugal, organized by the International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion, it was argued that abortion services not only need to be treated as a bona fide form of health care but also completely reconceptualized, particularly because of the influence of medical abortion pills. It emerged, however, that there is no consensus on how this reconceptualization should be configured. Indeed, substantial differences arose, or so it appeared, complicated not only by different exigencies in national settings but also reflecting differing perspectives, specifically, those held primarily by health professionals compared to those held by advocates who felt they spoke for women needing abortions. In the course of these discussions, questions emerged on how much women should be able to do on their own, whether and why services were necessary in every case, where services should be located, what they should offer, who should provide them, and who should be in charge of the process. The biggest discussion was over the extent to which women can safely self-manage use of medical abortion pills for abortion in both the first and second trimester, and to what extent health professional control should be relinquished. Regardless of these arguments, however, since 1988 with the discovery in Brazil that misoprostol is an abortifacient, over-the-counter access to medical abortion (MA) pills began to put self-management of abortion on the map. Today, self-management is happening in almost every country, and we have no idea how many abortions are taking place anymore. Moreover, because of the work of safe abortion information hotlines, there is a growing body of evidence that self-management of abortion by women is safe - or at least far less unsafe than what prevailed in the past. Looking beyond the abortion rights movement, the crux of the issue is whether the state should continue to control abortion, with power over individual decisions delegated to the medical profession - or whether, as has been happening at a snail's pace for the last half century, and as with contraception and emergency contraception too - control can and should be more and more in women's hands. This paper examines these perspectives and attempts to describe what a consensus might look like. It concludes that convincing governments and conservative health professionals to accept a large dose of self-management will not be easy.

Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization.

The aim of this paper is to provide a panoramic view of laws and policies on abortion around the world, giving a range of country-based examples. It shows that the plethora of convoluted laws and restrictions surrounding abortion do not make any legal or public health sense. What makes abortion safe is simple and irrefutable-when it is available on the woman's request and is universally affordable and accessible. From this perspective, few existing laws are fit for purpose. However, the road to law reform is long and difficult. In order to achieve the right to safe abortion, advocates will need to study the political, health system, legal, juridical, and socio-cultural realities surrounding existing law and policy in their countries, and decide what kind of law they want (if any). The biggest challenge is to determine what is possible to achieve, build a critical mass of support, and work together with legal experts, parliamentarians, health professionals, and women themselves to change the law-so that everyone with an unwanted pregnancy who seeks an abortion can have it, as early as possible and as late as necessary.

The history and role of the criminal law in anti-FGM campaigns: Is the criminal law what is needed, at least in countries like Great Britain?

The history of campaigns against female genital mutilation (FGM) began in the 1920s. From the beginning, it was recognised that FGM was considered an important rite of passage between childhood and adulthood for girls, based on the importance of controlling female sexuality to maintain chastity and family honour, and to make girls marriageable. How to separate the "cut" from these deeply held norms is a question not yet adequately answered, yet I believe the answer is key to stopping the practice. Since the 1994 ICPD, national and international action against FGM has grown and resolutions have been passed in global forums which define FGM as a form of violence and a violation of children's human rights. These resolutions have contributed to building consensus against FGM and developing national legislation criminalising FGM. Prosecutions or arrests involving FGM have been reported in several African countries and Great Britain, but apart from France, there have been very few. This paper summarises this history and how FGM has been criminalised. It argues that criminalisation may not be the best means of stopping FGM, but can have serious harmful effects itself. It calls for community-led educational information and more support for dialogue within FGM-practising communities, and argues that what is important is addressing the sexual and reproductive health consequences of FGM and gaining the understanding of women who have experienced it and their families as to why they should not make their daughters and grand-daughters go through it too.

Termination of pregnancy as emergency obstetric care: the interpretation of Catholic health policy and the consequences for pregnant women: an analysis of the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland and similar cases.

Issues arising from the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland in October 2012 include the question of whether it is unethical to refuse to terminate a non-viable pregnancy when the woman's life may be at risk. In Catholic maternity services, this decision intersects with health professionals' interpretation of Catholic health policy on treatment of miscarriage as well as the law on abortion. This paper explores how these issues came together around Savita's death and the consequences for pregnant women and maternity services worldwide. It discusses cases not only in Ireland but also the Americas. Many of the events presented are recent, and most of the sources are media and individual reports. However, there is a very worrying common thread across countries and continents. If further research unearths more cases like Savita's, any Catholic health professionals and/or hospitals refusing to terminate a pregnancy as emergency obstetric care should be stripped of their right to provide maternity services. In some countries these are the main or only existing maternity services. Even so, governments should refuse to fund these services, and either replace them with non-religious services or require that non-religious staff are available at all times specifically to take charge of such cases to prevent unnecessary deaths. At issue is whether a woman's life comes first or not at all.