There’s Nothing “Pro-Life” About Sweeping Abortion Bans

Excerpt of Ms. Magazine op-ed by GJC Communications Manager Liz Olson.  

Alabama’s sweeping abortion ban compares abortion to the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, as though the termination of a fetus is morally equivalent to the willful annihilation of a people. But it is abortion bans, not the women who seek them, that put lives at risk every day.

Legislation that criminalizes abortion access and provision does not prevent abortions—it just makes them more dangerous. The World Health Organization reports that about 25 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, primarily in regions with heavily restrictive abortion laws. Women who have unsafe abortions face serious and even fatal medical complications like heavy blood loss, infection and damage to internal organs. Unsafe abortions are even a leading cause of maternal mortality: 68,000 women die from them every year around the world.

The deadly impact of restrictive abortion policies is so well documented that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Agnes Callamard, once declared that total abortion bans “amount to a gender-based arbitrary killing, only suffered by women, as a result of discrimination enshrined in law.” 

Read the Full Op-Ed

Much More Than Language: How the US Denied Survivors of Rape in Conflict Lifesaving Care

Excerpt of Women Under Siege op-ed by GJC Deputy Legal Director Grant Shubin.  

On Wednesday, April 23, 2019, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2467 during the Council’s annual Open Debate on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence. .

After months of German-led negotiations, passage of the Resolution ultimately came down to sexual and reproductive health (SRH)—specifically, whether the U.S. would veto its inclusion in the final text.

The U.S. justified its position by claiming that SRH is a euphemism for abortion services. Not only is this not true—SRH includes, among other things, contraception, safe abortion services, HIV prevention, and prenatal healthcare—but even if it were, abortion services for survivors of sexual violence save lives.

Unsafe abortion causes the deaths of 47,000 people each year and leaves another 5 million with some form of permanent or temporary disability. They may suffer complications, including hemorrhage, infection, perforation of the uterus, and damage to the genital tract or internal organs. In fact, the consequences of denying abortion services have been found to be so severe that it can amount to torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment.

The international community cannot become accustomed or complacent to the Trump administration’s use of domestic politics to hold international rights hostage. Because it is more than just words that are given up last minute on the floor of the Security Council—it’s women’s lives.

Read the Full Op-Ed

UN Security Council Adopts Resolution 2467

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – April 23, 2019

[NEW YORK, NY] – Today, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2467 on Women, Peace and Security. Although the resolution purports to address the needs of victims of sexual violence in conflict, it contains no direct references to reproductive health—a key component of necessary and comprehensive medical care. This last-minute compromise was made to avoid a certain veto by the United States government.

United Nations Human Rights Committee Requests Information on United States Violations of Sexual and Reproductive Rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – April 3, 2019

[NEW YORK, NY] – Today, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) challenged the United States’s restrictive abortion policies as potential violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in its list of issues prior to submission of the fifth periodic report of the United States. The Global Justice Center (GJC) commends the HRC for asking the US to provide information on the impact of the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule on women's rights under the ICCPR, including to non-discrimination and equal protection under Article 2, 3 and 26, the right to life in Article 6 and the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 7.

Holistic Care for Victims of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence


By: Maryna Tkachenko

Conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) takes on various forms: rape, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, forced abortion, sexual exploitation, trafficking, genital mutilation, and other heinous forms of sexual abuse. Although both women and men can become targets of sexual violence, women constitute the majority of the victims. It has been widely recognized that all survivors experience long-lasting mental and physical harm, but women and girls have unique, gender-sensitive needs. That is why survivor-centered care is one of the main requirements in providing victims with the tools to take control of their lives. Avoiding further harm and trauma, we must treat survivors with respect for their dignity, bodily autonomy, and the choices they make. 

What does holistic, victim-centered care constitute in practice? Drawing on extensive experience as a founder of Panzi Hospital in 1999 and a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 for his work to end the use of rape as a weapon of war, Dr. Denis Mukwege offers us the Panzi Model, a holistic model of care that addresses the root causes of violence against women and girls and rebuilds survivors’ lives based on principles of human rights and gender equality. This model encompasses four main aspects: psychosocial support, medical care, access to legal justice, and reintegration into communities.

Statement: Response to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's Expanded Application of Global Gag Rule and Siljander Amendment

Today, the Trump Administration launched another attack on women’s health, expanding the scope of the Global Gag Rule and the application of the Siljander Amendment. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also announced that the US will cut its assistance to the Organization of American States (OAS) based on claims that its agencies are lobbying for abortions. As a quasi-governmental body, OAS recommendations are expert guidance, not lobbying. The US is censoring free speech around the world and is using the Siljander Amendment to justify decreasing contributions to the OAS on purely ideological grounds.

The OAS and its subsidiary bodies, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, work to ensure the fundamental human rights of women and girls living in member states. Threatening these institutions’ ability to carry out their mandate through the power of the purse is both unconscionable and illegal. Over the past two weeks at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, the Trump Administration cemented the US’s new position as a government opposed to women’s rights, health and autonomy—Secretary Pompeo’s announcement today is one more dangerous step in that direction.

For more information contact:
Liz Olson, Communications Manager at Global Justice Center, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (212) 725-6530 ext. 217

US Abortion Restrictions Violate Women’s Human Rights

Excerpt of PassBlue op-ed by GJC President Akila Radhakrishnan and CHANGE President Serra Sippel. 

Every year, 25 million women across the world are forced to obtain unsafe abortions. The United States, through its foreign policy, is deeply complicit in the violation of these women’s right to life and equality under international law.

International human-rights frameworks guard against these violations and hold the US and other countries accountable. The International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for instance, details the basic rights and freedoms guaranteed to all people worldwide, including the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to equality. Such rights are not symbolic: they are grounded in the dignity of each human being and protected by international law.

Since 1966, 172 parties — including the US — have signed the ICCPR. It is one of the few human-rights treaties that the US has ratified. But today, the US imposes illegal abortion policies that brazenly violated its obligations under the Covenant and other binding provisions of international law.

Read the Full Op-Ed in PassBlue

Where Can Refugees Turn for Abortions?

Excerpt of Ms. Magazine blog post by GJC Development Director Danielle Stouck.

I first met Fatima and her four young children at a coffee shop in downtown Amman in the summer of 2014. With tears in her eyes and her youngest son asleep in her arms, she recounted the details of her harrowing escape from Syria’s southwestern Daraa province and her experience crossing the border into Jordan.

Not everyone in Fatima’s family escaped safely. Her husband and brother, she explained, were missing and presumed dead after a raid in her village had left her home and community decimated. She was alone, struggling to make ends meet and desperate for help. She and her children were traumatized. And she was pregnant.

Unwanted pregnancy occurs everywhere, but it is especially concerning in crisis settings, where displaced and refugee women are among the most vulnerable of at-risk populations. As a recent Guttmacher Institute report on refugee reproductive rights points out, “Women’s needs do not suddenly stop or diminish during an emergency—in fact, they become greater.”

When Fatima reached out to me in 2014, I was working with a Jordanian non-governmental organization to strengthen protections against sexual and gender-based violence and provide critical sexual and reproductive health services to refugees from Iraq and Syria. Fully funded by the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, our work involved developing strong referral pathways for refugees in need of family planning support, including abortion services.

Thankfully, I was able to connect Fatima with the medical and psychosocial support that she so desperately needed. She was able to safely terminate her pregnancy and was provided with contraceptives and counseling as she worked to rebuild her life in Jordan. But five years later,  I would be barred from providing women like her with the same level of care. Under the Trump administration’s reinstatement and expansion of the dangerous and illegal Global Gag Rule, I would be “gagged”—and women like Fatima would be denied information critical to their health and their futures.

Read the Full Post at Ms. Magazine Blog

Letter to HHS: Comments in Response to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2020

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: CMS-9926-P
P.O. Box 8016
Baltimore, MD 21244-8016

Attn: Comments in Response to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2020, CMS-9926-P

Dear Secretary Azar and Administrator Verma:

The Global Justice Center (“GJC”) submits this comment in response to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) Proposed Rule entitled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2020 (the “Proposed Rule”).  For purposes of this submission, commentary is limited to the portion of the Proposed Rule that would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) so that private insurance providers that provide abortion services would be required to offer a version of the plan which does not cover abortion services.[1]

GJC is an international human rights organization based in New York dedicated to achieving gender equality through the rule of law. For the past decade, GJC has been at the forefront of efforts to ensure that the law protects and promotes access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health rights for women and girls around the world. As experts in women’s rights and human rights, we write to express our vehement opposition to the Proposed Rule.

First, the Proposed Rule would violate women’s fundamental human rights, including to non-discriminatory health care. Second, by singling out abortion for special treatment from all other health services, the Proposed Rule reinforces the already stigmatizing and discriminatory treatment of abortion under the PPACA. Third, the Proposed Rule uses the administrative apparatus of the Executive branch to undermine safe access to abortion services afforded by law and frustrates the intent of Congress, which has instructed under the PPACA that issuers should decide for themselves whether to provide abortion coverage beyond the limited exceptions allowed under the discriminatory and harmful federal Hyde Amendment. Fourth, the Proposed Rule imposes undue administrative burdens on insurers. The outcome, and tacit intent, of the Proposed Rule is to further stigmatize abortion and to increase administrative burdens on insurers, all with the ultimate aim of discouraging insurers from providing abortion coverage. As such, the Proposed Rule violates women’s fundamental rights under the US Constitution and international human rights law. For these reasons, GJC urges HHS to withdraw the Proposed Rule.

  1. The Proposed Rule discriminates against women and violates women’s fundamental human rights, including the right to non-discriminatory health care.

Access to abortion is a fundamental right protected under the US Constitution and international human rights law. Since its decision in Roe v. Wade,and as confirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the US Supreme Court has found that the government may not enact measures that impose an undue burden on access to abortion services. Human rights obligations binding on the US protect access to abortion under a multitude of rights—including the rights to privacy, life, and health, and the right to be free from discrimination, torture, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.[2] The realization of these rights relies on the accessibility of sexual and reproductive health care services.[3] International human rights experts have made clear that the right of every woman and girl “to make autonomous decisions about her pregnancy…is at the very core of her fundamental right to equality, privacy and physical and mental integrity and is a precondition for the enjoyment of other rights and freedoms.”[4]

The same experts have called upon states to ensure that women can “access all necessary health services, including sexual and reproductive health care, in a manner that is safe, affordable and consistent with their human rights.”[5] They highlight that many factors contribute to women being denied essential health services, including deterrence by any means.

The UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice (“WGDAW”) has made clear to the US government that under international human rights law, “states must take all appropriate measures to ensure women’s equal right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children.”[6] The WGDAW has called on states to ensure that women can access “non-discriminatory health insurance coverage for women, without surcharges for coverage of their reproductive health,” and to “exercise due diligence to ensure that the diverse actors and corporate and individual health providers who provide health services or produce medications do so in a non-discriminatory way and establish guidelines for the equal treatment of women patients under their codes of conduct.”[7] The Proposed Rule would do the opposite; it unfairly discriminates against the provision of abortion services.

Specifically, the WGDAW has also expressed its concerns over provisions in the PPACA related to abortion following its country visit to the US in December 2015. Specifically, it noted that, “the marketplace insurance coverage for safe and legal termination of pregnancy is far from universal…[and] [t]hus, insurance will frequently not be available for women who wish to exercise their right to terminate a pregnancy.”[8] The WGDAW went on to recommend that the US government take measures to ensure that “insurance schemes provide coverage for abortions to which women have a right under US law,”[9] in order to fulfill its human rights obligations. The Proposed Rule goes directly against this recommendation and seeks to limit the opportunities for women to access safe and legal abortions.   

The Proposed Rule will limit women’s ability to access abortion services  and as such violates the US government’s obligations to ensure women’s fundamental human rights, including to  non-discriminatory health care. 

  1. The Proposed Rule stigmatizes abortion and highlights differential treatment of this single health care procedure.

International human rights experts have found that singling out abortion as a medical procedure has contributed to its stigmatization and any “[g]ender-based discrimination in the administration of medical services violates women’s human rights and dignity.”[10] They further highlight that any stigmatization of abortion by distinguishing it from all other medical procedures causes women mental and physical suffering and therefore violates their human rights.[11] The WGDAW has urged the US government “to combat the stigma attached to reproductive and sexual health care, which leads to violence, harassment and intimidation,” and denies women the highest attainable standard of health, to which they are entitled under both international human rights law and US law.[12]

The Special Rapporteur on health has found that stigmatization of abortion, through criminal or other legal regulations, “disempowers women, who may be deterred from taking steps to protect their health in order to avoid liability and out of fear of stigmatization.” These laws and regulations can also have a discriminatory effect, in that they disproportionately affect women.[13] The subsequent marginalization and vulnerability of women as a result of abortion-related stigma and discrimination perpetuate the notion that abortion is an immoral and unsafe practice, and perpetuate and intensify violations of women’s right to health.[14]

The Proposed Rule, by singling out abortion care from all other health care services, is discriminatory and violates the US government’s obligations to ensure women’s fundamental human rights.

  1. The Proposed Rule is an example of administrative overreach and frustrates, rather than fulfills, Congressional intent.

As per Congressional intent, the PPACA allows participating insurance plans to decide for themselves whether to cover non-Hyde abortion services. The Proposed Rule is an attempt, through use of the administrative apparatus of the Executive branch, to impose logistical hurdles for insurance providers who choose to provide abortion services. This is another in a long line of proposed regulations that are unnecessary to the smooth functioning of the ACA marketplace, but are, in actuality, stealth attempts to discourage the provision of abortion services.  These types of regulations, including the Proposed Rule, are examples of administrative overreach that frustrates Congressional intent and should be rejected.

  1. The Proposed Rule imposes undue burdens on insurers which will lead to unnecessary restrictions on comprehensive health care for women.

The Proposed Rule would impose burdensome and costly administrative requirements on insurers. Insurers have expressed opposition to any requirements for itemizing specific benefits, and requiring a separate plan to be provided to eliminate one specific procedure would be onerous and against standard industry practice.[15] As a consequence of these additional administrative burdens, insurers may choose not to absorb these costs and therefore will eliminate coverage for abortions.

In conclusion, the Proposed Rule violates women’s fundamental rights under the US Constitution and international human rights law, including the rights to privacy, life, and health, and the right to be free from discrimination, torture, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Compliance with these obligations is not discretionary—it is mandatory, since domestic law can never be used as an excuse for failing to comply with international treaty obligations.[16] Furthermore, the Proposed Rule unfairly singles out abortion for special treatment, which is discriminatory and will lead to stigmatization of a legal procedure.  Finally, the Proposed Rule is an example of unnecessary administrative overreach that will impose undue additional burdens on insurers and harm consumers. For the reasons stated above, we urge you to withdraw the Proposed Rule.

If you require additional information about the issues raised in this comment, please contact Michelle Onello at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Sincerely,

Michelle Onello
Senior Counsel
Global Justice Center

Download the Letter

 

[1] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111-148.

[2] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Abortion, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/SexualHealth/INFO_Abortion_WEB.pdf.

[3] Human Rights Comm.,General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, ¶ 8, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36  (Oct.30, 2018). See also Human Rights Comm., Concluding observations on the third period report of San Marino, ¶ 15, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/SMR/CO/3 (Dec. 3, 2015); Human Rights Comm., Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, ¶ 10, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/LKA/CO/5 (Nov. 21, 2014); Human Rights Comm., Concluding observations on the situation of civil and political rights in Equatorial Guinea, ¶ 9, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/79/GNQ (Aug. 13, 2004).

[4] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Joint Expert Statement on International Safe Abortion Day – Friday 28 September 2018 (Sept. 27, 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23644&LangID=E.  

[5] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Joint Expert Statement on International Safe Abortion Day – Thursday 28 September 2017 (Sept. 27, 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22167&LangID=E.

[6] Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice on its mission to the United States of America, ¶65, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/32/44/Add.2 (Aug. 4, 2016), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/172/75/PDF/G1617275.pdf?OpenElement.

[7] Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice, Policy paper, Women's Autonomy, Equality and Reproductive Health in International Human Rights: Between Recognition, Backlash and Regressive Trends (Oct. 2017),https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Women/WG/WomensAutonomyEqualityReproductiveHealth.pdf

[8] Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice on its mission to the United States of America, ¶68, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/32/44/Add.2 (Aug. 4, 2016), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/172/75/PDF/G1617275.pdf?OpenElement.

[9] Id.

[10] International Safe Abortion Day – Friday 28 September 2018 (Sept. 27, 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23644&LangID=E

[11] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Joint Expert Statement on International Safe Abortion Day – Thursday 28 September 2017 (Sept. 27, 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22167&LangID=E

[12] Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice on its mission to the United States of America, ¶70, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/32/44/Add.2 (Aug. 4, 2016), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/172/75/PDF/G1617275.pdf?OpenElement.

[13] Human Rights Council, Interim Rep. of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health General Assembly, U.N. Doc A/66/254 (Aug. 3, 2011)., https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/443/58/PDF/N1144358.pdf?OpenElement

[14] Id.

[15] America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Comment Letter on HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016 (CMS-9944-P) (Dec. 22, 2014).

[16] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 27, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331; LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 466 (June 27); Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12, ¶ 139 (Mar. 31) (“The rights guaranteed under the Vienna Convention [on Consular Relations] are treaty rights which the United States has undertaken to comply with in relation to the individual concerned, irrespective of the due process rights under United States constitutional law.”)

International Law Demands the U.S. Do Better on Abortion Policy

Read GJC Staff Attorney Danielle Hites' post on the Ms. Magazine Blog.

Within days of assuming office in 2017, President Trump re-instated and expanded the Global Gag Rule, which restricts funding for international organizations that provide or “promote” abortions. Two years later, feminist lawmakers serving in the now Democratic-led House kicked off their own terms by attempting to roll it back.

Pending legislation to establish a budget and keep the government open beyond the three week negotiation period includes a provision that would protect NGOs from being categorically defunded, effectively rescinding the Global Gag Rule. The House spending bill would render health and medical services of such organizations, including counseling and referral services, as insufficient for the sole basis for ineligibility for U.S. funding, and allow NGOs to use non-U.S. funding with fewer regulations.

Every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has enacted some version of the Global Gag Rule, but Trump drastically expanded its scope—and magnitude of harm. NGOs receiving U.S. foreign aid are now prohibited from spending any of their funds, including funding from non-U.S. sources, on abortion-related services, referrals, counseling or advocacy. Trump’s iteration of the Global Gag Rule also applies to all U.S. global health assistance, as opposed to previous version which were centered solely on U.S. family planning funds, meaning it affects $8.8 billion of foreign aid rather than $575 million.

Read the Full Article

Censorship Exported: The Impact of Trump’s Global Gag Rule on the Freedom of Speech and Association

Joint policy brief by the Global Justice Center and the Center for Health and Gender Equality (CHANGE)

In January 2017, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum reinstating the Global Gag Rule (GGR), an onerous policy that not only limits the provision of abortion services as a method of family planning but also restricts a wide variety of speech about abortion, including information, certain types of research, and advocacy. 

Two years on, the detrimental impacts of Trump’s GGR on sexual and reproductive health, HIV and AIDS services, and maternal mortality are well documented. But the GGR, in conjunction with other US abortion restrictions on foreign aid, also violates the fundamental rights of individuals and organizations to free speech and association. This policy brief looks at the documented impacts of the GGR that have been observed over the past two years against the human rights framework protecting the fundamental freedoms of speech and association. This is an edited version of GJC and CHANGE’s submission to the Human Rights Committee’s 125th Session for the preparation of the US List of Issues Prior to Reporting.

Read the Full Analysis

Leitner Human Rights Speaker Series – Exporting Censorship: The Suppression of Abortion Speech and Information

From Jan. 29, 2019 12:30 until 13:30

At Fordham Law School, New York, NY

Global Justice Center President Akila Radhakrishnan will discuss illegal US abortion restrictions' violations of the freedoms of speech and association, including the Global Gag Rule, Helms Amendment, and Siljander Amendment.

Related Resources:

 

Observations and Topics to be Included in the List of Issues United States of America: US Abortion Restrictions on Foreign Assistance

With this submission, the Global Justice Center (GJC) and the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) aim to provide guidance to the pre-session Working Group in its preparation of the list of issues to be examined during the Human Rights Committee’s (“Committee”) review of the United States (US). It specifically focuses on areas of concern with respect to the US’s violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) related to sexual and reproductive rights of individuals around the world.

Read the Full Submission

Statement: Proposed Rule for ACA Marketplace Violates Women’s Fundamental Rights

The Global Justice Center (GJC) has submitted a comment to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) urging the department to withdraw the proposed rule on abortion coverage for the ACA Marketplace. The proposed rule will create bureaucratic obstacles for abortion coverage, including instituting separate payment requirements for plans that cover abortion services.

The proposed rule violates women’s fundamental rights under the US Constitution and international human rights law. Human rights obligations protect access to abortion under a multitude of rights—including the rights to privacy, life, and health, and the right to be free from discrimination, torture, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The proposed rule would violate these protections by enacting discriminatory barriers to services needed only by women, stigmatizing abortion, and denying women access to safe affordable care, forcing them to seek out unsafe services at high risk to their health and lives.

"The outcome, and tacit intent, of the proposed rule is to discourage insurers from providing abortion coverage” says Global Justice Center Special Counsel, Michelle Onello. “It will impose onerous burdens on both insurers and consumers that aim to stigmatize abortion, embarrass women, annoy and inconvenience consumers, and increase administrative burdens on insurers.”

For more information contact:
Liz Olson, Communications Manager at Global Justice Center, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (212) 725-6530 ext. 217

Comments in Response to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Dear Secretary Azar and Administrator Verma:

The Global Justice Center (“GJC”) submits this comment in response to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) Proposed Rule entitled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Exchange Program Integrity, published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2018 (the “Proposed Rule”).  For purposes of this submission, commentary is limited to the portion of the Proposed Rule that suggests changes related to the separate payment requirements in section 1303 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”).

GJC is an international human rights organization based in New York dedicated to achieving gender equality through the rule of law. For the past decade, GJC has been at the forefront of efforts to ensure that the law protects and promotes access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health rights for women and girls around the world. As experts in women’s rights and human rights, we write to express our vehement opposition to the Proposed Rule. 

First, the Proposed Rule would impose undue and onerous burdens on both insurers and consumers that violate women’s fundamental human rights, including to non-discriminatory health care. Second, by singling out abortion for special treatment from all other health services, the Proposed Rule reinforces the already stigmatizing and discriminatory treatment of abortion under the PPACA. Third, the Proposed Rule does not, as claimed, fulfill Congressional intent, since Congressional intent under the PPACA was to allow issuers to decide for themselves whether to provide abortion coverage beyond the limited exceptions allowed under the discriminatory and harmful federal Hyde Amendment. Finally, the Proposed Rule imposes undue burdens on insurers and consumers that will lead to unnecessary restrictions on comprehensive health care for women. The outcome, and tacit intent, of the Proposed Rule is to further stigmatize abortion and to impose onerous burdens on both insurers and consumers that will embarrass women, annoy and inconvenience consumers, and increase administrative burdens on insurers, all with the ultimate aim of discouraging insurers from providing abortion coverage. As such, the Proposed Rule violates women’s fundamental rights under the US Constitution and international human rights law. For these reasons, GJC urges HHS to withdraw the Proposed Rule.

Download the Full Letter

Why the US Needs CEDAW: Abortion as a Human Right in the United States

By Jessica Pierson

This year marks the 42nd anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except in extreme circumstances. The Hyde Amendment has been a key way in which conservative lawmakers have been able to systematically deny a large portion of women their constitutional right to an abortion. Even though the right to abortion is the law of the land, U.S. constitutional law does not affirmatively guarantee that every person must be able to access an abortion. A case in point being that the Supreme Court has ruled twice that the Hyde Amendment is constitutional, even though its effects have been detrimental to American women.

A human rights framework, on the other hand, requires that government respect, protect, and fulfill the right to an abortion. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is the international treaty on women’s rights that has been ratified by nearly all the United Nations member states except for the U.S. In contrast to the U.S. Constitution, CEDAW imposes an equality standard that requires all laws that disparately impact women be scrutinized to secure de jure and de facto equality for women. The CEDAW Committee, the monitoring body for the treaty, has repeatedly made clear that it considers restrictive abortion laws incompatible with the human rights of women. Therefore, the Hyde Amendment would violate a human rights framework, which would require that the state ensure that every woman, regardless of her income or race, could access the same rights. As the founder of the Global Justice Center, Janet Benshoof, has argued, ratification and full implementation of CEDAW in the U.S. would radically change the basic equality rights of American women, including the right to an abortion.

It's Time for Comprehensive Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Latin America

By: Sofia Garcia

In 1990, women in Argentina declared September 28th to be the Day for Legal Abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean. 28 years later, we now recognize it as International Safe Abortion Day, a day where women and men all over the world take to the streets to demand access to legal and safe abortions. This day is commemorated only two days after World Contraception Day on September 26th, a day intended to improve awareness of contraception and increase sexual education among young people. Coincidentally or not, this week in September crystallizes the intersectional nature of sexual and reproductive health and rights.  In regions like Latin America and the Caribbean where women are often left behind on legislation, days like International Safe Abortion Day and World Contraception Day serve as a crucial call for governments to recognize the importance of expanding access to sexual and reproductive health and rights in tandem.

In recent years, the staggering lack of access to abortion services in the region has resulted in a greater push for the decriminalization of abortion as well as the expansion of abortion services. Six countries in the region still do not allow abortions to be performed under any circumstance. The draconian laws that govern abortion in the region have not only stigmatized discourse about abortion and sexual and reproductive health--they have also created a greater push for legalized abortion. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that, as of 2017, more than 24 million women in Latin America and the Caribbean have an unmet need for modern contraception. This means that women in the region who are having sex are either doing so without any contraception, or are using traditional methods such as the “pull out” method, which are much less effective at preventing unintended pregnancies. This, naturally, leads to a high number of unintended pregnancies. The sheer lack of access to contraception or other sexual and reproductive health services has resulted in the highest numbers of unintended pregnancies in the world, about 14 million each year. This creates a great demand for abortion services, but many countries in the region still do not allow women to make decisions regarding their bodies without legal roadblocks, stigma, or discrimination.

Proposed "Domestic Gag Rule" Violates Americans’ Right to Free Speech

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – July 31, 2018

[NEW YORK, NY] – Today marks the deadline for public commentary on the changes to the Title X Family Planning Program proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If adopted, this domestic “gag rule” would ban health centers that receive Title X funding from providing their patients with information, referrals, access or support regarding abortion services. This rule is yet another attack by the Trump Administration on low-income and minority communities.

President Trump Puts Women At Risk With U.S. Abortion Gag Rule

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – May 23, 2018

[NEW YORK] – The Trump administration proposed a domestic “Gag Rule” last night, banning health centers that provide, refer, support, or assist women in accessing abortion services from receiving Title X funding. This dangerous policy will deny women their fundamental human rights.

Like the Global Gag Rule reinstated by President Trump in 2017, the Domestic Gag Rule will coerce doctors into staying silent about the option to terminate a pregnancy (except in extremely limited circumstances) under threat of losing their government funding. In effect, the Domestic Gag Rule will prevent doctors from providing complete and accurate medical guidance to women. Even if a patient asks directly where she can obtain an abortion, a Title X provider will not be able to provide her with direct information in order to allow her to access her constitutionally protected right.