Excerpt of New York Review of Books that quotes GJC President Akila Radhakrishnan.

According to Akila Radhakrishnan, a human rights lawyer and president of the Global Justice Center, international humanitarian law supersedes national abortion laws: doctors in humanitarian settings have an obligation to provide care regardless. This is analogous, she argued, to the doctor’s duty to provide care to any person injured in a conflict even if the laws of country they are working in forbid the provision of care to people affiliated with so-designated terrorist organizations. The International Committee of the Red Cross also has guidelines that tell aid workers that in emergencies, international humanitarian law takes precedence over domestic rules.

“It’s unclear why [abortion would be different],” said Radhakrishnan. “We seem reluctant to make these connections when it comes to women’s bodies…. the denial of abortion, certainly to rape victims, has also been found to be torture. But you don’t see that same kind of outcry from a broad constituency when abortion services are denied.”

Read the Article

Read the Full Newsletter

Description:

In March, Newlines published its groundbreaking Uyghur Genocide Report that found China in breach of the 1948 Genocide Convention. While parliaments, policymakers, and world leaders have been debating this issue, many conversations are missing the critical element of a gendered analysis of genocide. Our panel of gender and legal experts will discuss how genocide is a gendered crime, examine the genocide being perpetrated against the Uyghurs, and weigh in on how the U.S. and other countries can hold China accountable.

In March, Newlines published its groundbreaking Uyghur Genocide Report that found China in breach of the 1948 Genocide Convention. While parliaments, policymakers, and world leaders have been debating this issue, many conversations are missing the critical element of a gendered analysis of genocide. Our panel of gender and legal experts will discuss how genocide is a gendered crime, examine the genocide being perpetrated against the Uyghurs, and weigh in on how the U.S. and other countries can hold China accountable.

Participants:

• Emily Prey (Moderator), Senior Analyst, Newlines Institute
• Grant Shubin, Legal Director, Global Justice Center
• Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Director, International Bar Association Human Rights Institute

Watch the Webinar

NEW YORK — In his first presidential budget released today, President Biden removed the Hyde Amendment, but left in place several other restrictions on abortion funding, including the Helms Amendment.

The Helms Amendment has prohibited any U.S. foreign aid from going to abortion services since 1973. Among other anti-abortion policies included in the budget, the president also left in place the Siljander Amendment, which prevents the use of US funds to lobby for or against abortion.

Elena Sarver, legal advisor with the Global Justice Center, issued the following statement:

“The president is right to remove the Hyde Amendment from his budget, but the Helms Amendment and Hyde are two sides of the same coin. Both restrict access to abortion care in violation of international law. Both have been recognized by the international community as violations of human rights. There is simply no reason to protect the rights of pregnant people here in the US, but deny them to pregnant people around the world.

“At the United Nations and other international venues, the Biden administration continues to say it is a champion of sexual and reproductive rights. But the inclusion of illegal and destructive abortion funding restrictions like Helms shows this is mere rhetoric rather than a true commitment. Combine this failure with their refusal to utter the word ‘abortion,’ this administration has a lot of work to do before it can truly claim to be a champion of reproductive rights.”