In March 2026, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court) issued a landmark judgment in Ramos Durand et al. v. Peru, holding Peru responsible for the forced sterilization and death of Celia Edith Ramos Durand. The case was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, DEMUS–Study for the Defense of Women’s Rights, and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). Global Justice Center submitted an amicus curiae brief in the case, with Debevoise & Plimpton acting as pro bono counsel, articulating the importance of specifically recognizing reproductive violence.

The United States tracks adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) indicators through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) via the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Furthermore, the Office of Population Affairs, within the Department of Health and Human Services, maintains ongoing data reporting, collection, and monitoring of changes and trends relating to statistics on adolescent SRH. Large-scale health surveys, public health institutions, and academic research studies are utilized to gather data. Since 2009, teen birth rates in the United States have been declining and is 13.6 births per 1,000 females as of 2022. This rate remains higher than in other similar industrialized countries.

While U.S. constitutional law provides a clear basis to reject Tennessee’s attempt to silence individuals providing information about safe and lawful healthcare access, affirming the district court’s holding would also align with international human rights law. Several international treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”), support the position that the Recruitment Provision violates longstanding international legal principles protecting free speech.

We the undersigned 115 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations are dedicated to the protection and realization of human rights for all people, and we are deeply concerned about the United States Government’s decision to withdraw from the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, an unprecedented step that signals a worrying retreat from our human rights obligations and the global mechanisms of accountability.

In September 2024, UN Women and Global Justice Center issued a report detailing challenges and offering legal guidance to improve the documentation of reproductive violence in crisis and conflict by UN international investigations. These investigations play a key role in guiding international responses, so omitting documentation of reproductive violence can have devastating ripple effects. This Q&A draws from the report to provide information on what reproductive violence is, why its documentation in conflict and crisis situations matters, and how this documentation can be done more effectively.

Our coalition recently developed a joint submission to the UN Human Rights Council before the USA’s upcoming 4th Universal Periodic Review. This submission focused on the significant deterioration of sexual and reproductive rights and justice across the country since the elimination of a federal right to abortion and amid a broader undermining of rights in the USA.

The remit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls’ mandate is to consider the human rights implications of violence against all individuals involved in surrogacy arrangements: gamete donors and surrogates, intending parent(s), and children, once born, from this process...The practice of surrogacy is not inherently coercive or exploitative and does not amount to a human rights violation. Attempts to criminalize surrogacy fall short of the duty of governments to help realize the enjoyment of human rights for all.

As the United States (“US”) approaches its 4th Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”), individuals’ sexual and reproductive health and rights have significantly deteriorated across the country, particularly with regard to abortion and related healthcare. Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,1 a growing number of states have implemented complete bans or aggressive restrictions on abortion, resulting in millions without access to care. Many seeking care, particularly in the South, are now forced to travel long(er) distances, seek medication through additional formal and informal means, or continue pregnancies against their will. Simultaneously, states are increasingly hostile to and criminalizing abortion seekers and providers, third parties who help individuals access care, and/or circumstances surrounding pregnancy, with laws that impose harsh penalties including fines, prosecution, and imprisonment.

Around 80 countries expressly allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide abortion care based on their conscience, religion, or belief. This practice is referred to as ‘conscientious objection’. Conscientious objection is often unregulated or insufficiently regulated, which can create a significant barrier to care. Inadequate regulatory regimes violate international human rights law and standards, endanger the health and wellbeing of persons seeking care, overburden healthcare providers and systems, and reinforce harmful stereotypes that stigmatize patients and professionals who provide abortion services. Because conscientious objection has become a significant barrier to abortion care, the United Nations Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls (WGDAWG) has issued new guidance on the obligation of governments that permit conscientious objection to ensure it does not create barriers to the realization of women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health rights.