Intent to File on Forced Pregnancy - The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen

Introduction

In response to the Appeals Chamber’s order, we respectfully seek leave to file amicus curiae observations on the Rome Statute’s definition of ‘forced pregnancy’, noting that this is the Appeals Chamber’s first opportunity to interpret this crime.

Expertise

Dr Rosemary Grey (lecturer, Sydney University Law School) is an expert in gender issues in international criminal law. Her publications include 13 peer-reviewed journal articles and her monograph Prosecuting Sexual and Gender-based Crimes at the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2019). From 8 June to 8 September 2015, she worked with the ICC Office of the Prosecutor through the Internship and Visiting Professional Programme, where she assisted with legal research on topics including forced pregnancy. Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (WICJ) is an international women’s human rights NGO advocating for accountability for sexual and gender-based crimes through the ICC’s work, including with conflict affected communities in Uganda, since 2004. It is the successor of the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice (1997-2003) that brought together over 300 women’s human rights advocates and organizations in the Rome Statute negotiations. Global Justice Center (GJC) is an international NGO advocating for justice and accountability for sexual and gender-based violence and violations of reproductive autonomy in situations including Syria, Myanmar, and others. Its 2018 report, Beyond Killing: Gender, Genocide, & Obligations Under International Law, was the first of its kind to offer a comprehensive gender analysis of the crime of, and international legal obligations surrounding, genocide. Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights to be respected and protected, with over 50 years’ experience documenting and campaigning against human rights violations around the world.

First proposed argument: Irrelevance of national law

Art. 7(2)(f) of the Rome Statute states: ‘“Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy.’ The Trial Chamber stated that the final sentence of Art. 7(2)(f) ‘does not add a new element to the offence – and is thus not reproduced in the Elements of Crimes – but allays the concern that criminalising forced pregnancy may be seen as legalising abortion. Mr Ongwen appears to argue that the Trial Chamber erred by interpreting the crime of ‘forced pregnancy’ without analysis of abortion laws in the state where the crimes occurred (Uganda). That argument is incorrect. National laws on abortion have no bearing on the Rome Statute’s definition of ‘forced pregnancy’. The second sentence of Art. 7(2)(f) does not make the ICC’s jurisdiction over ‘forced pregnancy’ dependent on national legislation, nor create an element of the crime. It simply affirms that the legality of the relevant conduct under national law is distinct from its legality under international law. This is true of all crimes in the Rome Statute, but was made explicit for forced pregnancy in order to satisfy states who were concerned that defining forced pregnancy as a crime in the Rome Statute would affect their legal ability to regulate abortion under national law. Thus, regardless of whether conduct amounting to ‘forced pregnancy’ is consistent with national law, an individual who commits such conduct could be prosecuted for ‘forced pregnancy’ as a war crime and/or crime against humanity under the Rome Statute (if the contextual elements for were met, and subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction and admissibility rules). Victims in states with strict abortion laws do not enjoy lesser protections under the Rome Statute than those in states with more liberal abortion laws.

Read Full Legal Filing 

Joint Statement on Supreme Court Arguments in Texas Abortion Case

The following is a joint statement about the Texas abortion law by the Global Justice Center, Amnesty International USA, and Human Rights Watch;

The United States Supreme Court is holding oral arguments on November 1, 2021 on procedural questions related to challenges brought against an extreme anti-abortion law in the state of Texas. Key protections for the human rights of pregnant people in the United States are at stake.

In a recent brief to the court ahead of upcoming arguments on the state of Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, the Global Justice Center, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch made clear that abortion bans, such as the 6-week restriction in Texas, are inconsistent with international human rights protections.

Upholding the Texas ban – as well as Mississippi’s 15-week ban, set to be heard by the court in December – would place the US at odds with a worldwide trend toward expansion of abortion access.

From Mexico to Ireland, countries around the world have taken major steps to broaden access to abortion in recent years. A significant majority of women of reproductive age – almost 60 percent – now live in countries where abortion is generally available.

In addition, these state abortion bans place the US in direct violation of its human rights obligations. The rights implicated in these cases – to life, nondiscrimination, freedom from torture, and privacy – come from binding treaties the US has ratified. Even the anti-abortion group C-Fam acknowledged in its brief to the court that all nine independent expert bodies monitoring state compliance with major international human rights treaties have recommended that abortion should be made more available in the US.

This case is just the latest effort in the US anti-abortion movement’s campaign to make abortion inaccessible across the country. Whether in Texas, Mississippi, or Florida, these attempts violate the human rights of pregnant people in the US. If the US is to respect human rights, it needs to expand, not restrict, access to abortion.

Open Letter on Abortion Stigma

An Open Letter to Public Officials and Policy Makers:

As organizations advocating for reproductive health, rights, and justice, we urgently call on public officials and policy makers to use the word abortion. Abortion stigma—defined as associating a “negative attribute” towards people who provide, have had, or are seeking abortions—has facilitated the passage of radical laws like Texas SB 8, which bans abortion at approximately six weeks of pregnancy and has forced nearly all abortion services to an abrupt stop across the state. Failing to explicitly use the term abortion and reinforcing negative messages about self-managed or non-clinical abortion contributes to abortion stigma. It is more dire than ever that policy makers act now to protect access to care and make all possible efforts to break down abortion stigma, including using the term abortion.

Abortion is health care. Access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, including access to abortion care, is essential to gender equity and equality. Abortion restrictions rely on and reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles and women’s decision-making instead of offering support, undermining their ability to control their own lives and well-being. When someone makes the decision to have an abortion, they should be able to access the care they need with respect and dignity, free from burdens, barriers, and stigma.

Even though abortion is common and a normal part of reproductive health experiences, with one in four women in the U.S. having an abortion in her lifetime, there remains considerable stigma about abortion. Consequently, public officials will sometimes refer to abortion as “women’s health” and the legal framework around abortion rights as “the right to choose”, “pro-choice” or “protecting Roe v. Wade.” Avoiding the word “abortion” reinforces abortion stigma and the notion that abortion is morally wrong, allowing opponents of abortion to define the moral narrative surrounding it.

Read the Full Letter

Jackson v. Dobbs - Amicus Brief

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Near-categorical bans on abortions will have a significant, real, and negative impact on the health of pregnant individuals.

The worst such impacts will be borne by marginalized groups, including people living in economic poverty and by Black, Indigenous, and people of color. These are the very groups whose health the law should protect. Banning abortion does the opposite.

In-country after country, abortion bans have not led to a decrease in the number of abortions, but rather an increase in the number of unsafe abortions—especially affecting people of limited means.

These risks are neither theoretical nor conjectural. In countries across the world, including Romania, South Africa, El Salvador, and Ecuador, there is a statistical relationship between the imposition of restrictive abortion legislation and increases in maternal mortality and morbidity. The lesson for this case is clear: If an abortion ban like H.B. 1510 is upheld, more women in Mississippi are likely to die.

Consistent with these findings, countries around the world allow abortion on broad grounds.

Amicus briefs submitted in support of Petitioners claim that most countries ban or severely restrict abortion. That assertion distorts reality. In fact, a strong majority of women of reproductive age—approximately 60%—live in countries where abortion is available upon request or otherwise broadly available on a variety of social, economic, and health grounds.

By contrast, just a handful of countries, representing 5% of women of reproductive age, ban abortion without exception. Mississippi’s H.B. 1510 is an unmistakable step in this latter direction, away from the global norm and towards this small minority position.

Furthermore, where only economically developed or highly developed countries are considered, an even more robust consensus emerges. Of the 36 highly developed countries, 34 offer abortion on broadly available grounds. A significant number of nations offer abortions free of charge to low-income pregnant individuals.

International law coheres with these trends in comparative law. Contrary to amicus briefs submitted supporting Petitioners, international human rights law recognizes the well-known risks created by restrictive abortion legislation and requires states to ensure abortion access.

Access to safe and lawful abortion services is firmly rooted in the rights to life; to non-discrimination; to be free from torture, cruel, and degrading treatment; and to privacy. These rights are recognized in international human rights treaties ratified by the United States, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention Against Torture. The United States cannot, given its international obligations, enact legislation that transgresses these commitments. Banning abortion clearly does so.

Download Full Amicus Brief 

How US Abortion Politics Distorts Women’s Lives in Conflict Zones

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

Submission UN Special Rapporteur on Abortion Restrictions During COVID-19

The following is responding specifically to question 2(a) concerning measures introduced during the pandemic aiming at recognizing, restricting, banning and/or criminalizing access to legal abortion.

The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented challenges to access to sexual and reproductive health services. As states enacted their COVID-19 response plans in the early phase of the pandemic, GJC noted an uptick in focus on abortion in the United States and around the globe - resulting in a mix of outcomes, both positive and negative. The unevenness with which abortion was dealt with underscores the importance that access to safe abortion services be protected as a matter of human right, recognized by officials as essential medical care, and not subject to restrictions.

Global Increase of Restrictions on Abortion Access

A number of US states moved to limit abortion by classifying abortions that are not a medical emergency as non-essential medical services that must be canceled or deferred, and ordering providers to stop their performance. As a result, legal battles played out across these states. In Texas, the conflict first began after the government enacted an executive order banning abortions as “a nonessential medical procedure that must be suspended to conserve scarce medical equipment for doctors treating coronavirus patients.” The fight went back and forth between different courts, causing chaos, confusion and disruption for providers and patients. There were numerous stories of pregnant women trying to access clinics for their appointments only to find them closed, waiting in clinic parking lots for hours while being harassed by protestors, and traveling for hours across state lines to reach the nearest available clinic. A similar pattern emerged in other states across the US.

Download the Full Report

Letter to President Biden: Call for Executive Action on United States Abortion Restrictions on Foreign Aid

Dear President Biden,

We, the undersigned organizations, welcome your administration’s reengagement of the United States (US) with the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and recommitment to promoting human rights. We also applaud you for revoking the Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) within your first ten days in office, and now we ask you to go further to implement “the policy of the US to support women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights in the US, as well as globally.” Therefore, in light of your administration’s response to the recommendations made to the US during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the HRC in Geneva last November, we are writing to urge you to take further steps to implement the UPR recommendations made with regard to sexual and reproductive health and rights, including by taking executive and administrative action to ameliorate the harmful impact of US abortion restrictions on foreign aid, particularly the Helms Amendment, a nearly 50-year-old policy that must be congressionally repealed in its entirety. Recognizing the racist and neo-colonial roots of the Helms Amendment, we also urge the implementation of the recommendations made regarding racism and discrimination. These recommendations were made by 23 countries spanning across Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East and, if implemented, would positively impact access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, as well as the livelihood and wellbeing of persons experiencing discrimination.

During the UPR, the US was called on to strengthen its support for sexual and reproductive health and rights at home and abroad. A number of countries made formal recommendations for the US to take action on its restrictions on foreign assistance, and we commend your support of these recommendations. The Netherlands called on the US to “repeal the Helms Amendment...and, in the interim, allow United States foreign assistance to be used, at a minimum, for safe abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.” During the UPR adoption, the United Kingdom specifically addressed its “hope that the US can go further and clarify its interpretation of the Helms Amendment, and ensure universal access to safe abortion care.” Congress must repeal the Helms Amendment entirely and the Administration must do all that it can to mitigate the harms of this egregious policy in the interim. In order to implement these recommendations, we encourage you to take steps to:

  • Take executive action and issue guidance from relevant agencies and departments to clarify and implement US foreign assistance support for abortion care to the maximum extent allowed under the Helms Amendment, namely by immediately clarifying that funds can be used to support abortion care provided in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment of the pregnant person.
  • Issue guidance from relevant agencies and departments to proactively clarify that US foreign assistance may be used for abortion information and counseling under the Leahy Amendment.
  • Prioritize the removal of abortion funding restrictions like the Helms Amendment, in addition to addressing many other important sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) priorities, through the White House Gender Policy Council, with its focus on promoting SRHR domestically and globally, in order to bring US policy in line with its human rights obligations and the administration’s stated commitment to advancing global health and equity. All actions by the Gender Policy Council must also consider the role of racial and other forms of discrimination on recipients of sexual and reproductive healthcare in the US and elsewhere across the globe.
  • Consult with relevant stakeholders and agencies to issue policies to combat systemic racism and discrimination against marginalized and minoritized populations and ensure implementation of these policies at the state, federal and local levels, recognizing that domestic US policy and practice influence the values exported through US foreign assistance and foreign policy.
  • Ensure robust support for sexual and reproductive health and rights, including eliminating Helms and similar abortion coverage restrictions from the Fiscal Year 2022 budget.

Download the Full Letter 

Reset or revolution: Biden’s first 100 days

Excerpt of International Bar Association article that quotes GJC President Akila Radhakrishnan.

Another cause for concern is gender inequality. Akila Radhakrishnan, President of the Global Justice Center, says that on some issues Biden has said the right things and taken the right initial steps, but on abortion the administration has been ‘profoundly disappointing’.

Radhakrishnan notes that the Biden administration has shown its comfort and ability to stand up against white supremacy, and to stand up for LGBTQ+ rights, at least in rhetoric and initial gestures. She asks, ‘so when it comes to abortion, why are we seeing them not utilise the terminology of abortion? Why have we seen nothing on broader commitments beyond repealing the gag rule?’

Read the Article

Silencing Progress: The Siljander Amendment and Global Censorship of Abortion Speech

For the last four years, the Trump administration has waged a war on sexual and reproductive health and rights around the world. Some of the tools in its arsenal are US foreign assistance restrictions on family planning and abortion. To be sure, many of these restrictions pre-date Trump, but this administration had a laser focus on weaponizing them to undermine and attack the fundamental human rights of women.

The change in US leadership with the Biden administration offers a chance for renewed attention and pressure on the need to repeal these odious restrictions, some of which are better known and understood than others.

Much has been said on the Global Gag Ruleand to a lesser extent the Helms Amendment(“Helms”). However, little has been written or is understood about the Siljander Amendment (“Siljander”), which prohibits lobbying for or against abortion with US foreign assistance funds.

Even so, the Siljander Amendment has appeared in recent news: In August 2020, 60 US Senators and Representatives signed a letter to John Barsa, Acting Administrator of the US Agency for International Development (“USAID”) urging enforcement of Siljander by reducing “US contributions to UN Secretary-General and to UN organizations that lobby for abortion…in amounts proportional to their abortion-related lobbying,” also referring to “a fictitious international right to abortion.” This flawed assessment comes, unsurprisingly, on the heels of the US government cutting assistance to the Organization of American States (“OAS”) in 2019 based on erroneous claims that its agencies engaged in lobbying for abortion in violation of the Siljander Amendment.

In light of these concerning developments, and with the new Biden administration taking office, this factsheet is intended to provide background information regarding the Siljander Amendment, how it has been applied – namely, to censor constitutional and legal reform and fundamental human rights – and why it should ultimately be repealed, along with all other US abortion restrictions on foreign assistance.

Download Fact Sheet 

Mike Pompeo Is Wrong: There *Is* an International Right to Abortion

Excerpt of Ms. Magazine op-ed from GJC Program Coordinator Merrite Johnson.

Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed the Geneva Consensus Declaration, a U.S.-led document that fired yet another shot across the bow at reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. Bookended by a bizarre montage video, the signing ceremony was touted as a watershed moment in the fight against an international movement to declare a right to abortion at the expense of traditional family values.

The only problem? There very much is an international right to abortion.

The good news, at least, is the declaration is not legally binding. As reluctant as Pompeo and the rest of the Trump administration may be to follow the law, the fact remains that the United States is party to a number of human rights treaties that protect abortion rights—and adhering to these treaties is a legal requirement.

Read the Article

Factsheet — Reproducing Patriarchy: How the Trump Administration has Undermined Women’s Access to Reproductive Health Care

For an in-depth analysis of the new Title X regulations (Final Rule, Domestic Gag Rule, or Domestic Gag), the impact on clinics’ participation in Title X and patients’ access to healthcare, domestic litigation challenging the restrictions, and how the Domestic Gag Rule violates the United States’ international human rights legal obligations, see the Global Justice Center and Leitner Center’s full report.

The Domestic Gag Rule is part of a broader pattern aimed at restricting access and denying women their ability to exercise their fundamental human rights

For the last four years the Trump administration has engaged in a systematic effort to undermine reproductive choice and bodily autonomy. Internationally, the Trump administration has attempted to undermine international law and institutions that protect sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and has cut funding for organizations that promote reproductive rights and services. President Trump reinstated and expanded the Global Gag Rule, limiting funding for foreign non-governmental organizations that provide abortion services as a method of family planning and restricting a wide variety of speech about abortion services, research, and advocacy, with well-documented detrimental impacts on sexual and reproductive health, HIV and AIDS services, and maternal mortality.

Download Fact Sheet 

International Solidarity with Women and Peaceful Protestors in Poland

As organizations committed to the advancement of human rights and gender equality, we stand in solidarity with all those in Poland who for the last week have peacefully protested against the politicized attack on women’s fundamental human rights and access to health care.

Last week Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal issued a decision purporting to invalidate a legal ground for abortion. If this decision is given legal effect it will amount to the introduction of a near-total ban on abortion in Poland.

Thousands across Poland have protested peacefully against this unlawful and retrogressive decision. We express our deep admiration for the courageous and tireless efforts of those defending the rights of women in Poland. Women’s fundamental human rights are universal. Attacks on these rights concern everyone in society and their impact transcends national borders.

We urge the Polish Government to respect the right of freedom of assembly and peaceful protest, and to exercise restraint and refrain from excessive use of force and violence. We are deeply concerned by reports that military action is being planned to suppress peaceful protests and demonstrations. We urge the EU and the international community to monitor the situation and to act with urgency to prevent violence against peaceful protestors and attacks on women human rights defenders. 

Read the Full Letter

Ensuring access to sexual and reproductive health and rights in EU humanitarian aid

Excerpt of The Parliament article that quotes GJC President Akila Radhakrishnan.

Kumar emphasised that safe abortion care needs to be understood as a medical necessity, independent of the context and the reason for the abortion. Akila Radhakrishnan, President of the Global Justice Center in New York, said that in the past ten years of their work on abortion access in humanitarian settings, there has been both great progress as well as backlash.

“Pregnant persons are still routinely denied access to safe abortion services in humanitarian settings and proactive action grounded in fundamental rights under international law - including by powerful humanitarian donors like the European Commission - is vitally needed.”

Read the Article

Reproducing Patriarchy: How the Trump Administration has Undermined Women’s Access to Reproductive Health Care

Download the Full Report

Introduction

Since taking office, the Trump administration has unleashed a blitz of regressive and discriminatory laws and policies. Of the many issues under attack, few have seen similar ire and attention as sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). Both internationally and domestically, the Trump administration has engaged in a broad, systematic effort to undermine reproductive choice and bodily autonomy. 

Internationally, the Trump administration has attempted to undermine international law and institutions that protect SRHR and has cut funding for organizations that promote reproductive rights and services. Within days of taking office, President Trump reinstated and expanded the Global Gag Rule, an onerous policy that limits funding for foreign non-governmental organizations that provide abortion services as a method of family planning and restricts a wide variety of speech about abortion services, research, and advocacy, with well-documented detrimental impacts on sexual and reproductive health, HIV and AIDS services, and maternal mortality. The Trump administration has attempted to erase language on SRHR from governmental and inter-governmental documents, such as in the State Department’s annual human rights report, United Nations (UN) negotiated documents, and UN resolutions.  In 2019, the United States (US) cut funding to the Organization of American States (OAS), a quasi-governmental regional body, for allegedly violating restrictions on lobbying for abortion rights by commenting on state practice on reproductive choice. Most recently, the unlawfully formed and operated State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, created to advise the Secretary of State on human rights and intended to inform US foreign policy, issued a draft report which misrepresents the nature of the international human rights framework and inaccurately frames access to abortion as a “divisive social and political controvers[y]” rather than an established right under international law. 

The Trump administration’s attacks on reproductive rights are not limited to international and foreign-policy related targets. Domestically, the Trump administration has also taken steps to erode protections for SRHR, including by targeting the Title X Family Planning program with new regulations, Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements (the Final Rule), published on March 4, 2019. The Final Rule imposes a number of new physical, financial, and administrative burdens on clinics receiving Title X funding in an effort to restrict women’s access to particular reproductive health information and services. As this report documents, the Final Rule violates fundamental human rights and the US’ obligations under international human rights law. Although the US has attempted to minimize or ignore its international human rights obligations, as shown in the recent Commission on Unalienable Rights draft document, this report reviews the substantive obligations of the US and the binding nature of these legal obligations. 

Letter Opposing Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

We 136 organizations in support of reproductive health, rights, and justice — strongly oppose  the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. The Senate should not  consider any nominee to fill any Supreme Court vacancy until after the inauguration. Whoever  fills Justice Ginsburg’s seat could spend decades being a crucial vote on a range of issues that  affect our lives -- from voting rights to health care access to employment discrimination. The  people deserve to have a voice in who is confirmed to the Supreme Court and in some states  people are already casting their votes to make that voice heard. As the COVID-19 pandemic  continues to spread throughout the United States — including now on Capitol Hill and in the  White House — we demand the confirmation process of Judge Barrett be halted. The time to  confirm the next Supreme Court Justice is not as we work to rein in our global health crisis.

Download the full Letter 

Limiting Scientific Research is Another Front in the War on Abortion

Excerpt of Ms. Magazine op-ed from GJC Special Counsel Michelle Onello.

The recent death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg puts reproductive rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade in grave jeopardy. As part of its war on abortionthe Trump administration has banned scientists from using human fetal tissue (HFT) donated from terminated pregnancies in medical research.

The ban on HFT research is not only another attack on reproductive freedoms; it is limiting crucial medical advances, putting lives in danger and demonstrating the vast collateral damage unleashed by the war on abortion. Reproductive rights advocates must seize upon this dangerous politicization of medical research to forge new allies and further broaden advocacy coalitions.

Read the Article

HRC 45: Joint Civil Society Statement on Abortion

In the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, States recognized that women’s rights are human rights and that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. This should have been the basis for an intersectional approach to human rights and the recognition that the denial of access to safe and legal abortion impacts all aspects of women’s lives.

Everyone has the right to life-saving interventions during or outside of crises. And yet, women and girls’ rights to bodily autonomy and safe abortion have been some of the first rights to be conveniently sacrificed under the guise of prioritizing COVID, as if health was a zero-sum game. That includes free, safe and legal abortion and comprehensive abortion and post-abortion care, without which women, girls and gender-non-conforming persons are forced to seek unsafe clandestine abortions or to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, in complete violation of our rights.

During this pandemic, some governments are increasing barriers to abortion services by deeming it a non-essential medical procedure, or are instrumentalizing the crisis to further restrict access in law or practice.  In health systems, for example, inadequate planning and the redeployment of medical personnel and resources to COVID-19 have decreased access to abortion and contraception.

See the full Letter 

Access to SRHR in EU humanitarian aid: the case of safe abortion

Description:

This webinar addresses the plight of survivors of sexual and gender-based violence and their access to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) under EU humanitarian aid, in particular their access to safe abortion.

In 2015, former VP/HR Mogherini and former Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management Mr Stylianides stated that “in cases where a pregnancy threatens a woman’s or girl’s life or causes unbearable suffering, international humanitarian law and/or international human rights law may justify offering a safe abortion rather than perpetuating what amounts to inhumane treatment”. The Commission has continuously reaffirmed this policy since then. However, the provision of abortion services on the ground by humanitarian health actors remains incomplete. This webinar will thus explore possible steps to ensure that the EU can continue to guarantee equality of care to survivors of armed conflict.

The EU Commissioner for Crisis Management will deliver a keynote speech and panelists will share the experiences of humanitarian organisations on the ground.

Speakers: 

Sophie in ‘t Veld (MEP), Renew Europe, Co-chair of MEPs for Sexual and Reproductive Rights

Petra de Sutter (MEP), Greens/EFA, Co-chair of MEPs for Sexual and Reproductive Rights

Janez Lenarčič - EU Commissioner for Crisis Management

Akila Radhakrishnan, President, Global Justice Center

Rajat Kohsla - Senior Director, Research, Advocacy and Policy, Amnesty International

Cyprien Masaka Lepepo, Deputy Reproductive Health Coordinator, International Rescue Committee DRC

Manisha Kumar - Head of the Task Force for Safe Abortion Care , Médecins Sans Frontières

Michael Koehler, Deputy Director General, DG ECHO, European Commission

The Trump administration's war on abortion rights is worse than you think

Excerpt of The Hill op-ed from GJC Special Counsel Michelle Onello.

The Trump administration has been executing a coordinated attack on what it sees as a critical public health issue. Unfortunately, the offensive is not targeting the COVID-19 pandemic, which has infected over six million people and claimed almost 200,000 lives in the US. Instead, the campaign has its sights set on women’s sexual health and reproductive rights, especially abortion. With the recent death of Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg threatening the fate of Roe v. Wade, the security of abortion rights has never been more precarious.

The administration’s brazen anti-abortion agenda includes not only well-publicized executive actions such as the expansions of the global and domestic gag rules, “conscience” exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, and the packing of courts with anti-abortion judges.

Read the Article

The Blueprint for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice Releases First Priorities for an Incoming Administration

WASHINGTON — Today, the Blueprint for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice released First Priorities, a detailed punch list of executive and agency actions for the opening days of an incoming administration.

First Priorities is based on the Blueprint, a bold, intersectional, and proactive policy agenda to advance sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice released last year and developed by a diverse coalition of more than 90 organizations. 

First Priorities for the Blueprint for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice is a roadmap for an incoming administration’s first days. It lists specific actions centered around six key points and milestones: