In 2022, Michigan’s citizens went to the polls to make their voices heard on an issue of systemic constitutional importance: the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. By a wide margin, Michigan’s citizens voted to enact the Reproductive Freedom for All Amendment (“RFFA”), an amendment to Michigan’s Constitution that eliminates outdated restrictions on reproductive healthcare and protects the fundamental right to reproductive freedom in Michigan, including the freedom for Michiganders to decide to end their pregnancies. The RFFA ensures that Michiganders have “the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy,” including “abortion care,” without the State of Michigan “discriminat[ing] in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.”

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 12.1-36.1 (the “Health Care Ban” or “Ban”) categorically prohibits adolescents from receiving medically necessary treatment when their gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth, while permitting the same interventions for other minors and for other medical purposes. The Health Care Ban impermissibly intrudes on multiple rights protected by the North Dakota Constitution: its guarantees of individuals’ bodily autonomy and access to life‑preserving medical care; its protections for family integrity safeguarding parents’ right to make individualized medical decisions in their children’s best interests; and its equal‑protection provisions prohibiting laws that discriminate on the basis of sex or otherwise restrict important substantive rights for a subset of people without compelling reason. Each of these constitutional guarantees is supported by international and regional human rights law and by the laws and practices of many other nations. Together, these domestic, regional, and international authorities demonstrate that North Dakota’s ban is both unconstitutional and inconsistent with established human rights norms. This Court should therefore reverse the lower court’s decision.

Liberia’s support for key recommendations received during its fourth UPR cycle is a significant and welcome step toward at last delivering justice for serious international crimes during the country’s civil wars. These include recommendations aimed at the establishment and effective functioning of a war and economic crimes court and full implementation of the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations.

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.

We are writing on behalf of the Global South Coalition for SRHR and Development Justice and a group of civil society organizations allied in support of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). As you know, SRHR has long been recognized by the UN and its member states as an essential prerequisite to achieving gender equality and development. As the UN80 reform process explores potential structural improvements—including a possible merger between UNFPA and UN Women—we are writing to urge you to safeguard the integrity of the UN’s SRHR mandate.

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.

The Global Justice Center and the Leitner Center welcome the opportunity to submit comments to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar relating to the forthcoming conference room paper on pathways to accountability for grave human rights violations in Myanmar.