Publications

Summary of Argument Idaho’s near-total abortion ban restricts access to necessary emergency reproductive healthcare, exacerbating preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and otherwise negatively impacting people capable of pregnancy in Idaho. The law’s narrow exception for life-saving care will not prevent or mitigate these harms in practice, and will leave patients in Idaho without access to emergency reproductive healthcare. The United States has ratified several human rights treaties—including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—which require it to guarantee access to safe and legal abortion services, in particular in emergencies or acute medical crises governed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). In accordance with the United States’ obligations under these treaties, the federal government—and therefore each state—is required to respect, protect and fulfil individuals’ international human rights to life; health; privacy; non-discrimination; and to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. These rights are directly jeopardized by Idaho’s draconian abortion law.

On October 17-18 in Geneva, the United States government faced questions from civil society and the Human Rights Committee on the country’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In addition to questions on immigrants’ rights, racial discrimination, and more, US officials were pressed repeatedly on the state of abortion access in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The June 2022 Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated federal constitutional protection for access to abortion in the United States. Following Dobbs, more than a dozen states fully banned abortion, and many others passed or proposed increased restrictions. On October 17-18, 2023, the Human Rights Committee will review US compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the impact of Dobbs on its human rights obligations.

Introduction Since the United States (US) was last reviewed by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) nearly a decade ago in 2014, there have been significant developments in the area of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for women, girls, and people who can become pregnant living in the US, including the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022. This decision overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the US after 50 years of precedent following the US Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Human rights experts warned before the Dobbs decision that overturning Roe would violate the rights of women, girls, and all people who can become pregnant in the US, as well as healthcare providers’ rights. Following the decision, the experts noted that whereas the restrictive new legal environment would not reduce the need for abortions, it would be guaranteed to increase the number of women and girls seeking clandestine and unsafe abortions, particularly for people of color and those living in poverty, and would fuel abortion stigma, leading to abuse of people in need of post-abortion care. They added: The decision to continue a pregnancy or terminate it must fundamentally and primarily be a woman’s decision as it will shape her whole future personal life and family life. The right of a woman to make autonomous decisions about her own body and reproductive functions is at the very core of her fundamental right to equality, non-discrimination, health, and privacy. As our submission details below, the restrictive environment around abortion in the US now also violates the rights to life and to be free of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT), as well as rights to free expression and movement, as guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

On Friday, April 7, 2023, Texas-based U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk delivered his decision in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al, ruling that mifepristone should be pulled from the market. On Wednesday, April 12, 2023, a three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals partly overruled Kacsmaryk’s decision, stating that the FDA’s approval of mifepristone remains valid while also ruling to reinstate medically unnecessary restrictions to accessing the medication.  This decision could result in a devastating, nationwide ban on mifepristone — even in states where abortion is legally protected — and compromise access to medication abortion across the country. USOW and our partners across the country are mobilizing behind a united message to our judiciary: reverse this harmful decision, respect science, and uphold the law. Read the full brief

Executive Summary Following the United States (US) Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, people in the US who can become pregnant are facing an unprecedented human rights crisis. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court overturned the constitutionally protected right to access abortion, leaving the question of whether and how to regulate abortion to individual states. Approximately 22 million women and girls of reproductive age in the US now live in states where abortion access is heavily restricted, and often totally inaccessible. This briefing paper details the intensifying human rights emergency caused by the decision, and discusses the ways that Dobbs contravenes the US’ international human rights obligations. The consequences of the Dobbs decision are wide ranging. Restrictions on access to healthcare places women’s lives and health at risk, leading to increased maternal mortality and morbidity, a climate of fear among healthcare providers, and reduced access to all forms of care. Dobbs also enables penalization and criminalization of healthcare, with providers, patients, and third parties at risk of prosecution or civil suit for their involvement in private healthcare decisions. Relatedly, the decision opens the door to widespread infringement of privacy rights as digital surveillance is expanded to detect violations of new regulations. New bans also infringe on freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, restricting the ability of physicians to counsel patients and clergy to provide pastoral care to their congregants. Finally, the harms of Dobbs violate principles of equality and non-discrimination; they fall disproportionately on marginalized populations including Black, indigenous, and people of color; people with disabilities; immigrants; and those living in poverty. By overturning the established constitutional protection for access to abortion and through the passage of restrictive state laws, the US is in violation of its obligations under international law, codified in a number of human rights treaties to which it is a party or a signatory. These human rights obligations include, but are not limited to, the rights to: life; health; privacy; liberty and security of person; to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief; equality and non-discrimination; and to seek, receive, and impart information. A version of this briefing paper was submitted to UN special procedures mandate holders in March 2023. The submission, cosigned by nearly 200 human rights, reproductive justice, and other concerned groups and individuals, requested urgent action from the UN mandate holders to examine the situation, engage with civil society, and call on the US to uphold its international human rights obligations. Less than a year on from this catastrophic legal decision, it is now apparent that the consequences are even worse than feared. Women and girls in need of reproductive healthcare are being met with systematic refusals, onerous financial burdens, stigma, fear of violence, and criminalization. Thousands are being forced to remain pregnant against their will. Part II of this briefing paper outlines the consequences of Dobbs on the fundamental human rights of women and girls, as well as the disproportionate impact it has on certain demographics made vulnerable by systemic oppressions. This factual summary includes input from physicians in various states as part of fact-gathering efforts conducted by a number of organizations involved in this submission. Part III discusses the ways in which Dobbs contravenes the US’ international obligations. Part IV sets forth our Conclusion and Calls to Action.

Executive Summary Following the United States (US) Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, people residing in the US who can become pregnant are facing a human rights crisis. This urgent appeal to United Nations (UN) mandate holders, supported by a coalition of 196 signatories, details these intensifying harms, discusses the ways in which Dobbs contravenes the US’ international obligations, and sets forth calls to action. With the Dobbs decision, the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutionally protected right to access abortion, leaving the question of whether and how to regulate abortion to individual states. Approximately 22 million women and girls of reproductive age in the US now live in states where abortion access is heavily restricted, and often totally inaccessible. The harms of the Dobbs decision detailed in this appeal include: the impact on women’s lives and health; the penalization of healthcare, including criminalization; threats to privacy from increased digital surveillance; infringement on freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief; and the disproportionate impact on marginalized populations.  By overturning the established constitutional protection for access to abortion and through the passage of state laws, the US is in violation of its obligations under international human rights law, codified in a number of human rights treaties to which it is a party or a signatory. These human rights obligations include, but are not limited to, the rights to: life; health; privacy; liberty and security of person; to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief; equality and non-discrimination; and to seek, receive, and impart information. The signatories call on the UN mandate holders to take up their calls to action, which include communicating with the US regarding the human rights violations, requesting a visit to the US, convening a virtual stakeholder meeting with US civil society, calls for the US to comply with its obligations under international law, and calls for private companies to take a number of actions to protect reproductive rights.

Dear Colleagues: As our country continues to grapple with and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic instability it caused, women, people of all marginalized genders, and their families continue to bear the burden of that recovery. Making matters worse, we continue to see historic attacks – physical and legislative – against women, the LGBTQIA+ community, immigrants, people with disabilities, and people of color. While one of the most egregious of these attacks was the stripping of the constitutional right to abortion – a Supreme Court decision that has already impacted millions and will continue to have far-reaching implications for our country – the attacks and risks we’re facing extend far beyond the Dobbs decision. The outcome of the 2022 midterms was history-defying for a reason: It was driven by a broad demand to protect the rights of women and childbearing people. Given the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination that women and all people of marginalized genders face, in particular Black women and other women and gender-expansive people of color, the 118th Congress has a responsibility and a duty to make gender equity and justice a top priority in its upcoming session. The undersigned gender equity organizations urge Members of Congress of both parties to prioritize the following policy issues: Read the Full Letter

Dear Governor Hochul, Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins, and State Senators: As organizations, advocates, and scholars who work and write on issues of reproductive and gender justice, we are deeply troubled by the nomination of Justice Hector LaSalle to serve as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. At a moment when the federal courts have gutted rights to reproductive autonomy, New York’s highest court should be a defender of New Yorkers’ reproductive and gender freedoms, not an ally in their diminution. Given his record, which includes curtailing a New York Attorney General investigation into predatory crisis pregnancy centers — a key weapon of the anti-abortion movement — we have grave concerns for a Court of Appeals headed by Justice LaSalle. We urge the New York Senate to reject his nomination and the Governor to nominate a jurist who will safeguard the rights of New Yorkers.