główne PUNKTY

1

Representatives of bodies operating within the framework of the UN Human Rights Council issued a joint statement on the occasion of World Contraception Day and International Safe Abortion Day, calling, among other things, for ensuring access to so-called comprehensive abortion care and for states to “adequately fund sexual and reproductive health services.”

2

Subsequently, the ambassadors, envoys, and governments of twelve states – including nine EU member states – published a diplomatic statement calling for the adoption of laws making it easier to perform abortions and supporting efforts to decriminalize it.

3

Neither the experts’ statement nor the states’ statement mentions the unborn child, and no binding universal treaty establishes a so-called right to abortion.

4

Non-binding expert opinions and guidelines of international organizations are now becoming the basis for governments’ foreign policy, to which specific funds are allocated, such as the €33 million provided by the Netherlands for a program supporting “reproductive and sexual rights” in African and Asian countries.

5

Poland will be subject to the Review in 2027.

 

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has published a joint statement by representatives of six special procedures mandates (independent experts, special rapporteurs, and working groups) of the Human Rights Council, titled “Sexual and reproductive health and rights must be protected from polarization, regression and underfunding.” The document appeared on September 25, on the eve of two “holidays”: World Contraception Day (September 26) and International Safe Abortion Day (September 28). Its signatories included the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mariângela Batista Galvão Simão; the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls; and the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Graeme Reid. Notably, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, is not among the signatories.

What are the experts demanding?

The statement describes so-called sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) as fundamental human rights threatened by “restrictive” laws, disinformation, stigma, and cuts in funding for health systems and international assistance. The signatories point to particularly vulnerable groups – among them adolescent girls, women living in poverty, migrant women, and refugee women, as well as “trans and gender-diverse persons” and “persons with innate variations of sex characteristics.” They call on states to ensure access to “modern contraceptive methods,” “emergency contraception,” and so-called comprehensive abortion care; to remove legal and practical barriers; to combat stigma; to support civil society organizations; and to adequately fund “services” in this area.

Some of the diagnoses – concerning the protection of medical facilities and personnel during armed conflicts, access to maternal care, and the prevention of perinatal mortality – are hard to dispute. However, the fact that the statement weaves them into a single narrative with the demand to expand access to abortion, which it presents as a condition of equality and “reproductive autonomy,” while portraying unwanted pregnancy as a source of “profound physical and mental suffering,” should not go without comment.

“Soft law” instead of a treaty

The document is not a legally binding act. The statement’s footnote states plainly that the special rapporteurs and independent experts serve in their individual capacity and are not UN staff, and that the views presented do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR. Moreover, no binding universal treaty establishes a so-called right to abortion. Even the 1994 Cairo Program of Action – a “soft law” document, not a treaty – states that in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning, and that any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level, according to the national legislative process.

The statement poses several fundamental threats:

  1. Non-binding expert opinions are presented as the content of states’ “obligations” and are then invoked by governments as “international human rights standards” – in place of binding treaty commitments to which states have consented.
  2. The concept of “retrogression” suggests that any change in the law that restricts access to abortion is a violation of human rights, which in practice deprives parliaments of the possibility of democratically correcting legislation.
  3. The statement invokes the right to life in support of the demand for access to abortion, yet does not contain a single mention of the unborn child.
  4. Ideologically charged categories with no basis in binding international law, such as “persons with innate variations of sex characteristics” or “reproductive justice,” are being introduced into the language of UN documents.

Twelve states: from “soft law” to foreign policy

Three days after the experts’ statement – on September 28 – a diplomatic statement issued on the occasion of so-called International Safe Abortion Day by the ambassadors, envoys, and governments of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom was published on the website of the Dutch government. Nine of the signatories are member states of the European Union. Poland is not on the list.

The signatories consider access to “safe, timely and affordable abortion care” key to the realization of bodily autonomy, gender equality, human rights, democracy, and universal health coverage. They invoke the position of the World Health Organization (WHO), according to which restrictive laws lead to increased maternal mortality and to human rights violations, and they call for the adoption of laws and policies that facilitate access to abortion “in line with WHO guidelines and international human rights standards.” They also stress the importance of movements and human rights defenders working to advance the decriminalization of abortion and “the right to access abortion care,” whose work should be protected and supported.

The two documents share more than their publication date. Both repeat the same set of concepts: women and girls “in all their diversity,” bodily autonomy, and support for human rights defenders. At the same time, the governments refer to “international human rights standards” and to WHO guidelines, which to a large extent consist of non-binding opinions of experts and international organizations. This creates a circuit in which “soft law” justifies governments’ positions, and governments’ positions in turn legitimize so-called soft law.

Like the experts’ document, the states’ statement makes no mention of the unborn child or of the child’s right to life. Instead, it uses the language of “the right to access abortion care,” even though no such right derives from any binding universal treaty.

From declarations to money

The call for “adequate funding” does not remain in the realm of declarations. The Dutch government lists so-called safe abortion and sex education among the priorities of its development policy, and in August 2026 the Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Sjoerd Sjoerdsma, together with eleven Dutch non-governmental organizations, launched the SRHR Next Alliance – a program funded with €33 million and covering Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Niger, Mali, Kenya, Uganda, Lebanon, and Jordan. Its focus is not only on “improving and promoting SRHR services, SRHR information and education,” but also on “strengthening societal and political support for SRHR.”

Statements, diplomacy, and the funding of non-governmental organizations thus all work in the same direction: entrenching a particular understanding of “reproductive rights” – including in states that have opted for different legal solutions at the national level. In this context, the question of the principle of subsidiarity and of states’ sovereignty in shaping family policy and the protection of life is no longer a purely theoretical one.

Health protection as a pretext for pushing the abortion agenda

Protecting women’s health, caring for mothers, and ensuring the safety of medical personnel in conflict zones are goals that deserve the support of all states. However, the UN experts’ statement, the joint position of twelve states, and the funding initiatives that accompany them show that, under the banner of health protection, the demand that abortion be recognized as a human right is being promoted today – without a treaty basis, without regard for the life of the unborn child, and in disregard of the decisions that states take democratically on this issue. The tension between international solidarity and the sovereign right of nations to decide on the protection of life will be one of the main areas of dispute at the UN in the coming years.

When a non-binding statement by experts, governments’ diplomatic positions, non-governmental organizations funded from state budgets, and the language of “reproductive rights” begin to work in the same direction, the result is pressure that can no longer be called neutral health assistance. Ordo Iuris has pointed out for years that the right to life belongs to every human being from conception, and that the shape of legislation in this area should be decided by states and their citizens, not by international expert bodies. Member states, including Poland, should firmly oppose attempts to present abortion as part of human rights and to make development aid conditional on accepting such an interpretation.

Julia Książek – analyst at the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law

See also:

Source of cover photo: iStock

Support us