MAIN POINTS
1
In Geneva, a resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council concerning maternal mortality and perinatal care is currently being negotiated that should be voted on today.
2
The text contains numerous references to abortion and sex education.
3
The signatories to the resolution – Colombia, Estonia, and New Zealand – ignored an objection raised by a group of states during hours-long negotiations.
4
In the African region, only Nigeria and Egypt, as well as Algeria acting on behalf of the Group of Arab States, voiced opposition, while the remaining countries tacitly accept the ideological provisions.
Currently being negotiated in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council resolution on maternal mortality and perinatal care—”Preventable Maternal Mortality and Morbidity” (PMMM)—was intended to address the real issue of maternal health and reduce perinatal mortality rates. A document accessed by the Ordo Iuris Institute that could serve as a tool for building international cooperation in the area of improving health care has, however, been laden with a series of ideological formulations, including multiple references to abortion, “sexual and reproductive rights” (SRHR), “bodily autonomy,” as well as to so-called comprehensive sexuality education (CSE). Despite the requests of many countries, the signatories to the resolution—Colombia, Estonia, and New Zealand—did not include any significant amendments limiting the document’s ideological elements. After about ten hours of negotiations, the new wording of the draft retained all of the most controversial phrasing.
The content of the draft resolution is based on a series of earlier United Nations documents, including the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). This program, however, unequivocally rejects abortion as a method of family planning and recommends that states undertake efforts to limit it. On the other hand, the UN Human Rights Council’s current draft resolution explicitly states that states are obliged to ensure universal access to so-called sexual and reproductive rights (including abortion), as well as to comprehensive sex education, whose curricula, in accordance with WHO guidelines and UNESCO guidelines, include content promoting early sexual initiation and the redefinition of gender norms. The document also contains provisions on “bodily autonomy” and “the right to have control over and to decide freely and responsibly on matters relating to sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health.”
Such far-reaching statements in practice amount to an attempt to create new “human rights” that have no basis in any binding international treaty. No universally binding instrument of international law establishes abortion as a human right. On the contrary, in the UN’s practice to date, it has been repeatedly confirmed that issues concerning the protection of life before birth remain within the purview of individual states and are subject to their sovereign decisions. Nevertheless, the Human Rights Council’s resolution, although formally non-binding, may in the future serve as a basis for pressuring governments, reinterpreting existing treaties, and introducing legislative changes contrary to the constitutional guarantees of many countries.
“Attempts to impose controversial solutions under the pretext of fighting for human rights lead to the erosion of trust in international relations and pose a threat to the consensus on which the UN’s activities are based. A Human Rights Council resolution does not create law in the strict sense, but it often becomes part of so-called soft law, which is subsequently used in the practice of treaty bodies and international courts as an interpretation of applicable norms. Consequently, this may lead to a gradual change in the understanding of international law contrary to the intentions and sovereign decisions of states,” notes Julia Książek of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.
Furthermore, the negotiation process has proceeded in a way that raises serious concerns. During the first reading, which concluded on September 20, states submitted numerous amendments and objections regarding the language of the resolution. There were calls to remove references to abortion, SRHR, and CSE. However, the signatories rejected all proposals and announced that they would maintain the existing wording. The resolution was scheduled to be adopted on October 6. The Human Rights Council’s practice to date indicates that one should not expect the key demands of countries opposing ideological provisions to be taken into account.
The stance of African countries is particularly worrisome. In a region that experiences the highest perinatal mortality rates and should be especially focused on real solutions to improve health care, only Nigeria, Egypt, and Algeria consistently oppose the resolution’s ideological language. However, the latter spoke not only on its own behalf but also on behalf of the Group of Arab States. For the remaining countries—including Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Burundi, Ethiopia, Sudan, Benin, and the Ivory Coast—if they do not take a firm stance, this will mean their consent to the inclusion in the document of terms not recognized under international law. The absence of objection on the part of these countries will be interpreted as tacit approval, and consequently as the legitimization of the promotion of abortion and sex education under the banner of combating maternal mortality. Importantly, Algeria, acting on behalf of the Group of Arab States, submitted four amendments to the resolution regarding CSE, SRHR, and “bodily autonomy,” including amendment 41: “access to health-related education and information including scientifically accurate and age-appropriate education on sexual and reproductive health that is relevant to cultural contexts”, and further: “scientifically accurate and age-appropriate education that is relevant to cultural contexts, that provides adolescent girls and boys and young women and men, in and out of school, consistent with their evolving capacities, and with appropriate direction and guidance from parents and legal guardians.”
Members of the Human Rights Council — including the aforementioned African states — will vote on these amendments at the beginning of this week (between Monday and Wednesday), marking a critical moment in the discussion on the language of the resolution.
The resolution also contains numerous references to “the removal of legal barriers,” “access to health services,” and “the right to bodily autonomy.” The draft resolution, to which the Ordo Iuris Institute has had access, explicitly states: “ Recognizing that sexual and reproductive health and rights are integral to the realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and that comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and services must have the interrelated and essential elements of availability, accessibility (including economic accessibility), acceptability and quality, based on non-discrimination and formal and substantive equality, including by addressing multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination…” In practice, these provisions can be used to challenge legal regulations that protect the lives of the unborn, such as constitutional guarantees of the right to life. At the same time, the document does not focus on the actual causes of high perinatal mortality, such as the lack of medical infrastructure, a shortage of doctors, or a lack of access to clean water and basic medicines. Instead of real action for maternal health, the draft resolution emphasizes ideological demands that have been the subject of disputes within the UN system for years.
“We are witnessing another example of the instrumentalization of human rights by UN institutions. Instead of taking genuine action to improve maternal health, attempts are being made to introduce into international law concepts such as a supposed right to abortion and “the right to bodily autonomy,” which have no basis in binding treaties. No universal international law instrument recognizes abortion as a human right. Attempts to promote them violate the principle of state sovereignty, under which states have exclusive authority to shape family and health policy. In practice, this means marginalizing the voices of countries that protect life and weakening international dialogue. This phenomenon is particularly dangerous because it leads to the erosion of international law and the undermining of the unity of the international community,” notes Julia Książek.
See also:
Source of cover photo: iStock
