Background Guide- Human Rights Council Topic 1: Abortion laws The abortion debate refers to discussion and controversy

surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion. The two main groups involved in the abortion debate are the selfdescribed "pro-choice" movement (emphasizing the right of women to choose whether they wish to bring a fetus to term) and the self-described "pro-life" movement (emphasizing the right of the unborn child to be born). Both of these are considered loaded terms in general media where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti abortion" are preferred. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position. In some cases, the abortion debate has led to the use of violence. Abortion law varies between jurisdictions. For example, in Canada abortion is available on demand, while in Ireland abortions are illegal. The debate over whether or not abortion should be a legal option continues to divide Americans long after the US Supreme Courts 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade (342 KB) [49] declared the procedure a "fundamental right on Jan. 22, 1973. Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice, contend that abortion is a right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or fetus. They argue that pregnant women will resort to unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option. Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, assert that personhood begins at conception, and therefore abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to adopt. Variations exist in arguments on both sides of the debate. Some pro-choice proponents believe abortion should only be used as a last resort, while others advocate unrestricted access to abortion services under any circumstance. Pro-life positions range from opposing abortion under any circumstance to accepting it for situations of rape, incest, or when a woman's life is at risk. Some prominent pro-choice organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL ProChoice America, the National Abortion Federation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Organization for Women. Although many pro-life positions derive from religious ideology, several mainstream faith groups support the pro-choice movement, such as the United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. The 2008 Democratic Party Platform (435 KB) [55] endorsed the pro-choice position, stating, "[We] strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade and a womans right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." However, approximately 35% of Democrats consider themselves pro-life. [8]

Some prominent pro-life organizations include The National Right to Life Committee, Pro-Life Action League, Operation Rescue, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Americans United for Life, the National Association of Evangelicals, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition of America, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church). [6] The 2008 Republican Party Platform (861 KB) [56] opposed abortion stating, "[A]t its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life." However, about 30% of Republicans are pro-choice. [7]

Bob Englehart's 1981 political cartoon "When Does Life Begin?," originally published by The Hartford Courant 2009 Gallup poll on abortion attitudes revealed that 51% of Americans consider themselves pro-life and 42% pro-choice. It was the first time since 1995, when the poll first started, that a majority of Americans identified as pro-life, and it was the first time since 2000 that more people were pro-life than pro-choice. [9] Surgical abortion (aka suction curettage or vacuum curettage) is the most common type of abortion procedure. It involves using a suction device to remove the contents of a pregnant woman's uterus. The second most common abortion procedure, a medical abortion (aka an "abortion pill"), involves taking medications, usually mifepristone and misoprostol (aka RU-486), within the first seven to nine weeks of pregnancy to induce an abortion. [39] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the majority (62%) of abortions performed in 2006 were performed at less than eight weeks of gestation. [40]

In 1821, Connecticut became the first state to criminalize abortion. It banned the selling of an abortion-inducing poison to women, but it did not punish the women who took the

poison. Legal consequences for women began in 1845 when New York criminalized a woman's participation in her abortion. [41] By the early 1900s, influenced primarily by physicians fearing its safety, most states had banned abortion. By 1965, all 50 states had outlawed abortion, with some exceptions varying by state. [42] Federal action on abortion didn't occur until Roe v. Wade, which declared most state antiabortion laws unconstitutional. The high courts 7-2 decision established rules based on a pregnancy trimester framework, banning legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy, and allowing states to regulate abortion during the second trimester (weeks 13-28) and third trimester (weeks 29-40), but only when "related to maternal health." Immediately following Roe v. Wade, pro-life proponents pushed for federal legislation that would restrict abortion. In 1976, Congress passed the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services) which included an amendment ending Medicaid funding for abortions. Known as the "Hyde Amendment," this provision banning federal funding for abortions has been renewed with various revisions every year since its inception. On June 29, 1992 the US Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (100 KB) [57] (5-4) upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion, but it abandoned the trimester framework outlined in Roe v. Wade and adopted a less restrictive standard for state regulations

Demonstrators holding pro-choice and pro-life signs Source: "New Pew Poll Shows Support for Legal Abortion Drops to Lowest Level in 15 Years," LifeNews.com, Apr. 29, 2009From Roe v. Wade through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions were performed - an average of about 1.3 million abortions per year (1.6 million in 1990, 1.2 million in 2005). [1] [65] One out of five pregnancies end in abortion, women aged 20-29 receive 55% of all abortions, and 40% of all women have an abortion by the age of 45. [2] [3] The US abortion rate fell 29% between 1990 and 2005, from 27.4 to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age, before leveling out from 2005-2008, according to a Mar. 2011 Guttmacher Institute study (506 KB) . [65] The National Right-to-Life Committee said increased promotion of RU-486 as a

"safe and simple" option was responsible for ending the decline in abortion rates. Prochoice groups attributed it to increased economic pressures facing poor women, who chose to undergo abortions rather than face the cost of raising a child. [66]

On Nov. 5, 2003, after passing in the US House of Representatives (281-142) and the US Senate (64-34), the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (167 KB) [58] was signed into law by President George W. Bush. This federal legislation banned physicians from providing intact dilation and extraction (aka "partial-birth" abortion), a late-term (after 21 weeks gestation) method which comprised 0.17% of abortion procedures in 2000. [43] The act defines a "partial-birth abortion" as "an abortion in which the [provider] deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until... the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or... any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." Pro-choice advocates challenged the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003; however, the Apr. 18, 2007 US Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Carhart/Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (383 KB) [59] upheld the act, ruling (5-4) that it did not impose "an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion." Although there are about 1,800 abortion providers in the United States, 87% of US counties do not provide abortion services. [44] Between 1982 and 2000, the number of abortion providers declined by about 38%. [45] Pro-choice advocates believe increased clinic violence contributed to this downward trend. The National Abortion Federation, a professional association of abortion practitioners, estimates that over 200 arson and bombing incidents were committed against abortion clinics between 1996-2007. Additionally, nine abortion physicians have been murdered between 1993 and 2009. [46] Mainstream pro-life leaders and organizations have publicly denounced extremism against abortion providers and clinics.

The topic of abortion flared in the 2010 US Congress health care debate. Abortion opponents in both the House of Representatives and the Senate did not want recipients of insurance subsidies to use federal funding for abortions. Pro-choice proponents argued that abortion should not be treated differently than other health care services. The health

care reform bill passed its final congressional vote (219-212) in the House of Representatives on Mar. 21, 2010 and on Mar. 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2.2 MB) . [62] The following day, Mar. 24, 2010, the president signed an executive order (14.5 KB) [63] "to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services," re-affirming Hyde Amendment restrictions in the new health care legislation. State abortion measures sparked public attention in 2010 and 2011. On Apr. 13, 2010, Nebraska's Republican Governor Dave Heineman signed a law banning abortions at or after 20 weeks gestation on the theory that a fetus can feel pain by that point in pregnancy. The law was the first in the US to restrict abortions based on fetal pain. [47] On Apr. 27, 2010, the Oklahoma legislature signed a law requiring pregnant women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus's heart, limbs, and organs. While other states have passed laws requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Oklahoma's law was the first that required women to watch the monitor and listen to a detailed description of the fetus. [48] On Mar. 29, 2011, Arizona became the first state to criminalize abortions based on the sex or race of a fetus. The bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Jan Brewer, was opposed by Democrats, who said there was little evidence that sex- or race-selection abortions were taking place in the state. [64] Pro & Con Arguments: "Should abortion be legal?" PRO Legal Abortion CON Legal Abortion 1. A woman's right to choose abortion is a 1. Unborn babies are innocent human beings "fundamental right" recognized by the from the moment of conception. They US Supreme Court in the Jan. 22, 1973 have a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. case Roe v. Wade (342 KB) . [49] 2. A fetus is not a human being. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not a baby. Personhood at conception is not a proven biological fact. Personhood begins at birth. 3. Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when an abortion is performed according to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England). "Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur." [10] 2. The Sixth Commandment of the Bible's Old Testament (Exodus 20:13) is "Thou shalt not kill." Abortion involves killing a human being and defies a commandment from God. [23] 3. Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain." [24] 4. The original text of the Hippocratic Oath,

4. Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe illegal abortions. The World Health Organization estimated in 2006 that "back-alley" abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths each year in countries where abortion is not legal. [11]

5. The anti-abortion position is usually a religious belief and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious ideology should not be a foundation for 5. The Declaration of Independence (33 KB) law in the United States. [51] states that "[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed 6. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The by their Creator with certain risk of a womans death from abortion is unalienable Rights, that among these less than one in 100,000. [12] Whereas, are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of the risk of a woman dying from giving Happiness." Allowing abortion birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 directly contradicts the Founding pregnancies. [13] Furthermore, a 1993 Fathers' intentions for an inalienable fertility investigation of 10,767 women right to life in this country. by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and Royal College of 6. Women should use contraceptives, not Obstetricians and Gynecologists found abortion, to prevent unwanted that women who had at least two pregnancies. A Centers for Disease abortions experienced the same future Control and Prevention (CDC) study fertility as those who had at least two showed that 19-25% of women who natural pregnancies. [14] received abortions in 2006 had 7. Access to abortion is necessary because previously had one or more abortions. contraceptives are not always easily (474 KB) [52] If abortion were available. Women need doctor not available, women would not be so prescriptions to buy many birth control careless. methods, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, and the diaphragm. About half of all large group-insurance plans do not 7. Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2002 peer-reviewed study published cover any form of prescription contraception, and only a third cover the by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women birth control pill. A July/Aug. 2001 Guttmacher Institute study of health care found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide insurers found that 75% of insured women lacked coverage for than women who carried to term. [26] An Apr. 1998 Journal of Social and contraceptive services. [15] As of 2009, 17 million US women are completely Clinical Psychology study on men whose partners had abortions found uninsured. [16] that 51.6% of the men reported regret,

the oath that doctors traditionally take when swearing to practice medicine ethically, forbids abortions. One section of the oath reads: "I will not give a woman a pessary [a device inserted into the vagina] to cause an abortion." The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath written in 1964 by Luis Lasagna also forbids abortion in its line, "Above all, I must not play at God." [25]

8. The American Medical Association (AMA) 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% recognizes abortion as a medical experienced depression. [27] procedure if performed by a licensed physician in conformance with good 8. There is a lack of adoptable babies because medical practice standards. There are abortion is legal. Over two million about 1,800 licensed physicians who couples are waiting to adopt babies, provide abortions in the United States. and only 134,000 US children are These doctors, not politicians, should available to be adopted as of June have the authority to make medical 2002. [28] [29] The percentage of decisions regarding abortion. [17] infants given up for adoption has declined from 9% of those born before 9. Abortion gives couples the option to choose 1973 to 1% of those born between not to birth babies with severe and life1996 and 2002 (447 KB) . [53] threatening medical conditions. Fragile Instead of having the option to abort, X syndrome, the most common genetic women should give their unwanted form of mental retardation, affects about babies to people who can not 1 in 4,000 males and 1 in 8,000 females. biologically conceive. One in 800 babies have Down Syndrome, and one in 3,500 babies are 9. Selective abortion based on genetic born with Cystic Fibrosis. [18] It is not abnormalities (eugenic termination) is right to sentence a child to life with an overt discrimination. Physical acute handicap. limitations don't make those with disabilities less than human. The 10. A Sep. 2005 survey in the peer-reviewed Americans with Disabilities Act of journal Perspectives on Sexual and 1990 (110 KB) [54] provides the Reproductive Health asking women why civil rights protection needed for they had an abortion found that 73% of people born with disabilities to lead participants said they could not afford to fulfilled lives. have a baby, and 38% claimed giving birth would interfere with their Abortion is an instrument of genocide education and career goals. 10. against African Americans. Black Reproductive choice helps prevent women are 4.5 times as likely as white women from experiencing financial women to have an abortion. [30] 1,876 harm. [19] black babies are aborted every day. 11. Motherhood must never be a punishment Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the US. In less than for having sexual intercourse. President Barack Obama said in a Mar. 29, 2008 three days in 2010 more black babies are killed by abortionists. [31] campaign speech in Johnston, Pennsylvania, "I have two daughters... The abortion industry makes an I'm going to teach them first about 11. values and morals, but if they make a estimated $831 million annually. [32] An abortion can cost anywhere from mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." around $350 to more than $1,000. [33] Abortion entrepreneurs are more 12. Abortion lowers crime. Some estimates interested in making money than

13.

claim that legalized abortion accounted for as much as 50% of the drop in murder, property crime, and violent 12. crime between 1973 and 2001. Teenage girls, unmarried women, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies. Unwanted babies are often raised poor, increasing their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood. [20] 13. A baby should not come into this world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended (159 KB) . [50] Birthing children is an important lifelong decision that requires responsible consideration, preparation, and planning.

assisting their clients. Abortion eliminates the potential societal contributions of a future human being. The US would be an entirely different country if the mothers of our nations heroes, great presidents, scientists, athletes, and others had chosen abortion. Abortion increases the likelihood of future miscarriages. A June 2003 study published by the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology estimated that about 15% of firsttrimester miscarriages are attributed to prior history of induced abortion. [34] Abortion increases the likelihood that women will develop breast cancer. In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for a woman to milk her child. When the process is interrupted by abortion, immature cells are left in the woman's breasts, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer. [35] Since 2006, eight medical organizations including the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, the Catholic Medical Association, and the National Physicians Center for Family Resources have recognized the connection between abortion and breast cancer. [36] The 2001 claim by Freakonomics author Steven Levitt that abortion reduces crime is flawed. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found coding errors in Levitts research. In response to their revelation, Levitt apologized and said on Nov. 28, 2005 that he was "personally embarrassed" about his errors. [37] [38]

14.

14.

15.

Abortion should be legal because it is an effective tool in population control. Malnutrition, starvation, poverty, lack of medical and educational services, pollution, underdevelopment, and conflict over resources are all consequences of overpopulation. [21] The science behind the theory that abortion increases the likelihood that women will develop breast cancer is unsubstantiated. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have all refuted 15. the reliability of studies claiming an association between breast cancer and abortion. [22]

Religious views on Abortion

Buddhism There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion.[ Traditional sources, such as the Buddhist monastic code, hold that life begins at conception and that abortion, which would then involve the deliberate destruction of life, should be rejected. Many Buddhists also subscribe to this view. Complicating the issue is the Buddhist belief that "life is a continuum with no discernible starting point". The Dalai Lama has said that abortion is "negative," but there are exceptions. He said, "I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance." While traditional sources do not seem to be aware of the possibility of abortion as relevant to the health of the mother, modern Buddhist teachers from many traditions and abortion laws in many Buddhist countries recognize a threat to the life or physical health of the mother as an acceptable justification for abortion as a practical matter, though it may still be seen as a deed with negative moral or karmic consequences.[4] Christianity The intersection of Christianity and abortion has a long and complex history though there is no mention of abortion in the Christian Bible, and there is scholarly disagreement on how early Christians felt about abortion. Contemporary Christian denominations have nuanced positions, thoughts and teachings about abortion, especially in extenuating circumstances. The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, and most evangelical Protestants oppose deliberate abortion as immoral, while allowing what is sometimes called indirect abortion, namely, an action that does not seek the death of the foetus as an end or a means but that is followed by the death as a side effect. Some mainline Protestant denominations such as the Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, among others, are more permissive of abortion. More generally, some Christian denominations can be considered pro-life while others may be considered pro-choice. Additionally, there are sizable minorities in all denominations that disagree with their denomination's stance on abortion, an example of which is the group Catholics for a Free Choice. Hinduism Classical Hindu texts strongly condemn abortion. The British Broadcasting Corporation writes, "When considering abortion, the Hindu way is to choose the action that will do least harm to all involved: the mother and father, the foetus and society." The BBC goes on to state, "In practice, however, abortion is practiced in Hindu culture in India, because the religious ban on abortion is sometimes overruled by the cultural preference for sons. This can lead to abortion to prevent the birth of girl babies, which is called 'female foeticide'." Hindu scholars and women's rights advocates have supported bans on sex-selective abortions. Some Hindus support abortion in cases where the

mother's life is at imminent risk or when the foetus has a life threatening developmental anomaly. Some Hindu theologians and Brahma Kumaris believe personhood begins at three months and develops through to five months of gestation, possibly implying permitting abortion up to the third month and considering any abortion past the third month to be destruction of the soul's current incarnate body. Islam Although there are different opinions among Islamic scholars about when life begins and when abortion is permissible, most agree that the termination of a pregnancy after 120 days the point at which, in Islam, a fetus is thought to become a living soul is not permissible .Several Islamic thinkers contend that in cases prior to four months of gestation, abortion should be permissible only in instances in which the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape Judaism Orthodox Jewish teachings sanction abortion as a means of safeguarding the life of the woman. While the Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative movements openly advocate for the right to a safe and accessible abortion, the Orthodox movement is less unified on the issue. In Judaism, views on abortion draw primarily upon the legal and ethical teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, the case-by-case decisions of response, and other rabbinic literature. In the modern period, moreover, Jewish thinking on abortion has responded both to liberal understandings of personal autonomy as well as Christian opposition to abortion. Generally speaking, orthodox Jews oppose abortion, with few health-related exceptions, and reform and conservative Jews tend to allow greater latitude for abortion. There are rulings that often appear conflicting on the matter. The Talmud states that a fetus is not legally a person until it is delivered. The Torah contains the law that "when men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results but no other misfortune, the one responsible shall be fined...but if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life (nefesh) for life (nefesh)." (Ex.21:22-25); causing an abortion on an unwilling woman is thus a crime, but not because the foetus is considered a person. According to the British Broadcasting Corporation, "Judaism does not forbid abortion, but it does not permit abortion on demand. Abortion is only permitted for serious reasons. Judaism expects every case [related to abortion] to be considered on its own merits and the decision to be taken after consultation with a rabbi competent to give advice on such matters." Sikhism Although the Sikh code of conduct does not deal directly with abortion (or indeed many other bioethical issues), it is generally forbidden in Sikhism because it is said to interfere with the creative work of God. Despite this theoretical viewpoint, abortion is not uncommon among the Sikh community in India, and there is growing concern that female foetuses are being aborted because of the cultural preference for sons.[

Debate over Paternal Rights

The abortion debate is not only about whether to allow abortion or not but also includes other aspects such as the requirement for fathers consent before performing abortion. Certain western nations have deemed it unnecessary to ask for the fathers consent before performing abortion or have at least given it less importance than the mothers consent. This has led to outcry from men and they have started demanding that they should have equal say in deciding the future of the child as the woman carrying the child does. Advocates of father's rights and members of the men's movement often argue that the valuing of maternal rights on the unborn child over paternal rights is an example of sexual discrimination. On the other hand several people argue that doing so will create complications as taking a decision in the conflict between the interests of the mother and the father would be tough if their consent is made equal. Women argue for Gender Equality by saying that they should be allowed to have an abortion without anyone elses consent because that will make allow them to walk away from parenthood whenever they want to. Governments that ban abortion arguably burden women with certain duties that men (who, too, are responsible for the pregnancy) are not also held accountable to, therefore, creating a double standard. Those who support a man's right to direct involvement argue that it is unreasonable that women are often given more options with regards to pregnancy and parenthood than men. Parenting authority Armin Brott has said of this, "A woman can legally deprive a man of his right to become a parent or force him to become one against his will". As a result, mens rights advocates such as Daniel Conley have argued that men should have veto power over their partners decisions to abort. Similarly, Philosopher George W. Harris has written that, if a man impregnates a woman with the explicit goal of having a child, in a manner that is mutually consensual, then it would be morally unacceptable for that woman to later have an abortion. However, bioethicist Jacob Appel has pointed out that if one grants a man veto power over a womans choice to have an abortion in cases where he is willing to pay for the child, why not grant him the right to demand an abortion where he is unwilling to provide for the child? In reference to those cases in which men who do not desire to become fathers have been required to pay child support, Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney, in her 1998 article, "The Male Abortion: The Putative Father's Right to Terminate His Interests in and Obligations to the Unborn Child," set forth the theory of the "male abortion," in which she argues that men should be able to terminate their legal obligations to unwanted children. In some cases, men that have been statutorily raped by women have been forced to pay child support to their rapists.

Those who object to men having a right to direct involvement argue that because it is the woman who carries the couple's unborn baby, her determination for or against abortion should be the definitive one. Marsha Garrison, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, stated that U.S. courts acknowledge "that embryo is in the woman's body; it is within her and can't be separated from her, so it's not just her decision-making about whether to bear a child, and its about her body". A 2002 United States Gallup special report mentions only 38% of the population being opposed to requiring the consent of the husband of a married woman for an abortion. In a 2003 Gallup poll, 72% of respondents were in favour of notification to the husband, with 26% opposed; of those polled, 79% of males and 67% of females responded in favour.[

This conflict has come up several times in the various abortion cases around the world some of these cases areIn China the husband of a woman who had an abortion filed a lawsuit against her in 2002 under a law intended to grant sexual equality in terms of childbearing and contraceptive decisions. The law stated that a woman has no overriding priority over her spouse in deciding whether to have a child. A number of legal cases have arisen in the Western world in which men have tried to prevent women with whom they had been sexually active from obtaining an abortion, all of which failed:

1978: William Paton of Liverpool, United Kingdom attempted to stop his separated wife, Joan, from undergoing an abortion in the 1978 case Paton v. Trustees of British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees. A judge ruled in his wife's favor and Mr. Paton's later request for a hearing before the European Court of Human Rights was also denied. 1987: Robert Carver of the United Kingdom tried to prevent an abortion in the 1987 case C v. S. He claimed that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act applied to the fetus, as, at the time, his ex-girlfriend was 21 weeks along. When the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal dismissed the case, it was brought before the House of Lords, where three Law Lords sided with the earlier decisions. The entire legal process took 36 hours, as the Health Authority refused to allow an abortion before a decision was reached, making it one of the fastest cases in the history of British law. Nonetheless, the woman involved chose to carry the pregnancy to term and gave the baby to Carver. 1989: Jean-Guy Tremblay of Quebec filed an injunction against his girlfriend, Chantal Daigle, in attempt to prevent her from obtaining an induced abortion in the 1989 Canadian case Tremblay v. Daigle. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled that there was no precedent for a man's right to protect his "potential progeny", as a fetus was not found to have a right to life under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

2001: Stephan Hone of Coventry, United Kingdom, unsuccessfully attempted to prevent his former girlfriend Claire Hansell from having an abortion.

History of Abortion
Abortion has been part of family planning since ancient times, with natural remedies being found amongst a wide variety of tribal people and in all our written sources. Our earliest texts contain no mention of abortion or abortion law. When it does appear, it is entailed in concerns about male property rights, preservation of social order, and the duty to produce fit citizens for the state or community. The harshest penalties were generally reserved for a woman who procured an abortion against her husband's wishes, and for slaves who produced abortion in a woman of high status. Religious texts often contained severe condemnations of abortion, recommending penance but seldom enforcing secular punishment. As a matter of common law in England and the United States, abortion was illegal anytime after quickening when the movements of the fetus could first be felt by the woman. Under the born alive rule, the fetus was not considered a "reasonable being" in rerum natura; and abortion was not treated as murder in English law. In the 19th century, many Western countries began to use statutes to codify or place further restrictions on abortion. Pro-life forces were led by a combination of conservative groups opposed to abortion on moral grounds, and by medical professionals who were concerned about the danger presented by the procedure and the regular involvement of non-medical personnel in performing abortions. It became clear in the following years, however, that illegal abortions continued to take place in large numbers even where abortions were expressly illegal.[] It was difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to prosecute the women and abortion doctors, and judges and juries were often reluctant to convict. Henry Morgentaler, for instance, was never convicted by a jury. (He was acquitted by a jury in the 1973 court case, but the acquittal was overturned by five judges on the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1974. He went to prison, appealed, and was again acquitted. In total, he served 10 months, suffering a heart attack while in solitary confinement.) Many[] were also outraged at the invasion of privacy and the medical problems resulting from abortions taking place illegally in medically dangerous circumstances. Political movements soon coalesced around the legalization of abortion and liberalization of existing laws. By the early 20th century, many countries had begun to legalize abortions when performed to protect the life of the woman, and in some cases to protect the health of the woman. Under Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union legalized all abortions in 1920, but this was fully reversed in 1936 by Joseph Stalin in order to increase population growth. In the 1930s, several countries (Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Mexico) legalized abortion in some special cases (rape, threat to mother's health, fetal malformation). In 1948 abortion was legalized in Japan, 1952 in Yugoslavia (on a limited basis) and 1955

in the Soviet Union (on demand). Some Soviet allies (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania) legalized abortion in the late fifties under Soviet pressure[]. The adoption of contraceptives in the 1950s and 1960s in Western countries resulted in comparatively few statutory changes on abortion law. In Great Britain, the Abortion Act of 1967 clarified and prescribed abortions as legal up to 28 weeks. However just as it was difficult to convict abortion providers it was also difficult for many countries to get the public support necessary for the elected government to legalize it, so countries like Canada and the United States legalized it by the will of the Supreme Court instead. Other countries soon followed, including Canada (1969), the United States (1973 in most states, pursuant to the federal Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion nationwide), Tunisia (1973), France (1975), Austria (1975), New Zealand (1977), Italy (1978), the Netherlands (1980) and Belgium (1990). However, these countries vary greatly in the circumstances under which abortion is permitted. In 1975, the West German Supreme Court struck down a law legalizing abortion, holding that they contradict the constitution's human rights guarantees. In 1976 a law was adopted which enabled abortions up to 12 weeks. After Germany's reunification, despite the legal status of abortion in the former East Germany, a compromise was reached which deemed most abortions up to 22 weeks legal. International law In addition to national and regional laws, there are treaties that may actually be enforced on or within their parties. However, there is an inherent difficulty in the enforcement of international law due to the issue that state sovereignty poses. As such, the effectiveness of even binding multi-national efforts to legislate the rights to life and liberty in general, or abortion in specific, is difficult to measure. National laws On average, the frequency of abortions is similar in developing countries (where abortion is generally restricted) to the frequency in developed countries (where abortion is generally much less restricted).[5][6] Abortion rates are very difficult to measure in locations where those abortions are illegal,[7] and pro-life groups have criticized researchers for allegedly jumping to conclusions about those numbers.[8] According to the Guttmacher Institute and the United Nations Population Fund, the abortion rate in developing countries is largely attributable to lack of access to modern contraceptives; assuming no change in abortion laws, providing that access to contraceptives would result in about 25 million fewer abortions annually, including almost 15 million fewer unsafe abortions.[3] Europe Abortion is legal in nearly every European country although there is a wide variation in the restrictions under which it is permitted.[16] Although nearly every European country makes abortion available on demand during the first trimester, when it comes to laterterm abortions, there are very few with laws as liberal as those of the United States.[17] Restrictions on abortion are most stringent in countries that are more strongly observant

of the Catholic faith.[16] Legal restrictions on later abortion As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.[23] In addition, another 44 of the 152 most populous countries generally banned late-term abortions after a particular gestational age: 12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the former Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and the United Kingdom [Northern Ireland excluded]).[23]

Topic 2: Violation of prisoners rights in various prison systems around the world Introduction Prisoner's Rights Law deals with the rights of inmates to civil and human rights. Rights include: the right to due processes; administrative appeals; right to access the parole process (denied to those incarcerated in the Federal System); right to practice religion freely; right to equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment); right to be notified of all charges against them; right to receive a written statement explaining evidence used in reaching a disposition; right to file a civil suit against another person; right to medical treatment (both long and short term); right to mental health treatment that is both adequate and appropriate; right to a hearing upon being relocated to the mental health facility; right to personal property (cigarettes, stationary, a watch, cosmetics, and snack-food); right to visitation; right to adequate food that would sustain an average person; the right to bathe and the right to not be punished cruelly or unusually. The issue: According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights no-one may be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or imprisonment. Detention is seen as arbitrary when there is no legal basis for detention or there are grave violations of the right to a fair trial. Detention and imprisonment which is lawful under national standards may be considered arbitrary under international standards. Under international human rights law, all defendants have the right to a fair trial. But in many countries throughout the world, detainees are held without due process and prisoners are convicted in trials where these safeguards have been ignored. In some instances people are held for long periods without trial. Human rights in prison Prisoners have basic rights that can't be taken away from them Prisoners have basic legal rights that cant be taken away from them. These include: o the right to food and water protection from bullying, violence and racial harassment being able to get in contact with a solicitor Prisoners should be given leaflets informing them about their rights when they arrive at prison.

A prisoner has the right to see a solicitor. The meeting takes place within the sight of a prison officer but out of their hearing range. Prisoners also have the right to phone or write to a solicitor. Telephone conversations and letters between the prisoner and their solicitor are private. Keeping in touch with someone in prison Violence or bullying in prison must be stopped. Prisoners have the right to feel safe. Prisoners who are being bullied, threatened or attacked should tell prison staff straight away. Disabled prisoners and rights must be given equal rights as any other prisoner. When a prisoner first arrives at prison they should be asked about the support they need and what reasonable adjustments the prison can make. Reasonable adjustments help disabled prisoners to use prison facilities and services, by providing things like: o handrails in the prison cell wheelchair ramps vibrating alarm clocks for prisoners who are deaf or hard of hearing o Help for prisoners with a mental health condition o Information for disabled people (disabled people section) Prisoners should be allowed to practice a faith or religion in prison. Staff should make sure theres a place where prisoners can go for prayers or religious meetings. All prisons should: o respect dates and times for prayer, religious services and festivals provide vegetarian, Halal and Kosher food Rights to healthcare: o A prisoner has the right to the same healthcare as anyone outside of prison. All prisons have healthcare teams to look after prisoners and many prisons have hospitals. Help for prisoners who dont speak English should be provided. Prisoners who dont speak English have the right to use interpreting and translation services. Prisons may also give English classes. Prison staff can explain how a prisoner can arrange services and educational courses.

Prisoners Rights: Some Landmark Judgements The past decade has witnessed an increasing consciousness about the desirability of prison reforms, It is now being recognized that a reformative philosophy and a rehabilitative strategy must form a part of prison justice. The role of the Supreme Court in the past five years in introducing jail reforms has been commendable. Its quest for prison justice is probably a result of its attempt to revive liberty after extinguishing it in the Habeas Corpus case. In fact, the Supreme Court had commented in that case during the emergency that the treatment meted out to the detainees was almost maternal. The Supreme Court carried the ratio of the habeas Corpus case (ADM Jabalpur Vs. Shiv Kant Shukla) that Article 21 is the sole repository of life and liberty and during the emergency when liberty is suspended, due to the Presidential proclamation suspending Article 21, to the Prison conditions, and held in Bhanudas's case that a detainee during emergency could not agitate for better Jail Conditions and facilities. Maneka Gandhi's case was a landmark in Indian jurisprudence. The Maneka principle was extended to prison conditions and particularly to the plight of under- trials. A series of news items appeared in "The Indian Express" about the continued incarceration of under-trials in Bihar Jails. Some of them were never produced before the courts. Some others had spent more time in jails as under-trials than the maximum penalty that could be imposed upon them if they were convicted of the offences they were charged with. The Supreme Court in the Writs of Habeas Corpus for under-trials stated that "The information contained in these newspaper cuttings is most distressing and it is sufficient to stir the conscience and disturb the equanimity of any socially motivated lawyer or judge. Some of the under trial prisoners whose names are given in the newspaper cuttings have been in jail for as many as 5, 7, or 9 years and a few of them for even more than 10 years without their trial being begun. What faith can these lost souls have in a judicial system which denies them a bare trial for so many years, and keeps them behind bars, not because they are guilty, but because they are

Information on prison life should be available in a number of languages within the prison. Education, training and working in prison could be provided. Prisons keep information on each prisoner, including: o Medical records the progress they have made - for example, an improvement in their behavior the work, training or education they have done in prison o Allowed to lodge complains about treatment in prison.

too poor to afford bail and the courts have no time to try them. There can be little doubt after the dynamic interpretations placed by this court on Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India that a procedure which keeps such large number, of people behind bars without trial so long cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conflict with the requirement of the Article." It was with these observations that the Supreme Court directed the Bihar Government and the Patna High Court to furnish to the Supreme Court details of criminal cases pending in Bihar and their year wise breakup. The Supreme Court thereafter directed the release of such under-trials who were in detention for a unduly long period. The Supreme Court again in a separate writ petition filed by Sunil Batra and Charles Sobharaj, two prisoners in Delhi's Tihar jail, made an effort to humanize jail conditions. The question before the Court was: "Does a prison setting, ipso facto, outlaw the rule of law, lock out the judicial process from the jail gates and declare a long holiday for human rights of convicts in confinement? And if there is no total eclipse what lucent segment is open for judicial justice? Sunil Batra, sentenced to death had challenged his incarceration in solitary confinement and Charles Sobhraj had challenged his confinement with bar-fetters. The Supreme Court held that there is no total deprivation of a prisoner's rights of life and liberty. The "safe keeping" in jail custody is the limited jurisdiction of the jailer. "To desort safe-keeping into a hidden opportunity to care the ward and to traumatize him is to betray the custodian of law, safe custody does not mean deprivations, violation, banishment from the lanter barguet of prison life and infliction's of travails as if guardianship were best fulfilled by making the ward suffer near insanity." The court held that Sunil Batra's mercy petition to the President/Governor had not been disposed off and Batra was not "under sentence of death." His solitary confinement was quashed. In the case of Charles Sobhraj, it was held that there was no arbitrary power to put an under trial under bar-fetters. The discretion to impose "irons" is a quasi-judicial decision and a previous hearing is essential before putting a prisoners in fetters. The grounds for imposing fetters would be given to each victim in his language. It was further laid down that no "fetters" shall continue be- yond day time and a prolonged continuance of bar-fetters shall be with the approval of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Sessions Judge. In another case of "Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administration," the Supreme Court struck down the provisions of the Punjab Police rules which discriminated between the rich and the poor prisoner in deter-mining who was to be handcuffed. The Court also held that in the absence of the escorting authority re-cording why the prisoner is being put under handcuffs, the procedure of handcuffing is a violation of Article 21

The court concluded with the observation: "We clearly declare and it shall be obeyed from the Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons to the escort constable and the jail warder-that the rule regarding a prisoner in transit between prison house and court house is freedom from handcuffs and the exception, under conditions of judicial supervision we have indicated earlier, will be restraints with irons to be justified before or after. We mandate the judicial officer before whom the prisoner is produced to interrogate the prisoner as a rule, whether he has been subjected to handcuffs or other 'irons' treatment, and if he has been, the official concerned shall be asked to explain the action forthwith in the light of this judgment." The Supreme Court has given a new dimension to the writ of habeas corpus by its judgement in Sunil Batra 'll' vs. Delhi Administration. While the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra I vs. Delhi Admn. had crystalized the legally enforceable rights of a prisoner, the later decision in Sunil Batra II has radicalized the procedure for the enforcement of the rights of the prisoners. The habeas corpus writ was traditionally used for securing the release of a person detained illegally. It is a favored remedy because of its simplicity, non-technicality and the priority which is given to its hearing by courts. Sunil Batra II lays down the important principle of law that a writ of habeas corpus is available not only to secure the release of a prisoner illegally detained but also to regulate the conditions and manner of detention of a person whose detention is lawful. Thus a speedy and simple remedy is available to prisoners to seek redress of their grievances about the manner of their detention. The prisoners now have an important forum for the enforcement of their rights. As all the grievances could formerly be aired only through the prison-hierarchy, very few prisoners voiced any complaints for fear of retaliation. The very existence of the remedy of a writ of habeas corpus would be a deterrent to jail authorities and could prevent arbitrary and capricious action. In another recent landmark judgment in the case of "Francies Corale Mullin vs. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & others", the Supreme Court explained the ingredients of personal liberty under Article 21. The case arose out of the rights of a detainee under COFEPOSA to have an interview with his family members and lawyers. The meeting with family members was restricted to one a month and the lawyer could be met only in the presence of an officer of the customs department. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life and liberty included his right to live with human dignity and therefore a detainee would be entitled to have interviews with family members, friends and lawyers without these severe restrictions. Information from the UN regarding prison systems:

23 April 2009 - Faced with exploding prison populations, some criminal justice systems are struggling to cope. Prison overcrowding poses major humanitarian, public health and security challenges. Penal reform and the alleviation of prison overcrowding are badly needed, especially in developing countries. Addressing a special thematic debate on the subject at the eighteenth session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, UNODC Executive Director Antonio Costa voiced the need for more humane prison systems worldwide. "Overcrowding turns prisons into breeding grounds for the spread of HIV and drug abuse, and into universities for crime. This is bad for the prisoners and even worse for society when these people get out - turning them into ticking time bombs, with potentially explosive results for health and safety." The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were adopted over 50 years ago. Since many States have not been adhering to these standards, the resulting overcrowding in prisons constituted a violation of human rights, he said. Mr. Costa described conditions in Haiti, where the overcrowding ratio was 10:1, as "reminiscent of slave ships". He underlined that the solution to the crisis of prison overcrowding required political will. States were too often resorting to pretrial detention: over 9 million people were in some form of detention, 2.25 million of whom had not been tried. "My guess is that this is a conservative estimate. Worldwide, there are 1 million children (persons under 18) behind bars", said Mr. Costa. The number of prisoners worldwide suffering from mental illness was also disproportionately high. "Prisons are all too often a dumping ground for the mentally ill", he said. States called for a change from a punitive response to crime to a more rehabilitative approach and supported the increased use of non-custodial sanctions and measures. UNODC is helping States build the rule of law through fair and effective criminal justice systems, with particular emphasis on vulnerable groups such as women, children or HIV-positive people. The Office has developed projects in the areas of juvenile justice, penal reform and support to victims, and is increasingly engaged in post-conflict and vulnerable countries. UNODC has also prepared assessment tools, manuals and training modules based on United Nations standards and norms for criminal justice officials. The programme focuses on five key areas: data management; training of prison managers; improvement of prisoners' health and welfare; reduction of overcrowding; and improvement of the conditions for vulnerable groups. The prison reform programme of UNODC, which has a budget of $19 million, is underway in a number of countries and territories, including in Afghanistan, Guinea

Bissau, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lebanon, Liberia, Nigeria and the Sudan, as well as the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Norway Builds the World's Most Humane Prison- An article By the time the trumpets sound, the candles have been lit and the salmon platters garnished. Harald V, King of Norway, enters the room, and 200 guests stand to greet him. Then a chorus of 30 men and women, each wearing a blue police uniform, launches into a spirited rendition of "We Are the World." This isn't cabaret night at Oslo's Royal Palace. It's a gala to inaugurate Halden Fengsel, Norway's newest prison. Ten years and 1.5 billion Norwegian kroner ($252 million) in the making, Halden is spread over 75 acres (30 hectares) of gently sloping forest in southeastern Norway. The facility boasts amenities like a sound studio, jogging trails and a freestanding two-bedroom house where inmates can host their families during overnight visits. Unlike many American prisons, the air isn't tinged with the smell of sweat and urine. Instead, the scent of orange sorbet emanates from the "kitchen laboratory" where inmates take cooking courses. "In the Norwegian prison system, there's a focus on human rights and respect," says Are Hoidal, the prison's governor. "We don't see any of this as unusual." Halden, Norway's second largest prison, with a capacity of 252 inmates, opened on April 8. It embodies the guiding principles of the country's penal system: that repressive prisons do not work and that treating prisoners humanely boosts their chances of reintegrating into society. "When they arrive, many of them are in bad shape," Hoidal says, noting that Halden houses drug dealers, murderers and rapists, among others. "We want to build them up, give them confidence through education and work and have them leave as better people." Countries track recidivism rates differently, but even an imperfect comparison suggests the Norwegian model works. Within two years of their release, 20% of Norway's prisoners end up back in jail. In the U.K. and the U.S., the figure hovers between 50% and 60%. Of course, a low level of criminality gives Norway a massive advantage. Its prison roll lists a mere 3,300, or 69 per 100,000 people, compared with 2.3 million in the U.S., or 753 per 100,000 the highest rate in the world. Design plays a key role in Halden's rehabilitation efforts. "The most important thing is that the prison looks as much like the outside world as possible," says Hans Henrik Hoilund, one of the prison's architects. To avoid an institutional feel, exteriors are not concrete but made of bricks, galvanized steel and larch; the buildings seem to have grown organically from the woodlands. And while there is one obvious symbol of incarceration a 20-ft. (6 m) concrete security wall along the prison's perimeter trees obscure it, and its top has been rounded off, Hoilund says, "so it isn't too hostile." The cells rival well-appointed college dorm rooms, with their flat-screen TVs and minifridges. Designers chose long vertical windows for the rooms because they let

in more sunlight. There are no bars. Every 10 to 12 cells share a living room and kitchen. With their stainless-steel countertops, wraparound sofas and birch-colored coffee tables, they resemble Ikea showrooms. Halden's greatest asset, though, may be the strong relationship between staff and inmates. Prison guards don't carry guns that creates unnecessary intimidation and social distance and they routinely eat meals and play sports with the inmates. "Many of the prisoners come from bad homes, so we wanted to create a sense of family," says architect Per Hojgaard Nielsen. Half the guards are women Hoidal believes this decreases aggression and prisoners receive questionnaires asking how their experience in prison can be improved. There's plenty of enthusiasm for transforming lives. "None of us were forced to work here. We chose to," says Charlott-Renee Sandvik Clasen, a music teacher in the prison and a member of Halden's security-guard chorus. "Our goal is to give all the prisoners we call them our pupils a meaningful life inside these walls." It's warmth like that, not the expensive television sets, that will likely have the most lasting impact. Must visit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2006/prisons/default.stm (A BBC Special Report on prisons and prison systems in the UK) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgHdGr4aQoU (Comparing US and Norways prison rights) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRktA3KSsKs (Palestinians Behind Bars: Prisoners Without Human Rights) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIFP-vG0Yic (Should prisoners have the right to vote?) Recommended reads: Prisons And Prison Systems: A Global Encyclopedia Constitutional Rights of Prisoners: A Study of Judicial Trends Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion http://abortion.procon.org/#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_legalization_of_abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_for_the_legalization_of_abortion

http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/81nov/prisoner-rights.htm http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/crimejusticeandthelaw/sentencingprisonandprobati on/goingtoprison/dg_181679 http://www.amnesty.org/en/detention http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/towards-more-humane-prison- systems.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html I hope this document aids you in your research. However, it is only a kick start and one must go beyond the document to know better about ones countrys stand on the issue. If you have any questions, please direct them to 550@doonschool.com. The deputy chairs Vishal Tummala and Anshul Tibrewal may also be contacted for further assistance at the following email ids: 80@doonschool.com and 79@doonschool.com

Ujjwal Dahuja Chair of the Human Rights Council, Doon School Model United Nations-2012.