Abortion Law: From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Abortion law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
International status of abortion law, United Nations 2013 report. [1]
Legal on request
Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health,

health, rape, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors
Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, health,

rape, and/or fetal defects
Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, health,

and/or rape
Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, and/or

health
Illegal with no exceptions
Varies by subnation or subdivision
No information[dated info]
Abortion law is legislation and common law which prohibits, restricts or otherwise regulates the

availability ofabortion. Abortion has been a controversial subject in many societies through
history on religious, moral, ethical, practical, and political grounds. It has been banned
frequently and otherwise limited by law. However, abortions continue to be common in many
areas, even where they are illegal, with according to the World Health Organization(WHO)
abortion rates being similar in countries where the procedure is legal and in countries where it is
not,[2] due to unavailability of modern contraceptives in areas where abortion is illegal.[3] The
number of abortions worldwide is declining due to increased access to contraception according
to WHO.[2] Almost two thirds of the world's women currently reside in countries where abortion
may be obtained on request for a broad range of social, economic or personal reasons.
Abortion laws vary widely by nation. Seven countries in Latin America and Europe ban the
procedure entirely. Abortion in Canada is available to women without any legal restrictions,
[4]
while in Irelandabortions are illegal except when a woman's life is at imminent risk[5] and Chile
bans abortion with no exception for the life of the pregnant woman.[6]
Contents
[hide]
 1History
 2International law
 3National laws
o 3.1Europe
 3.1.1European Union
 4Exceptions in abortion law
 5Case law
 6See also
 7Notes
 8References
 9External links
History[edit]
Main article: History of abortion
This section does not cite any references (sources). Please help improve
this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (January 2014)
Abortion has been part of family planning since ancient times, with natural abortifacients 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 codify abortion law or place further
restrictions on the practice. Anti-abortion groups 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. Nevertheless, it became clear that illegal abortions
continued to take place in large numbers even where abortions were rigorously restricted. It was
difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to prosecute the women and abortion doctors, and judges
and juries were often reluctant to convict. For example, Henry Morgentaler, a Canadian pro-
choice advocate, 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 liberalise abortion laws, at least when
performed to protect the life of the woman, and in some cases on woman's request.
Under Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union legalized abortions on request in 1920, but in
1936 Joseph Stalin placed prohibitions on abortions this was restricted to medically
recommended cases only in order to increase population growth.[7][8][9] In the 1930s, several
countries (Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Mexico) legalized abortion in some
special cases (pregnancy from 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 1950s under pressure from the Soviets.[citation needed]
The availability of contraceptives in the 1950s and 1960s in Western countries resulted in
comparatively few changes in abortion law. In the United Kingdom, the Abortion Act of
1967 clarified and prescribed abortions as legal up to 28 weeks. Other countries soon followed,
including Canada (1969), the United States (1973 in most states, pursuant toRoe v. Wade, the
federal Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion
nationwide), Tunisia (1973), Austria (1974), France (1975), New Zealand (1977), Italy (1978),
theNetherlands (1980), and Belgium (1990). However, these countries vary greatly in the
circumstances under which abortion was to be 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 12 weeks legal.
[citation needed]
In jurisdictions governed under sharia law, abortion after the 120th day (17 weeks and
another day) is illegal.[10]
International law[edit]
There are international or multinational treaties that directly deal with abortion, but human rights
law touches on the issues. The American Convention on Human Rights, which in 2013 had 23
Latin American parties, declares human life as commencing with conception.
National laws[edit]
While abortions are legal in most countries, the grounds on which they are permitted vary.
According to the United Nations publication World Abortion Policies 2011[11] abortion is allowed
in most countries in order to save a woman's life (97% of countries). Other commonly accepted
reasons are preserving physical (67%) or mental health (63%). Abortion in the case of rape or
incest is accepted in about half of all countries (49%), and performing them because of
economic or social reasons in about a third (34%). Performing abortion only on the basis of a
woman's request is allowed in 29% of all countries, including in North America and in
most European countries.
In some countries additional procedures must be followed before the abortion can be carried out
even if the basic grounds for it are fulfilled. For example, in the United Kingdomand Finland,
where abortions are not granted based merely on a woman's request, approval for each
abortion must be obtained from two doctors.[12][13] How strictly all of the procedures dictated in the
legislature are followed in practice is another matter. For example, in the United Kingdom Care
Quality Commission's report in 2012 found that severalNHS clinics were circumventing the law,
using forms pre-signed by one doctor, thus allowing abortions to patients who only met with one
doctor.[14]
The effect of national laws as of 2011 for each of the 193 Member States of the United
Nations and two non-Member States (the Holy See and Niue) is listed in the U.N. World
Abortion Policies 2011[11] report, and summarized in the following table. The publication also
includes information on national estimates of abortion rate, fertility rate, maternal mortality ratio,
levels of contraceptive use, unmet need for family planning, and government support for family
planning, as well as regional estimates of unsafe abortion.
Summary of national laws regarding abortion as of 2013
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
Easter
4 Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Somalia 1 n
Africa
Easter
1 Djibouti 2 n
Africa
Easter
Burundi, Comoros, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Seychel
12 3 n
les, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia,Zimbabwe
Africa
Angola, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of Middle

6 1
the Congo, Gabon, São Tomé and Príncipe Africa
Middle
3 Cameroon, Chad, Equatorial Guinea 3
Africa
Northe
2 Egypt, Libya 2 rn
Africa
Northe
3 Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, South Sudan 3 rn
Africa
1 Tunisia 4 12 Northe
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
rn
weeks
Africa
Southe
1 Lesotho 2 rn
Africa
Southe
3 Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland 3 rn
Africa
Southe
12
1 South Africa 4 rn
weeks
Africa
Wester
2 Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, 1 n
Africa
Wester
2 Ivory Coast, Senegal 2 n
Africa
Wester
Benin, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra
10 3 n
Leone, Togo
Africa
Wester
10
1 Burkina Faso 3 n
weeks
Africa
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
Wester
1 Cape Verde 4 n
Africa
Easter
2 Japan, South Korea 3
n Asia
Easter
2 China, North Korea 4
n Asia
12 Easter
1 Mongolia 4
weeks n Asia
South-
1 Iran 1 central
Asia
South-
3 Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka 2 central
Asia
South-
3 Bhutan, Maldives, Pakistan 3 central
Asia
South-
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekista 12
6 4 central
n weeks
Asia
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
South-
20
1 India 4 central
weeks
Asia
South-
1 Philippines 1 east
Asia
South-
3 Brunei, Myanmar, East Timor 2 east
Asia
South-
4 Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand 3 east
Asia
South-
12
1 Cambodia 4 east
weeks
Asia
South-
12
1 Vietnam 4 east
weeks
Asia
South-
24
1 Singapore 4 east
weeks
Asia
Wester
1 Syrian Arab Republic 1
n Asia
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
Wester
3 Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen 2
n Asia
Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Wester

8 3
Arab Emirates n Asia
12 Wester
5 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Georgia, Turkey 4
weeks n Asia
Centra
1 Poland 3 l
Europe
Easter
Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech 12
7 4 n
Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine weeks
Europe
Easter
14
2 Hungary, Romania 4 n
weeks
Europe
Northe
1 Ireland 2 rn
Europe
Northe
2 Finland, Iceland [16][17] 3 rn
Europe
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
Northe
24
2 United Kingdom, Isle of Man[18][19] 3 rn
weeks
Europe
Northe
12
5 Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway 4 rn
weeks
Europe
Northe
18
1 Sweden 4 rn
weeks
Europe
Southe
2 Holy See, Malta 0 rn
Europe
Southe
2 Andorra, San Marino 1 rn
Europe
Albania, Bosnia and Southe

12
8 Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slov 4 rn
weeks
enia Europe
Southe
13
1 Italy 4 rn
weeks
Europe
1 Portugal 4 10 Southe
weeks rn
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
Europe
Southe
14
1 Spain 4 rn
weeks
Europe
Wester
2 Monaco 3 n
Europe
Wester
2 Liechtenstein 2 n
Europe
Wester
12
3 Belgium, France, Luxembourg 4 n
weeks
Europe
Wester
14
3 Austria, Germany, Switzerland 4 n
weeks
Europe
Wester
22
1 Netherlands 4 n
weeks
Europe
Caribb
1 Dominican Republic 0
ean
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
Caribb
2 Antigua and Barbuda, Haiti 1
ean
Caribb
1 Dominica 2
ean
Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Caribb

8 3
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,Trinidad and Tobago ean
12 Caribb
1 Cuba 4
weeks ean
Centra
l
2 El Salvador, Nicaragua 0
Ameri
ca
Centra
l
2 Guatemala, Honduras 2
Ameri
ca
Centra
l
3 Belize, Costa Rica, Panama 3
Ameri
ca
North
3 Canada, Mexico,[b][c] USA[b][d] 4 Ameri
ca
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
South
1 Chile 0 Ameri
ca
South
3 Paraguay, Suriname, Venezuela 2 Ameri
ca
South
6 Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, 3 Ameri
ca
South
12
2 Guyana, Uruguay 4 Ameri
weeks
ca
Austra
1 New Zealand 3
lasia
Austra
1 Australia[b][e] 3
lasia
Melan
2 Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands 2
esia
Melan
2 Fiji, Vanuatu 3
esia
Gestat Geogr
Co Categ ional
Countries aphic
unt ory[a] limit [1
5] area
Micro
4 Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau 2
nesia
Micro
1 Nauru 3
nesia
Polyne
2 Tonga, Tuvalu 2
sia
Polyne
3 Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa 3
sia
1. Jump up^ Category definitions

0 : Abortion not allowed.
1 : General legal principles allow abortion to be performed in order
to save a woman's life.
2 : Abortion explicitly allowed in order to save a woman's life.
3 : Abortion explicitly allowed in order to save a life and for certain
other reasons.
4 : Abortion allowed on request.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Category varies by subnational region.

3. Jump up^ See Abortion in Mexico
4. Jump up^ See Abortion in the United States
5. Jump up^ See Abortion in Australia
Europe[edit]
Despite a wide variation in the restrictions under which it is permitted, abortion is legal in most
European countries. The exceptions are micro-states where it is totally illegal
(Vatican and Malta), micro-states where it is mostly illegal and severely restricted (San
Marino, Liechtenstein and Andorra) and more notably Ireland, the only relatively normal sized
European state where great prohibitions on abortion exist.[20] The other states with existent, but
less severe restrictions are Finland, Poland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. All the remaining
states make abortion legal on request. Although nearly every European country makes abortion
available on demand during the first trimester, when it comes to later-term abortions, there are
very few with laws as liberal as those of the United States.[21] Restrictions on abortion are most
stringent in countries that are more strongly observant of the Catholic faith.[20]
European Union[edit]
Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester. After
the first trimester, abortion is allowed only under certain circumstances, such as risk to woman's
life or health, fetal defects or other specific situations that may be related to the circumstances
of the conception or the woman's age. For instance, in Austria, second trimester abortions are
allowed only if there is a serious risk to physical health of woman (that cannot be averted by
other means); risk to mental health of woman (that cannot be averted by other means);
immediate risk to life of woman (that cannot be averted by other means); serious fetal
impairment (physical or mental); or if the woman is under 14 years of age. Some countries, such
as Denmark, allow abortion after the first trimester for a variety of reasons, including
socioeconomic ones, but a woman needs an authorization to have such an abortion.[22]
It should be noted that the access to an abortion in much of Europe depends not as much on
the letter of the law, but on the prevailing social views which lead to the interpretation of the
laws. For instance, in parts of Europe, laws which allow a second trimester abortion due to
mental health concerns (when it is deemed that the woman's psychological health would suffer
from the continuation of the pregnancy) have come to be interpreted very liberally, while in other
conservative areas it is difficult to have a legal abortion even in the early stages of the
pregnancy due to the policy of conscientious objection, under which doctors are allowed to
refuse to perform an abortion if it is against their moral or religious convictions. [23]
Malta is the only European country that bans abortion in all cases, and does not have an
exception for situations where the woman's life is in danger. The law however is not strictly
enforced in relation to instances where a pregnancy endangers the woman's life (see Abortion
in Malta).
In Italy abortion is legal, but, in the past years, it has become more and more difficult to access
it, due to the rising number of objectors among doctors and nurses. Most women seeking
abortions now resort to going abroad, paying a large price, or obtaining a clandestine abortion in
unauthorized clinics.[24]
In Ireland abortion is illegal with the exception of cases where a woman's life is endangered by
the continuation of her pregnancy (see Abortion in the Republic of Ireland). Andorra allows for
abortions only when there is a threat to the woman's life.[25]
With the exception of Poland, Europe's formerly Communist countries have liberal abortion
laws. Poland is a country with a strict abortion law, and where it is also difficult to have a legal
abortion on request. Abortion is allowed only in cases of risk to the life or health of the woman,
when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act (the criminal act has to be confirmed by a
prosecutor), or when the fetus is seriously malformed. A doctor who performs an abortion which
is deemed to not have a legal basis is subject to criminal prosecution, and, out of fear of
prosecution, doctors avoid abortions, except in the most extreme circumstances.[23]
Most European countries have laws which stipulate that minor girls need their parents' consent
or that the parents must be informed of the abortion. In most of these countries however, this
rule can be circumvented if a committee agrees that the girl may be posed at risk if her parents
find out about the pregnancy, or that otherwise it is in her best interests to not notify her parents.
The interpretation in practice of these laws depends from region to region, as with the other
abortion laws.[23]
In countries where abortion is illegal or restricted, it is common for women to travel to
neighboring countries with more liberal laws. It was estimated in 2007 that over 6,000 Irish
women travel to England to have abortions every year.[23]
Exceptions in abortion law[edit]

This section requires expansion.
(August 2010)
There are a few common exceptions sometimes found in legal domains where abortion is
generally forbidden. Legal domains which do not have abortion on demand will often allow it
when the health of the mother is at stake. "Health of the mother" may mean something different
in different areas: for example, the Republic of Ireland allows abortion only to save the life of the
mother, whereas pro-lifers in the United States argue health exceptions are used so broadly as
to render a ban essentially meaningless.[26]
Laws allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest often go together. For example, before Roe v.
Wade, 13 US states allowed abortion in the case of either rape or incest, but only 1 allowed for
it just for rape (Mississippi), and none for just incest.[27]
Also, many countries allow for abortion only through the first or second trimester, and some may
allow abortion in cases of fetal defects, e.g., Down syndrome.
Case law[edit]
Australia
 R v Davidson (1969)
 R v Sood (No 3) [2006] NSWSC 762
Canada
 Abortion trial of Emily Stowe (1879)

 Azoulay v. The Queen (1952)
 Morgentaler v. The Queen (1976)
 R. v. Morgentaler (1988)
 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) (1989)
 Tremblay v. Daigle (1989)
 R. v. Morgentaler (1993)
Germany
 German Federal Constitutional Court abortion decision (1975)

Ireland
 Attorney General v. X (1992)

United States
 Roe v. Wade (1973)
 Doe v. Bolton (1973)
 H. L. v. Matheson (1981)
 City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983)
 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
 Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990)
 Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
 Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993)
 Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
 McCorvey v. Hill (2004)
 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England (2006)
 Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
European Court of Human Rights
 A. B. and C. v. Ireland (2009)
See also[edit]
 Abortion
 Abortion debate
 Conscience clause
 History of abortion
 Medical law
 Mexico City Policy
 Religion and abortion
 Roe v. Wade
Notes[edit]
1. Jump up^ World Abortion Policies 2013
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Abortion Rates Similar in Countries That Legalize,
Prohibit Procedure, a WHO Study Says
3. Jump up^ Singh, Susheela et al. Adding it Up: The Costs and
Benefits of Investing in Family Planning and Newborn Health,
pages 17, 19, and 27 (New York: Guttmacher Institute and United
Nations Population Fund 2009): "Some 215 million women in the
developing world as a whole have an unmet need for modern
contraceptives…. If the 215 million women with unmet need used
modern family planning methods....[that] would result in about 22
million fewer unplanned births; 25 million fewer abortions; and
seven million fewer miscarriages....If women’s contraceptive needs
were addressed (and assuming no changes in abortion laws)...the
number of unsafe abortions would decline by 73% from 20 million
to 5.5 million." A few of the findings in that report were
subsequently changed, and are available at: "Facts on Investing in
Family Planning and Maternal and Newborn Health" (Guttmacher
Institute 2010).
4. Jump up^ "abortion on demand". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 2007-
05-01. (1) the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first
six months of a pregnancy; (2) an abortion performed on a woman
solely at her own request
5. Jump up^ Dreaper, Jane (2007-10-12). "Divisions deep over
abortion ban". BBC News. Archived from the original on 27 March
2010. Retrieved 2010-03-30.
6. Jump up^ Abortion Policies: A Global Review, UN
7. Jump up^ Heer, David, "Abortion, Contraception, and Population
Policy in the Soviet Union" Demography 2 (1965): 531-39.
8. Jump up^ Alexandre Avdeev, Alain Blum, and Irina Troitskaya.
"The History of Abortion Statistics in Russia and the USSR from
1900 to 1991." Population (English Edition) 7, (1995), 42.
9. Jump up^ "Abortion, Population Control, Genocide: The
’Scientific’ Killers and Who Sent for Them". Marxists. Retrieved 3
October 2015.
10. Jump up^ Campo, Juan Eduardo (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam.
Infobase Publishing. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-4381-2696-8.
11. ^ Jump up to:a b "World Abortion Policies 2011" (PDF). United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
Retrieved 1 July 2013.
12. Jump up^ "Abortion Act 1967". Legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 17
July 2012.
13. Jump up^ "Laki raskauden keskeyttämisestä 24.3.1970/239".
Finlex. Retrieved 17 July 2012.
14. Jump up^ "Findings of termination of pregnancy inspections
published". Care Quality Commission. Retrieved 17 July 2012.
15. Jump up^ http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2405698.pdf
16. Jump up^ Termination of Pregnancy Act 1995
17. Jump up^ "Abortion: The IOM Law", BBC Online
18. Jump up^ Termination of Pregnancy Act 1995
19. Jump up^ "Abortion: The IOM Law", BBC Online
20. ^ Jump up to:a b Ostergren, Robert C.; Le Bossé, Mathias (7 March
2011). The Europeans: A Geography of People, Culture, and
Environment. Guilford Press. p. 203. ISBN 978-1-59385-384-6.
Retrieved 30 December 2011.
21. Jump up^ Jenkins, Philip (11 May 2007). God's continent:
Christianity, Islam, and Europe's religious crisis. Oxford University
Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-19-531395-6. Retrieved 30
December 2011.
22. Jump up^ "1973 Danish abortion law Lovitidende for Kongeriget
Danmark". Harvard Law. Retrieved 2013-07-02.
23. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Abortion legislation in Europe" (PDF). International
Planned Parenthood Federation. January 2007. Retrieved 7
October 2012.
24. Jump up^ "Torna L'aborto Clandestino". 31 May 2003.
25. Jump up^ "Memorandum on the PACE Report - Women's Access
to Lawful Medical Care: The Problem of Unregulated Use of
Conscientious Objection" (PDF). European Centre for Law and
Justice. 20 July 2010. Retrieved 2013-07-02.
26. Jump up^ "'Health' of the Mother". Newsweek. October 15, 2008
27. Jump up^ "States probe limits of abortion policy". Stateline. June
22, 2006.
References[edit]
 Abortion Laws of the World. (n.d.). Annual Review of Population
Law. Retrieved July 14, 2006.
 Appel, Jacob M. 'Conscience' vs. Care: How Refusal Clauses
are Reshaping the Rights Revolution, Medicine and Health,
Rhode Island, August 2005. Retrieved October 28, 2008.
 Rahman, Anika, Katzive, Laura, & Henshaw, Stanley K.
(1998). A Global Review of Laws on Induced Abortion, 1985–
1997. International Family Planning Perspectives, 24 (2).
Retrieved July 14, 2006.
 United Nations Population Division. (2002). Abortion Policies: A
Global Review. Retrieved July 14, 2006.
 IPPF European Network. (2004). Abortion Legislation in Europe.
Retrieved October 27, 2006.
 Center for Reproductive Rights. (2005). law sidebars10.pdf
Abortion and the Law: Ten Years of Reform. Retrieved
November 22, 2006. (archived from the original on 2009-03-27)
 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (November
2006). Abortion Laws Around The World. Retrieved April 18,
2007.
 Europe's Abortion Laws. (February 12, 2007). BBC
News. Retrieved February 12, 2007.
 United Nations Population Division. (2007). World Abortion
Policies 2007. Retrieved October 3, 2007.
External links[edit]
 Center for Reproductive Rights
 Pregnant Pause: Summary of Abortion Laws Around the World
 Laws on Abortion in the Second Trimesters, The International
Consortium for Medical Abortion (ICMA)
 Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative
Response Congressional Research Service
[show]
 v
 t
 e
[show]
 v
 t
 e
Lists of countries by laws and law enforcement ra
[show]
 v
 t
 e
Sexual revolution
Categories:
 Abortion law
Sexual revolution
International Human Rights Law and Abortion in Latin

America
Download PDF file (288 KB, 22 pages)
Latin America is home to some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. While only three
countries—Chile, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic—provide no exceptions or extenuating
circumstances for the criminal sanctions on abortion, in most countries and jurisdictions, exceptions are
provided only when necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life and in certain other narrowly defined
circumstances. Even where abortion is not punished by law, women often have severely limited access
because of lack of proper regulation and political will.
Advancing access to safe and legal abortion can save women’s lives and facilitate women’s equality.
Women’s decisions about abortion are not just about their bodies in the abstract, but rather about their
human rights relating to personhood, dignity, and privacy more broadly. Continuing barriers to such
decisions in Latin America interfere with women’s enjoyment of their rights, and fuel clandestine and
unsafe practices, a major cause of maternal mortality in much of the region.
Latin American women’s organizations have fought for the right to safe and legal abortion for decades.
Increasingly, international human rights law supports their claims. In fact, international human rights legal
instruments and interpretations of those instruments by authoritative U.N. expert bodies compel the
conclusion that access to safe and legal abortion services is integral to the fulfillment of women’s human
rights generally, including their reproductive rights and rights relating to their full and equal personhood.
This paper offers (1) a brief overview of the status of abortion legislation in Latin America and (2) an in-
depth analysis of international human rights law in this area. In addition to citing international treaty texts,
it draws heavily from the work of United Nations treaty monitoring bodies. 1 Human Rights Watch hopes
that this distillation of international law will support the efforts of women’s rights activists in Latin America.
I. Restrictions on Abortion in Latin America
In Latin America and the Caribbean, women face multiple barriers to free exercise of their reproductive
rights, including restrictive abortion legislation.2 In fact, many women struggle daily to gain even minimal
autonomy over their intimate lives. Some are raped by their husbands or others, while many more are
denied access to contraceptives and reproductive health services and refused the possibility to decide to
terminate unwanted pregnancies with safe and legal abortions. Across the region, millions of abortions
are performed every year, most of them under unsafe and clandestine conditions, and thousands of
women die as a result.3 In many countries in the region, the consequences of illegal abortions constitute
a leading cause of maternal mortality.4
Fortunately, the first few years of the twenty-first century have shown some encouraging signs due in
large part to the tireless efforts of women’s rights activists. Even though abortion is illegal in almost all
countries in the region (except Cuba), most countries allow criminal penalties to be waived or lowered in
specific circumstances, including—most often—where the life or health of the pregnant woman is in
danger, or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. 5 In several countries in the region—in
South America and parts of Mexico in particular—law and policy-makers, under heavy pressure from
women’s right activists, have amended restrictive abortion laws and put procedures in place that are
meant to alleviate the disastrous health consequences of unsafe abortions. In Uruguay, a reproductive
health bill, which included several positive steps on provision of contraceptives and related information,
was approved by the House of Representatives in 2002 and lost in the Senate by only four votes in
2004.6 In Brazil, the government set up a committee in 2005 to propose legal reform related to abortion,
and the Health Ministry passed a resolution meant to facilitate women’s access to safe and decriminalized
abortion when their pregnancies are the result of rape. 7
In other countries in South America, positive developments also may be imminent. In Argentina and
Venezuela as well as in other countries, bills seeking to decriminalize abortion in some or all cases are
pending in the respective congresses.8 And in Colombia in April 2005, a lawyer challenged the penal
code provisions on abortion before Colombia’s constitutional court, charging that the law should explicitly
provide for exemptions from punishment where the woman’s life or health is in danger and where the
pregnancy is the result of rape.9
In other parts of the region, however, developments are less encouraging. In 1997, El Salvador’s
congress amended the penal code to eliminate the possibility of waiving criminal punishment where the
pregnant woman’s life is in danger, where the pregnancy is the result of rape, or where the fetus suffers
severe and predictable deformities.10 As a result, women who have abortions in El Salvador risk criminal
penalties even if their life is threatened by the pregnancy. In other countries in Central America and the
Caribbean, legislators and policy makers have proposed further restricting already restrictive laws. In
2004 in Nicaragua, for example, the congress debated removing the possibility of waiving criminal
penalties for abortion where the woman’s life is in danger, but the debate was suspended because of the
uproar it created on both sides of the issue.11
Despite differences in national abortion laws, women have severely limited access to legal abortion in
most countries in Latin America. Across the region, lack of proper regulations and fear of legal
prosecution on the part of both doctors and women limit women’s options. Women’s rights activists have
long insisted that while reform of abortion laws is essential for women’s full enjoyment of their human
rights, the full and effective implementation of existing penal code provisions that permit access to safe
and legal abortion in limited cases would be a positive initial step.
II. Overview of International Human Rights Law on

Abortion
International standards on the link between access to abortion and women’s exercise of their human
rights have undergone significant development over the past decade. Evidence of this development is
clear in the work of U.N. treaty bodies, one regional human rights protocol, and consensus documents
from international conferences on women’s rights and reproductive rights and health.
Authoritative interpretations of international law recognize that abortion is vitally important to women’s
exercise of their human rights. U.N. treaty bodies, which take a measured approach to interpreting
international human rights law, have consistently and extensively opined on abortion access and
restrictions. By our count, as of early 2005, at least 122 concluding observations on ninety-three
countries spanning more than a decade by U.N. treaty bodies have substantively addressed how abortion
relates to fundamental human rights. These bodies reason that firmly established human rights are
jeopardized by restrictive or punitive abortion laws and practices. Their jurisprudence on specific human
rights and their relevance to abortion are described below.
Although the text of most international treaties is silent on the topic of abortion, a new protocol on
women’s rights under the African human rights system explicitly addresses abortion. The Protocol to the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, adopted by the African
Union in 2003, provides that member states must take all appropriate measures to “protect the
reproductive rights of women by authorizing medical abortion in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, and
where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the
mother or the foetus.” Although the protocol only calls on governments to permit abortion under particular
circumstances, it is a significant step in the development of international law on abortion.
Even without more explicit treaty language on abortion, it is clear that international human rights law
supports women’s right to decide independently in matters related to abortion, without interference from
the state or third parties. The sections below describe how the following human rights have been
interpreted to pertain to abortion:
A. Rights to health and health care. p. 3
B. Right to life. p. 3
C. Right to nondiscrimination; Right to equality. p. 3
D. Right to security of person. p. 3
E. Right to liberty. p. 3
F. Right to privacy. p. 3
G. Right to information. p. 3
H. Right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment p. 3
I. Right to decide the number and spacing of children. p. 3
J. Right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. p. 3

K. Right to freedom of conscience and religion. p. 3
A. Rights to health and health care

Legal Sources
The rights to health and health care are recognized in a number of international instruments. For
example, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) provides in
article 12(1) that states must recognize “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health.” The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) also provides in article 12(1) that “States Parties shall take all
appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to
ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related
to family planning” and in article 14(2)(b) that states must ensure that women in rural areas “have access
to adequate health care facilities, including information, counselling and services in family planning.”
Article 24(d) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) also provides that states must take
measures to “ensure appropriate pre- and post-natal health care for expectant mothers” as part of the
obligation to recognize children’s right to the highest attainable standard of health. Finally, the Additional
Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) provides in article 10: “Everyone shall have the right to health,
understood to mean the enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental and social well-being.”
Application and Interpretation
Unsafe abortions are a grave threat to women’s health; between 10 and 50 percent of women who
undergo unsafe abortions require post-abortion medical attention for complications such as incomplete
abortion, infection, uterine perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease, hemorrhage, or other injury to internal
organs. These may result in death, permanent injury, or infertility.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) provided its most comprehensive
assessment of the right to health in its General Comment 14, which explains that this right contains both
freedoms, such as “the right to control one’s health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom,”
and entitlements, such as “the right to a system of health protection which provides equality of opportunity
for people to enjoy the highest attainable level of health.” 12 It also calls on states to adopt measures to
“improve . . . sexual and reproductive health services, including access to family planning, pre-and post-
natal care, emergency obstetric services and access to information, as well as to resources necessary to
act on that information.”13 It recommends that states remove all barriers to women’s access to health
services, education, and information, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health. 14 Its
concluding observations have addressed risks to women’s health resulting from restrictive abortion laws,
and have recommended improving medical and sanitary conditions for carrying out abortions. 15 Citing
concern about the negative consequences of restrictive abortion laws on women’s health, the CESCR
has recommended that states legalize abortion in some circumstances, such as when the pregnancy is
the result of rape or incest, and when the life of the pregnant women is endangered. 16
General Recommendation 24 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

(CEDAW Committee) on women and health affirms states’ obligation to respect women’s access to
reproductive health services and to “refrain from obstructing action taken by women in pursuit of their
health goals.”17 It explains that “barriers to women’s access to appropriate health care include laws that
criminalize medical procedures only needed by women and that punish women who undergo those
procedures.”18 It recommends that “[w]hen possible, legislation criminalizing abortion could be amended
to remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion.” 19 In a number of concluding
observations, the CEDAW Committee has expressed concern over women’s limited access to
reproductive health services and information, and has criticized factors that impede women’s health care,
such as religious influences, privatization of health care, and budgetary restrictions. 20 In at least one
instance, it recommended that the state party provide public funding to women needing abortions. 21
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has, in its concluding observations, asked governments to
review legislation prohibiting abortion where unsafe abortions contribute to high rates of maternal
mortality, and in some cases to undertake studies to understand the negative impact of illegal abortion. 22
In other cases, it has simply expressed concern about high maternal mortality rates from abortion for
teenagers without recommending any particular remedy.23 It has requested that governments increase
access to reproductive health care services and education, particularly for adolescents, and in at least
one case recommended that a government ensure that abortions be conducted with due attention to
minimum standards of health safety.24
B. Right to Life
Legal Sources
In addition to being recognized as a part of customary international law, the right to life is protected in a
number of human rights treaties. Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) provides: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” Article 6 of the CRC provides that that “every child has the
inherent right to life.” The American Convention on Human Rights provides in article 4(1): “Every person
has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the
moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
With approximately 1,400 maternal deaths worldwide each day, 13 percent of which are attributable to
unsafe abortion, and with evidence showing that maternal mortality increases when countries criminalize
abortion, restrictive abortion laws can have a devastating impact on the right to life. Governments could
save tens of thousands of women’s lives every year by ensuring access to safe abortion services. 25
The U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC) has explained that the right to life should not be understood in
a restrictive manner, and that states must adopt positive measures to protect this right. 26 Under its
General Comment 28, the HRC requires states to report on pregnancy and childbirth-related deaths of
women.27 Moreover, it has noted with concern the relationship between restrictive abortion laws,
clandestine abortions, and threats to women’s lives. 28 In the case of Chile, where abortion has been
illegal in all circumstances since 1986, the HRC noted that:
The criminalization of all abortions, without exception, raises serious issues, especially in the light of
unrefuted reports that many women undergo illegal abortions that pose a threat to their lives. … The State
party is under a duty to take measures to ensure the right to life of all persons, including pregnant women
whose pregnancies are terminated. …. The Committee recommends that the law be amended so as to
introduce exceptions to the general prohibition of all abortions. 29
In the case of Peru, the HRC went further to note that the penal code provisions of that country—which
subject women to criminal penalties even when the pregnancy is the result of rape—are incompatible with
the rights to equal enjoyment of other rights protected by the ICCPR:
It is a matter of concern that abortion continues to be subject to criminal penalties, even when pregnancy
is the result of rape. Clandestine abortion continues to be the main cause of maternal mortality in Peru.
… The Committee once again states that these provisions are incompatible with articles 3 [equal
enjoyment of rights], 6 [right to life], and 7 [freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment] of the Covenant and recommends that the legislation be amended to establish exceptions to
the prohibition and punishment of abortion.30
In 2004, it noted with regard to Colombia:
The Committee notes with concern that the existence of legislation criminalizing all abortions under the
law can lead to situations in which women are obliged to undergo high-risk clandestine abortions. It is
especially concerned that women who have been victims of rape or incest or whose lives are in danger as
a result of their pregnancy may be prosecuted for resorting to such measures (art. 6) [the right to life].
The State party should ensure that the legislation applicable to abortion is revised so that no criminal
offences are involved in the cases described above. 31
Finally, in its 1999 concluding observations on Guatemala, the HRC noted:
[t]he State has the duty to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the right to life (art. 6) of pregnant
women who decide to interrupt their pregnancy by providing the necessary information and resources to
guarantee their rights and amending the legislation to provide for exceptions for the general prohibition of
all abortions except where the mother’s life is in danger. 32
The CEDAW Committee has also expressed concern in dozens of concluding observations about high
rates of maternal mortality, including due to the unavailability of safe abortion services. In some cases, it
has explicitly asserted that such deaths indicate that governments may not be not respecting women’s
right to life.33
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has asked a state party to legalize
abortion on at least three occasions, specifically when a pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or is the
result of rape or incest.34
Although the right to life clearly protects the interests of pregnant women, opponents of abortion rights
also vocally argue that the “right to life” of a fetus should predominate. There is debate as to when “legal
personhood” commences and when the right to life should apply, with many arguing that it should only
apply as a legal concept after birth. There has been scholarly and judicial analysis of three situations
(described in more detail below): (1) where legal instruments are silent as to when the right to life
commences, (2) where there is ambiguous language, and (3) where legal instruments clearly state that
the right to life commences from conception.
The silence of certain legal instruments concerning the starting point for the right to life has been
understood by bodies charged with interpreting them and by human rights scholars to imply that the right
to life does not apply before the birth of a human being. In the 1980 Paton v. United Kingdom case, the
European Commission ruled that for purposes of limitations on the right to life, the term “everyone” in
article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(which protects “everyone’s right to life”) did not include the unborn. 35 It further held that even if a fetus
were entitled to some protection, article 2 could not prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion at an
early stage of pregnancy to protect her physical and mental health. 36
The legislative history of the ICCPR also provides some insight into this matter. Proposals during
debates over the ICCPR to add language protecting the right to life from the time of conception were
rejected, and scholars say that article 6(1) of the ICCPR conferring the right to life on “human beings” is
understood to mean human beings after birth.37 ICCPR expert Manfred Nowak points out that various
countries (Lebanon, Belgium, Brazil, El Salvador, Mexico, and Morocco) proposed language between the
years 1950 and 1957 that would have protected the right to life from the moment of conception, but these
proposals were voted down. He notes that the discussions preceding such votes left “no doubt that, for a
variety of reasons, the majority of delegates decided that it would not be sensible to adopt such a
provision.”38 He notes that some interpretations of the right to life would apply this right to a fetus from the
point of viability, but that the right of the unborn child would have to be balanced against other basic
rights, including the rights of the pregnant woman to life and privacy. 39
Some international human rights instruments are ambiguous concerning the right to life, leading to
disparate interpretations. For example, writer James Bohan argues that ambiguous language in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child can be interpreted as constituting a right to life of the fetus. Article
6 of the CRC provides that “every child has the inherent right to life.” Article 1 defines “child” as every
human being below the age of 18 years. The preamble states that the convention was drafted “bearing in
mind” that the Declaration on the Rights of the Child provided that children need “appropriate legal
protection before as well as after birth.” Taken together, Bohan asserts that these provisions establish a
legal right to life of a fetus.40
This perspective is countered by legal experts such as Professors Rebecca Cook and Bernard Dickens.
They point out that when the CRC was being drafted in the 1980s, a similar proposal concerning the right
to life from conception to that made during ICCPR negotiations was debated and rejected. While the
CRC’s preamble refers to appropriate legal protection before birth, the operative language defining the
term “child” refers to “human beings” below the age of eighteen. Thus, the enforceable provisions of the
CRC are widely understood to retain the historical understanding that legally protected status as a human
being begins at live birth.41
The American Convention on Human Rights is the only international human rights instrument that
contemplates that the right to life can apply from the moment of conception, though not in absolute
terms.42 The American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the predecessor instrument to the
ACHR, does not mention conception, guaranteeing instead that “every human being has the right to life,
liberty, and the security of his person.”43
In 1981, the body that monitors the implementation of the human rights provisions in the American
regional system—the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—was asked to establish whether or
not the right-to-life provisions in these documents are compatible with a woman’s right to access safe and
legal abortions. The commission concluded that they are. The question reached the commission through
a petition brought against the United States government by individuals related to a group called Catholics
for Christian Political Action when a medical doctor was acquitted of manslaughter after performing an
abortion in 1973—the “Baby Boy” case.44 The petitioners asked the commission to declare the United
States in violation of the right to life under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man,
using the American Convention on Human Rights as an interpretative tool. 45 In the deliberation on the
Baby Boy case, the Commission went to great pains to examine the provisions on the right to life in both
the declaration and the convention, looking to the preparatory work for both documents to clarify the
intended object and purpose of the wording of the provisions. 46
In the case of the declaration, the commission explained:
[I]t is important to note that the conferees in Bogotá in 1948 rejected language which would have
extended that right to the unborn … [and] … adopted a simple statement on the right to life, without
reference to the unborn, and linked it to the liberty and security of the person. Thus it would appear
incorrect to read the Declaration as incorporating the notion that the right to life exists from the moment of
conception. The conferees faced this question and chose not to adopt language which would clearly
have stated that principle.47
With regard to the convention—which, as noted above, protects the right to life, in general, from the
moment of conception—the commission found that the wording of the right to life in article 4 was very
deliberate and that the convention’s founders specifically intended the “in general” clause to allow for non-
restrictive domestic abortion legislation. As the commission phrased it: “it was recognized in the drafting
session in San José that this phrase left open the possibility that states parties to a future Convention
could include in their domestic legislation ‘the most diverse cases of abortion,” 48 allowing for legal abortion
under this article. The commission went on to correct the petitioners in their selective reading of the
ACHR:
[I]t is clear that the petitioners’ interpretation of the definition given by the American Convention on the
right of life is incorrect. The addition of the phrase “in general, from the moment of conception” does not
mean that the drafters of the Convention intended to modify the concept of the right to life that prevailed in
Bogotá, when they approved the American Declaration. The legal implications of the clause “in general,
from the moment of conception” are substantially different from the shorter clause “from the moment of
conception” as appears repeatedly in the petitioners’ briefs. 49
The commission also cited several countries, including the United States and Brazil, for having clarified
during the negotiations that, notwithstanding any language contained in article 4(1) of the convention,
they retained the right to “preserv[e their] discretion with respect to the content of legislation in the light of
their own social development, experience and similar factors.”50
C. Right to nondiscrimination; Right to equality

Legal Sources
The rights to nondiscrimination and equality are set forth in a number of international human rights
instruments. In addition to the basic provisions in articles 2(1) and 3 of the ICCPR, articles 2(2) and 3 of
the ICESCR, and article 1 of the ACHR, CEDAW comprehensively addresses discrimination against
women. CEDAW defines discrimination against women in article 1 as:
[A]ny distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of
impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital
status, on the basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.
CEDAW obliges states to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters regarding marriage and
family relations (article 16). Article 10(h) of CEDAW requires states parties to provide women equal
access to educational materials and advice on health issues, including on family planning. As noted
under the right to health above, CEDAW also prohibits discrimination against women in the field of health
care and in access to health care services, and calls for special efforts to eliminate discrimination against
rural women in their access to health care services and information. Article 2(f) requires that states “take
all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs
and practices which constitute discrimination against women,” and article 5(a) requires that states take
appropriate measures “[t]o modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a
view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on
the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and
women.” More generally, article 3 provides that states must take “all appropriate measures, including
legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing
them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with
men.”
All of these provisions are aimed at achieving substantive equality and not mere formal equality. As
explained by the CEDAW Committee: “It is not enough to guarantee women treatment that is identical to
that of men. Rather, biological as well as socially and culturally constructed differences between women
and men must be taken into account.”51
Access to safe and legal abortion services is essential to the protection of women’s rights to
nondiscrimination and substantive equality. Abortion is a medical procedure that only women need. In its
General Recommendation on women and health, the CEDAW Committee has implied that the denial of
medical procedures only women need is a form of discrimination against women. The General
Recommendation affirms states’ obligation to respect access for all women to reproductive health
services and to “refrain from obstructing action taken by women in pursuit of their health goals.” 52 It
explains that “barriers to women’s access to appropriate health care include laws that criminalize medical
procedures only needed by women and that punish women who undergo these procedures.” 53 The
committee recommended that “[w]hen possible, legislation criminalizing abortion could be amended to
remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion.” 54
In addition, in its concluding remarks on Colombia in 1999, the CEDAW Committee was quite clear that it
considered restrictive abortion laws as contrary to the right to nondiscrimination in access to health care:
The Committee notes with great concern that abortion, which is the second cause of maternal deaths in
Colombia, is punishable as an illegal act. … The Committee believes that legal provisions on abortion
constitute a violation of the rights of women to health and life and of article 12 of the Convention [the right
to health care without discrimination].55
Likewise, in 1998, the CEDAW Committee recommended to Mexico “that all states of Mexico should
review their legislation so that, where necessary, women are granted access to rapid and easy abortion.” 56
Women are in practice more likely than men to experience personal hardship as well social disadvantage
flowing from economic, career, and other de facto life changes when they have children. Where women
are compelled to continue unwanted pregnancies, such consequences forcibly put women at a
disadvantage.
In several concluding observations on country reports from the Latin American region, including
Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, and Guatemala, the U.N. Human Rights Committee has established a
clear link between women’s equality and the availability of reproductive health information and services,
including abortion.57 In the case of Argentina, the Committee noted:
The Committee is concerned that the criminalization of abortion deters medical professionals from
providing this procedure without judicial order, even when they are permitted to do so by law, inter alia
when there are clear health risks for the mother or when pregnancy results from rape of mentally disabled
women. The Committee also expresses concern over discriminatory aspects of the laws and policies in
force, which result in disproportionate resort to illegal, unsafe abortions by poor and rural women. 58
On Colombia, it said:
The Committee expresses its concern over the situation of women who, despite some improvements,
continue to be subject of de jure and de facto discrimination in all spheres of economic, social and public
life. It notes in this regard that … [i]t is … concerned at the high mortality rate of women resulting from
clandestine abortions.59
In its General Comment on the right to equal enjoyment of civil and political rights, the Human Rights
Committee also requested that governments provide information in their periodic reports about access to
safe abortion for women who have become pregnant as a result of rape, as relevant to its evaluation of
the implementation of this right.60
D. Right to security of person
Legal Sources
Article 9(1) of the ICCPR provides, “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. ... No one
shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are
established by law.” The ACHR also protects security of person in article 5: “Every person has the right to
have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected” and article 7: “Every person has the right to
personal liberty and security.”
The right to security of person, which includes a dimension of the concept of physical integrity, is central
to the abortion debate and to reproductive health. Considering the health consequences and high rates
of maternal mortality associated with unsafe abortion, this right has been interpreted to require
governments to take preventive action, such as liberalizing laws on access to contraceptives and safe
abortion services. In addition, when a pregnancy is unwanted, a legal requirement to continue the
pregnancy arguably constitutes a government intrusion upon a woman’s body in violation of this right.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has recognized a right to fulfillment of basic health
needs as part of the right to security of person. In its 1980-81 annual report, it stated that governments
must “strive to attain the economic and social aspirations of its people by following an order that assigns
priority to the basic needs of health, nutrition and education. The priority of the ‘right to survival’ and
‘basic needs’ is a natural consequence of the right to personal security.” 61
E. Right to liberty
Legal Sources
As noted above, article 9(1) of the ICCPR protects the right to “liberty” as well security of person, and
specifically provides, “No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance
with such procedure as are established by law.” Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights
contains similar language.
The enforcement of criminal sanctions for abortion constitutes an assault on women’s right to liberty by
arbitrarily imprisoning women for seeking to fulfill their health needs. The right to liberty is also threatened
when women are deterred from seeking medical care if they fear being reported to police or other
authorities by doctors or other medical professionals when they suspect the women of unlawful behavior.
The CEDAW Committee has expressed concern in several concluding observations about women being
imprisoned for undergoing illegal abortions, and has urged governments to review their laws to suspend
penalties and imprisonment for abortion.62
F. Right to privacy
Legal Sources
Article 17(1) of the ICCPR provides: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.”
Article 11 of the ACHR states: “No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his
private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Decisions about one’s reproductive capacity are precisely the type of interest that privacy rights should
protect. A pregnant woman’s right to privacy entitles her to decide whether or not to undergo an abortion
without undue government interference.
In addition, breaches of confidentiality by health care providers and some third-party consent
requirements for abortion also infringe the right to privacy. The CEDAW Committee has expressed
concern about both of these situations. In terms of confidentiality, the CEDAW Committee noted in
General Recommendation 24 that while breaches of patient confidentiality affect both men and women,
they may deter women from seeking advice and treatment for diseases of the genital tract, contraception,
incomplete abortion, and in cases where they have suffered sexual or physical violence. 63 General
Recommendation 24 also notes that conditioning women’s access to health services on the authorization
of husbands, partners, parents, or health authorities is a significant barrier to women’s pursuit of their
health goals.64 The CEDAW Committee has also noted that policies that require spousal authorization for
abortion impinge on women’s right to privacy.65
The HRC has remarked that “where States impose a legal duty upon doctors and other health personnel
to report cases of women who have undergone abortion,” this may constitute a violation of a woman’s
privacy. 66 In its concluding observations on Chile, the HRC recommended that the law be amended to
protect the confidentiality of medical information.67
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted that parental consent requirements and a general
lack of confidentiality can be barriers to adolescents’ access to accurate reproductive health information,
services and counseling, particularly in the context of abortion and HIV/AIDS. 68 It has recommended that
governments ensure adolescents confidential reproductive health services without parental consent when
in the adolescent’s best interests, and that laws stipulate the minimum age for medical counseling and
treatment without parental consent.69
G. Right to information
Legal Sources
Article 19(2) of the ICCPR states: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” Article 13 of
the ACHR provides: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes
freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds... .”
Advocates of the right to abortion argue that the right to information, certainly as it relates to the right to
health, includes both the negative obligation for a state to refrain from interference with the provision of
information by private parties and a positive responsibility to provide complete and accurate information
necessary for the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights, including information about
abortion.70 Human rights law further recognizes the right to nondiscrimination in access to information and
health services, as in all other services.71 Women stand to suffer disproportionately when information
concerning safe and legal abortion is withheld.
H. Right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Legal Sources
The right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is protected by international customary
law as well as by several international and regional human rights treaties. Article 7 of the ICCPR states:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article
5 of the ACHR contains identical language.
Various treaty monitoring bodies have, through their interpretations and application of this right, implied
that it has a wider application than the traditional context of government-imposed or tolerated torture or ill
treatment. The HRC in concluding observations on Peru expressed concern that under Peru’s laws,
abortion gave rise to penalty even if the woman was pregnant as a result of rape. It found, repeatedly,
that the criminal code restrictions on abortion subjected women to inhuman treatment possibly
incompatible with article 7 of the ICCPR.72 In its concluding observations on Morocco, the HRC
expressed concern that Moroccan law criminalizes abortion unless carried out to save the mother’s life. It
found that the legislative provision may be incompatible with Article 7 of the ICCPR in some cases in
which women are forced to carry a pregnancy to full term. 73
The denial of access to abortions or abusive treatment in connection with abortions in other
circumstances may also violate the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. For
example, this right is arguably violated where abortions are performed but available pain medications are
denied, where women are arbitrarily denied treatment for incomplete abortions, and when a woman is
forced against her will to continue a pregnancy of a deformed fetus that will almost certainly die in utero or
shortly after birth.
The U.N. Committee against Torture, which monitors the implementation of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, has also recently expressed
concern with situations where post-abortion care is conditioned upon women testifying against
themselves in criminal proceedings, implying that the criminalization of abortion may lead to situations
incompatible with the right to freedom from torture. 74
I. Right to decide the number and spacing of children

Legal Sources
Article 16(1) of CEDAW provides, “States Parties shall ... ensure, on a basis of equality of men and
women . . . (e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their
children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these
rights.”
The right of women to decide on the number and spacing of their children without discrimination can only
be fully implemented where women have access to all safe, effective means of controlling their family
size, including abortion. The CEDAW Committee has repeatedly insisted that abortion must not be used
as a method of family planning.75 At the same time, by insisting on the decriminalization of abortion in
specific circumstances, the Committee has implicitly recognized that abortion, in certain contexts, may be
the only way for a woman to exercise this right, particularly if she became pregnant through rape or
incest, or where her life or health is in danger.
The CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation No. 21 on equality notes:
The responsibilities that women have to bear and raise children affect their right of access to education,
employment and other activities related to their personal development. They also impose inequitable
burdens of work on women. The number and spacing of their children have a similar impact on women’s
lives and also affect their physical and mental health, as well as that of their children. For these reasons,
women are entitled to decide on the number and spacing of their children. 76
This right is reiterated and elaborated in international consensus documents. For example, paragraph 7.2
of the ICPD Programme of Action explains that the concept of reproductive health implies that people
have the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to reproduce. Paragraph 7.3 also refers to the basic
right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of
their children and to have the information and means to do so. The Beijing Platform for Action contains
similar language in paragraphs 95 and 223, which add that people have the right to make decisions
concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion, and violence.
J. Right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress

Legal Sources
Article 15(1) of the ICESCR provides, “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of
everyone . . . (b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications.” Article 14 of the
Protocol of San Salvador states that everyone has the right to “enjoy the benefits of scientific and
technological progress.”
The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress can be interpreted to apply to reproductive rights, for
example where women are denied access to antiprogestin drugs that are effective for non-surgical
abortions (e.g., mifepristone or RU 486).77 To our knowledge, this has not been the subject of any treaty
body documents.
K. Right to freedom of conscience and religion

Legal Sources
Article 18(1) of the ICCPR provides, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion.” Article 12 of the ACHR states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion.
This right includes freedom to maintain or to change one's religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or
disseminate one’s religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private.”
Freedom of religion includes freedom from being compelled to comply with laws designed solely or
principally to uphold doctrines of religious faith. It includes the freedom to follow one’s own conscience
regarding doctrines of faiths one does not hold. In terms of abortion, women should not be compelled to
comply with laws based solely or principally on restrictive religious doctrines, which many abortion
restrictions are.
Freedom of religion and conscience is often invoked by health practitioners opposed to abortion. In fact,
opponents of the right to abortion are increasingly using this to deny access to abortion, and have
mobilized to lobby for “protection of conscience” legislation around the world. 78 While the human rights
framework accommodates conscientious objection, there are limits. For example, conscience cannot
justify a refusal to perform a life-saving abortion when no other suitable alternatives exist for a woman to
obtain the abortion. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that women can obtain the health care
they need and that reasonable alternatives exist when practitioners refuse a service on the basis of
conscience.
The CEDAW Committee has explicitly stated in concluding observations that women’s human rights are
infringed where hospitals refuse to provide abortions due to the conscientious objection of doctors and
has expressed concern about the limited access women have to abortion due to conscientious objections
of practitioners.79 The committee has also expressly recommended that public hospitals provide abortion
services.80 In its concluding observations on Poland, the HRC expressed concern about the unavailability
of abortion in practice even when the law permits it, and about the lack of information on the use of the
conscientious objection clause by medical practitioners who refuse to carry out legal abortions. 81
III. Conclusion
human rights relating to personhood, dignity, and privacy more broadly. Such decisions belong to a
pregnant woman alone, without interference by the state or others.
Any restrictions on abortion that unreasonably interfere with a woman’s exercise of her full range of
human rights should be rejected. Governments should take all necessary steps, both immediate and
incremental, to ensure that women have informed and un-coerced access to safe and legal abortion
services as an element of women’s exercise of their reproductive and other human rights. Abortion
services should be in conformity with international human rights standards, including those on the
adequacy of health services. For all women, it is a matter of equality. For some, it is a matter of life and
death.
For more information on the work of Human Rights Watch’s Women’s Rights Division,
please visit http://www.hrw.org/women/
To download free of charge the text of Human Rights Watch’s full-length report on access
to abortion in Argentina, “Decisions Denied,” please
visithttp://hrw.org/reports/2005/argentina0605/
This briefing paper was authored by Janet Walsh, acting executive director of the
Women’s Rights Division, and Marianne Møllmann, researcher of the Women’s Rights
Division. It was reviewed by LaShawn R. Jefferson, Joanne Mariner, Wilder Tayler, and
Joseph Saunders. Production assistance was provided by Erin Mahoney, Andrea Holley,
Fitzroy Hepkins, and José Martínez. We acknowledge with gratitude the financial support
of the Lisbet Rausing Charitable Trust, Sigrid Rausing Foundation, the Moriah Fund, the
Libra Foundation, the Oak Foundation, the Streisand Foundation, the Schooner
Foundation, the Banky-LaRoque Foundation, the Underdog Fund of the Tides
Foundation. We are grateful for the support of the members of the Advisory Committee of
the Women’s Rights Division.
[1] The implementation of the main human rights treaties under the United Nations human rights system is supervised by committees—called
treaty monitoring bodies—made up of independent experts selected from the states parties to the respective treaties. These committees
receive periodic reports from states parties which they review in dialogue with the states. After such reviews, the committees issue
conclusions and recommendations—generally called concluding remarks—regarding the fulfillment of the rights protected by the conventions
in that specific country. The growing body of concluding remarks issued by the committees provides an important guide for the committees’
thinking on the concrete status and scope of the rights protected under the United Nations system. The committees also sometimes issue
conceptual guidelines on the implementation of a specific human right—called general comments or general recommendations. These
general comments or recommendations provide evolving authoritative interpretation of the human rights in question.
[2] Human Rights Watch’s webpage contains specific information on abortion legislation and history in several Latin American countries at
http://hrw.org/photos/2005/argentina0605/.
[3] “Situación legal y condiciones del aborto en América Latina” [The legal situation and conditions of abortion in Latin America], CIMAC
Noticias, September 28, 2004,[online] http://www.cimacnoticias.com/noticias/04sep/04092803.html (retrieved May 2, 2005).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Only the penal codes of Chile, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic do not contemplate any exceptions to the general criminal
penalties leveled on women who have induced abortions. For Chile: Penal Code of 1874, articles 342-345; and Health Code of 1931, as
amended in 1989, article 119. For El Salvador: Penal Code of 1973, as amended in 1997, articles 133-137. For the Dominican Republic:
Penal Code of 1948, article 317.
[6] “Senado rechaza despenalizar aborto en Uruguay” [Senate rejects the decriminalization of abortion in Uruguay], AP Spanish
Worldstream, May 5, 2004.
[7] “Ministra: Gobierno de Brasil no ha definido posición sobre aborto” [Minister: Brazil’s government has not defined its position on abortion],
AP Spanish Worldstream, December 12, 2004; and “Surge polémica en Brasil en torno a aborto legal por violación” [Polemic surfaces in
Brazil regarding legal abortion in cases of rape], Agencia Mexicana de Noticias (NOTIMEX) March 18, 2005.
[8] Gioconda Espina, “Aborto en Venezuela: Pasando agachadas, de nuevo…” [Abortion in Venezuela: crouching again …], Mujeres Hoy
(Chile), October 13, 2004 [online] http://www.mujereshoy.com/secciones/2498.shtml (retrieved April 14, 2005); “Polémica en Argentina por
intento de ampliar causas de aborto legal” [Polemic in Argentina due to effort to expand causes for legal abortion], CIMAC Noticias (Mexico),
November 18, 2002.
[9] “Landmark constitutional challenge in Colombia seeks to loosen one of World’s Most

Restrictive Abortion Laws,” Women’s Link Worldwide press release, April 14, 2005
[online] http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf/co_lat_col_pressrelease.pdf (retrieved April 14, 2005). For full text of the case online,
seehttp://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf/sp_co_lat_col_lademanda.pdf (retrieved May 2, 2005).
[10] “Negocian cambios en Constitución en legislatura salvadoreña” [Changes negotiated to the Constitution in the Salvadorean legislature],
Reuters, April 30, 1997.
[11] “Congreso de Nicaragua suspende discusión del aborto en medio de protestas” [Nicaraguan Congress suspends discussion on abortion
in the midst of protests], Agence France Presse, July 8, 2004.
[12] CESCR, General Comment 14, The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (2000) (hereinafter
General Comment 14), para. 8.
[13] Ibid., para. 14.
[14] Ibid., para. 21. The full text of this paragraph reads: “To eliminate discrimination against women, there is a need to develop and
implement a comprehensive national strategy for promoting women's right to health throughout their life span. Such a strategy should include
interventions aimed at the prevention and treatment of diseases affecting women, as well as policies to provide access to a full range of high
quality and affordable health care, including sexual and reproductive services. A major goal should be reducing women's health risks,
particularly lowering rates of maternal mortality and protecting women from domestic violence. The realization of women's right to health
requires the removal of all barriers interfering with access to health services, education and information, including in the area of sexual and
reproductive health. It is also important to undertake preventive, promotive and remedial action to shield women from the impact of harmful
traditional cultural practices and norms that deny them their full reproductive rights. ”
[15] See, e.g., the CESCR’s concluding observations on Azerbaijan, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.104 (2004), para. 56; Chile, U.N. Doc.
E/C.12/1/Add.105 (2004), para. 25; Kuwait, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.98 (2004), para. 43; Poland, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.82, (2002), para.
29; and Russia, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.94 (2003), para. 63.
[16] CESCR, concluding observations on Chile, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.105 (2004), para. 25 and Kuwait, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.98 (2004),
para. 43
[17] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 24, Women and Health (Article 12), U.N. Doc. No. A/54/38/Rev.1 (1999) (hereinafter
General Recommendation 24), para. 14.
[18] Ibid., para. 14.
[19] Ibid., para. 31(c).
[20] See, e.g., the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Antigua and Barbuda, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 258;
Argentina, UN Doc. A/59/38, Part II (2004), paras. 380-381; Bangladesh, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 438; Belize, U.N.
Doc. A/54/38, Part II (1999), paras. 56-57; Burkina Faso, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part I (2000), para. 274; Croatia, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, Part I
(1998), para. 109; Cuba, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 219; Dominican Republic, UN Doc. A/59/38, Part II (2004), paras. 308-309;
Ethiopia, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 160; Ethiopia, UN Doc. A/59/38, Part I (2004), paras. 257-258;Georgia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38 , Part II
(1999), para. 111; Greece, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, Part I (1999), paras. 207-208; Guinea, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part II (2001), paras. 128-129;
Guyana, U.N. Doc. A/50/38 (1995), para. 621; Hungary, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 254; Iraq, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part II (2000), paras.
203-204; Kazakhstan, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part I (2001), paras. 105-106; Lithuania, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part II (2000), paras. 158-159;
Mongolia, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part I (2001), para. 269; Morocco, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part I (1997), para. 68; Nicaragua, U.N. Doc.
A/56/38, Part II (2001), paras. 300-301 and 303; Nigeria, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part II (1998), paras. 170-71; Nigeria, UN Doc. A/59/38,
Part I (2004), paras. 307-308;Paraguay, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 123; Peru, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part II (1998), paras. 337 and
341; Republic of Moldova, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part II (2000), paras. 109-110; Romania, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part II (2000), paras. 314-315;
South Africa, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part II (1998), para. 134; Venezuela, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part I (1997), para. 236; Vietnam,
U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part II (2001), para. 266; and Zimbabwe, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, Part I (1998), para. 148.
[21] CEDAW Committee, concluding observations on Burkina Faso, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part I (2000), para. 276.
[22] Committee on the Rights of the Child, concluding observations on Chad, U.N. Doc CRC/C/15/Add.107 (1999), para. 30.
[23] See, e.g., the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s concluding observations on Colombia, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/100 (2000), para. 370.
[24] See, e.g., the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s concluding observations on Angola, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.246 (2004), para.
45;Benin, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.106 (1999), para. 25; Botswana, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.242 (2004), para. 53; Brazil, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.241 (2004), para. 55; El Salvador, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.232 (2004), para. 52; Grenada, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.121
(2000), para. 22; Liberia, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.236 (2004), para. 49(c); Mozambique, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.172 (2002), para. 47(b)
(recommending improvements in health care for adolescents , including “ensuring that abortions can be conducted with all due attention to
minimum standards of health safety”); Nicaragua, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.108 (1999), para. 35; and Sao Tome and Principe, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.235 (2004), para. 47(d).
[25] World Health Organization (WHO), Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of Incidence of and Mortality Due to Unsafe
Abortion with a Listing of Available Country Data (Geneva: WHO, 1997).
[26] HRC, General Comment 6, article 6 (sixteenth session, 1982), para. 5.
[27] HRC, General Comment 28, Equality of Rights between Men and Women (article 3), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C.21/Rev.1/Add.10 (2000)
(hereinafter General Comment 28), para. 10.
[28] See, e.g., the HRC’s concluding observations on Bolivia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.74 (1997), para. 22; Cameroon, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/79/Add.116 (1999), para. 13; Chile, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.104 (1999), para. 15; Colombia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/80/COL
(2004), para. 13; Costa Rica, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.107 (1999), para. 11; Ecuador, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.92 (1998), para. 11;
Guatemala, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM (2001), para. 19; Mali, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/77/MLI (2003), para. 14; Morocco, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/CO/82/MAR (2004), para. 29; Peru, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/70/PER (2000), para. 20; Poland, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.110 (1999),
para. 11; Poland, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/82/POL (2004), para. 8; Senegal, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.82 (1997), para. 12; Sri Lanka, U.N.
Doc. CCPR/CO/79/LKA (2003), para. 12; and Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/71/VEN, (2001), para. 19.
[29] HRC, concluding observations on Chile, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.104 (1999), para. 15.
[30] HRC, concluding observations on Peru, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/70/PER (2000), para. 20.
[31] HRC, concluding observations on Colombia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/80/COL (2004), para. 13.
[32] HRC, concluding observations on Guatemala, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM (1999), para. 19.
[33] See, e.g., the CEDAW Committee’s concluding observations on Belize, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, Part II (1999), para. 56; Colombia, U.N. Doc.
A/54/38/Rev.1, Part I (1999), para. 393; and the Dominican Republic, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part I (1998), para. 337.
[34] CESCR, concluding observations on Chile, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.105 (2004), para. 52; Kuwait, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.98 (2004),
para. 43; and Nepal, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.66 (2001), para. 55.
[35] Paton v. United Kingdom (1981), 3 E.H.R.R. 408 (European Commission on Human Rights), para. 17.
[36] Ibid., para. 23.
[37] Rebecca J. Cook and Bernard M. Dickens, “Human Rights Dynamics of Abortion Law Reform,” Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 25 (2003),
p. 24.
[38] Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (N.P. Engel: Kehl am Rhein, 1993), p. 123.
[39] Ibid., p. 124.
[40] See James F. Bohan, The House of Atreus: Abortion as a Human Rights Issue (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1999), p. 65.
[41] Cook and Dickens, “Human Rights Dynamics of Abortion Law Reform,” p. 24. See also Berta E. Hernández, “To Bear or Not to Bear:
Reproductive Freedom as an International Human Right,” Brooklyn J. of Int’l L., Vol. XVII (1991), p. 334 (“Because the terms “everyone” and
“human being” have been interpreted consistently in national and international tribunals as referring only to human beings born alive, such
language in the Children’s Convention does not, and cannot, include protection of fetal life.”)
[42] ACHR, article 4.
[43] American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, article I.
[44] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, White and Potter (“Baby Boy Case”), Resolution No. 23/81, Case 2141, United States, March 6,
1981, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.54, Doc. 9 Rev. 1, 16 October 1981.
[45] The American Convention on Human Rights was not directly applicable, since the United States had not ratified this convention.
However, as a member of the Organization of American States, the United States is bound by the American Declaration on the Rights and
Duties of Man.
[46] The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which guides public international treaty law, establishes as a general rule of
interpretation of international treaties that “a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to
the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose,” and notes that the preparatory works of a treaty can be used
as a supplementary means of interpretation. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, articles 31 and 32.
[47] Baby Boy Case, para. 14 (a).
[48] Ibid., para. 14(c).
[49] Ibid., para. 30.
[50] Ibid., para. 14(c).
[51] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 25, on article 4, paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women, Temporary Special Measures, U.N. Doc. No. CEDAW/C/2004/I/WP.1/Rev.1 (2004), para. 8.
[52] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 24, on article 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women, Women and Health, U.N. Doc. No. A/54/38/Rev.1, Part I (1999), para. 14.
[53] Ibid., para. 14.
[54] Ibid., para. 31(c).

[55] CEDAW Committee, concluding comments on Colombia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1, Part I (1999), para. 393.
[56] CEDAW Committee, concluding comments on Mexico, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part I (1998), para. 426.
[57] See the HRC’s concluding observations on Argentina, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO.70/ARG (2000), para. 14; Colombia, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/79/Add.76 (1997), para. 24; Ecuador, U.N. Doc. CPR/C/79/Add.92 (1998), para. 11; and Guatemala, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM
(2001), para. 19.
[58] HRC, concluding observations on Argentina, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO.70/ARG (2000), para. 14.
[59] HRC, concluding observations on Colombia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.76 (1997), para. 24.
[60] HRC, General Comment 28, Equality of Rights between Men and Women (article 3), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10 (2000), para.
11.
[61] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1980-1981 Annual Report, 125, cited in Cook, Dickens, and Fathalla, Reproductive
Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics, and Law, p. 164.
[62] See the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Colombia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1, Part I (1999), para. 393; the Dominican
Republic, U.N. Doc. A/59/38, Part II (2004), paras. 284-285; Namibia, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 127; Nepal, U.N. Doc.
A/54/38/Rev.1, Part II (1999), para. 147; Paraguay, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 131; and Peru, U.N. Doc. A/50/38 (1995), para. 446.
See also the HRC’s concluding observations on Colombia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/80/COL (2004), para. 13.
[63] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 24, para. 12(d).
[64] Ibid., para. 14.
[65] See, e.g., the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Indonesia, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part I (1998), para. 284(c) and
Turkey, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part I (1998), paras. 184 and 196.
20.
[68] See, e.g., the CRC’s concluding observations on Djibouti, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.131 (2000), paras. 45-46; Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.127 (2000), para. 46; and Netherlands, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.114 (1999), para. 19. See also CRR and the University of
Toronto International Programme on Reproductive and Sexual Health Law, Bringing Rights to Bear, p. 113.
[69] See, e.g. the CRC’s concluding observations on Austria, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.98 (1999), para. 15; Barbados, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.103 (1999), para. 25; Benin, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.106 (1999), para. 25; Bhutan, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.157 (2001),
para. 45; Djibouti, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.127 (2000), para. 46; France, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.240 (2004), para. 45; Georgia, U.N.
Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.124 (2000), paras. 22-23; Guatemala, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.154 (2001), para. 45; Latvia, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.142 (2001), para. 40; Lesotho, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.147 (2001), paras. 23-24 and 46; Lithuania, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.146 (2001), para. 40; Mali, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.113 (1999), para. 27; Malta, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.129 (2000),
paras. 21-22; Marshall Islands, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.139 (2000), para. 51; Netherlands, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.114 (1999), para. 19;
South Africa, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.122 (2000), para. 31; Turkey, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.152 (2001), para. 54; and Vanuatu, U.N.
Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.111 (1999), para. 20. See also CRR and the University of Toronto International Programme on Reproductive and
Sexual Health Law, Bringing Rights to Bear, p. 113.
[70] Article 19, The Right to Know: Human Rights and Access to Reproductive Health Information (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1995), pp. 39 and 61-72.
[71] See ICESCR, article 2(2) as well as CESCR, General Comment 14, paras. 12(b), and 18-19.
[72] HRC, concluding observations on Peru, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.72 (1996), para. 15; and concluding observations on Peru, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/CO/70/PER (2000), para. 20.
[73] HRC, concluding observations on Morocco, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/82/CAR (2004), para. 29.
[74] Committee against Torture, “Conclusion and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Chile,” U.N. Doc. CAT/C/CR/32/5
(2004), para. 6(j).
[75] See e.g., the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Belarus, U.N. Doc. A/59/38, Part. I (2004), paras. 355-56; Burundi, U.N.
Doc. A/56/38, Part. I (2001), para. 62; Kazakhstan, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part I (2001), para. 105; and Uzbekistan, para. 185.
[76] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 21, Equality in Marriage and Family Relations (1992), para. 21.
[77] Cook, Dickens, and Fathalla, Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics, and Law, p. 194.
[78] See the website of the “Protection of Conscience Project” at http://www.consciencelaws.org.
[79] See the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Croatia, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, Part I (1998), para. 109 and Italy, U.N. Doc.
A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 353.
[80] See the CEDAW Committee’s concluding observations on Croatia, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, Part I (1998), para. 117 and Italy, U.N. Doc.
A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 360.
[81] HRC, concluding observations on Poland, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/82/POL (2004), para. 8.
International Human Rights Law and Abortion in Latin

America
Download PDF file (288 KB, 22 pages)
Latin America is home to some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. While only three
countries—Chile, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic—provide no exceptions or extenuating
circumstances for the criminal sanctions on abortion, in most countries and jurisdictions, exceptions are
provided only when necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life and in certain other narrowly defined
circumstances. Even where abortion is not punished by law, women often have severely limited access
because of lack of proper regulation and political will.
human rights relating to personhood, dignity, and privacy more broadly. Continuing barriers to such
decisions in Latin America interfere with women’s enjoyment of their rights, and fuel clandestine and
unsafe practices, a major cause of maternal mortality in much of the region.
Latin American women’s organizations have fought for the right to safe and legal abortion for decades.
Increasingly, international human rights law supports their claims. In fact, international human rights legal
instruments and interpretations of those instruments by authoritative U.N. expert bodies compel the
conclusion that access to safe and legal abortion services is integral to the fulfillment of women’s human
rights generally, including their reproductive rights and rights relating to their full and equal personhood.
This paper offers (1) a brief overview of the status of abortion legislation in Latin America and (2) an in-
depth analysis of international human rights law in this area. In addition to citing international treaty texts,
it draws heavily from the work of United Nations treaty monitoring bodies. 1 Human Rights Watch hopes
that this distillation of international law will support the efforts of women’s rights activists in Latin America.
I. Restrictions on Abortion in Latin America

In Latin America and the Caribbean, women face multiple barriers to free exercise of their reproductive
rights, including restrictive abortion legislation.2 In fact, many women struggle daily to gain even minimal
autonomy over their intimate lives. Some are raped by their husbands or others, while many more are
denied access to contraceptives and reproductive health services and refused the possibility to decide to
terminate unwanted pregnancies with safe and legal abortions. Across the region, millions of abortions
are performed every year, most of them under unsafe and clandestine conditions, and thousands of
women die as a result.3 In many countries in the region, the consequences of illegal abortions constitute
a leading cause of maternal mortality.4
Fortunately, the first few years of the twenty-first century have shown some encouraging signs due in
large part to the tireless efforts of women’s rights activists. Even though abortion is illegal in almost all
countries in the region (except Cuba), most countries allow criminal penalties to be waived or lowered in
specific circumstances, including—most often—where the life or health of the pregnant woman is in
danger, or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. 5 In several countries in the region—in
South America and parts of Mexico in particular—law and policy-makers, under heavy pressure from
women’s right activists, have amended restrictive abortion laws and put procedures in place that are
meant to alleviate the disastrous health consequences of unsafe abortions. In Uruguay, a reproductive
health bill, which included several positive steps on provision of contraceptives and related information,
was approved by the House of Representatives in 2002 and lost in the Senate by only four votes in
2004.6 In Brazil, the government set up a committee in 2005 to propose legal reform related to abortion,
and the Health Ministry passed a resolution meant to facilitate women’s access to safe and decriminalized
abortion when their pregnancies are the result of rape. 7
In other countries in South America, positive developments also may be imminent. In Argentina and
Venezuela as well as in other countries, bills seeking to decriminalize abortion in some or all cases are
pending in the respective congresses.8 And in Colombia in April 2005, a lawyer challenged the penal
code provisions on abortion before Colombia’s constitutional court, charging that the law should explicitly
provide for exemptions from punishment where the woman’s life or health is in danger and where the
pregnancy is the result of rape.9
In other parts of the region, however, developments are less encouraging. In 1997, El Salvador’s
congress amended the penal code to eliminate the possibility of waiving criminal punishment where the
pregnant woman’s life is in danger, where the pregnancy is the result of rape, or where the fetus suffers
severe and predictable deformities.10 As a result, women who have abortions in El Salvador risk criminal
penalties even if their life is threatened by the pregnancy. In other countries in Central America and the
Caribbean, legislators and policy makers have proposed further restricting already restrictive laws. In
2004 in Nicaragua, for example, the congress debated removing the possibility of waiving criminal
penalties for abortion where the woman’s life is in danger, but the debate was suspended because of the
uproar it created on both sides of the issue.11
Despite differences in national abortion laws, women have severely limited access to legal abortion in
most countries in Latin America. Across the region, lack of proper regulations and fear of legal
prosecution on the part of both doctors and women limit women’s options. Women’s rights activists have
long insisted that while reform of abortion laws is essential for women’s full enjoyment of their human
rights, the full and effective implementation of existing penal code provisions that permit access to safe
and legal abortion in limited cases would be a positive initial step.
II. Overview of International Human Rights Law on
Abortion
International standards on the link between access to abortion and women’s exercise of their human
rights have undergone significant development over the past decade. Evidence of this development is
clear in the work of U.N. treaty bodies, one regional human rights protocol, and consensus documents
from international conferences on women’s rights and reproductive rights and health.
Authoritative interpretations of international law recognize that abortion is vitally important to women’s
exercise of their human rights. U.N. treaty bodies, which take a measured approach to interpreting
international human rights law, have consistently and extensively opined on abortion access and
restrictions. By our count, as of early 2005, at least 122 concluding observations on ninety-three
countries spanning more than a decade by U.N. treaty bodies have substantively addressed how abortion
relates to fundamental human rights. These bodies reason that firmly established human rights are
jeopardized by restrictive or punitive abortion laws and practices. Their jurisprudence on specific human
rights and their relevance to abortion are described below.
Although the text of most international treaties is silent on the topic of abortion, a new protocol on
women’s rights under the African human rights system explicitly addresses abortion. The Protocol to the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, adopted by the African
Union in 2003, provides that member states must take all appropriate measures to “protect the
reproductive rights of women by authorizing medical abortion in cases of sexual assault, rape, incest, and
where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the
mother or the foetus.” Although the protocol only calls on governments to permit abortion under particular
circumstances, it is a significant step in the development of international law on abortion.
Even without more explicit treaty language on abortion, it is clear that international human rights law
supports women’s right to decide independently in matters related to abortion, without interference from
the state or third parties. The sections below describe how the following human rights have been
interpreted to pertain to abortion:
A. Rights to health and health care. p. 3
B. Right to life. p. 3
C. Right to nondiscrimination; Right to equality. p. 3
D. Right to security of person. p. 3
E. Right to liberty. p. 3
F. Right to privacy. p. 3
G. Right to information. p. 3
H. Right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment p. 3
I. Right to decide the number and spacing of children. p. 3

J. Right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. p. 3
K. Right to freedom of conscience and religion. p. 3
A. Rights to health and health care

Legal Sources
The rights to health and health care are recognized in a number of international instruments. For
example, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) provides in
article 12(1) that states must recognize “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health.” The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) also provides in article 12(1) that “States Parties shall take all
appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to
ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related
to family planning” and in article 14(2)(b) that states must ensure that women in rural areas “have access
to adequate health care facilities, including information, counselling and services in family planning.”
Article 24(d) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) also provides that states must take
measures to “ensure appropriate pre- and post-natal health care for expectant mothers” as part of the
obligation to recognize children’s right to the highest attainable standard of health. Finally, the Additional
Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) provides in article 10: “Everyone shall have the right to health,
understood to mean the enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental and social well-being.”
Unsafe abortions are a grave threat to women’s health; between 10 and 50 percent of women who
undergo unsafe abortions require post-abortion medical attention for complications such as incomplete
abortion, infection, uterine perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease, hemorrhage, or other injury to internal
organs. These may result in death, permanent injury, or infertility.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) provided its most comprehensive
assessment of the right to health in its General Comment 14, which explains that this right contains both
freedoms, such as “the right to control one’s health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom,”
and entitlements, such as “the right to a system of health protection which provides equality of opportunity
for people to enjoy the highest attainable level of health.” 12 It also calls on states to adopt measures to
“improve . . . sexual and reproductive health services, including access to family planning, pre-and post-
natal care, emergency obstetric services and access to information, as well as to resources necessary to
act on that information.”13 It recommends that states remove all barriers to women’s access to health
services, education, and information, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health. 14 Its
concluding observations have addressed risks to women’s health resulting from restrictive abortion laws,
and have recommended improving medical and sanitary conditions for carrying out abortions. 15 Citing
concern about the negative consequences of restrictive abortion laws on women’s health, the CESCR
has recommended that states legalize abortion in some circumstances, such as when the pregnancy is
the result of rape or incest, and when the life of the pregnant women is endangered. 16
General Recommendation 24 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

(CEDAW Committee) on women and health affirms states’ obligation to respect women’s access to
reproductive health services and to “refrain from obstructing action taken by women in pursuit of their
health goals.”17 It explains that “barriers to women’s access to appropriate health care include laws that
criminalize medical procedures only needed by women and that punish women who undergo those
procedures.”18 It recommends that “[w]hen possible, legislation criminalizing abortion could be amended
to remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion.” 19 In a number of concluding
observations, the CEDAW Committee has expressed concern over women’s limited access to
reproductive health services and information, and has criticized factors that impede women’s health care,
such as religious influences, privatization of health care, and budgetary restrictions. 20 In at least one
instance, it recommended that the state party provide public funding to women needing abortions. 21
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has, in its concluding observations, asked governments to
review legislation prohibiting abortion where unsafe abortions contribute to high rates of maternal
mortality, and in some cases to undertake studies to understand the negative impact of illegal abortion. 22
In other cases, it has simply expressed concern about high maternal mortality rates from abortion for
teenagers without recommending any particular remedy.23 It has requested that governments increase
access to reproductive health care services and education, particularly for adolescents, and in at least
one case recommended that a government ensure that abortions be conducted with due attention to
minimum standards of health safety.24
B. Right to Life
Legal Sources
In addition to being recognized as a part of customary international law, the right to life is protected in a
number of human rights treaties. Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) provides: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” Article 6 of the CRC provides that that “every child has the
inherent right to life.” The American Convention on Human Rights provides in article 4(1): “Every person
has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the
moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
With approximately 1,400 maternal deaths worldwide each day, 13 percent of which are attributable to
unsafe abortion, and with evidence showing that maternal mortality increases when countries criminalize
abortion, restrictive abortion laws can have a devastating impact on the right to life. Governments could
save tens of thousands of women’s lives every year by ensuring access to safe abortion services. 25
The U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC) has explained that the right to life should not be understood in
a restrictive manner, and that states must adopt positive measures to protect this right. 26 Under its
General Comment 28, the HRC requires states to report on pregnancy and childbirth-related deaths of
women.27 Moreover, it has noted with concern the relationship between restrictive abortion laws,
clandestine abortions, and threats to women’s lives. 28 In the case of Chile, where abortion has been
illegal in all circumstances since 1986, the HRC noted that:
The criminalization of all abortions, without exception, raises serious issues, especially in the light of
unrefuted reports that many women undergo illegal abortions that pose a threat to their lives. … The State
party is under a duty to take measures to ensure the right to life of all persons, including pregnant women
whose pregnancies are terminated. …. The Committee recommends that the law be amended so as to
introduce exceptions to the general prohibition of all abortions. 29
In the case of Peru, the HRC went further to note that the penal code provisions of that country—which
subject women to criminal penalties even when the pregnancy is the result of rape—are incompatible with
the rights to equal enjoyment of other rights protected by the ICCPR:
It is a matter of concern that abortion continues to be subject to criminal penalties, even when pregnancy
is the result of rape. Clandestine abortion continues to be the main cause of maternal mortality in Peru.
… The Committee once again states that these provisions are incompatible with articles 3 [equal
enjoyment of rights], 6 [right to life], and 7 [freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment] of the Covenant and recommends that the legislation be amended to establish exceptions to
the prohibition and punishment of abortion.30
In 2004, it noted with regard to Colombia:
The Committee notes with concern that the existence of legislation criminalizing all abortions under the
law can lead to situations in which women are obliged to undergo high-risk clandestine abortions. It is
especially concerned that women who have been victims of rape or incest or whose lives are in danger as
a result of their pregnancy may be prosecuted for resorting to such measures (art. 6) [the right to life].
The State party should ensure that the legislation applicable to abortion is revised so that no criminal
offences are involved in the cases described above. 31
Finally, in its 1999 concluding observations on Guatemala, the HRC noted:
[t]he State has the duty to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the right to life (art. 6) of pregnant
women who decide to interrupt their pregnancy by providing the necessary information and resources to
guarantee their rights and amending the legislation to provide for exceptions for the general prohibition of
all abortions except where the mother’s life is in danger. 32
The CEDAW Committee has also expressed concern in dozens of concluding observations about high
rates of maternal mortality, including due to the unavailability of safe abortion services. In some cases, it
has explicitly asserted that such deaths indicate that governments may not be not respecting women’s
right to life.33
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has asked a state party to legalize
abortion on at least three occasions, specifically when a pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or is the
result of rape or incest.34
Although the right to life clearly protects the interests of pregnant women, opponents of abortion rights
also vocally argue that the “right to life” of a fetus should predominate. There is debate as to when “legal
personhood” commences and when the right to life should apply, with many arguing that it should only
apply as a legal concept after birth. There has been scholarly and judicial analysis of three situations
(described in more detail below): (1) where legal instruments are silent as to when the right to life
commences, (2) where there is ambiguous language, and (3) where legal instruments clearly state that
the right to life commences from conception.
The silence of certain legal instruments concerning the starting point for the right to life has been
understood by bodies charged with interpreting them and by human rights scholars to imply that the right
to life does not apply before the birth of a human being. In the 1980 Paton v. United Kingdom case, the
European Commission ruled that for purposes of limitations on the right to life, the term “everyone” in
article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(which protects “everyone’s right to life”) did not include the unborn. 35 It further held that even if a fetus
were entitled to some protection, article 2 could not prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion at an
early stage of pregnancy to protect her physical and mental health. 36
The legislative history of the ICCPR also provides some insight into this matter. Proposals during
debates over the ICCPR to add language protecting the right to life from the time of conception were
rejected, and scholars say that article 6(1) of the ICCPR conferring the right to life on “human beings” is
understood to mean human beings after birth.37 ICCPR expert Manfred Nowak points out that various
countries (Lebanon, Belgium, Brazil, El Salvador, Mexico, and Morocco) proposed language between the
years 1950 and 1957 that would have protected the right to life from the moment of conception, but these
proposals were voted down. He notes that the discussions preceding such votes left “no doubt that, for a
variety of reasons, the majority of delegates decided that it would not be sensible to adopt such a
provision.”38 He notes that some interpretations of the right to life would apply this right to a fetus from the
point of viability, but that the right of the unborn child would have to be balanced against other basic
rights, including the rights of the pregnant woman to life and privacy. 39
Some international human rights instruments are ambiguous concerning the right to life, leading to
disparate interpretations. For example, writer James Bohan argues that ambiguous language in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child can be interpreted as constituting a right to life of the fetus. Article
6 of the CRC provides that “every child has the inherent right to life.” Article 1 defines “child” as every
human being below the age of 18 years. The preamble states that the convention was drafted “bearing in
mind” that the Declaration on the Rights of the Child provided that children need “appropriate legal
protection before as well as after birth.” Taken together, Bohan asserts that these provisions establish a
legal right to life of a fetus.40
This perspective is countered by legal experts such as Professors Rebecca Cook and Bernard Dickens.
They point out that when the CRC was being drafted in the 1980s, a similar proposal concerning the right
to life from conception to that made during ICCPR negotiations was debated and rejected. While the
CRC’s preamble refers to appropriate legal protection before birth, the operative language defining the
term “child” refers to “human beings” below the age of eighteen. Thus, the enforceable provisions of the
CRC are widely understood to retain the historical understanding that legally protected status as a human
being begins at live birth.41
The American Convention on Human Rights is the only international human rights instrument that
contemplates that the right to life can apply from the moment of conception, though not in absolute
terms.42 The American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the predecessor instrument to the
ACHR, does not mention conception, guaranteeing instead that “every human being has the right to life,
liberty, and the security of his person.”43
In 1981, the body that monitors the implementation of the human rights provisions in the American
regional system—the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—was asked to establish whether or
not the right-to-life provisions in these documents are compatible with a woman’s right to access safe and
legal abortions. The commission concluded that they are. The question reached the commission through
a petition brought against the United States government by individuals related to a group called Catholics
for Christian Political Action when a medical doctor was acquitted of manslaughter after performing an
abortion in 1973—the “Baby Boy” case.44 The petitioners asked the commission to declare the United
States in violation of the right to life under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man,
using the American Convention on Human Rights as an interpretative tool. 45 In the deliberation on the
Baby Boy case, the Commission went to great pains to examine the provisions on the right to life in both
the declaration and the convention, looking to the preparatory work for both documents to clarify the
intended object and purpose of the wording of the provisions. 46
In the case of the declaration, the commission explained:
[I]t is important to note that the conferees in Bogotá in 1948 rejected language which would have
extended that right to the unborn … [and] … adopted a simple statement on the right to life, without
reference to the unborn, and linked it to the liberty and security of the person. Thus it would appear
incorrect to read the Declaration as incorporating the notion that the right to life exists from the moment of
conception. The conferees faced this question and chose not to adopt language which would clearly
have stated that principle.47
With regard to the convention—which, as noted above, protects the right to life, in general, from the
moment of conception—the commission found that the wording of the right to life in article 4 was very
deliberate and that the convention’s founders specifically intended the “in general” clause to allow for non-
restrictive domestic abortion legislation. As the commission phrased it: “it was recognized in the drafting
session in San José that this phrase left open the possibility that states parties to a future Convention
could include in their domestic legislation ‘the most diverse cases of abortion,” 48 allowing for legal abortion
under this article. The commission went on to correct the petitioners in their selective reading of the
ACHR:
[I]t is clear that the petitioners’ interpretation of the definition given by the American Convention on the
right of life is incorrect. The addition of the phrase “in general, from the moment of conception” does not
mean that the drafters of the Convention intended to modify the concept of the right to life that prevailed in
Bogotá, when they approved the American Declaration. The legal implications of the clause “in general,
from the moment of conception” are substantially different from the shorter clause “from the moment of
conception” as appears repeatedly in the petitioners’ briefs. 49
The commission also cited several countries, including the United States and Brazil, for having clarified
during the negotiations that, notwithstanding any language contained in article 4(1) of the convention,
they retained the right to “preserv[e their] discretion with respect to the content of legislation in the light of
their own social development, experience and similar factors.”50
C. Right to nondiscrimination; Right to equality

Legal Sources
The rights to nondiscrimination and equality are set forth in a number of international human rights
instruments. In addition to the basic provisions in articles 2(1) and 3 of the ICCPR, articles 2(2) and 3 of
the ICESCR, and article 1 of the ACHR, CEDAW comprehensively addresses discrimination against
women. CEDAW defines discrimination against women in article 1 as:
[A]ny distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of
impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital
status, on the basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.
CEDAW obliges states to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters regarding marriage and
family relations (article 16). Article 10(h) of CEDAW requires states parties to provide women equal
access to educational materials and advice on health issues, including on family planning. As noted
under the right to health above, CEDAW also prohibits discrimination against women in the field of health
care and in access to health care services, and calls for special efforts to eliminate discrimination against
rural women in their access to health care services and information. Article 2(f) requires that states “take
all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs
and practices which constitute discrimination against women,” and article 5(a) requires that states take
appropriate measures “[t]o modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a
view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on
the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and
women.” More generally, article 3 provides that states must take “all appropriate measures, including
legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing
them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with
men.”
All of these provisions are aimed at achieving substantive equality and not mere formal equality. As
explained by the CEDAW Committee: “It is not enough to guarantee women treatment that is identical to
that of men. Rather, biological as well as socially and culturally constructed differences between women
and men must be taken into account.”51
Access to safe and legal abortion services is essential to the protection of women’s rights to
nondiscrimination and substantive equality. Abortion is a medical procedure that only women need. In its
General Recommendation on women and health, the CEDAW Committee has implied that the denial of
medical procedures only women need is a form of discrimination against women. The General
Recommendation affirms states’ obligation to respect access for all women to reproductive health
services and to “refrain from obstructing action taken by women in pursuit of their health goals.” 52 It
explains that “barriers to women’s access to appropriate health care include laws that criminalize medical
procedures only needed by women and that punish women who undergo these procedures.” 53 The
committee recommended that “[w]hen possible, legislation criminalizing abortion could be amended to
remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion.” 54
In addition, in its concluding remarks on Colombia in 1999, the CEDAW Committee was quite clear that it
considered restrictive abortion laws as contrary to the right to nondiscrimination in access to health care:
The Committee notes with great concern that abortion, which is the second cause of maternal deaths in
Colombia, is punishable as an illegal act. … The Committee believes that legal provisions on abortion
constitute a violation of the rights of women to health and life and of article 12 of the Convention [the right
to health care without discrimination].55
Likewise, in 1998, the CEDAW Committee recommended to Mexico “that all states of Mexico should
review their legislation so that, where necessary, women are granted access to rapid and easy abortion.” 56
Women are in practice more likely than men to experience personal hardship as well social disadvantage
flowing from economic, career, and other de facto life changes when they have children. Where women
are compelled to continue unwanted pregnancies, such consequences forcibly put women at a
disadvantage.
In several concluding observations on country reports from the Latin American region, including
Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, and Guatemala, the U.N. Human Rights Committee has established a
clear link between women’s equality and the availability of reproductive health information and services,
including abortion.57 In the case of Argentina, the Committee noted:
The Committee is concerned that the criminalization of abortion deters medical professionals from
providing this procedure without judicial order, even when they are permitted to do so by law, inter alia
when there are clear health risks for the mother or when pregnancy results from rape of mentally disabled
women. The Committee also expresses concern over discriminatory aspects of the laws and policies in
force, which result in disproportionate resort to illegal, unsafe abortions by poor and rural women. 58
On Colombia, it said:
The Committee expresses its concern over the situation of women who, despite some improvements,
continue to be subject of de jure and de facto discrimination in all spheres of economic, social and public
life. It notes in this regard that … [i]t is … concerned at the high mortality rate of women resulting from
clandestine abortions.59
In its General Comment on the right to equal enjoyment of civil and political rights, the Human Rights
Committee also requested that governments provide information in their periodic reports about access to
safe abortion for women who have become pregnant as a result of rape, as relevant to its evaluation of
the implementation of this right.60
D. Right to security of person
Legal Sources
Article 9(1) of the ICCPR provides, “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. ... No one
shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are
established by law.” The ACHR also protects security of person in article 5: “Every person has the right to
have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected” and article 7: “Every person has the right to
personal liberty and security.”
The right to security of person, which includes a dimension of the concept of physical integrity, is central
to the abortion debate and to reproductive health. Considering the health consequences and high rates
of maternal mortality associated with unsafe abortion, this right has been interpreted to require
governments to take preventive action, such as liberalizing laws on access to contraceptives and safe
abortion services. In addition, when a pregnancy is unwanted, a legal requirement to continue the
pregnancy arguably constitutes a government intrusion upon a woman’s body in violation of this right.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has recognized a right to fulfillment of basic health
needs as part of the right to security of person. In its 1980-81 annual report, it stated that governments
must “strive to attain the economic and social aspirations of its people by following an order that assigns
priority to the basic needs of health, nutrition and education. The priority of the ‘right to survival’ and
‘basic needs’ is a natural consequence of the right to personal security.” 61
E. Right to liberty
Legal Sources
As noted above, article 9(1) of the ICCPR protects the right to “liberty” as well security of person, and
specifically provides, “No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance
with such procedure as are established by law.” Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights
contains similar language.
The enforcement of criminal sanctions for abortion constitutes an assault on women’s right to liberty by
arbitrarily imprisoning women for seeking to fulfill their health needs. The right to liberty is also threatened
when women are deterred from seeking medical care if they fear being reported to police or other
authorities by doctors or other medical professionals when they suspect the women of unlawful behavior.
The CEDAW Committee has expressed concern in several concluding observations about women being
imprisoned for undergoing illegal abortions, and has urged governments to review their laws to suspend
penalties and imprisonment for abortion.62
F. Right to privacy
Legal Sources
Article 17(1) of the ICCPR provides: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.”
Article 11 of the ACHR states: “No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his
private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Decisions about one’s reproductive capacity are precisely the type of interest that privacy rights should
protect. A pregnant woman’s right to privacy entitles her to decide whether or not to undergo an abortion
without undue government interference.
In addition, breaches of confidentiality by health care providers and some third-party consent
requirements for abortion also infringe the right to privacy. The CEDAW Committee has expressed
concern about both of these situations. In terms of confidentiality, the CEDAW Committee noted in
General Recommendation 24 that while breaches of patient confidentiality affect both men and women,
they may deter women from seeking advice and treatment for diseases of the genital tract, contraception,
incomplete abortion, and in cases where they have suffered sexual or physical violence. 63 General
Recommendation 24 also notes that conditioning women’s access to health services on the authorization
of husbands, partners, parents, or health authorities is a significant barrier to women’s pursuit of their
health goals.64 The CEDAW Committee has also noted that policies that require spousal authorization for
abortion impinge on women’s right to privacy.65
The HRC has remarked that “where States impose a legal duty upon doctors and other health personnel
to report cases of women who have undergone abortion,” this may constitute a violation of a woman’s
privacy. 66 In its concluding observations on Chile, the HRC recommended that the law be amended to
protect the confidentiality of medical information.67
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted that parental consent requirements and a general
lack of confidentiality can be barriers to adolescents’ access to accurate reproductive health information,
services and counseling, particularly in the context of abortion and HIV/AIDS. 68 It has recommended that
governments ensure adolescents confidential reproductive health services without parental consent when
in the adolescent’s best interests, and that laws stipulate the minimum age for medical counseling and
treatment without parental consent.69
G. Right to information
Legal Sources
Article 19(2) of the ICCPR states: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” Article 13 of
the ACHR provides: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes
freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds... .”
Advocates of the right to abortion argue that the right to information, certainly as it relates to the right to
health, includes both the negative obligation for a state to refrain from interference with the provision of
information by private parties and a positive responsibility to provide complete and accurate information
necessary for the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights, including information about
abortion.70 Human rights law further recognizes the right to nondiscrimination in access to information and
health services, as in all other services.71 Women stand to suffer disproportionately when information
concerning safe and legal abortion is withheld.
H. Right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Legal Sources
The right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is protected by international customary
law as well as by several international and regional human rights treaties. Article 7 of the ICCPR states:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article
5 of the ACHR contains identical language.
Various treaty monitoring bodies have, through their interpretations and application of this right, implied
that it has a wider application than the traditional context of government-imposed or tolerated torture or ill
treatment. The HRC in concluding observations on Peru expressed concern that under Peru’s laws,
abortion gave rise to penalty even if the woman was pregnant as a result of rape. It found, repeatedly,
that the criminal code restrictions on abortion subjected women to inhuman treatment possibly
incompatible with article 7 of the ICCPR.72 In its concluding observations on Morocco, the HRC
expressed concern that Moroccan law criminalizes abortion unless carried out to save the mother’s life. It
found that the legislative provision may be incompatible with Article 7 of the ICCPR in some cases in
which women are forced to carry a pregnancy to full term. 73
The denial of access to abortions or abusive treatment in connection with abortions in other
circumstances may also violate the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. For
example, this right is arguably violated where abortions are performed but available pain medications are
denied, where women are arbitrarily denied treatment for incomplete abortions, and when a woman is
forced against her will to continue a pregnancy of a deformed fetus that will almost certainly die in utero or
shortly after birth.
The U.N. Committee against Torture, which monitors the implementation of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, has also recently expressed
concern with situations where post-abortion care is conditioned upon women testifying against
themselves in criminal proceedings, implying that the criminalization of abortion may lead to situations
incompatible with the right to freedom from torture. 74
I. Right to decide the number and spacing of children

Legal Sources
Article 16(1) of CEDAW provides, “States Parties shall ... ensure, on a basis of equality of men and
women . . . (e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their
children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these
rights.”
The right of women to decide on the number and spacing of their children without discrimination can only
be fully implemented where women have access to all safe, effective means of controlling their family
size, including abortion. The CEDAW Committee has repeatedly insisted that abortion must not be used
as a method of family planning.75 At the same time, by insisting on the decriminalization of abortion in
specific circumstances, the Committee has implicitly recognized that abortion, in certain contexts, may be
the only way for a woman to exercise this right, particularly if she became pregnant through rape or
incest, or where her life or health is in danger.
The CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation No. 21 on equality notes:
The responsibilities that women have to bear and raise children affect their right of access to education,
employment and other activities related to their personal development. They also impose inequitable
burdens of work on women. The number and spacing of their children have a similar impact on women’s
lives and also affect their physical and mental health, as well as that of their children. For these reasons,
women are entitled to decide on the number and spacing of their children. 76
This right is reiterated and elaborated in international consensus documents. For example, paragraph 7.2
of the ICPD Programme of Action explains that the concept of reproductive health implies that people
have the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to reproduce. Paragraph 7.3 also refers to the basic
right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of
their children and to have the information and means to do so. The Beijing Platform for Action contains
similar language in paragraphs 95 and 223, which add that people have the right to make decisions
concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion, and violence.
J. Right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress

Legal Sources
Article 15(1) of the ICESCR provides, “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of
everyone . . . (b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications.” Article 14 of the
Protocol of San Salvador states that everyone has the right to “enjoy the benefits of scientific and
technological progress.”
The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress can be interpreted to apply to reproductive rights, for
example where women are denied access to antiprogestin drugs that are effective for non-surgical
abortions (e.g., mifepristone or RU 486).77 To our knowledge, this has not been the subject of any treaty
body documents.
K. Right to freedom of conscience and religion

Legal Sources
Article 18(1) of the ICCPR provides, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion.” Article 12 of the ACHR states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion.
This right includes freedom to maintain or to change one's religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or
disseminate one’s religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private.”
Freedom of religion includes freedom from being compelled to comply with laws designed solely or
principally to uphold doctrines of religious faith. It includes the freedom to follow one’s own conscience
regarding doctrines of faiths one does not hold. In terms of abortion, women should not be compelled to
comply with laws based solely or principally on restrictive religious doctrines, which many abortion
restrictions are.
Freedom of religion and conscience is often invoked by health practitioners opposed to abortion. In fact,
opponents of the right to abortion are increasingly using this to deny access to abortion, and have
mobilized to lobby for “protection of conscience” legislation around the world. 78 While the human rights
framework accommodates conscientious objection, there are limits. For example, conscience cannot
justify a refusal to perform a life-saving abortion when no other suitable alternatives exist for a woman to
obtain the abortion. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that women can obtain the health care
they need and that reasonable alternatives exist when practitioners refuse a service on the basis of
conscience.
The CEDAW Committee has explicitly stated in concluding observations that women’s human rights are
infringed where hospitals refuse to provide abortions due to the conscientious objection of doctors and
has expressed concern about the limited access women have to abortion due to conscientious objections
of practitioners.79 The committee has also expressly recommended that public hospitals provide abortion
services.80 In its concluding observations on Poland, the HRC expressed concern about the unavailability
of abortion in practice even when the law permits it, and about the lack of information on the use of the
conscientious objection clause by medical practitioners who refuse to carry out legal abortions. 81
III. Conclusion
human rights relating to personhood, dignity, and privacy more broadly. Such decisions belong to a
pregnant woman alone, without interference by the state or others.
Any restrictions on abortion that unreasonably interfere with a woman’s exercise of her full range of
human rights should be rejected. Governments should take all necessary steps, both immediate and
incremental, to ensure that women have informed and un-coerced access to safe and legal abortion
services as an element of women’s exercise of their reproductive and other human rights. Abortion
services should be in conformity with international human rights standards, including those on the
adequacy of health services. For all women, it is a matter of equality. For some, it is a matter of life and
death.
For more information on the work of Human Rights Watch’s Women’s Rights Division,
please visit http://www.hrw.org/women/
To download free of charge the text of Human Rights Watch’s full-length report on access
to abortion in Argentina, “Decisions Denied,” please
visithttp://hrw.org/reports/2005/argentina0605/
This briefing paper was authored by Janet Walsh, acting executive director of the
Women’s Rights Division, and Marianne Møllmann, researcher of the Women’s Rights
Division. It was reviewed by LaShawn R. Jefferson, Joanne Mariner, Wilder Tayler, and
Joseph Saunders. Production assistance was provided by Erin Mahoney, Andrea Holley,
Fitzroy Hepkins, and José Martínez. We acknowledge with gratitude the financial support
of the Lisbet Rausing Charitable Trust, Sigrid Rausing Foundation, the Moriah Fund, the
Libra Foundation, the Oak Foundation, the Streisand Foundation, the Schooner
Foundation, the Banky-LaRoque Foundation, the Underdog Fund of the Tides
Foundation. We are grateful for the support of the members of the Advisory Committee of
the Women’s Rights Division.
[1] The implementation of the main human rights treaties under the United Nations human rights system is supervised by committees—called
treaty monitoring bodies—made up of independent experts selected from the states parties to the respective treaties. These committees
receive periodic reports from states parties which they review in dialogue with the states. After such reviews, the committees issue
conclusions and recommendations—generally called concluding remarks—regarding the fulfillment of the rights protected by the conventions
in that specific country. The growing body of concluding remarks issued by the committees provides an important guide for the committees’
thinking on the concrete status and scope of the rights protected under the United Nations system. The committees also sometimes issue
conceptual guidelines on the implementation of a specific human right—called general comments or general recommendations. These
general comments or recommendations provide evolving authoritative interpretation of the human rights in question.
[2] Human Rights Watch’s webpage contains specific information on abortion legislation and history in several Latin American countries at
http://hrw.org/photos/2005/argentina0605/.
[3] “Situación legal y condiciones del aborto en América Latina” [The legal situation and conditions of abortion in Latin America], CIMAC
Noticias, September 28, 2004,[online] http://www.cimacnoticias.com/noticias/04sep/04092803.html (retrieved May 2, 2005).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Only the penal codes of Chile, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic do not contemplate any exceptions to the general criminal
penalties leveled on women who have induced abortions. For Chile: Penal Code of 1874, articles 342-345; and Health Code of 1931, as
amended in 1989, article 119. For El Salvador: Penal Code of 1973, as amended in 1997, articles 133-137. For the Dominican Republic:
Penal Code of 1948, article 317.
[6] “Senado rechaza despenalizar aborto en Uruguay” [Senate rejects the decriminalization of abortion in Uruguay], AP Spanish
Worldstream, May 5, 2004.
[7] “Ministra: Gobierno de Brasil no ha definido posición sobre aborto” [Minister: Brazil’s government has not defined its position on abortion],
AP Spanish Worldstream, December 12, 2004; and “Surge polémica en Brasil en torno a aborto legal por violación” [Polemic surfaces in
Brazil regarding legal abortion in cases of rape], Agencia Mexicana de Noticias (NOTIMEX) March 18, 2005.
[8] Gioconda Espina, “Aborto en Venezuela: Pasando agachadas, de nuevo…” [Abortion in Venezuela: crouching again …], Mujeres Hoy
(Chile), October 13, 2004 [online] http://www.mujereshoy.com/secciones/2498.shtml (retrieved April 14, 2005); “Polémica en Argentina por
intento de ampliar causas de aborto legal” [Polemic in Argentina due to effort to expand causes for legal abortion], CIMAC Noticias (Mexico),
November 18, 2002.
[9] “Landmark constitutional challenge in Colombia seeks to loosen one of World’s Most

Restrictive Abortion Laws,” Women’s Link Worldwide press release, April 14, 2005
[online] http://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf/co_lat_col_pressrelease.pdf (retrieved April 14, 2005). For full text of the case online,
seehttp://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/pdf/sp_co_lat_col_lademanda.pdf (retrieved May 2, 2005).
[10] “Negocian cambios en Constitución en legislatura salvadoreña” [Changes negotiated to the Constitution in the Salvadorean legislature],
Reuters, April 30, 1997.
[11] “Congreso de Nicaragua suspende discusión del aborto en medio de protestas” [Nicaraguan Congress suspends discussion on abortion
in the midst of protests], Agence France Presse, July 8, 2004.
[12] CESCR, General Comment 14, The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (2000) (hereinafter
General Comment 14), para. 8.
[13] Ibid., para. 14.
[14] Ibid., para. 21. The full text of this paragraph reads: “To eliminate discrimination against women, there is a need to develop and
implement a comprehensive national strategy for promoting women's right to health throughout their life span. Such a strategy should include
interventions aimed at the prevention and treatment of diseases affecting women, as well as policies to provide access to a full range of high
quality and affordable health care, including sexual and reproductive services. A major goal should be reducing women's health risks,
particularly lowering rates of maternal mortality and protecting women from domestic violence. The realization of women's right to health
requires the removal of all barriers interfering with access to health services, education and information, including in the area of sexual and
reproductive health. It is also important to undertake preventive, promotive and remedial action to shield women from the impact of harmful
traditional cultural practices and norms that deny them their full reproductive rights. ”
[15] See, e.g., the CESCR’s concluding observations on Azerbaijan, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.104 (2004), para. 56; Chile, U.N. Doc.
E/C.12/1/Add.105 (2004), para. 25; Kuwait, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.98 (2004), para. 43; Poland, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.82, (2002), para.
29; and Russia, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.94 (2003), para. 63.
[16] CESCR, concluding observations on Chile, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.105 (2004), para. 25 and Kuwait, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.98 (2004),
para. 43
[17] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 24, Women and Health (Article 12), U.N. Doc. No. A/54/38/Rev.1 (1999) (hereinafter
General Recommendation 24), para. 14.
[18] Ibid., para. 14.
[19] Ibid., para. 31(c).
[20] See, e.g., the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Antigua and Barbuda, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 258;
Argentina, UN Doc. A/59/38, Part II (2004), paras. 380-381; Bangladesh, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 438; Belize, U.N.
Doc. A/54/38, Part II (1999), paras. 56-57; Burkina Faso, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part I (2000), para. 274; Croatia, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, Part I
(1998), para. 109; Cuba, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 219; Dominican Republic, UN Doc. A/59/38, Part II (2004), paras. 308-309;
Ethiopia, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 160; Ethiopia, UN Doc. A/59/38, Part I (2004), paras. 257-258;Georgia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38 , Part II
(1999), para. 111; Greece, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, Part I (1999), paras. 207-208; Guinea, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part II (2001), paras. 128-129;
Guyana, U.N. Doc. A/50/38 (1995), para. 621; Hungary, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 254; Iraq, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part II (2000), paras.
203-204; Kazakhstan, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part I (2001), paras. 105-106; Lithuania, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part II (2000), paras. 158-159;
Mongolia, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part I (2001), para. 269; Morocco, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part I (1997), para. 68; Nicaragua, U.N. Doc.
A/56/38, Part II (2001), paras. 300-301 and 303; Nigeria, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part II (1998), paras. 170-71; Nigeria, UN Doc. A/59/38,
Part I (2004), paras. 307-308;Paraguay, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 123; Peru, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part II (1998), paras. 337 and
341; Republic of Moldova, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part II (2000), paras. 109-110; Romania, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part II (2000), paras. 314-315;
South Africa, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part II (1998), para. 134; Venezuela, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part I (1997), para. 236; Vietnam,
U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part II (2001), para. 266; and Zimbabwe, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, Part I (1998), para. 148.
[21] CEDAW Committee, concluding observations on Burkina Faso, U.N. Doc. A/55/38, Part I (2000), para. 276.
[22] Committee on the Rights of the Child, concluding observations on Chad, U.N. Doc CRC/C/15/Add.107 (1999), para. 30.
[23] See, e.g., the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s concluding observations on Colombia, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/100 (2000), para. 370.
[24] See, e.g., the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s concluding observations on Angola, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.246 (2004), para.
45;Benin, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.106 (1999), para. 25; Botswana, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.242 (2004), para. 53; Brazil, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.241 (2004), para. 55; El Salvador, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.232 (2004), para. 52; Grenada, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.121
(2000), para. 22; Liberia, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.236 (2004), para. 49(c); Mozambique, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.172 (2002), para. 47(b)
(recommending improvements in health care for adolescents , including “ensuring that abortions can be conducted with all due attention to
minimum standards of health safety”); Nicaragua, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.108 (1999), para. 35; and Sao Tome and Principe, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.235 (2004), para. 47(d).
[25] World Health Organization (WHO), Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of Incidence of and Mortality Due to Unsafe
Abortion with a Listing of Available Country Data (Geneva: WHO, 1997).
[26] HRC, General Comment 6, article 6 (sixteenth session, 1982), para. 5.
[27] HRC, General Comment 28, Equality of Rights between Men and Women (article 3), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C.21/Rev.1/Add.10 (2000)
(hereinafter General Comment 28), para. 10.
[28] See, e.g., the HRC’s concluding observations on Bolivia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.74 (1997), para. 22; Cameroon, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/79/Add.116 (1999), para. 13; Chile, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.104 (1999), para. 15; Colombia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/80/COL
(2004), para. 13; Costa Rica, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.107 (1999), para. 11; Ecuador, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.92 (1998), para. 11;
Guatemala, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM (2001), para. 19; Mali, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/77/MLI (2003), para. 14; Morocco, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/CO/82/MAR (2004), para. 29; Peru, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/70/PER (2000), para. 20; Poland, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.110 (1999),
para. 11; Poland, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/82/POL (2004), para. 8; Senegal, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.82 (1997), para. 12; Sri Lanka, U.N.
Doc. CCPR/CO/79/LKA (2003), para. 12; and Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/71/VEN, (2001), para. 19.
[30] HRC, concluding observations on Peru, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/70/PER (2000), para. 20.
[31] HRC, concluding observations on Colombia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/80/COL (2004), para. 13.
[32] HRC, concluding observations on Guatemala, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM (1999), para. 19.
[33] See, e.g., the CEDAW Committee’s concluding observations on Belize, U.N. Doc. A/54/38, Part II (1999), para. 56; Colombia, U.N. Doc.
A/54/38/Rev.1, Part I (1999), para. 393; and the Dominican Republic, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part I (1998), para. 337.
[34] CESCR, concluding observations on Chile, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.105 (2004), para. 52; Kuwait, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.98 (2004),
para. 43; and Nepal, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.66 (2001), para. 55.
[35] Paton v. United Kingdom (1981), 3 E.H.R.R. 408 (European Commission on Human Rights), para. 17.
[36] Ibid., para. 23.
[37] Rebecca J. Cook and Bernard M. Dickens, “Human Rights Dynamics of Abortion Law Reform,” Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 25 (2003),
p. 24.
[38] Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (N.P. Engel: Kehl am Rhein, 1993), p. 123.
[39] Ibid., p. 124.
[40] See James F. Bohan, The House of Atreus: Abortion as a Human Rights Issue (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1999), p. 65.
[41] Cook and Dickens, “Human Rights Dynamics of Abortion Law Reform,” p. 24. See also Berta E. Hernández, “To Bear or Not to Bear:
Reproductive Freedom as an International Human Right,” Brooklyn J. of Int’l L., Vol. XVII (1991), p. 334 (“Because the terms “everyone” and
“human being” have been interpreted consistently in national and international tribunals as referring only to human beings born alive, such
language in the Children’s Convention does not, and cannot, include protection of fetal life.”)
[42] ACHR, article 4.
[43] American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, article I.
[44] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, White and Potter (“Baby Boy Case”), Resolution No. 23/81, Case 2141, United States, March 6,
1981, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.54, Doc. 9 Rev. 1, 16 October 1981.
[45] The American Convention on Human Rights was not directly applicable, since the United States had not ratified this convention.
However, as a member of the Organization of American States, the United States is bound by the American Declaration on the Rights and
Duties of Man.
[46] The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which guides public international treaty law, establishes as a general rule of
interpretation of international treaties that “a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to
the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose,” and notes that the preparatory works of a treaty can be used
as a supplementary means of interpretation. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, articles 31 and 32.
[47] Baby Boy Case, para. 14 (a).
[48] Ibid., para. 14(c).
[49] Ibid., para. 30.
[50] Ibid., para. 14(c).
[51] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 25, on article 4, paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women, Temporary Special Measures, U.N. Doc. No. CEDAW/C/2004/I/WP.1/Rev.1 (2004), para. 8.
[52] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 24, on article 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women, Women and Health, U.N. Doc. No. A/54/38/Rev.1, Part I (1999), para. 14.
[53] Ibid., para. 14.
[54] Ibid., para. 31(c).
[55] CEDAW Committee, concluding comments on Colombia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1, Part I (1999), para. 393.
[56] CEDAW Committee, concluding comments on Mexico, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part I (1998), para. 426.
[57] See the HRC’s concluding observations on Argentina, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO.70/ARG (2000), para. 14; Colombia, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/79/Add.76 (1997), para. 24; Ecuador, U.N. Doc. CPR/C/79/Add.92 (1998), para. 11; and Guatemala, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM
(2001), para. 19.
[58] HRC, concluding observations on Argentina, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO.70/ARG (2000), para. 14.
[59] HRC, concluding observations on Colombia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.76 (1997), para. 24.
11.
[61] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1980-1981 Annual Report, 125, cited in Cook, Dickens, and Fathalla, Reproductive
Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics, and Law, p. 164.
[62] See the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Colombia, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1, Part I (1999), para. 393; the Dominican
Republic, U.N. Doc. A/59/38, Part II (2004), paras. 284-285; Namibia, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 127; Nepal, U.N. Doc.
A/54/38/Rev.1, Part II (1999), para. 147; Paraguay, U.N. Doc. A/51/38 (1996), para. 131; and Peru, U.N. Doc. A/50/38 (1995), para. 446.
See also the HRC’s concluding observations on Colombia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/80/COL (2004), para. 13.
[63] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 24, para. 12(d).
[64] Ibid., para. 14.
[65] See, e.g., the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Indonesia, U.N. Doc. A/53/38/Rev.1, Part I (1998), para. 284(c) and
Turkey, U.N. Doc. A/52/38/Rev.1, Part I (1998), paras. 184 and 196.
20.
[68] See, e.g., the CRC’s concluding observations on Djibouti, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.131 (2000), paras. 45-46; Kyrgyzstan, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.127 (2000), para. 46; and Netherlands, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.114 (1999), para. 19. See also CRR and the University of
Toronto International Programme on Reproductive and Sexual Health Law, Bringing Rights to Bear, p. 113.
[69] See, e.g. the CRC’s concluding observations on Austria, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.98 (1999), para. 15; Barbados, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.103 (1999), para. 25; Benin, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.106 (1999), para. 25; Bhutan, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.157 (2001),
para. 45; Djibouti, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.127 (2000), para. 46; France, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.240 (2004), para. 45; Georgia, U.N.
Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.124 (2000), paras. 22-23; Guatemala, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.154 (2001), para. 45; Latvia, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.142 (2001), para. 40; Lesotho, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.147 (2001), paras. 23-24 and 46; Lithuania, U.N. Doc.
CRC/C/15/Add.146 (2001), para. 40; Mali, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.113 (1999), para. 27; Malta, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.129 (2000),
paras. 21-22; Marshall Islands, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.139 (2000), para. 51; Netherlands, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.114 (1999), para. 19;
South Africa, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.122 (2000), para. 31; Turkey, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.152 (2001), para. 54; and Vanuatu, U.N.
Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.111 (1999), para. 20. See also CRR and the University of Toronto International Programme on Reproductive and
Sexual Health Law, Bringing Rights to Bear, p. 113.
[70] Article 19, The Right to Know: Human Rights and Access to Reproductive Health Information (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1995), pp. 39 and 61-72.
[71] See ICESCR, article 2(2) as well as CESCR, General Comment 14, paras. 12(b), and 18-19.
[72] HRC, concluding observations on Peru, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.72 (1996), para. 15; and concluding observations on Peru, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/CO/70/PER (2000), para. 20.
[73] HRC, concluding observations on Morocco, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/82/CAR (2004), para. 29.
[74] Committee against Torture, “Conclusion and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Chile,” U.N. Doc. CAT/C/CR/32/5
(2004), para. 6(j).
[75] See e.g., the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Belarus, U.N. Doc. A/59/38, Part. I (2004), paras. 355-56; Burundi, U.N.
Doc. A/56/38, Part. I (2001), para. 62; Kazakhstan, U.N. Doc. A/56/38, Part I (2001), para. 105; and Uzbekistan, para. 185.
[76] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 21, Equality in Marriage and Family Relations (1992), para. 21.
[77] Cook, Dickens, and Fathalla, Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics, and Law, p. 194.
[78] See the website of the “Protection of Conscience Project” at http://www.consciencelaws.org.
[79] See the CEDAW Committee’s concluding comments on Croatia, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, Part I (1998), para. 109 and Italy, U.N. Doc.
A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 353.
[80] See the CEDAW Committee’s concluding observations on Croatia, U.N. Doc. A/53/38, Part I (1998), para. 117 and Italy, U.N. Doc.
A/52/38/Rev.1, Part II (1997), para. 360.
[81] HRC, concluding observations on Poland, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/82/POL (2004), para. 8.

Abortion Law: From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abortion Law: From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abortion law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International status of abortion law, United Nations 2013 report. [1]

Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health,

Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, health,

Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, health,

Restricted to cases of maternal life, mental health, and/or

Illegal with no exceptions

Varies by subnation or subdivision

Abortion law is legislation and common law which prohibits, restricts or otherwise regulates the

Summary of national laws regarding abortion as of 2013

Angola, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of Middle

Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Wester

Albania, Bosnia and Southe

Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Caribb

1. Jump up^ Category definitions

2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Category varies by subnational region.

Exceptions in abortion law[edit]

 Abortion trial of Emily Stowe (1879)

 German Federal Constitutional Court abortion decision (1975)

 Attorney General v. X (1992)

International Human Rights Law and Abortion in Latin

II. Overview of International Human Rights Law on

A. Rights to health and health care. p. 3

C. Right to nondiscrimination; Right to equality. p. 3

D. Right to security of person. p. 3

H. Right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment p. 3

I. Right to decide the number and spacing of children. p. 3

J. Right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. p. 3

A. Rights to health and health care

Application and Interpretation

General Recommendation 24 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

Application and Interpretation

In 2004, it noted with regard to Colombia:

Finally, in its 1999 concluding observations on Guatemala, the HRC noted:

In the case of the declaration, the commission explained:

C. Right to nondiscrimination; Right to equality

Application and Interpretation

Application and Interpretation

Application and Interpretation

Application and Interpretation

Application and Interpretation

I. Right to decide the number and spacing of children

Application and Interpretation

J. Right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress

Application and Interpretation

K. Right to freedom of conscience and religion

Application and Interpretation

[9] “Landmark constitutional challenge in Colombia seeks to loosen one of World’s Most

[13] Ibid., para. 14.

[18] Ibid., para. 14.

[19] Ibid., para. 31(c).

[26] HRC, General Comment 6, article 6 (sixteenth session, 1982), para. 5.

[36] Ibid., para. 23.

[42] ACHR, article 4.

[43] American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, article I.

[47] Baby Boy Case, para. 14 (a).

[48] Ibid., para. 14(c).

[49] Ibid., para. 30.

[50] Ibid., para. 14(c).

[53] Ibid., para. 14.

[54] Ibid., para. 31(c).

[63] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 24, para. 12(d).