PINSAN position re: United States’ Request for Philippines to co-sponsor Geneva Consensus Declaration

August 7, 2020

Screen Shot 2020-08-09 at 1.56.50 PM

 

In a statement released last June 3, 2020 by the Philippine Safe Abortion Advocacy Network (PINSAN)[1], we welcomed the announcement from EnGendeRights on their proposed bill to decriminalize abortion in the Philippines.

We would like to reiterate the following points from our statement in response to the request of the United States for the Philippines to co-sponsor the “Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women’s Health and Strengthening the Family”:

  • The country’s restrictive laws on abortion have not prevented abortion and have only made it extremely unsafe, leading directly to the preventable deaths of thousands of women each year [….] Penalizing abortion has not stopped women inducing abortions nor has it ever lowered the number of women inducing abortion. It has only forced women to seek unsafe abortions.
  • In 2012 alone, there was an estimated 610,000 induced abortions.[2] Of this number, around 100,000 abortions[3] resulted in hospitalizations, and 1000 women died due to complications from unsafe abortion.[4] That is 70 women inducing abortion and 11 hospitalized every hour and three women dying every day. That was in 2012; based on statistics, the number of women inducing abortion increases proportionately with the increasing Philippine population.
  • Filipino women who induce abortion are representative of a majority of Filipino women—poor, Roman Catholic, married, with at least three children, and have at least a high school education[5] —and identify various, overlapping reasons for inducing abortion.
  • Poor women comprise two-thirds of those who induce abortion,[6] using riskier abortion methods, thus disproportionately experiencing severe complications, clearly making abortion a social justice issue. Meanwhile, one out of nine women cite rape as their reason for inducing abortion. Yet, there are no laws to protect such women from unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
  • [It] is high time the Philippine Government decriminalizes our antiquated and restrictive law on abortion, in compliance with its international human rights obligations and women’s right to equality and non-discrimination. 

Given the track record of the United States’ sitting administration in sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), which is codified in harmful policies such as the Global Gag Rule, the defunding of UNFPA, and, just recently, USAID’s request to remove references to SRHR in the UN Global Humanitarian Plan in response to COVID-19, we do not believe that the “Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women’s Health and Strengthening the Family” was written with either the promotion of women’s health or the strengthening of the family in mind.

Contrary to the message of the “Geneva Consensus Declaration”, we believe that multilateral spaces should continue to affirm the highest standards when it comes to the promotion of sexual and reproductive health and rights, which includes access to safe and legal abortion. Meanwhile, states have the obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill these rights as inalienable and indivisible from our human rights.

The recent United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on the Right to Life affirms that abortion is a human right, that preventable maternal deaths are a violation of the right to life, and that the right to life begins at birth.[7]  The  UN CESCR states “Preventing unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions requires States to adopt legal and policy measures to guarantee all individuals access to affordable, safe and effective contraceptives and comprehensive sexuality education, including for adolescents, liberalize restrictive abortion laws, guarantee women and girls access to safe abortion services and quality post-abortion care, including by training health care providers, and respect women’s right to make autonomous decisions about their sexual and reproductive health”.

OHCHR has also expressed concern about total prohibitions on abortion, including specifically the impact on the prosecution and punishment of women for miscarriages and other obstetric emergencies, and called for governments’ compliance with international human rights standards and obligations by repealing such prohibitions.[8] UN human rights experts have called for governments to decriminalize abortion and recognize women’s right to reproductive autonomy as “[l]egal frameworks for abortion have typically been designed to control women’s decision-making through the use of criminal law”.[9] They recognized that restrictions to access abortion services disproportionately impact women and girls from marginalized groups such as those living in poverty, in rural areas, with disabilities, migrants, and those belonging to ethnic minorities or in situations of crisis.[10] The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions specifically noted that “the death of a woman, where it can be medically linked to a deliberate denial of access to life-saving medical care” because of an absolute prohibition on abortion constitutes not only a “violation of the right to life and an arbitrary deprivation of life, [but also] a gender-based arbitrary killing, only suffered by women, as a result of discrimination enshrined in law.”[11] She noted that, even in states where abortion are allowed in certain cases, it is more likely for women to seek unsafe abortion and suffer life-threatening consequences because of “[t]he uncertainty surrounding the process of establishing whether a woman’s pregnancy poses a risk to her life, the reticence of the medical profession in the absence of transparent and clearly defined procedures to determine whether the legal conditions for a therapeutic abortion are met, along with the threat of criminal prosecution.”[12]

UN human rights bodies have repeatedly urged the Government to amend its law on abortion. In 2015, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) expressed concerns on the unsafe abortions and unnecessary and preventable maternal deaths in the country and called for the Government to “legalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, threats to the life and/or health of the pregnant woman, or serious malformation of the fetus, the decriminaliz[ation] of all other cases where women undergo abortion, and the adopt[ion] of necessary procedural rules to guarantee effective access to legal abortion”.[13] In 2016, the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR Committee) urged the Government to “take all measures necessary to reduce the incidence of unsafe abortion and maternal mortality including through amending its legislation on the prohibition of abortion to legalize abortion in certain circumstances.”[14] Also in 2016, the Committee against Torture (CAT Committee) called for a review of the RPC “to allow for legal exceptions…in specific circumstances such as when the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the woman, when it is the result of rape or incest and in cases of foetal impairment.”[15] The recommendations to review the current laws on abortion have been echoed by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights.[16]

United Nations bodies have found that restrictive abortion laws violate a range of human rights, including the rights to life, health, privacy, freedom from gender discrimination or gender stereotyping, and freedom from ill-treatment.[17] UN treaty-monitoring bodies (TMBs) have repeatedly recognized the connection between restrictive abortion laws, high rates of unsafe abortion and maternal mortality.[18] The CEDAW Committee has found that denying women access to certain reproductive health services or punishing women for seeking those services is a form of gender discrimination.[19] Recognizing these human rights violations, UN bodies have called on states to decriminalize abortion in all circumstances,[20] and ensure certain legal grounds for abortion, at a minimum, when a woman’s life or health is at risk, in cases of rape and incest, and in cases of severe or fatal fetal impairments.[21] Further, they have urged states to eliminate punitive measures for women who undergo abortions and for health care providers who deliver abortion services, finding that criminalization of these services is a form of discrimination and a violation of the rights to health, life, and freedom from torture or ill-treatment.[22]

Abortion has also been addressed by governments in the context of human and reproductive rights in several international consensus documents including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which acts as a reference for many of our government’s policies and programs. Target 3.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) calls on countries “by 2030, to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes”. The ICPD Programme of Action recognizes that women have the “right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable [them] to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.” It recognizes that a number of factors, including unsafe abortion, result in elevated maternal mortality rates and that the majority of maternal deaths occur in developing countries. It also recognizes that education, nutrition, prenatal care, emergency obstetric care, delivery assistance, post-natal care, and family planning are all critical components for reducing maternal mortality. Further, the Beijing Platform for Action highlighted the impact of unsafe abortion on women’s lives and health and the need to reduce recourse to abortion through expanded family planning services. It urges governments to review punitive measures against women who have undergone illegal abortions and calls for women’s access to quality post-abortion care.

As a signatory to the various international human rights treaties and agreements, the Philippine government is bound to comply with the above-enumerated standards. As the country’s national human rights institution tasked to monitor and ensure the government’s compliance with its human rights obligations, we strongly urge the Commission on Human Rights to advise the Department of Foreign Affairs against co-sponsoring the Geneva Consensus Document as proposed by the United States.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Catholics for Reproductive Health

Center for Reproductive Rights

EnGendeRights, Inc.

Family Planning Organization of the Philippines

Filipino Freethinkers

Philippine Safe Abortion Advocacy Network

WomanHealth Philippines

Women’s Clinic Pilipinas

Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights

 

—

[1]Statement on women’s organization-led draft bill to decriminalize abortion. Available at: https://pinsan.ph/2020/06/statement-on-womens-organization-led-draft-bill-to-decriminalize-abortion/

[2] Padilla, Clara Rita. Policy Brief: Access to Safe and Legal Abortion and Post-Abortion Care Can Save Filipino Women’s Lives. EnGendeRights, December 2016, page 1.

[3] Guttmacher Institute, Unintended Pregnancy and Induced Abortions in the Philippines: Causes and Consequences, In Brief, page 3, 2013, No. 3, available at   https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/IB-unintendedpregnancy-philippines.pdf [Guttmacher, Induced Abortions in the Philippines, In Brief, 2013].

[4]  Guttmacher, Induced Abortions in the Philippines, In Brief, 2013; Guttmacher, Meeting Women’s Contraceptive Needs in the Philippines, 1 In Brief 2 (2009) citing 2008 projections from 2000 statistics on abortion incidence in the Philippines [Guttmacher, Meeting Contraceptive Needs, In Brief, 2009].

[5]Singh S et al, 2006; Two-thirds of those who induce abortion are poor; Guttmacher, Unsafe Abortion, Fact Sheet, 2013.

[6] Singh S et al., 2006.

[7]  UN OHCHR, General comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, 124th Sess, adopted 2 November 2018, online: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/CCPR_C_GC_36.pdf.

[8] See e.g. Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein at the end of his mission to El Salvador, U.N. Human rights Office of the High Commissioner (Nov. 17, 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22412&LangID=E. In October 2016, OHCHR presented amicus curiae in regards to the Zika virus in Latin America, when denial of abortion reached the threshold of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. In 2017, OHCHR also submitted an amicus curiae to the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights in regards to the laws on abortion in El Salvador.

[9] States must act now to allow safe, legal abortions for women and girls, say UN rights experts, United Nations Human rights Office of the High Commissioner (Sep. 27, 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23646&LangID=E.

[10] International Safe Abortion Day September 28, 2019: All states must ensure access to safe and legal abortion as a matter of human rights, say UN experts, U.N. Human rights Office of the High Commissioner (Sep. 27, 2019),  https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25066&LangID=E.

[11] Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on a gender-sensitive approach to arbitrary killings, para. 94, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/35/23 (June 6, 2017) (by Agnes Callamard).

[12] Id. at para. 95.

[13] Center for Reproductive Rights, Forsaken Lives: the Harmful Impact of the Philippine Criminal Abortion Ban, (2010).

[14] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Philippines, para. 51, U.N. Doc. ESCR/C.12/PHL/CO/5-6 (2016).

[15] Committee Against Torture, Concluding Observations: Philippines, paras. 39-40, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/PHL/CO/3 (2016).

[16]  Philippine Commission on Human Rights and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Let Our Voices Be Heard: Report Of The Commission on Human Rights Philippines’ National Inquiry on Reproductive Health and Rights, 29 (2016).

[17] See, e.g., K.L. v. Peru, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 1153/2003, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005); L.C. v. Peru, CEDAW Committee, Commc’n No. 22/2009, para. 8.15, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 (2011).

[18] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding Observations: Paraguay, paras. 30, 31, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/PRY/CO/6 (2011); Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding Observations: Chile, paras. 34, 35, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/CHI/CO/5-6 (2012); ESCR Committee, Concluding Observations: Philippines, paras. 51, 52, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/PHL/CO5-6 (2016); Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Zambia, para. 18, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/ZMB/CO/3 (2007).

[19] CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (Women and Health), paras. 11, 14, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev. 1 (1999) [hereinafter CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No. 24].

[20] See  Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Bhutan, para. 35(c), U.N. Doc. CRC/C/BTN/CO/3-5 (2017); Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Cameroon, para. 35(c), CRC/C/CMR/CO/3-5 (2017); Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Sierra Leone, para. 32 (c), U.N. Doc. CRC/C/SLE/CO/3-5 (2016); Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Benin, para. 57(c), U.N. Doc. CRC/C/BEN/CO/3-5 (2016); CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Micronesia, para. 37(b), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/FSM/CO/1-3 (2017); CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Niger, para. 33(c), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/NER/CO/3-4 (2017); CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Costa Rica, para. 31(a), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/CRI/CO/7 (2017). See also Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Honduras, para. 17, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/HND/CO/2 (2017).

[21] See, e.g., L.C. v. Peru, CEDAW Committee, Commc’n No. 22/2009, para. 12(b), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 (2011); K.L. v. Peru, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 1153/2003, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005); Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Ireland, para. 9, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/IRL/CO/4 (2014); CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Bahrain, para. 42(b), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/BHR/CO/3 (2014); CAT Committee, Concluding Observations: Paraguay, para. 22, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/PRY/CO/4-6 (2011); CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Chile, para. 61, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/CHL/CO/4-5 (2015); Costa Rica, para. 64, U.N. Doc. CRC /C/CRI/CO/4 (2011); Dominican Republic, para. 52, U.N. Doc. CRCC/DOM/CO/3-5; ESCR Committee, Concluding Observations: Chile, para. 29, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/CHL/CO/4 (2015).

[22] See, e.g., CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No. 24, supra note  37, at para. 14; CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Nicaragua, para. 59, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/NIC/CO/4 (2010); CAT Committee, Concluding Observations: Nicaragua, para. 16, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/NIC/CO/1 (2009); ESCR Committee: Concluding Observations: Pakistan, paras. 77, 78, U.N. Doc. CESCR/C/PAK/CO/1 (2017).