AIA GC Meeting

· Jess discussed her recent presentation to Burleigh Scout Group – very well received by both scouts and parents, who later joined the discussion. Scout group suggested other scout groups might be interested in similar presentations from AIA GC.

· Jess tabled Demand Dignity campaign materials received from Head Office. ACTION: Elaine to review.

· AIA GC now has a listing in the GC Community Guide 2009-10 (GCCC) – thanks to Ewan!

· Group discussed AIA GC presence on MySpace, Facebook and Google Groups. ACTION: Kirsty to ban unwanted new members and review settings. COMPLETED: Unwanted new members banned/People now have to be invited to join.

· Jess tabled AIA Int’l Report 2009 – State of the World’s Human Rights (Available online at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library) / Celebrating Human Rights.

Ø Michael Hayworth could assist with suggestions for event and distribution to members

· Jess discussed AIA GC bank account – will move to online account for ease of statement access. Maree, Kirsty - old signatories, Jess - new signatory. Jess to update financial status of group.

· Group watched first half of Hunger movie provided by Halil. The film won the Camera D'or at the 2008 Cannes International Film Festival. More information about the film can be found at: http://www.hungerthemovie.co.uk/ or by searching “Hunger” online.

· Informal dinner before next meeting – Mexican at Broadie. ACTION: Jess to email details

This document must not be distributed as an official AI statement. It is distributed to enable staff to give verbal briefings to enquiries.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIA is concerned about the rights of a young Cairns-based couple currently facing criminal proceedings for self-procuring an abortion. Women should be able to take decisions regarding termination of pregnancy without being sanctioned by criminal penalties.

We are also concerned about the indirect impact of abortion being a criminal offence, for example, women being deterred from accessing abortion services through the health system, instead feeling compelled to self-procure them outside the health system or women being denied safe abortions even in circumstances where they are legally entitled to abortion access. (See pt 4 for more examples.)

AI believes that women and men should be able to exercise their sexual and reproductive health rights free from coercion, discrimination and violence.

AI is compelled to respond to the human suffering caused by abuses of these rights.

International, regional and national human rights mechanisms have increasingly addressed unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortion as a major public health concern, as opposed to a criminal concern, and a key cause of preventable maternal illness and death.

In particular, AIA is asking for the repeal of sections 224, 225, 226 and 282 of the Criminal Code, and requests abortion instead be regulated under health legislation as it is, for example, in the ACT.

AI is greatly concerned about the indirect impacts of the criminalisation of abortion. These often include:

Abortion remains in the Criminal Code in every state and territory with the exception of Victoria and the ACT (the old-style criminal sanctions remain in Queensland and NSW, and to a lesser degree in other states), yet many women are unaware that abortion is still a criminal offence.

Victoria last year decriminalised abortions up to week 24 of gestation, after the tabling of the Abortion Law Reform Bill in Parliament.

The ACT fully legalised abortion in 2002. All statutory and common law offences of abortion have been repealed, and the procedure is now regulated in the Health Act. There is no evidence that any increase in demand for abortion at any stage of gestation has occurred.

In contrast, law reform in WA in 1998 has had less positive outcomes. The law is unnecessarily confusing prior to 20 weeks gestation, and after 20 weeks gestation access for termination is complex, requiring each woman’s case to be evaluated by a committee. Documented problems with the regime include women feeling pressured to make a quick rather than considered decision after a negative fetal diagnosis when the pregnancy is less than 20 weeks, and of women failing to bond with babies they were compelled to deliver after being denied abortion by the committee.

AI recognises that some state regulation of access to abortion is justifiable (and indeed mandatory). For example, states may properly ensure that medical practitioners are licensed, may provide other protection against malpractice and may set reasonable gestational limits.

AI does not counsel individuals as to whether they should continue or terminate a pregnancy and does not campaign generally for women’s access to abortion.

AI’s policy on abortion is part of its broader policy on sexual and reproductive rights. AI seeks to ensure that women and men can exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion, discrimination and violence. In doing so AI responds to the human suffering caused by abuses of these rights.

AI’s policy on sexual and reproductive rights, including on selected aspects on abortion, was adopted in April 2007 having been extensively consulted throughout AI’s worldwide membership over many months. The policy was then strongly affirmed at the August 2007 International Council Meeting which was attended by 400 AI delegates from every region of the world and of many different age groups, faiths, nationalities and cultures.

8. Why did AI feel it necessary or appropriate to have a policy on abortion?

AI recognised the stark realities of women and girls who are victims of gender-based violence and who bear the consequences of the abuse of their sexual and reproductive rights. In the face of unacceptable levels of preventable maternal mortality, AI was also moved by the suffering of women left unsupported where pregnancy or post-abortion complications put at risk their health and lives.

AI developed and adopted its policy reflecting the organisation’s commitment to addressing the human rights realities confronted by victims, survivors and defenders. For women, these realities too often include:

AI’s policy enables the organisation to undertake principled and comprehensive human rights research and campaigning on such violations in the future – to continue to work towards enabling women to decide whether and under what circumstances to engage in sexual relations and prevent unwanted pregnancy but also to support them where they face grave human rights violations as a result of unwanted pregnancy.

AI is committed fully to addressing how human rights violations may result in unwanted pregnancies. This includes analysing how obstacles to women’s access to information and contraceptive services, the right to privacy and the right to health. AI continues to work on promoting women’s right to sexual autonomy to ensure that women are able to choose if, when, how and with whom they engage in sexual relations. And finally AI continues to promote the right of women and girls to be free from all forms of gender-based violence, including sexual violence. By focusing its work on these issues, AI is able to promote women’s rights to physical and mental integrity and thereby significantly lower the risk factors for unwanted pregnancies.

9. Does AI recognise that abortion violates the right to life of the foetus?

AI takes no position as to when life begins. AI’s policy on selected aspects of abortion recognises that states may impose reasonable gestational limitations on access to abortion. AI will not prescribe particular gestational limitations. Instead, it will judge their reasonableness by taking into account factors such as the state’s interest in protecting potential life and safeguards to protect the rights and autonomy entitlements of the woman. Gestational limits that provide no exemptions for protecting the life of the woman, for example, would not be considered reasonable by AI.

Some people believe that life begins at conception and therefore, that abortion represents a violation of the right of life of a foetus. Such views are sometimes grounded in particular religious beliefs. International law is silent on the point when life begins. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been interpreted as allowing national legislation to specify the moment when childhood or life begins, set in different countries at varying points between conception and birth.

The European Court of Human Rights has found that the issue of when the right to life begins is a question to be decided at national level and has explicitly refrained from finding whether the unborn child is a person protected by the right to life provision of the Convention. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has found that the reference in the American Convention of Human Rights to “respect for the right to life in general, from conception” implies that the practice of abortion for “arbitrary” reasons would be contrary to the ACHR, although the ACHR does not absolutely prohibit abortion.

International human rights bodies as well as national legal systems recognise the need for reasonable restrictions on access to abortion for a variety of ethical and public health reasons, including the health of the pregnant woman and the evolving protection needs of the foetus. They also recognise that the protection of the foetus is inseparably bound to the right to health and life of the mother.^{^[1]}

International, regional and national human rights mechanisms have increasingly addressed unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortion as a major public health concern and a key cause of preventable maternal illness and death. AI’s abortion policy reflects the language of relevant human rights treaties and other international and regional instruments.

Human rights standards setting on abortion-related issues is evolving. The independent expert bodies that interpret international human rights treaties, for instance, are increasingly supporting the position – also expressed in the outcome consensus documents of major international conferences – that abortion should be safe and accessible where it is legal, and that it should be permitted in cases where pregnancy results from rape or poses a risk to the woman’s life or health. Echoing the call of the 1995 UN Fourth World Conference on Women for all countries to “consider reviewing laws containing punitive measures against women who have undergone illegal abortions,” they have also expressed opposition to the imprisonment of women on abortion charges.

The expert bodies have similarly endorsed states’ agreement at the 1994 UN International Conference on Population and Development that governments should “in all cases provide for the humane treatment and counselling of women who have had recourse to abortion.”

A 2005 survey by Human Rights Watch noted that over 120 concluding observations by such official bodies concerning at least 93 countries have commented on abortion-related issues; they have dealt with abortion issues under various rights, including the right to life, prohibition of ill-treatment, right to privacy and the right to health.^{^[2]} More generally, the treaty bodies have repeatedly emphasised the need for contraception and sex education to be available as appropriate so that unwanted pregnancies, and hence women’s recourse to abortion, are minimised.

In accordance with the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, states must “ensure that the right to health of women, including sexual and reproductive health, is respected and promoted” including by “protect(ing) the reproductive rights of women by authorising 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.”

AI's policy on selected aspects of abortion was adopted as the outcome of an extensive movement-wide consultation, education, and awareness-raising process and represents a position that is both principled, in that it addresses the grave human rights violations that AI works on and is grounded in international standards, and pragmatic, in that it recognises the diversity of views on the subject of abortion.

AI is committed to research and campaign on human rights violations that result in or from unwanted pregnancies. This includes analysing how obstacles to women’s access to information and contraceptive services are a violation of the right to information, the right to privacy and the right to health. AI continues to work on promoting women’s sexual autonomy to ensure that women are able to choose if, when, how and with whom they engage in sexual relations. And finally AI continues to promote the right of women and girls to be free from all forms of violence, including sexual violence. By focusing AI’s work on these issues, AI is able to promote women’s rights to bodily integrity and thereby significantly lower the risk factors for unwanted pregnancies.

[1] Thus, for instance, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child calls on states, in implementing the child’s right to the highest attainable standard of health, to undertake appropriate measures “[t]o ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers”.

[2] See Decisions Denied: Women’s Access to Contraceptives and Abortion in Argentina, available from www.hrw.org/reports/2005/argentina0605/argentina0605.pdf