The 1994 ICPD Program of Action states that abortion should be safe where it is legal.  Prof. Gita Sen’s responds to this clause, and talks about how the attitudes towards abortion affect donor, advocacy and activism in the current anti-woman environment.

Prof. Sen is a public policy expert, and one of the Founders of DAWN (Development Alternatives For Women In a New Era.)She teaches at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. 

Is saying abortion should be ‘safe where it is legal’ in itself a barrier?

It is worth looking at the next sentences of clause 8.25 which says: “In all cases, women should have access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion. Post-abortion counseling, education and family-planning services should be offered promptly, which will also help to avoid repeat abortions.”

This was one attempt to win back some of the ground lost in saying abortion should be safe where it is legal.

At the ICPD +5 Review in 1999, there was another important step forward.

Paragraph 63 (iii) stated that: “ …in circumstances where abortion is not against the law, health systems should train and equip health-service providers and should take other measures to ensure that such abortion is safe and accessible. Additional measures should be taken to safeguard women’s health”.

One important point is that in almost all countries abortion is legal under specified circumstances – sometimes broad and sometimes narrow.

My own feeling is that 63(iii) is the way to go forward. Bangladesh has used menstrual regulation very effectively without getting into ideological / religious battles.

I also tend to agree with Marge that contraception should not be promoted as a way to reduce abortion.(Referring to Marge Berer’s article in Reality Check, which says that family planning and safe abortion should go hand in hand.)

Contraception is valid in itself and so is abortion as a woman’s right.

Since women bear the biological and species burden of carrying pregnancies within our bodies, we have the right to decide whether, how and when we will do so, and when we will not do so. Our bodies are not the collective property of the human species. They are ours.

Two of the biggest donors for family planning services have funds that are either divorced from the funds for abortion services or depend on the ruling American Government’s attitude toward the global gag rule. Given that it is very hard to change these attitudes, how to ensure that safe abortions constantly remain funded?

This is a real problem and the risk may be greater now that BMGF has also thrown its hat into the FP ring. First, all donors must be required to do what is legal. One challenge we have is that ICPD POA said that abortion is not a method of family planning. Other private funders and national governments have to play an important part.

There is an ideological battle here that we have allowed the anti-women brigade to shape for too long.

We need to get out the stories about women’s needs for and positive experiences of safe abortion. (You can read more about America’s attitude to abortion worldwide here: https://asap-asia.org/blog/romney-vs-obama-why-do-we-care)

Rio+20 addressed sustainable development, but omitted the clause on reproductive rights. What were the specific barriers to addressing women’s reproductive rights in this meeting? In other words, why are sustainable development and women’s rights not yet integrated?

The whole Rio+20 negotiation was very fraught and difficult on many issues. Not much progress was made on many of the core environmental concerns either. Despite this, it is important to recognize that there were a number of paragraphs that actually were positive and strong from an SRHR standpoint. This includes paragraphs 145, 146 and 243 of the Outcome document.

The specific language of ‘reproductive rights’ was not there in the end because the EU did not break its unity on this issue and therefore remained silent thanks to the anti-abortion positions of delegations of Poland, Malta, Slovakia; and because the government of Brazil chose to leave it out in the final version that it was tasked with putting together.

A major lesson from both CSW 2012 and Rio + 20 negotiations is that skilled SRHR negotiators and advocates need to be present in larger numbers in such spaces.

Recently, several countries, which had liberal laws, have tightened their abortion laws, and several countries are reviewing their laws to add new restrictive clauses. How can civil societies hold their governments accountable for commitments made at international conventions like the ICPD, and ensure that safe abortions are still available?

The opposite is also true. Many countries have also moved towards easing their legal positions. While the general climate is difficult given the amount of money to fund anti-women, anti-LGBT, and anti-human rights activities that is pouring into developing countries, I see the counter movements from our side as strong, and new alliances are being created. We have to become smarter and more effective in our advocacy. After all, the period before ICPD was very tension-filled, and very confused also. But some major steps were taken to break through those barriers, and I believe it is possible to do that again.