 |
|
The Center's Cases
Attorneys at the Center for Reproductive Rights work worldwide to protect and advance reproductive liberty, including the rights of all women to decide whether and when to have children, to use contraception, and to safeguard their own health.
|
|
ACCESS TO LEGAL ABORTION
RR v. Poland (European Court of Human Rights; Poland)
KL v. Peru (U. N. Human Rights Committee; Peru)
Paulina Ramírez v. Mexico (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Mexico)
Springfield Healthcare Center v. Nixon (Missouri, USA)
Tysiąc v. Poland / Amici (European Court of Human Rights)
RR v. Poland
(European Court of Human Rights; Poland)
Although Poland's abortion law is restrictive, it does allow for abortion due to fetal deformity. However, after her doctor noticed irregularities in a sonogram, a woman was denied a genetic prenatal examination, a prerequisite for undergoing an abortion in Poland. She was then denied access to an abortion to which she was legally entitled, because doctors and the hospitals were unwilling to perform even a legal abortion. The Polish regulations and laws governing access to legal abortions are weak and ineffective, and this case is reflective of the situation faced by many women in Poland and in other countries in the region. The plaintiffs are alleging violations under several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including articles 3, 8, 13, and 14, which relate to the right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment, private and family life, access to justice, and nondiscrimination. The Federation for Women in Family Planning, the University of Warsaw Law Clinic, and the Center for Reproductive Rights are collaborating organizations on this case. The application was filed to the Court in December 2004.
To learn more:
KL v. Peru
(U. N. Human Rights Committee; Peru)
In 2001, KL, a 17-year-old Peruvian woman carrying a fetus with a fatal anomaly (anencephaly), was denied a therapeutic abortion by Peruvian health officials, despite Peruvian law's exception for pregnancy termination for health reasons. The young woman was compelled to carry the fetus to term and was then forced to feed the baby until her inevitable death several days later. The following year, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the Counseling Center for the Defense of Women's Rights (DEMUS), and the Committee for the Defense of Women's Rights (CLADEM) filed a complaint seeking a remedy under the ICCPR UN Human Rights Committee for state officials' failure to protect the petitioner's right to be free from inhumane and degrading treatments, among others. In 2005, the Committee issued its ruling on KL v. Peru, establishing that denying access to legal abortion violates women's most basic human rights. This decision marked the first time that an international human rights body held a government accountable for failing to ensure access to legal abortion services.
To learn more:
Paulina Ramírez v. Mexico
(Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Mexico)
A 13-year-old Mexican girl was raped in 1999 and subsequently denied access to a legally permitted abortion by state health and law enforcement officials. In 2002, the Center for Reproductive Rights and two Mexican human rights groups filed a petition on Paulina Ramírez's behalf with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging violations of her legally guaranteed rights under Mexican law, as well as her rights to physical and psychological integrity and health, among others. In 2006, the Center and its partners reached a landmark settlement with the Mexican government, in which the government agreed to, among other things, pay reparations to Paulina, provide her and her son significant compensation for health care and education, and issue a decree regulating guidelines for access to abortion for rape victims.
To learn more:
Related press coverage
- The inevitable discussion of the A-word, El Universal Online, March 12, 2006
- http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=35891, in kaisernetwork.org, March 9, 2006
- Landmark pact to aid Baja California rape victims , San Diego Union-Tribune, March 9, 2006
- Abortion Settlement Awarded in Mexico, in the Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2006
- Mexico to pay teen who was denied abortion after rape, Seattle Times, March 8, 2006
- INT'L WOMEN'S DAY: Mexican Rape Victims Denied Right to Abortion IPSnews.net, March 7, 2006.
Additional Resources
Springfield Healthcare Center v. Nixon
(Missouri, USA)
On September 15th, 2005, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against a new law that will force the only abortion clinic in southwest Missouri to stop providing abortions. The law requires physicians performing abortion procedures to obtain privileges at a local hospital. Because the doctor in Springfield Healthcare Center Inc. does not have these privileges and it is unclear when he will receive them, the facility may have to shut down its abortion services.
Springfield Healthcare Center is licensed as an ambulatory surgical facility and performs 1,500 abortions a year. Current Missouri law requires that physicians at all ambulatory surgical facilities have admitting privileges at a local hospital or the facility maintain a written agreement with a hospital to transfer patients when it is needed. Springfield Healthcare has agreements with two local hospitals.
But according to the lawsuit, the new law imposes the additional and unnecessary requirement that says the facility's doctor must have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles. Abortions are the only procedure performed at ambulatory surgical facilities in Missouri that are subject to this additional requirement.
In addition, women in the southwest part of the state will be forced to travel six to eight hours roundtrip to obtain an abortion at the nearest clinic in Columbia, Missouri. As the suit claims, such a trip will be particularly burdensome for women with limited financial resources and childcare needs, women without access to transportation, and women in abusive relationships.
Read the Complaint.
Read the Plaintiff's Motion for a TRO.
Read the TRO.
Tysiąc v. Poland / Amici
(European Court of Human Rights)
This case involves a Polish woman who is severely visually impaired and was denied an abortion to protect her physical health. Upon becoming pregnant in 2000, the applicant consulted her doctors about the possible impact of the delivery on her eyesight. Numerous doctors concluded that the pregnancy and delivery posed a serious health risk, but refused to issue a certificate for the pregnancy to be terminated. After finally obtaining a certificate authorizing the abortion, the applicant went to a public hospital in Warsaw to have the procedure, only to have her request refused again. At this point, the applicant had no choice but to carry her pregnancy to term. As predicted, after the delivery, the applicant's eyesight badly deteriorated due to hemorrhages in her retina. Corrective surgery is not possible in her case, and she currently faces a serious risk of blindness. In September 2005, the Center filed an amicus brief with the European Court of Human Rights asking the Court to find a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights when a state fails to ensure that women legally entitled to abortion can effectively exercise their right. The Center's brief argues that states that permit abortion in prescribed circumstances – as Poland does in cases where pregnancy poses a physical health risk to the woman – have obligations to ensure that the guarantee to abortion in their national laws is an effective right in practice.
The Court issued its ruling in March 2007. It held that the Polish government had failed to fulfill its positive obligation, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to ensure the applicant’s right to respect for her private life. The finding of a violation is specifically based on the government's failure to establish an effective procedure through which the applicant could have appealed her doctors' refusal to grant her request for abortion. The Court prescribed some of the key components of such a procedure: It should guarantee to a pregnant woman the right to be heard in person and have her views considered; the body reviewing her appeal should issue written grounds for its decision; and, recognizing "the time factor is of critical importance" in decisions involving abortion, the procedure should ensure that such decisions are timely. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 25,000 for pain and suffering and EUR 14,000 for legal fees.
|
|
