Mexican law was on Paulina's side, but justice and health officials charged with providing her, a 13-year-old rape victim, with access to a safe abortion systematically denied her that right through a campaign of intimidation, scare tactics and misinformation.

On March 8, International Women's Day, the Center for Reproductive Rights with Alaida Foppa and Epikeia, both Mexican women's rights organizations, petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to review Paulina's case. The Center for Reproductive Rights and our partners want the Mexican government to recognize it denied Paulina her rights to judicial protection, reproductive autonomy and privacy. We want assurances from the Mexican government that it will enforce the laws guaranteeing the right to abortion for rape victims. In addition, we are seeking compensation for Paulina and her family, and are proposing that the government issue regulations that establish the provision of emergency contraception to all rape victims as part of standard medical care.

From left to right: Monica Roa, Center for Reproductive Rights legal fellow; Kathy Hall Martinez, acting director of the Center for Reproductive Rights' international program; and Giulia Tamayo, Coordinator of Public Outreach, Spanish Chapter of Amnesty International, and Member of CLADEM-Peru; presenting on women's rights before commissioners of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

"We are filing this case to secure justice for Paulina, whose rights were gravely violated, and to force the Mexican government to comply with international human rights standards, even when they conflict with religious dictates," said Kathy Hall Martinez, acting director of the Center for Reproductive Rights' international program.

Paulina was 13 years old in July 1999, when a heroine addict who broke into her home in Baja California raped her. Under Mexican law, rape victims are legally entitled to an abortion in the first trimester, but as Paulina's experience illustrates, obtaining the procedure in such cases is nearly impossible for Mexican women.

Over a two-month period, Paulina was pressured to change her decision by anti-abortion activists who, without permission, visited her in the hospital. The state attorney general personally took Paulina and her mother in his state-owned car to see a priest, who warned them that the Catholic Church considered abortion a sin. Ultimately, a state-employed physician frightened Paulina and her mother into believing that Paulina would die or become sterile if she had an abortion, so she continued the pregnancy.

If the Commission takes Paulina's case then it will begin settlement negotiations between the Mexican government and the Center for Reproductive Rights' client. The Commission's main strength lies in its ability to negotiate such settlements; the recommendations it can make to governments on the case's merits are not legally binding. If a settlement cannot be reached, the Commission's lawyers can choose to represent Paulina and prosecute the case before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights.

From left to right: Senior Human Rights Specialist Elizabeth A.H. Abi-Mershed of the Commission, Commissioner Marta Altoaguirre Larraondo of Guatemala and Commissioner Robert K. Goldman of the United States receive copies of the Center for Reproductive Rights' "Bodies on Trial:Reproductive Rights in Latin America" from Legal Fellow Monica Roa.

The Commission was formed in 1960 as an organ of the Organization of American States. It is composed of seven commissioners who are elected by the organization's member states to four-year terms, with a limit of two terms. In addition, it has a staff of lawyers and administrators. The Commission works to enforce compliance with international human rights treaties, principally the American Convention on Human Rights.

Reproductive Rights And The Commission

There have been few petitions before the Inter-American Commission that focus on violations of reproductive rights. This is beginning to change, however, as more women's rights organizations gain expertise in using the Inter-American human rights system to enforce rights. Additionally, more "mainstream" human rights groups in the region have begun incorporating both women's human rights and reproductive rights into their work as the cultural and religious perceptions of women's roles in society have receded. This trend has occurred while women's right to make decisions concerning childbearing has gained ground.

While Paulina's case involves abortion, a reproductive health and rights issue, her case is principally about a government failing to enforce and protect the rights afforded to a citizen by law. A few other cases have dealt with reproductive rights more directly:

• The Center for Reproductive Rights and Peruvian women's rights organizations filed two claims with the Commission, one involving coercive sterilization and the other, the rape of a patient by a government doctor, in 1998 and 2000, respectively. Both cases resulted in "friendly settlements" in which the Peruvian government acknowledged its international legal responsibility for what happened in the cases. The Peruvian government agreed to pay damages and to adopt policy measures to address the violations that occurred and to prevent them from being repeated.

• In 1990, a case was brought before the Commission where an Argentine woman and her 13-year-old daughter were subjected to vaginal searches when visiting her husband, the child's father, in federal prison. The Commission called for the Argentine government to compensate the woman and the girl for the searches. It also ruled that before this type of search could be conducted there had to be no other means of detection available, a judicial order required, and the search conducted by a health professional.

• In 2001, Chilean non-governmental organizations filed a claim with the Commission after Chile's Supreme Court banned the sale and distribution of a brand of emergency contraception (EC). A subsequent Supreme Court ruling permitted the sale of a different brand of EC, but the petition is still pending with the Commission regarding the first ruling, which still stands.

The Commission also plays a crucial role in monitoring and investigating human rights. Since 1961, the Inter-American Commission has published more than 50 human rights reports on countries in the Americas. In its role as investigator, it has begun to examine reproductive rights issues. The Commission's report on Guatemala in 2001 discusses reproductive rights, citing the Center for Reproductive Rights' report "An Unfulfilled Human Right: Family Planning in Guatemala." It has also explored the issue of forced sterilization in Peru. Its Colombia report has a section devoted specifically to reproductive health.

Beyond Paulina's case, the Center for Reproductive Rights is playing a role in raising the profile of reproductive rights with the Commission. On the same day the Center for Reproductive Rights handed over the Paulina petition, Martinez and Monica Roa, a legal fellow, presented the findings of our report "Bodies on Trial: Reproductive Rights in Latin American Courts." The report is a groundbreaking study of legislation and high court decisions concerning the rights of women in five Latin American countries over a ten-year period.

Commissioner Marta Altoaguirre Larraondo of Guatemala, who is also the Special Rapporteur on Women's Rights for the Commission, and Commissioner Robert K. Goldman of the United States were among the commissioners who attended the presentation and engaged in an extensive dialogue with Martinez and Roa about the study's findings. The presentation was another part of efforts by the Center for Reproductive Rights and other organizations to integrate reproductive rights into the Commission's body of work.

Nepali Parliament Passes Law To Decriminalize Abortion

Nepali reproductive rights groups have spent years advocating for the decriminalization of abortion. In March, those efforts finally paid off.

On March 14, the Nepali Parliament passed a law that legalizes abortion in certain circumstances. Once Nepal's king signs the legislation, abortion will be legal upon the woman's request during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, in cases of rape and incest during the first 18 weeks, and at any time when a woman's life or health is in danger and in cases of fetal impairment.

The abortion law reform coincided with the release of a report by the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Forum for Women, Law and Development (FWLD) based in Nepal. Entitled "Abortion in Nepal: Women Imprisoned," The report examines the human rights violations inherent to Nepal's longstanding abortion ban, as well as those arising from enforcement of the ban. The Center for Reproductive Rights and FWLD call for the release of women currently serving prison sentences pursuant to the ban – some as long as life imprisonment.

"Nepal's brutal abortion law will soon be history, but the fate of those women currently imprisoned for abortion is unclear," said Melissa Upreti, Center for Reproductive Rights legal advisor for Asia. "Ensuring women's equality under the law requires the government to take action and release the women carrying out sentences on abortion-related crimes."

Upon the report's release, Nepal's Minister of Health Sara Singh Bhandari and Ravi Bahudar Bista, secretary of Nepal's Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare, committed to initiating steps to release the women who are imprisoned for abortion.

In March 2001, Upreti and Center for Reproductive Rights Legal Advisor for Global Projects Laura Katzive undertook a fact-finding mission with advocate Sapana Pradhan-Malla, president of FWLD, and other FWLD staff to study the effect of Nepal's abortion law on women's human rights. During that mission, they interviewed 57 women convicted of abortion and infanticide, Nepali policymakers, judges, reproductive health providers, and health officials. The report features stories of some of the women in prison, many of whom are serving lengthy sentences. Most of these sentences were imposed upon women who had no opportunity to hire lawyers or to defend themselves in court.

Despite the landmark reform of the abortion law, safe abortion services will remain out of reach for many women, particularly rural and low-income women. The Bush Administration's "global gag rule will pose an added barrier to ensuring abortion access. It will force the many local reproductive health service providers receiving U.S. family planning assistance to refrain from providing abortion services and counseling, engaging in public awareness campaigns regarding abortion, and participating in lobbying to further liberalize the abortion law.

VOICE FROM THE FIELD: Defending Women's Rights in Nigeria

Oby Nwankwo knows first-hand the dangers poor access to safe reproductive health care pose to women. When Nwankwo's distant cousin, a 16-year-old girl, got pregnant she turned to one of Nigeria's "road-side" chemists to end her pregnancy. The drugs she took ended her pregnancy, but also took her life.

The experience, says Nwankwo, drove her to become a lawyer and advocate for women's reproductive rights. She says her cousin's death was the result of Nigerian women's poor access to information about reproductive health services and denial of their right to reproductive choice.

Oby Nwankwo, a Nigerian chief magistrate and executive director of the Civil Resource Development and Document Center of Nigeria, at the Center for Reproductive Rights' New York office.

Nwankwo, a Chief Magistrate in Nigeria, who in her "spare time" is the executive director of the Civil Resource Development and Documentation Center or CIRDDOC, reflected on this experience while on a two-day visit to the Center for Reproductive Rights' New York office.

"I just felt that girls that do not have access to legal services should benefit from my education," Nwankwo told the Reproductive Freedom News. She has been working on women's rights issues in Nigeria for more than 20 years.

Nwankwo, as executive director of CIRDDOC, which has a dedicated staff of ten, is leading the organization's efforts to raise the Nigerian public's awareness of threats to women's reproductive rights. It is no easy task in a country where discussion about abortion, family planning or any other reproductive health issue is extremely sensitive.

Just a few months ago, says Nwankwo, the Nigerian National Assembly was preparing to open a debate on abortion when women stormed into the assembly with signs protesting any discussion on the issue. In Nigeria, abortion is illegal at all stages of pregnancy, except to save the woman's life.

"They [the women] were afraid that if there was an abortion law then people would become promiscuous," says Nwankwo. "They believed that their husbands would have sex indiscriminately. We know this is born out of ignorance."

Nwankwo and CIRDDOC have been raising public awareness of reproductive health issues by conducting media training workshops. "If the media is properly educated on these issues then half of the job will be done," says Nwankwo.

CIRDDOC, with two other Nigerian groups, is working to incorporate reproductive rights into the curricula of Nigerian law schools. It has held several mock tribunals on different human rights issues. They are planning a tribunal on abortion rights.

"The aim of the tribunal is to bring to the forefront these issues that are not normally discussed in public," says Nwankwo. "Issues like abortion that under our customs should not be discussed in public."

CIRDDOC also produces pamphlets for public education on a host of women's reproductive rights issues.

According to Nwankwo, Center for Reproductive Rights publications, such as the "Women of the World" series, are invaluable to her advocacy work. "There is a dearth of information in Nigeria on these issues," she says.

The Center for Reproductive Rights' legal expertise in international law, she says, is also a valuable resource for efforts to get Nigerian law to recognize women's rights. "When you have an international expert speaking to judges about how international treaties can apply to domestic issues, that has so much more influence on them."

UPDATE: Irish Voters Defeat Restrictive Abortion Referendum

In March, Irish voters defeated a constitutional referendum that would have eliminated the threat of suicide as grounds for a woman to obtain a legal and life-saving abortion in Ireland. Ireland's law bans abortion except when continuation of pregnancy poses a "real and substantial risk" to a pregnant woman's life. The referendum marked the fifth time in the past 20 years that Irish citizens had been asked to vote on abortion rights.

Judge Rejects Abortion-Breast Cancer Scare Tactic

On March 28, after three days at trial in state court, Judge Michael McGuire ruled in favor of a North Dakota abortion clinic that distributes information stating there is that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer.

Ruling from the bench, Judge McGuire relied on trial testimony from leading epidemiology and endocrinology experts who confirmed the statements made in the clinic's brochures. The judge also asserted that it was reasonable for the clinic to rely on preeminent cancer research institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, neither of which have concluded that there is an established link between abortion and breast cancer.

"The judge rejected the abortion-breast cancer scare tactic," said Linda Rosenthal, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights and lead counsel representing the defendants in Amy Jo Mattson v. MKB Management Corp. d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic. "This ruling should put to rest the unethical anti-choice tactic of using pseudo-science to harass abortion clinics and scare women," added Rosenthal.

An anti-abortion protestor had sued the clinic under the state's false advertising law in December 1999 to stop the Red River Women's Clinic from distributing its own pamphlets on abortion, claiming that the clinic's pamphlets provided misleading information to patients. In crafting its brochure, the clinic relied on scientific data provided by the National Cancer Institute and the National Abortion Federation. The plaintiff, who was never a patient of the clinic, had not seen the clinic's brochures until over a year after she started her suit. She had been a self-ordained "sidewalk counselor" distributing pamphlets to scare women from obtaining abortions by linking abortion and breast cancer.

Earlier this month, a judge in California dismissed a lawsuit of a similar nature that was filed against the Planned Parenthood of San Diego by the same attorney who filed the Fargo case. That case did not reach the trial level.

Rosenthal and Janet Crepps of the Center for Reproductive Rights, along with local counsel Joseph A. Turman of Demars & Turman, Ltd. in Fargo, North Dakota represented the defendants.

Virginia Passes Unconstitutional Abortion Ban

Virginia's anti-choice lawmakers have chosen to ignore that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a ban on so-called "partial-birth abortion" in a case argued by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in 2000.

In March, Virginia's Senate passed an unconstitutional bill banning abortion which fails to adequately protect women's health. Virginia's abortion ban violates the right of women to have the safest and most appropriate medical procedure to protect her health as guaranteed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill now moves to the desk of Governor Mark Warner, who during his campaign pledged to sign an abortion ban as long as it would withstand legal scrutiny which this bill clearly fails to do.

"The Virginia legislature has again passed an unconstitutional abortion ban despite clear instructions from the Supreme Court that women's health must prevail over anti-abortion politics," said Janet Crepps, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights successfully challenged Virginia's first abortion ban, which was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in August 2000.

Virginia's health exception is inadequate because the bill allows the banned procedures only when the woman suffers from a medical condition so serious that the procedure is necessary "in order to avert her death or avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

The Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000, striking down Nebraska's abortion ban, makes clear that any ban on abortion procedures must contain a health exception broad enough to allow the procedure when the woman's physician believes it is the safest and most appropriate in her circumstances. An Ohio law containing a nearly identical exception was found unconstitutional by a federal district court last year on the grounds that the bill does not meet the requirements set forth by the Carhart decision. That case is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Michigan Judge Strikes Down Vague Abortion Law

A federal judge struck down a provision of the Michigan mandatory delay law restricting abortion providers from collecting payment for some "abortion-related" services at the time they are provided. On February 26, Judge John O'Meara of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the law was unconstitutionally vague, and therefore would threaten to inhibit women's exercise of their right to choose abortion.

"Like all physicians who provide medical care, abortion providers are entitled to fair payment for their services. The court recognized that the Michigan legislature's attempt to discriminate against abortion providers is unconstitutional," said Bebe Anderson, a staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, who represents the plaintiffs in Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Jennifer M. Granholm.

Signed by Governor Engler in December 2000, the Michigan law amended the existing mandatory 24-hour delay for an abortion to include the restriction on collecting payment for "abortion-related" services rendered prior to the expiration of the 24-hour waiting period. The law also attempted to restrict the use of mifepristone, or RU-486. In April 2001, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Michigan reached a settlement that removed the state's ban on the use of mifepristone and resolved all of the plaintiff's challenges to the mandatory delay law except the payment issue.

The Court agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the law did not make clear whether collecting payment for pregnancy-related services such as ultrasounds or pregnancy tests would be included under the law's restrictions. In his ruling, Judge O'Meara held that, "the vagueness [of the law] is especially dangerous because it threatens to chill the exercise of the right to choose."

The Center for Reproductive Rights Argues Against Florida Restriction on Young Women's Rights

In March, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy argued before the Florida Supreme Court that the state's law requiring physicians to notify a parent or legal guardian of a young woman prior to an abortion procedure violates the Florida Constitution. In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a similar law that required written parental consent, finding it violated the right to privacy.

"The majority of young women choose to involve their parents in decisions about pregnancy," said Bebe Anderson, a Center for Reproductive Rights staff attorney representing the plaintiffs in North Florida Women's Health & Counseling Services, Inc., et al. v. State of Florida, et al. She added, "But harm those young women who fear physical or emotional abuse by a parent."

In February 2001, the First District Court of Appeals found the state law requiring parental notification valid under the Florida Constitution, ignoring strong evidence presented at the trial court level attesting to the harmful impact the law would have on minors. In May 2000, Judge Terry P. Lewis had ruled that the law was unconstitutional, finding that it did not serve a compelling state interest and that it violated the explicit privacy clause in Florida's constitution, which allows young women the same right to privacy as adult women. The parental notice law has been blocked since July 1999.

The Center for Reproductive Rights Argues Challenge to Bush's "Global Gag Rule" Before Federal Appellate Court

In March, the Center for Reproductive Rights argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit against a lower court's dismissal of its case against President George W. Bush's censorship of abortion-related speech. The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the "global gag rule" (GGR) on the grounds that free speech rights of Americans promoting law reform around the world are harmed by President Bush's gag.

"The 'global gag rule' is government censorship," said Priscilla Smith, acting director of the Center for Reproductive Rights' domestic program. "We're asking for our day in court to prove that this gag is harmful to women and law reform."

Last July, a federal judge dismissed the case, CRLP v. Bush, without examining the merits, on the grounds that the Center for Reproductive Rights did not have the standing to bring the suit. Last June, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed its challenge to the GGR, which bars foreign organizations that receive U.S. funds from speaking freely about abortion if they express a view contrary to the U.S. government's view. The Center for Reproductive Rights argued that without access to gagged foreign organizations and their information, the organization's lawyers cannot effectively communicate with citizens and activists in other countries, influence governments or assist in abortion law reform.

"In a speech before the United Nations honoring International Women's Day, First Lady Laura Bush stated that the right to free speech must be guaranteed worldwide," said Kathy Hall Martinez, acting director of the Center for Reproductive Rights' international program, and a plaintiff in the case. "The United States cannot lead that effort while the Bush Administration's foreign policy gags those with different views."

Women's Rights Treaty Gains Momentum

By Molly Diachok

The United States considers itself a leader in promoting women's rights, but its 22-year absence from the group of nations that have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has undermined its credibility on this front. The U.S. is the only industrialized country that has not ratified this critical human rights treaty.

However, this may change. The Bush Administration recently put CEDAW on its list of treaties that it "believes [is] generally desirable and should be approved." On March 8, International Women's Day, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, "Women's issues are human rights issues... President Bush is committed, and I am committed, to ensuring that women's issues are fully integrated into American foreign policy."

As of March 2002, 168 countries have ratified CEDAW. It is the only comprehensive international standard for eliminating discrimination against women. It addresses women's rights within political, cultural, economic and social life, and contains provisions addressing critical issues such as education, employment, health care and property rights.

The U.S. needs to ratify CEDAW in order to have credibility with other nations when dealing with women's rights issues. This includes U.S. support of Afghan women's efforts to enjoy their human rights. Because CEDAW is the only treaty that comprehensively affirms women's human rights, it is the perfect mechanism to promote women's rights in Afghanistan and around the world.

To ratify CEDAW, the U.S. Senate must approve the treaty by a two-thirds majority. However, it must first pass through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At a reception to honor International Women's Day, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, chair of the foreign relations committee, called for CEDAW ratification and announced that his committee will hold hearings on the treaty this spring. The Center for Reproductive Rights has been working closely with the CEDAW Ratification Working Group in meeting with Senate offices to garner support for the treaty.

Another champion of CEDAW, Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, also urged CEDAW ratification: "I am hopeful that the Senate will be convinced that the ratification of CEDAW is paramount to our success in the fight against international discrimination and violence against women."

Support for CEDAW goes beyond the beltway. As of March 2002, sixteen states and 58 counties have passed resolutions calling for CEDAW ratification. Last fall, more than 80 organizations representing millions of people across the country sent a letter to the Senate urging CEDAW ratification. Many tireless leaders in Congress, within the Administration, and across the nation are building tremendous momentum for U.S. ratification of CEDAW.

Ms. Diachok is a policy program assistant in the Center for Reproductive Rights Washington, D.C. office.

Congresswomen Launch Bill to Reduce Unintended Pregnancies

In March, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY) introduced a bill, the Emergency Contraception Education Act, to educate healthcare providers and the public about emergency contraception (EC).

"Over 7,500 American women become pregnant unintentionally every day," said Bonnie Scott Jones, a staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. "The medical community agrees that ready access to EC in the case of contraceptive failure or unprotected sex is an important tool to remedy this disastrous situation."

Emergency contraceptive pills are ordinary birth control pills that can act to prevent a pregnancy up to 72 hours after unprotected sex or a contraceptive failure. EC is not "the abortion pill" - mifepristone or RU-486. While mifepristone induces a very early non-surgical abortion, EC has no effect on an established pregnancy.

Last year, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on behalf of over 70 health, religious and women's groups seeking over-the-counter status for EC. Increased access to EC is strongly supported by major medical organizations, which estimate that half of all unintended pregnancies and half of the resulting abortions could be avoided if women could more easily access EC. | |