The Abortion Rights Debate

65 Pages·2016·3.71 MB·English

by  Justin Healey

V
o
l
u
The Abortion m
e
V
O |
LU 4
M Rights Debate
0
E

4
0 2
2
T
H
E

A
B
O
R
T
I
O
N

R
I
G
H
T
S

D
E
B
A
T
E
Edited by Justin Healey
IS
S
U
E
S

IN

S
O
C
IE
T
Y
V
o
l
u
The Abortion m
e

|
4
Rights Debate
0
2
Edited by Justin Healey
First published by

PO Box 438 Thirroul NSW 2515 Australia
www.spinneypress.com.au
© The Spinney Press 2016.
COPYRIGHT
All rights reserved. Other than for purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Australian
Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part of this publication may in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted without prior permission. Inquiries should be directed to the publisher.
REPRODUCTION AND COMMUNICATION FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10% of the pages of this work,
whichever is the greater, to be reproduced and/or communicated by any educational institution for its educational
purposes provided that the educational institution (or the body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice
to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act.
For details of the CAL licence for educational institutions contact:
Copyright Agency Limited, Level 11, 66 Goulburn Street Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [email protected]
REPRODUCTION AND COMMUNICATION FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Except as permitted under the Act (for example a fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review)
no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, communicated or transmitted in any form or
by any means without prior written permission. All inquiries should be made to the publisher at the address above.
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry
Title: The abortion rights debate / Justin Healey (editor).
ISBN: 9781925339055 (ebook : pdf)
Series: Issues in society (Balmain, N.S.W.) ; v. 402.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index.
Subjects: Abortion--Moral and ethical aspects.
Abortion--Law and legislation.
Pro-choice movement.
Pro-life movement.
Other Authors/Contributors: Healey, Justin, editor.
Dewey Number: 363.46
Cover images: Courtesy of iStockphoto.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 ABORTION AND THE LAW
Abortion policies and reproductive health around the world 1
International and regional standards on the right to life 3
The world’s abortion laws 2014 6
Explainer: is abortion legal in Australia? 8
A beginner’s guide to abortion law in Australia 10
Unplanned pregnancy in Australia 12
Medical versus surgical termination 15
Abortion – emotional issues and counselling 16
CHAPTER 2 VIEWS IN THE ABORTION RIGHTS DEBATE
Making a ‘choice’ based on all the facts 18
No right to health without a right to abortion 22
Abortion – what is it? 24
Reproductive rights, abortion and Zoe’s law: why freedom of choice 26
is still feminism’s biggest fight
Does an unborn child feel pain during an abortion? 29
Hands off our hard-fought abortion rights 31
Abortion risks: a position statement 33
Doctors’ moral objections don’t justify denying abortion access 35
Freedom of conscience: why the right to conscientious objection 37
must be restored
What ‘miracle babies’ mean for abortion rights 40
Real choices: abortion advocates’ message 42
The anti-abortion fallacy 44
Eugenics and abortion 45
Access to abortion: a human rights issue for Australian women 47
What if the child will have a disability? 49
What should we do about sex-selective abortion? 51
Exploring issues – worksheets and activities 53
Fast facts 57
Glossary 58
Web links 59
Index 60
INTRODUCTION
The Abortion Rights Debate is Volume 402 in the ‘Issues in Society’ series of educational resource
books. The aim of this series is to offer current, diverse information about important issues in
our world, from an Australian perspective.
KEY ISSUES IN THIS TOPIC
Abortion rights address the circumstances under which a woman may obtain a legal abortion in a specific
jurisdiction. It is a divisive issue as the rights debate frequently raises ethical and practical discussions in relation
to the law, morality, science, medicine, sexuality, autonomy, religion and politics.
This book considers the options that are presented with an unplanned pregnancy, and how these options relate to
a number of ethical concerns and legal safeguards internationally, and more specifically, in Australia.
What are the various ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ arguments in response to the availability and timing of surgical
and non-surgical abortion, the health and circumstances of the expectant mother, fetal abnormalities, the status
of the fetus, and the conscientious objections of medical practitioners? Whose rights should prevail?
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Titles in the ‘Issues in Society’ series are individual resource books which provide an overview on a specific subject
comprised of facts and opinions.
The information in this resource book is not from any single author, publication or organisation. The unique value of
the ‘Issues in Society’ series lies in its diversity of content and perspectives.
The content comes from a wide variety of sources and includes:
h Newspaper reports and opinion pieces h Statistics and surveys
h Website fact sheets h Government reports
h Magazine and journal articles h Literature from special interest groups
CRITICAL EVALUATION
As the information reproduced in this book is from a number of different sources, readers should always be aware
of the origin of the text and whether or not the source is likely to be expressing a particular bias or agenda.
It is hoped that, as you read about the many aspects of the issues explored in this book, you will critically evaluate
the information presented. In some cases, it is important that you decide whether you are being presented with
facts or opinions. Does the writer give a biased or an unbiased report? If an opinion is being expressed, do you
agree with the writer?
EXPLORING ISSUES
The ‘Exploring issues’ section at the back of this book features a range of ready-to-use worksheets relating to
the articles and issues raised in this book. The activities and exercises in these worksheets are suitable for use by
students at middle secondary school level and beyond.
FURTHER RESEARCH
This title offers a useful starting point for those who need convenient access to information about the issues
involved. However, it is only a starting point. The ‘Web links’ section at the back of this book contains a list of useful
websites which you can access for more reading on the topic.
Chapter 1 Abortion and the law
CHAPTER 1
Abortion and the law
ABORTION POLICIES AND REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH AROUND THE WORLD
HIGHLIGHTS FROM A KEY REPORT PRODUCED BY THE UNITED NATIONS
•• Between 1996 and 2013, the percentage of than four times as likely to have restrictive
Governments permitting abortion increased abortion policies as those in developed regions.
gradually for all legal grounds, except to save In 2013, 82 per cent of Governments in developed
a woman’s life which remained at 97 per cent. regions permitted abortion for economic or
Despite overall expansion in the legal grounds social reasons and 71 per cent allowed abortion
for abortion, policies remain restrictive in many on request. In contrast, only 20 per cent of
countries. Governments in developing regions permitted
•• In about two thirds of countries in 2013, abortion abortion for economic or social reasons and only
was permitted when the physical or mental health 16 per cent allowed it on request.
of the mother was endangered, and only in half of •• In recent years, many Governments have
the countries when the pregnancy resulted from implemented measures to improve access to
rape or incest or in cases of foetal impairment. safe abortion services to the extent of the law.
Only about one third of countries permitted Out of 145 countries with available data in 2012,
abortion for economic or social reasons or on Governments of 87 countries (60 per cent) had
request. implemented concrete measures to improve access
•• Since 1996, legal grounds for abortion have to safe abortion services in the past five years.
expanded in a growing number of countries •• With ever-declining fertility levels, a growing
in both developing and developed regions, but number of Governments have adopted policies to
abortion policies remain much more restrictive in raise fertility. The percentage of Governments with
countries of the developing regions. policies to raise fertility has almost doubled from
•• Governments in developing regions were more 14 per cent in 1996 to 27 per cent in 2013, whereas
Issues in Society | Volume 402 The Abortion Rights Debate 1
the percentage of Governments with policies to
IMPACT OF UNSAFE ABORTION
lower fertility has remained virtually unchanged
from 42 per cent in 1996 to 43 per cent in 2013. h• 22 million unsafe abortions are performed each year.
•• A growing number of Governments have expressed h• Approximately 47,000 deaths and 5 million injuries each
concern about high rates of adolescent fertility. The year are a result of complications from unsafe abortion.
percentage of Governments identifying adolescent h• 98% of all unsafe abortions occur in developing
fertility as a major concern has risen steadily, from countries, most of which have restrictive abortion laws.
46 per cent in 1996 to 67 per cent in 2013. h• The WHO has estimated that nearly all of the deaths
and disabilities resulting from unsafe abortion “could
•• Governments have increasingly adopted policies
have been prevented through sexuality education,
to reduce adolescent birth rates. Of the 195
family planning, and the provision of safe, legal induced
countries with information available in 2013, 90
abortion and care for complications of abortion.”*
per cent of Governments had adopted policies and
programmes to reduce adolescent fertility, up from NOTES
* World Health Organisation (WHO). Safe abortion: Technical
60 per cent in 1996.
and Policy Guidance for Health Systems (2012).
•• Out of 172 countries with available data in 2012,
Governments of 152 countries (88 per cent) had Source: Center for Reproductive Rights 2014,
Briefing Paper: Abortion Worldwide: 20 years of reform.
implemented concrete measures to increase
women’s access to comprehensive sexual and
reproductive health services in the past five years, per cent having both legal measures and policies.
regardless of marital status and age. •• Maternal mortality has been declining, but
•• In 2013, among 195 countries with available data, Governments of most countries in developing
all but 10 Governments (95 per cent) had adopted regions continue to view their levels as
some legal measures or policies to prevent unacceptable. In 2013, three out of four
domestic violence, including 78 per cent having Governments in developing regions considered
legal measures, 90 per cent having policies and 73 their level of maternal mortality as unacceptable,
compared with less than one out of four
Governments in developed regions.
•• Fertility rates are significantly higher in countries
with restrictive abortion policies. The average
adolescent birth rate in countries with restrictive
abortion policies in 2013 was about three times
greater (69 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to
19 years) than in countries with liberal abortion
policies (24 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19
years). The average total fertility rate in countries
with restrictive abortion policies in 2013 was also
significantly higher (3.22 children per woman) than
in countries with liberal abortion policies (1.97
children per woman).
•• Countries with restrictive abortion policies have
much higher unsafe abortion rates. The average
unsafe abortion rate was more than four times
greater in countries with restrictive abortion
policies in 2011 (26.7 unsafe abortions per 1,000
women aged 15 to 44 years) than in countries with
liberal abortion policies (6.1 unsafe abortions per
1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years).
•• Countries with restrictive abortion policies have
much higher levels of maternal mortality. The average
maternal mortality ratio was three times greater in
countries with restrictive abortion policies in 2013
(223 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) than in
countries with liberal abortion policies (77 maternal
deaths per 100,000 live births).
© 2014 United Nations. Reprinted with the
permission of the United Nations.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division (2014). Abortion Policies and Reproductive Health around the
World – Highlights, p.1. Retrieved from www.un.org on 10 August 2015.
2 The Abortion Rights Debate Issues in Society | Volume 402
INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL
STANDARDS ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE
This briefing paper extract from the Center for Reproductive Rights explains
women’s rights and prenatal protections under human rights and comparative law
I
nternational and regional human rights treaties pro-
tect a right to life without defining when life begins.
Authoritative sources for interpretation – including
the history of negotiations and the jurisprudence of
the bodies charged with interpreting and monitoring
compliance with human rights treaties – clarify that
these protections do not apply before birth and recognise
that to protect an absolute right to life before birth
could contradict human rights protections for women.
The histories of negotiations over the terms of
human rights treaties (travaux préparatoires), which
provide a source for interpretation where the language
of a treaty is ambiguous,1 indicate that right to life
provisions are not intended to protect a prenatal right
to life. Additionally, treaty monitoring bodies, through
general comments, concluding observations, and
decisions in individual cases, consistently emphasise
the importance of protecting women’s rights, and
the denial of a therapeutic abortion, where continued
assert that to guarantee women’s fundamental rights
pregnancy posed a significant risk to the life and mental
to life and health, among others, States must remove
health of the pregnant woman, violated the woman’s
barriers to the full enjoyment of those rights, such as
right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading
the denial of safe and legal abortions.
treatment.8 The Human Rights Committee reaffirmed
this decision in the case of L.M.R. v. Argentina, when it
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
held that the denial of a legal abortion for a rape victim
RIGHTS STANDARDS
inflicted physical and mental suffering, violating the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights woman’s right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman,
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or degrading treatment, and her right to privacy.9
states that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal
in dignity and rights.”2 Significantly, the history of Convention on the Rights of the Child
negotiations indicates that the word “born” was used Although the Preamble of the Convention on the
intentionally to exclude a prenatal application of the Rights of the Child (CRC) provides that “the child, by
rights protected in the Declaration.3 The drafters of the reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs
Declaration rejected a proposal to delete “born,” and the special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal
resulting text of the Declaration conveys intentionally protection, before as well as after birth,”10 the history
that the rights of the Declaration are “inherent from of negotiations makes clear that this language is not
the moment of birth.”4 intended to extend Convention protections, including
right to life protections, prenatally. To the contrary,
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the negotiations explicitly note that this language
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not “intend[ed] to prejudice the interpretation of
(ICCPR) rejects the proposition that the right to life, Article 1 or any other provision of the Convention,”
protected in Article 6(1), extends to prenatal life.5 The where Article 1 defines “a child” for the purposes of
drafters of the ICCPR specifically rejected a proposal the Convention as “every human being below the age
to amend this article to provide that “the right to life of 18 years.” Proponents of the amendment calling
is inherent in the human person from the moment of for safeguards before birth further clarified that “the
conception, this right shall be protected by law.”6 purpose of the amendment was not to preclude the
The Human Rights Committee, which interprets and possibility of abortion.”11
monitors state compliance with the ICCPR, has further The Committee on the Rights of the Child, which
clarified that the ICCPR’s right to life protections may be interprets and monitors state compliance with the CRC,
violated when women are exposed to a risk of death from supports the understanding that the CRC does not
unsafe abortion as a result of restrictive abortion laws.7 protect a prenatal right to life. The Committee has not
In the case of K.L. v. Peru, the Committee established that issued any comments suggesting that there is a right to
Issues in Society | Volume 402 The Abortion Rights Debate 3
life before birth; instead the Committee has expressed Rica’s ban on the use of in vitro fertilisation, which Costa
concern about maternal mortality in adolescent girls Rica attempted to justify as a measure to protect the
stemming from unsafe abortion12 – a violation of their right to life prior to birth, since some of the embryos
right to life – and urged states to reform punitive abortion created will perish. The Court determined that, under
legislation and ensure access to safe abortion services, the American Convention, the “right to life should not be
irrespective of the legality of abortion.13 understood as an absolute right, the alleged protection
of which can justify the total negation of other rights”22
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms and that disproportionate restrictions on the exercise
of Discrimination against Women14 of other human rights due to absolute protection of
The jurisprudence of the Committee on the Elim- the right to life “would be contrary to the protection
ination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW of human rights.”23 The Court ruled that the term “in
Committee), which interprets and monitors state general” in article 4’s protection of the right to life was
compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of intended “to allow, as appropriate, an adequate balance
All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), between competing rights and interests.”24 This decision
makes clear that the fundamental principles of non- affirmed the Inter-American Commission’s decision over
discrimination and equality require that the rights of two decades earlier in the case of Baby Boy v. United
a pregnant woman be given priority over an interest States, in which it held that a law permitting abortion
in prenatal life. without restriction as to reason was compatible with the
In the case of L.C. v. Peru, the CEDAW Committee American Declaration and the American Convention,
found that the government had violated a pregnant because they do not provide absolute protection of the
girl’s rights by prioritising the fetus over her health by right to life prior to birth.25
postponing an essential surgery until the girl was no Furthermore, in Artavia Murillo et al. (“in vitro
longer pregnant. The girl’s continued pregnancy posed fertilisation”) v. Costa Rica, the Inter-American Court
a substantial risk to her physical and mental health, refuted the proposition that other international human
and the CEDAW Committee held that the denial of rights conventions and declarations protect the right
a therapeutic abortion and the delay in providing to life prior to birth, finding that such documents,
the surgery constituted gender-based discrimination including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
and violated her rights to health and freedom from ICCPR, and the CRC, did not provide any evidence to
discrimination.15 The CEDAW Committee has further substantiate the notion that that the embryo could be
expressed concern that women’s rights to life and health considered “a person.”26 Finally, in addressing the issue
may be violated by restrictive abortion laws.16 of when life begins, the Court reasoned that since there
is not an agreed definition of when life begins, adopting
REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS one such definition “would imply imposing specific types
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of of beliefs on others who do not share them.”27
Man and American Convention on Human Rights The determination that the American Convention
Article 1 of the American Declaration on the Rights and does not protect an absolute right to life before
Duties of Man provides that “[e]very human being has birth has also been affirmed through provisional and
the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person.”17 precautionary measures issued to states with restrictive
Drafters of the American Declaration specifically abortion laws. Following the denial of necessary
rejected a proposal to adopt the following language: cancer treatment to a pregnant Nicaraguan woman
“Every person has the right to life. This right extends on the grounds that such treatment could cause an
to the right to life from the moment of conception.”18 abortion, the Inter-American Commission issued
They reasoned that such a provision would have precautionary measures to Nicaragua, finding that the
conflicted with existing abortion laws in the majority State could not deny her life- and health-saving care and
of the member states.19 calling on the State to provide the necessary medical
While article 4 of the American Convention on Human treatment.28 Additionally, the Inter-American Court
Rights states: “Every person has the right to have his issued provisional measures ordering El Salvador to
life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, take all necessary steps to preserve the life of a woman
in general, from the moment of conception,”20 both whose pregnancy placed her life in grave danger,29 which
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the under these circumstances required termination of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the pregnancy.30 Implicit in these determinations is the
two adjudicatory bodies that interpret and monitor notion that the State cannot prioritise the health or
compliance with the Inter-American system’s human wellbeing of the fetus over the pregnant woman’s rights.
rights conventions, have clarified that this protection
is not absolute.21 European Convention on Human Rights
In the case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“in vitro fertilisation”) Article 2(1) of the European Convention on Human
v. Costa Rica, the Inter-American Court – which provides Rights provides: “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected
authoritative interpretations of the Inter-American by law.”31 The European Commission on Human Rights,
system’s human rights conventions – struck down Costa in Paton v. United Kingdom, held that the Convention
4 The Abortion Rights Debate Issues in Society | Volume 402
language “tend[s] to support the view that [Article 2] does
not include the unborn,”32 and acknowledged that recog-
nition of an absolute right to life before birth would “be
contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.”33
In Vo v. France, the European Court of Human Rights,
which interprets and monitors compliance with the
European Convention, affirmed that “the unborn child
is not regarded as a ‘person’ directly protected by Article
2 of the Convention and that if the unborn do have a
‘right’ to ‘life,’ it is implicitly limited by the mother’s rights
and interests,”34 including her rights to life, health, and
privacy.35 The Court reiterated this holding in A, B and C
v. Ireland,36 and noted that “[a] prohibition of abortion to
protect unborn life is not ... automatically justified under
the Convention on the basis of unqualified deference to
the protection of pre-natal life or on the basis that the
expectant mother’s right to respect for her private life
is of a lesser stature,” such that restrictions on abortion
must be consistent with women’s fundamental rights.37
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
and Protocol to the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa 1608/2007 (2011).
10. Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted Nov. 20, 1989, p. 9 of pmbl., GA Res.
Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ 44/25, annex, U.N. GAOR 44th Sess., Supp. No.49, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989)(entered
Rights states that “[h]uman beings are inviolable. Every into force Sept. 2, 1990).
11. Question of a Convention on the Rights of the Child: Rep. of the Working Group, U.N.
human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and Comm’n on Human Rights, 36th Sess., U.N. DOC. E/CN.4/L.1542 (1980). See also Rep.
of the Working Group on a Draft Convention on the Rights of the Child, U.N. Comm’n
the integrity of his person.”38 Drafters of the African
on Human Rights, 45th Sess., at 11, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1989/48 (1989).
Charter specifically rejected language protecting a right 12. Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee), General Comment No. 4:
Adolescent Health and Development in the Content of the Convention on the Rights
to life from the moment of conception.39 of the Child (33rd Sess., 2003), p. 31, U.N. DOC. CRC/GC/2003/4 (2003).
The Protocol to the African Charter on Human 13. See, e.g., CRC Committee, concluding Observations to: Chad, p. 30, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/
Add.107 (1999); Chile, p. 55, U.N. DOC. CRC/C/CHL/CO/3 (2007); Palau, p. 46, U.N. DOC.
and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa CRC/C/15/Add.149 (2001); Uruguay, p. 51, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/URY/CO/2 (2007) ); CRC
Committee, General Comment No. 15: The right of the child to the enjoyment of the
(Maputo Protocol) does not address when life begins,
highest attainable standard of health, (62nd Sess., 2013), in Compilation of General
but it implicitly reinforces the understanding that the Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, p.
70, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/15 (2013).
right to life accrues at birth, providing that States must 14. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of discrimination Against Women, adopted
take measures to “protect the reproductive rights of Dec. 18, 1979, art. 12, G.A. Res. 32/180, UN GAOR, 34th Sess., Supp. No. 46, U.N.
DOC. A/34/46 U.N.T.S. 13 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1981). See also Committee
women by authorising medical abortion in cases of on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), General
sexual assault, rape, incest and where the continued Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (women and health), (20th
Session, 1999), in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations
pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, p. 11, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. II) (2008).
15. L.C. v. Peru, CEDAW Committee, Commc’n No. 22/2009, p. 8.15, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/50/
of the [pregnant woman] or the life of the [pregnant
D/22/2009 (2011).
woman] or the foetus.”40 16. See, e.g., CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations to: Belize, p. 56, U.N. DOC.
A/54/38/Rev. 1, GAOR, 54th Sess., Supp. No. 38 (1999); Chile, p. 228, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/
Rev. 1, GAOR, 54th Sess., Supp. No. 38 (1999); Colombia, p. 393, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev.
NOTES
1, GAOR, 54th Sess., Supp. No. 38 (1999); Dominican Republic,p. 337, U.N. DOC. A/53/38/
1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 32, adopted May 23, 1969, 1155 u.n.t.s. Rev.1, GAOR, 53rd Sess., Supp. No. 38 (1998); Paraguay, p. 131, U.N. DOC. A/51/38, GAOR
331 (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980). 51st Sess., Supp. No. 38 (1996).
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted Dec. 10, 1948, G.A. Res.217a (III), 17. American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, adopted 1948 by the Ninth
Article 1, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948). International Conference of American States, art. 1, reprinted in Basic Documents
3. U.N. GAOR 3rd Comm., 99th mtg., pp. 110-124, U.N. Doc. A/PV/99 (1948). Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc.6
4. Id. rev.1 at 17 (1992).
5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 6(1), G.A. Res. 2200a (XXI), 18. Artavia Murillo et al. (“In Vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, Preliminary objections, Merits,
U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., pp. 194-197 (Nov. 28, 2012); Baby
into force Mar. 23, 1976). Boy v. United States, Resolution 23/81, Case 2141, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Resol. No.
6. U.N. GAOR Annex, 12th Session, Agenda Item 33, pp. 96, 113, 119, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/L.654. 23/81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1, p. 18(b) (Mar. 6, 1981), citing Novena Conferencia
7. See, e.g., Human Rights Committee (H.R. Committee), Concluding Observations to: Internacional Americana, Actas y Documentos Vol. V, at 449 (1948).
Argentina, p. 14, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/70/ARG (2000); Bolivia, p. 22, UN DOC. CCPR/C/79/ 19. Artavia Murillo et al. (“In Vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, Preliminary objections, Merits,
Add.74 (1997); Costa Rica, p. 11, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.107 (1999); Chile, p. 211, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., pp. 194-197 (Nov. 28, 2012); Baby
U.N. Doc. a/54/40 (1999); El Salvador, p. 14, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/78/SLV (2004); Ecuador, Boy v. United States, Resolution 23/81, Case 2141, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Resol. No.
p. 11, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.92 (1998); Gambia, p. 17, U.N. DOC. CCPR/CO/75/GMB 23/81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1, p. 18(e) (Mar. 6, 1981).
(2004); Guatemala, p. 19, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM (2001); Honduras, p. 8, U.N. Doc. 20. American Convention on Human Rights, adopted Nov. 22, 1969, O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, O.A.S.
CCPR/C/HND/CO/1 (2006); Kenya, p. 14, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/83/KEN (2005); Kuwait, Off. Rec. OEA/Ser.L./V/II.23, doc. 21, rev. 6 (entered into force July 18, 1978).
pp. 466, 467, U.N. DOC A/55/40; GAOR 55th Sess., Supp. No. 40 (2000); Lesotho, p. 21. Baby Boy v. United States, Resolution 23/81, Case 2141, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Resol.
11, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.106 (1999); Mauritius, p. 9, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/83/MUS No. 23/81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1, p. 25 (Mar. 6, 1981); Artavia Murillo et al.
(2005); Morocco, p. 29, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/82/MAR (2004); Paraguay, p. 10, U.N. Doc. (“In Vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and
CCPR/C/PRY/CO/2 (2006); Peru, p. 15, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.72 (1996); Peru, 20, U.N. Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., p. 258 (Nov. 28, 2012).
DOC. CCPR/CO/70/PER (2000); Poland, p. 8, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/82/POL (2004); United 22. Artavia Murillo et al. (“In Vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, Preliminary objections,
Republic of Tanzania, p. 15, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.97 (1998); Trinidad and Tobago, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., p. 258 (Nov. 28, 2012).
p. 18, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/70/TTO (2000); Venezuela, p. 19, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/71/VEN 23. Id. p. 259.
(2001); Vietnam, p. 15, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/75/VNM (2002). 24. Id. p. 263.
8. K.L. v. Peru, H.R. Committee, Commc’n No. 1153/2003, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/d/1153/2003 25. Baby Boy v. United States, Resolution 23/81, Case 2141, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Resol.
(2005). No. 23/81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1, p. 30 (Mar. 6, 1981).
9. L.M.R. v. Argentina, H.R. Committee, Commc’n No. 1608/2007, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/101/D/ 26. Artavia Murillo et al. (“In Vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, Preliminary objections,
Issues in Society | Volume 402 The Abortion Rights Debate 5