A letter was sent by the Association of the Bar in New York City as a part of GJC's August 12 Campaign challenging the legality of US abortion prohibitions imposed on US humanitarian aid for women raped in armed conflict.
March 4, 2011
Letter sent to President Obama by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York as a part of the GJC's "August 12th Campaign" asking that he issue an Executive Order lifting US abortion restrictions on humanitarian aid and that he accept Norway's Universal Periodic Review recommendation on abortion for rape victims.
On International Women’s Day, GJC Salutes the NY City Bar Association for Challenging the Legality of the US Abortion Prohibitions Imposed on US Humanitarian Aid for Women Raped in Armed Conflict
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—March 4, 2011
[NEW YORK, NY]- On March 4, 2011, the Association of the Bar of New York, on behalf of some 22,000 members, wrote to President Obama urging the Administration to lift the abortion prohibitions put on all US humanitarian aid for women and girl survivors of rape used as a weapon of war. The Association argues that “the denial of the full range of medically appropriate care to victims of rape in situations of armed conflict constitutes a violation of their rights under applicable international law.”
Conscious Magazine publishes Michelle Goldberg's article "All at Sea: USAID under Obama," on the US Helms Amendment.
At UN Human Rights Council, Norwegian Government Recommends that the United States Remove its Restrictions that Deny Abortions to Victims Raped in Conflict
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - November 11, 2010
[NORWAY] - Norway became the first country to challenge the legality of the anti-abortion conditions that the United States imposes on all of its foreign aid, in a question posed at the Universal Periodic Review of the United States before the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
We are pleased to share with you a crucial step in our work to repeal the illegal U.S. policy that prevents women and girls raped and impregnated in conflict from accessing abortions.
Previously, we wrote about the international legal arguments that we were developing to challenge the abortion restrictions that the United States places on all of its humanitarian aid going to organizations and governments working in conflict countries.
After six months of research and advocacy, Janet, Akila, and Gina from the Global Justice Center are in Geneva raising these legal arguments at the UN Human Rights Council’s Review of the United States. They are meeting with member states of the Human Rights Council to urge them to question the US about these restrictions that effectively deny necessary care to the thousands of girls and women raped and impregnated during war.
Today, we are excited to report that Norway has taken the lead by submitting the following question:
“The Global Justice Center (GJC) filed a shadow report for the universal periodic review of the US expressing concern with regard to US blanket abortion restriction on humanitarian aid and abortion speech restrictions on US rule of law and democracy programs. Does the US have any plans to remove its blanket abortion restrictions on humanitarian aid covering the medical care given women and girls who are raped and impregnated in situations of armed conflict? Does the US government apply abortion speech restrictions on its rule of law and democracy programs?”
These questions form the very basis of the Human Rights Council’s recommendations. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is the UN body tasked with monitoring the human rights records of the 192 members of the United Nations. Every four years, member states are required to have a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in front of the Human Rights Council, during which each country receives recommendations on how to comply with their human rights obligations.
The US State Department has said they intend to comply with the UNHRC’s recommendations, so Norway’s questions sets the stage for changing U.S. policy in order to better protect and advance the rights of women and girls raped and impregnated in conflict.
Women who have been raped and impregnated in armed conflict in countries such as the Congo and Sudan have the legal right to non-discriminatory medical care under the Geneva Conventions. This includes the right to abortions wherever victims of rape request them.
As a party to the Geneva Conventions, the United States must change its policy of attaching conditions to its humanitarian aid which prohibit recipients from speaking about abortion.
Click here to read the Global Justice Center’s Call to Action that we are distributing right now to Human Rights Council member states in Geneva.
A Call For All Member States of the Human Rights Council: End the Gross Violations of the Rights of Girls and Women Raped and Impregnated in Armed Conflict, to Non-Discriminatory Medical Care, Including Abortions, Under the Geneva Convention
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—November 2010
[NEW YORK, NY] - Thousands of girls and women, impregnated by rape in armed conflict are routinely and illegally denied lifesaving abortions in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Burma and Sudan. The right to non-discriminatory medical care for these victims, which includes the option of abortion, is enshrined in common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
From October 27, 2010
On October 27, GJC President Janet Benshoof appeared at a Parliamentary event hosted by the Conservative Women’s Organization where she discussed how states have an obligation to ensure that women and girls raped and impregnated in conflict have access to an abortion. Click here to read CWO’s piece below.
UK Baroness Uddin Uses GJC Legal Arguements in House of Lords Debate to Call for end to Discriminatory Care of Women Raped in Conflict
In her statement last Thursday, UK Baroness Uddin used a new legal argument from the Global Justice Center to call for the end to the routine denial of access to abortions for women who are raped and impregnated in conflict. Baroness Uddin identified the United States policy of censoring humanitarian aid recipients from speaking about or providing access to abortions as playing a major role in the continuing violation of the rights of these victims and called on the UK to ask questions of the United States about this policy when it is reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council.
From UK House of Lords debate on the Millennium Development Goals, October 7, 2010, at link below, columns 307-308:
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for initiating this important discussion. In the UK we should be rightly proud of the British leadership in advancing the millennium development goals which represent a vision of a world transformed where equality and justice prevail.
However, while we are very pleased, one group of women remains outside the MDG effort. Until we address this failure, we cannot speak of real progress. Today I ask our Government to call explicitly for girls and women who are forcibly impregnated by the vicious use of rape in armed conflict to be included under MDG 5-reducing maternal mortality. “Rape as a weapon of war” is a phrase commonly used accurately to describe what is happening alongside today’s armed conflicts, but we rarely speak about the consequences of this weapon. Thousands of girls and women impregnated by rape used as a weapon of war are routinely denied access to abortions. Girls and women die from their attempts to self-abort and from suicide resulting from untold stigmatization leading to social marginalization.
We should do what no other country has done: to ensure that the humanitarian medical aid provided to girls and women in places such as Congo, Sudan and Burma-an endless list of countries-gives them choices and access to abortion when pregnancy is a direct result of rape as a weapon of war. This is a moral imperative and a legal obligation. The Geneva Convention requires that civilians and combatant victims receive non-discriminatory medical care, whether it is provided by the state in conflict or by others. Why, then, are pregnant rape victims given discriminatory medical care through the routine denial of access to abortion? The embedded inequality towards women in conflict settings has been recognised by the Security Council in such historic resolutions as 1325 and 1820. Equal justice for women is not limited to the courtroom, it must be extended to supporting those women who are victims of the inhuman practice of rape as a weapon of war.
I draw the attention of the House to the recent report of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative and Oxfam, which details examples of the impact, stigma and suffering of raped children and women in Congo, Sudan and elsewhere, where no legal provision exists to support them. It also mentions that women should be given preventive care-that is, utilisation of contraception-as though women who are raped can be prepared for such horrors.
One of the solutions proposed by women’s organisations, including the international human rights organisation the Global Justice Center, is that access to abortion must be a critical part of the support available to women. The centre filed a shadow report with the Human Rights Council asking it to recommend that the US remove the prohibitions put on humanitarian aid to rape victims in conflict, as it violates the US obligation under the Geneva Convention. The UK can and must support this issue by asking questions of the US during the council’s review process due shortly.
I know that these are difficult matters for many individuals and countries to address, and international donor communities have thus far resisted pressurising countries to review their policies. Neither criminal abortion laws in the conflict state nor foreign aid contracts with the United States can serve as defence to a state provision of discriminatory medical care to all victims under international humanitarian law.
Time is short, and I should have liked to highlight many examples of countries such as Bangladesh where the suffering and humiliation of rape has left decades of suffering, ill health and stigma. The UK must take a lead to end that discrimination. This will mark real progress towards the millennium development goals and towards ensuring equal rights for women under international humanitarian law.
Global Justice Center Challenges the Abortion Speech Censorship Imposed by the U.S. on all Foreign Aid Recipients, at the UN Human Rights Council
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - May 26, 2010
[NEW YORK, NY] - The Global Justice Center, in a submission to the UN Human Rights Council, challenges the censorship of abortion related speech imposed on all U.S. foreign aid. The Global Justice Center identifies the alarming effects of this censorship, including denying impregnated rape victims in conflict access to information about abortion services. “For the United States to prevent women and girls who have been gang raped and impregnated by the military in places like the Congo, Sudan, or Burma from their full range of medical treatment options, including abortion, is cruel, inhumane, and violates fundamental international laws such as the Geneva Conventions,” says Global Justice Center President Janet Benshoof. “It is not what America stands for.”
On February 12, 2010, Janet Benshoof spoke at the "From Page to Practice: Broadening the lens for Reproductive and Sexual Rights" Symposium, hosted by NYU's School of law Review of law and Social Change. Benshoof's panel was entitled "Global Movements and the Human Rights Framework".
The International Herald Tribune icluded GJC President Janet Benshoof's comments regarding CEDAW and anti-abortion in article titled "Discord likely over ratifying women's rights pact."
On The Issues publishes an article by Janet Benshoof, founder and President of the GJC, titled "Twisted Treaty Shafts U.S. Women".
This article shows how the U.S. is lagging behind several countries with women's equality. The CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) international treaty, already ratified by 185 countries, has yet to be ratified by the U.S. Furthermore, even if ratified eleven reservations have been placed on it, rendering it useless to the equality movement - and possibly even harmful.
On May 10th, 2006, the Constitutional Court of Colombia made a historic decision, overturning the nation’s total ban on abortion, and ruling that abortions would now be permitted in the most extreme cases: “when the life of a mother was in danger or the fetus was expected to die or in cases of rape or incest.” This unprecedented case was the first to challenge a domestic abortion law using the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
The United States signed CEDAW in 1980, but it has not yet ratified the Convention. Proponents of ratification argue that the U.S.’ failure to ratify CEDAW hurts American efforts, by both the government and private organizations, to promote human rights. Although the Global Justice Center agrees, we urge organizations committed to promoting true gender equality not to support ratification accompanied by the sort of "understanding" added by Senator Helms in 1994.1 The compromises made by the addition of the Helms "understanding" sacrificed the core concepts of CEDA W. This dangerous "understanding" resurrects the discriminatory fallacy of biology as destiny and promotes the agenda of those who would find laws severely restricting or even criminalizing abortion to be perfectly compatible with "women's rights" and "equality."