By John Mallon
(The following
article appeared under the title "Abortion: a Right?"
in the July/August, 2006, English International Edition
of Messenger of St. Anthony (Padua, Italy), http://www.saintanthonyofpadua.net.
It is reprinted here with their kind permission.)
Amnesty
International is considering changing its neutral policy
on abortion to one that would declare abortion an international
human right
For many years
the international agency Amnesty International has been
a courageous and influential voice for human rights, especially
for those unjustly imprisoned, tortured and executed in
countries where the very notion of human rights is scoffed
at. They have done tremendous good. But now they are tempted
to adopt a position by which they would become the very
thing they oppose in their crucial work. They would become
their own enemy. They may not see it now but it would
place them on a collision course with reality which they
will be forced to confront at some future date as attitudes
change.
The agency
is considering changing its neutral position on abortion
and declaring abortion to be a universal human right.
The group's current policy on abortion states, "Amnesty
International takes no position on whether or not women
have a right to choose to terminate unwanted pregnancies;
there is no generally accepted right to abortion in international
human rights law."
Pro-abortion
manoeuvres
The idea of
abortion as a "human right" is nothing new.
The international abortion lobby has been pushing for
it for many years, attempting to go through the United
Nations conference system and international treaty instruments,
because of the difficulty of getting this agenda through
democratic processes. It is sad to see Amnesty International
being co-opted by these forces.
The Friday
Fax, published by the Catholic Family and Human Rights
Institute, a UN watchdog agency, reported April 28 that
Amnesty International hopes to decide by the end of 2006
whether to adopt a new position that would favor the "decriminalization
of abortion," "access to quality services for
the management of complications arising from abortion"
and "legal, safe and accessible abortion in cases
of rape, sexual assault, incest, and risk to a woman's
life." In 2005, Amnesty International began a worldwide
consultative process to poll its members on the organization's
current position on abortion.
This position
would automatically put them in on a collision course
with the Catholic Church, who, in the cause of human rights
is a strong ally.
High
reputation
The Catholic
News Agency reported May 5 on the reaction of Father Joaquin
Alliende, the ecclesiastical assistant to the Catholic
agency, Aid to the Church in Need Alliende said, "With
great regret we have learned that Amnesty International
has proposed advancing abortion 'rights' around the world
as a new mission for their organization." The Chilean
priest continued, "Amnesty International has earned
a high reputation for its intensive efforts to gain the
release of innocent prisoners of conscience. Aid to the
Church in Need, a charity that is also often a 'voice
of the voiceless,' highly appreciates this moral commitment
of Amnesty International."
However, Alliende
added, "Now by proposing a pro-abortion initiative
Amnesty International is abandoning its own noble ethical
principles, thereby shaking the very foundations on which
it is built; for the simple reason that unborn life in
a mother's womb is the very weakest of all threatened
and persecuted human beings."
"Thus,"
he continued, "the day this initiative was launched
will become a day of mourning for all those who are unconditionally
committed to true humanism".
Amnesty International
has produced a "Sexual and Reproductive Rights Consultation
Kit," which includes a "Draft Policy Statement
on Sexual and Reproductive Rights." This document
demands that "Governments must refrain from denying
or limiting equal access to sexual and reproductive health
services." It adds, "[Governments] must act
with due diligence to punish abuses of sexual and reproductive
rights by private persons, organizations and other non-state
actors."
Ideally, of
course, Amnesty International would not be neutral on
abortion but would view it as the severe violation of
human rights that it is. In fact, Amnesty International
has spoken out in their 1995 report on forced abortions
in China, regarding a cruel and bizarre incident in which
the Chinese government forced a woman, Ma Weihua, to abort.
The woman had been sentenced to death on drug charges,
so the government forced her to abort it was illegal to
execute a pregnant woman. One would expect a group with
Amnesty International's original stated mission to take
the lesson of such diabolical ironies.
Regrettable
decision
Now, in the
political climate in which Amnesty International functions
the neutral position is understandable, but it is all
the more regrettable that they would take sides against
the unborn under the rubric of "women's rights."
The problems
this decision would create for Amnesty International were
articulately spelled out by Valparaiso University law
professor Richard Stith in a letter to Amnesty International:
"As a
long-time supporter of Amnesty International, ... I write
to urge caution in adopting the proposed positions favoring
reproductive rights. The essential problem is that the
world is increasingly divided over whether such positions
would be steps toward or away from universal human rights.
That is, state enforcement of abortion rights would not
just be something that conservatives might object to—like
support of gay rights, for example—but rather would
undercut your credibility with many of your natural constituencies.
Many would see you as coming out against certain fundamental
human rights, namely the universal right to life as well
as the right of conscience-based refusal to participate
in violence, something that could not easily be said regarding
gay rights or almost any other cause Amnesty International
might wish to support."
Stith continues,
"Even on the Left, such an endorsement is problematic.
What I mean is this: Many people on the Left not only
consider abortion rights an anti-communitarian expression
of extreme individualism, a claiming of private ownership
of the next generation, but also see rights-talk (in the
context of the real world) as hostile to care and concern
for the needs of women."
Stith cites
the feminist theorist Catherine MacKinnon, as having "written
of the way 'privacy' language thrusts women back to private
oppression (where males will decide to abort their wanted
children) and away from public equality. ... The individual
freedom to abort is in reality a freedom for the powerful
more easily to oppress the weak—especially in the
third world. Only after women have achieved true equality
could it be argued that abortion would be truly their
own right rather than that of their male oppressors."
Finally, Stith
raises the point of whether Amnesty International is willing
to let this polarizing issue distract from their central
mission. He says, "Any push for abortion by Amnesty
International at this time could undercut your crucial
credibility in the struggle to bring violence against
women and children out into the open—as well as
to maximize support for your core mission of support for
political prisoners."
"Unless
you think that your other aims are so well-secured that
they no longer need much assistance, which I would respectfully
consider absurd, Amnesty International would be well advised
not to embark upon this new endeavor."
Written
plea necessary
It is unclear
at this writing when a final decision would be made, but
Amnesty International has asked their membership to forward
comments and proposals to them by May 20.
While reports
differ on the timetable of the final decision, the United
Kingdom pro-life organization, The Society for the Protection
of Unborn Children (SPUC) said the policy would be decided
at Amnesty International's International Committee meeting
in 2007.
The The Society
for the Protection of Unborn Children report concluded
saying, "By adopting a pro-abortion policy, Amnesty
would be turning its back on human rights, the very thing
it has campaigned to protect for over forty years."
A press release
by the US pro-life group, Human Life International, has
called for a letter writing campaign to Amnesty International:
"We earnestly ask you to please write this organization
and ask that it cease promoting abortion as an 'international
right'."
Letters can
be sent to Amnesty International at the following address:
Amnesty International
International Secretariat
1 Easton Street
London
WC1X 0DW
UK
http://web.amnesty.org/contacts/contact_us/eng-000
Mallon can
be reached at john@johnmallon.net
