(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