Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Researchers have found that if abortion care is banned throughout the United States, the number of maternal deaths would rise by 24 percent. This number is even worse for Black women, whose deaths would rise by 39 percent. Credit: The Century Foundation

NEW YORK, Oct 15 2024 (IPS) – The right to abortion is a human rights issue that no government agency, courts, local and state legislators, or anyone else has the right to violate or impede in any shape or form. It is a fundamental right that every woman must be free to exercise with impunity, in consultation with her doctor only, who acts based on his/her professional ethics and responsibility.

The right to abortion, or, as Vice President Harris put it in her debate with Donald Trump, “a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body,” is an unquestionable human right and may be the most critical issue discussed in the 2024 election campaign.

It is a significant issue of bodily autonomy, which extends not only to abortion but to the right of people with disabilities to control what happens to their bodies, the choice to participate in organ donation, and the right to keep medical decisions private.

Moreover, it is a significant issue in healthcare; pregnancy complications such as placental abruption can be life-threatening, and abortion is the only way to save the life of the pregnant woman. Pre-existing health conditions can be severely worsened during pregnancy, even causing death.

It is a women’s rights issue—among the right to vote, the right to free movement, and the right to live free of violence. And yet, during his presidency, Trump hand-selected three Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and supported states enacting abortion bans with no restrictions, including incest and rape.

The Republicans’ Moral Bankruptcy on Women’s Rights

The Republican Party’s obsession with abortion and, as a consequence, forced pregnancy knows no bounds. Each year, approximately 700 minors in the state of Michigan, for example, must acquire a parent’s consent or a judge’s order to obtain an abortion. In 2022, Michiganders were guaranteed access to abortion under the state’s Constitution – but state law still requires parental consent for people under the age of 18 who seek abortions.

As Bridge Michigan observes, this consent requirement – dating back to 1991 – “forces some young people to face abusive parents and others to go to court to obtain a ‘judicial bypass’ waiver instead.”

A March 36-page ACLU report, In Harm’s Way: How Michigan’s Forced Parental Consent for Abortion Law Hurts Young People, points out that “When a young person does not involve a parent, it is often rooted in concern for their safety and well-being. One healthcare provider said a young client told her, ‘I can’t tell my parents because they will literally beat me, kick me out, and I’ll be on the street.’”

Moreover, many young people do not have access to a parent or legal guardian, which compels them to go through the judicial bypass process, where they face an array of logistical hurdles, “including finding an attorney, scheduling and attending hearings, taking time off school, and securing transportation to and from the court.”

In short, this reactionary and archaic law threatens the health and safety of young people, and it should be immediately repealed in every state where it is enforced to ensure young people’s safety and dignity.

The Horrific Implications of the Abortion Ban

There are many heart-wrenching stories about many young women who sought abortions but ended up dying because of inaccessibility to a normal abortion under the supervision of a doctor. In Georgia, the deaths of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller have been attributed to the state’s recently overturned abortion ban.

Thurman died of sepsis; she had received an abortion out-of-state but had not fully expelled the fetal tissue, which required a dilation and curettage (D&C) that Georgia had criminalized with few exceptions. Miller similarly did not fully expel the fetal tissue after taking abortion pills and died from a lethal combination of painkillers after suffering in pain for days as her children watched.

According to her family, Miller declined to see a doctor “due to the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions.” The families of Thurman and Miller, as well as many pro-choice advocates, have blamed their deaths on the state’s restrictive bans. And while on September 30, Fulton County Superior Judge Robert C. I. McBurney overturned the state’s heavily restrictive six-week abortion ban, the Supreme Court could issue a stay on the ruling, putting the six-week ban back in place.

According to ProPublica, Georgia’s four Planned Parenthood clinics have since been flooded with calls to schedule appointments, including from women in neighboring states where restrictive bans are still in place. While Republican governor Brian Kemp railed against the ruling, stating “…the will of Georgians and their representatives has been overruled by the personal beliefs of one judge,” the flood of appointments clearly demonstrates that the restrictive law is not the will of the people most affected, but solely of the predominantly chauvinist male lawmakers who will never have to face the decision about their own bodily autonomy.

I firmly stand with the women of Georgia and strongly support the ruling of Judge McBurney, who firmly stated in his ruling, “The Court finds that, until the pregnancy is viable, a woman’s right to make decisions about her body and her health remains private and protected, i.e., remains her business and her business alone.”

Fueling Other Regressive Policies

What is even more troubling is that many politicians and anti-choice activists are using their anti-abortion stance to fuel other regressive policies, such as child marriage. Last year, in a debate in Wyoming over ending child marriage, the state’s Republican Party promoted ‘analysis’ from Capitol Watch for Wyoming Families, which stated, “Marriage is the only institution in Wyoming Statute designed to keep a child’s father and mother living under the same roof and cooperating in the raising of any children that they, together, conceive… Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children before the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children [emphasis added].”

Shameless GOP legislators are more concerned about the home lives of theoretical, future children rather than the living, breathing children who may be pregnant as victims of sexual abuse and whose parents fail them by forcing them into marriages they are not emotionally ready for or may not even want.

As state Rep. Liz Storer (D) stated in 2023, “In Wyoming, you could be married younger than you can legally consent to sex. Think about what that means. A man rapes a child. Is the man charged with rape? Not if the child is forced to marry him.”

And while Wyoming’s bill raising the minimum age to 18 (albeit allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to marry with judicial and parental consent) passed, this despicable and disingenuous argument continues to circulate around the country, which must be combatted at every turn.

It is hard to exaggerate the crucial importance of women’s rights to abortion in this election, not only because women must be free to decide for themselves about their biological needs but also about their freedom and autonomy to live their lives and have families as they see fit and desirable.

Former President Trump and his conspirators in the Senate, House, and state and local legislative bodies are determined to rob women of their freedom. They are doing exactly that: a violation of human rights in every sense of the word, and it must be condemned in the strongest terms.

No woman should ever believe Trump, who is trumpeting his false statements that he will not pass a national abortion ban. Every woman should remember his bigotry and dishonesty in dealing with just about every issue during his first term as president. Should he be reelected, women, who make up 50 percent of the electorate, will be disfranchised and lose their freedom, which is the bedrock of the American constitution.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris was the first vice president in history to visit a Planned Parenthood clinic, has firmly supported reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade, has talked with the women of this country about this crucial issue, and has been a strong advocate of what women rightfully demand: the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body.

In this presidential election, there is only one option to uphold women’s right to abortion, which is a fundamental human rights issue that has made America proud for more than two centuries. In this pivotal election, only Kamala Harris will protect the sanctity of human rights, of which women’s right to abortion is inseparable.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
alon@alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

In Lima, Peru, during a 2021 national demonstration by indigenous women movements. Credit: Felipe Caicedo

BOGOTA, Colombia, Oct 15 2024 (IPS) – Information manipulation and misinformation are not new phenomena, but they have taken on exaggerated importance, especially with the massive use of social media.

Hostile and stigmatizing narratives against civil society and civic activism, whether intentional or not, especially when propagated by authorities, create undue restrictions and hinder the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association globally, and is contributing to the growing authoritarianism and the closing of civic space.

Different types of unjustified narratives are being used globally to target and silence civil society activists and protests: i) accusations of threat to State security and terrorism, facilitated by broad anti-terrorism laws. ii) labels related to treason to the nation and the national influence, including calling ‘foreign agents’ or ‘agents of foreign influence’ to organizations that receive foreign funding. iii) ‘anti-development’ rhetoric used to target land right defenders and climate justice activism. iv) narratives exploiting discrimination and structural racism, including sexual and gender-based violence, and attacks to associations aiding refugees and migrants; among others.

The problem is that these stories, labels and narratives do not remain solely in the discursive field. Activists subjected to stigmatization, and their families, face intimidation, physical attacks and online harassment.

Branding civil society, movements and activists as “terrorists” or “traitors” has a serious impact on their lives, well-being and economic situation; it silences them and leads to the defunding of associations and their illegal dissolution.

The broad chilling impact created by the stigmatization of civil society and assemblies leads to further severely restricting the ability of people to participate fully in society, exacerbates inequalities, fosters environments of fear and hostility, increases polarization and erodes trust between authorities and the public.

This hostile atmosphere provides fertile ground for the emergence of the anti-rights movements and rhetoric, and erode democracy.

Its impact is especially deeper for individuals and groups that already experience heightened barriers to exercising their freedoms and are subjected to inequality, marginalization, racism, discrimination and violence because of, among other grounds, their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age and/ or migration status.

Stigmatization is disseminated by a broad set of actors, including political actors, state officials, and non-state actors, often supported with disinformation and smear campaigns, as well as populist rhetoric by authorities and public figures.

I have found a mutually reinforcing cycle of stigmatization, restrictive laws and repression of civil society and activism. Hostile and stigmatizing rhetoric leads to sweeping restrictions, adoption of restrictive laws, including imposition of excessive regulations, burdensome administrative requirements and heavy sanctions and criminalising associations while cutting off their funding.

These measures further fuel stigmatization and empower actors spreading stigmatizing narratives.

Also, stigmatizing narratives, especially when spread by those in power and amplified by the media, has legitimized repression of activists and peaceful assemblies. Whereas the unjustified heavy-handed law enforcement tactics and criminalization of protesters and activists have led to furthering stigmatization and delegitimizing the legitimate goals of the peaceful assembly.

There are several initiatives to respond and counter harmful narratives against activism, CSOs and assemblies. First, countering anti-rights narratives and developing narratives promoting messages to reinvigorate public support for democracy and human rights is crucial. All the initiatives that are changing the narratives based on hate for messages that are supported in hope need to be multiplied.

Hate is a better transmitter of stigmatization that hope.

Also, taking into account that stigmatization is forcing to silence the dissent, it is important to enhance space for dialogue and inclusion, to promote the valuable and legitimate role of civil society sector, and create a safe space for inclusive participation. When there is room for diversity of voices, silencing is more difficult.

Solidarity and building resilience are keys, to support associations targeted with stigmatizing and hateful rhetoric. Also, measuring the existence and impact of harmful narratives, including information about the long-term chilling effect that these have on the exercise of public freedoms and on other human rights allows the public and opinion-makers to have a better understanding and enable more critical debates.

Among other measures, States should ensure official rhetoric respects and supports fundamental freedoms, avoiding to use narratives and political discourse that discourage, vilify and criminalize civil society and the exercise of the right to protest.

Also, States must condemn and address harmful rhetoric, and promoting alternative narratives as well as an environment of public dialogue and inclusion in decision-making.

Fearing and persecuting dissent drives societies away from the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and claims hundreds of lives every year.

Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source