While States parties may take measures to regulate voluntary abortion, such measures must not result in a violation of a pregnant woman`s or girl`s right to life or their other rights under the Covenant. For example, restrictions on women`s or girls` access to abortion may, inter alia, endanger their lives, expose them to physical or mental pain or suffering contrary to article 7, discriminate against them or arbitrarily invade their privacy. States parties must ensure safe, legal and effective access to abortion if the life and health of the pregnant woman or girl are in danger or if the pregnancy causes significant pain or suffering to the pregnant woman or girl, in particular if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or is not viable. Furthermore, States parties should not regulate pregnancy or abortion in all other cases in a manner contrary to their obligation to ensure that women and girls did not have to perform unsafe abortions, and they should revise their abortion laws accordingly. For example, they should not take measures such as criminalizing unmarried women`s pregnancies or imposing criminal penalties on women and girls who undergo abortions or medical care providers who assist them in doing so, as these measures force women and girls to resort to unsafe abortions. States parties should not introduce new obstacles and eliminate existing barriers that prevent women and girls from having effective access to safe and legal abortion, including obstacles caused by the exercise of conscientious objection by medical providers. States parties should also effectively protect the lives of women and girls from the mental and physical health risks associated with unsafe abortions. In particular, they should ensure access for women and men, especially girls and boys, to quality and evidence-based information and education on sexual and reproductive health, as well as a wide range of affordable contraceptive methods, and prevent stigmatization of women and girls seeking abortions. States parties should ensure that women and girls have access to and effective access to quality health care before and after abortion in all circumstances and in confidentiality. (Footnotes omitted) We talked about the history of legal access to abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the consequences of the lifting of the case in a blog post published a few weeks ago. This is confirmed by various other human rights mechanisms, such as the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which has noted that “in international law, analyses of the main international human rights treaties on the right to life confirm that it does not extend to foetuses”.
In addition, various UN committees and experts have argued that criminalization and lack of access to abortion constitute a violation of the right to life, a form of gender-based violence, a form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, a violation of the right to privacy, a violation of the principle of non-discrimination and even a form of femicide. There is also consensus on the need to legalize abortion for children under the age of 18. Overall, these reports, decisions and statements, among others,[1] reiterate calls for the decriminalization of abortion and the legalization of abortion in cases where the life or physical and mental health of the pregnant woman is threatened, or in cases of rape, incest or fatal or severe fetal malformation. Similarly, regional human rights courts are reluctant to attribute personality to the unborn, and even the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that the protection of the unborn child`s right to life should not be considered absolute. For unborn children, it`s not so much about life, it`s about personality. There is no agreed definition of when personality begins. Throughout history and different cultures and religions, it has been argued that fetuses acquire personality at conception, at different stages of pregnancy, at birth or even after childbirth after completing traditional rituals. Philosophers, scientists, religious leaders, and jurists tend to disagree widely on the subject, as does the general public.
Particularly influential was Pope Pius IX`s statement in 1869 that the soul occurs at conception and not at “acceleration” (when the mother notices that the child is moving for the first time), which was Catholic teaching before that time, was particularly influential. This laid the groundwork for restrictive legislation on abortion and contraception, which still exists today in some countries. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is somewhat ambiguous: its preamble states that “the child . Needs. adequate legal protection before and after birth. However, this is later limited by Article 24 (health), Article 6 (life) and Article 3 (best interests of the child), which place the rights of a pregnant girl above those of her foetus. By way of explanation, preambles can only be used for the contextual interpretation of a contract and have no legal effect like articles. It seems to make it clear that human rights, including the right to life, begin at birth. However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the legally binding human rights treaty based on the UDHR, states in Article 6 that many studies in the United States.
