Minutes from informal meeting on abortion policy, ICM 2011 Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 september 2011

Minutes from informal meeting on abortion policy, Nordwijkerhout, the Netherlands, 17 August 2011

Participants
Sarah Beamish, AI Canada (ES)
Anne-Marie Mariage, AI France
Soledad Gariamunoz, DGMTF
Draginja Nodozdin, AI Poland
Janusz Niedbal, AI Poland
Federica Bozzi, AI Italy
Christine Weise, AI Italy
Jimena Caudrado
Cécile Lanza, AI France
Trine Christensen, AI FranceJulio Torales, IEC
Michael Bochenek, IS
Widney Brown, IS
Eugenio Varela, AI Uruguay
Mariana Labastie, AI Uruguay
Jorge Trefolgi, AI Peru
Vincent Carlisle, AI Paraguay
Fabian Foresmeri, AI Paraguay
Jimena Cuadmado, AI Argentina
Stella Jegher, AI Switzerland
Lise Bergh, AI Sweden
Maria Eklund, AI Sweden
Sofia Halth, AI Sweden
Karin Tomczak, AI Sweden

Invitation to the meeting went out to sections who has indicated to us, through our survey sent out in October 2010 or through other means, that they are interested in holding a constructive dialogue on widening our current policy on abortion to make it more inclusive. The Swedish section has considered the adoption of AI’s present abortion policy to be a first step only and that AI’s current policy on abortion does not fully meet women’s needs. The purpose of organizing the meeting was to give the opportunity to discuss if, and how, we could make this possible. The Swedish position expressed at several Annual General Meetings (AGMs) is that AI should in due course adopt a policy based on the position that women’s right to physical and mental integrity includes the right to terminate a pregnancy.

The provisional agenda for the meeting was the following;

      Discussion on the basis of the findings in Circular 29 - AI sections’ and structures’ experience of working with AI’s policy on selected aspects of abortion. Discussion on why the evaluation on whether AI’s current abortion policy is sufficient as regards our work against maternal mortality (Decision 3, ICM 2007) still has not been implemented.
      Is AI’s present policy on selected aspects on abortion sufficient in terms of our work against maternal mortality?
      Any comments or suggestions as regards the Swedish section’s present work with the abortion issue, particularly the newsletters? What ways of working with the abortion issue are desirable onwards?
Here follows a summary of the meeting including points and arguments made by the participants in brief;

Sofia Halth , chair of the Swedish section, welcomes and gives an introduction to the meeting. The baseline for the meeting is that interested sections as well as individual members take the opportunity to come together to share constructive ideas on how to work towards a more extensive policy on abortion.

Widney Brown and Michael Bochenek, Law and Policy department at the IS, gives an overview of the current work with the present abortion policy;
      The content of the current policy on SRHR still is not fully understood within the movement. It is important to note that AI's policy on SRHR is not just about abortion. AI has as an overarching policy in SRHR where we want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. To do that you need to empower women, to give them information, to make sure that women have access to reproductive services and, not least, to tackle sexual violence. Our current policy rarely leads there. We should also remember that human beings are human beings – there would be unwanted pregnancies even if we had perfect information and no sexual violence. Nevertheless, the rates would be substantially reduced.
      With the current policy we might have now gone as far as we could with the conservatism we have in the movement. This may also be how far we can go as to human rights law. We can not yet win the argument with legal scholars to say right to health implies s right to abortion under any circumstances.
      As regards sections and structures experiences on the experiences from the changed policy to their work (see Circular 29 – AI sections’ and structures’ experience of working with AI’s policy on selected aspects of abortion) the following is noted: The feedback from sections and structures was mostly on whether they lost members and on effects on partnerships. In conclusion, AI did not get hurt from the adoption of the policy on abortion; except from the fact that it did hurt our relationship with the catholic church. The fear of fleeing members has not been realized. For instance, in AI USA 0.003 per cent of the members left the organisation.
      Given the current abortion policy and the fact that AI is a human rights organisation; what are the cases we can not work on? It tends to be much of a class issue; in countries with restrictive abortion laws rich and middle class women may have the possibility to go abroad for abortion services, however poor women have to turn to back street abortions. Those women having to obtain back street abortions are the ones we are not getting to in our current policy. We have not docuementet this but it is a fact. Maybe we could bring it back in. I dont know what the timing is. My instint ringt now if USA and NL refises to work in Nicaragua – it is so frustrating. If prioritise it is ti get the movement to work on current policy. This is an accountability question as it is the duty of all sections to work on this core issue of the Demand Dignity campaign.
      It is clear that much relevant work can be done within the framework of the current policy on abortion. Some sections still don't work on the issue. Work on this issue may be more urgent to address than the issue of expanding of the policy. Apparently, AI USA and AI Netherlands do not at all participate in the Demand Dignity campaign in terms of work against the total abortion ban in Nicaragua. Within the framework of the current policy we have the possibility to intervene when a government tries to pass a law on foetal rights and denial of abortion services (also see a brand new decision from CEDAW against Brazil, where denial of abortion services was deemed a violation of the Women's Convention). IS has had a very good relationship with Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization that goes further than AI in terms of abortion rights. AI has not encountered any problems in the relationship because of our less “progressive” policy. AI has through the IS promoted the right to abortion with different UN bodies, such as CEDAW and CAT. As regards the CAT, AI recently filed a submission to the committee arguing that a government's deliberate decision to deny a woman lifesaving abortion services can amount to cruel and degrading treatment. A proof of the fact that AI's work in this regard has an impact is that even though the committee did not go as far as AI wanted, the theme at least became the clear focus of the committee's hearing with the government in question.
      The question is raised how AI should best deal with backlashes in terms of SRHR and abortion rights, such as the current one in Switzerland where there is a proposal to exclude abortion services from the health insurance coverage, and the one in Poland, where a proposal for a total ban on abortion is currently before the Parliament. Michael from the IS responds that what AI does in such a case is to look at the effects of such a policy; which implies that AI look s into who has and who has no access to the resource. If the treatment is necessary to save lives there is an obligation to ensure access – which may mean waving fees.
      In terms of internal strategies we must realize that there is a strong link between the capacity of the movement, the grave abuses of human rights and the gender mainstreaming processes. There has been and still is a grave lack of gender perspective within the movement. A stronger gender awareness will also contribute to a better understanding of abortion and SRHR. Thus, we need to put great efforts in the gender mainstreaming processes of AI.

Comments on the Swedish sections newsletter on SRHR? Ideas on how to best work with the issues onwards?

They are appreciated, however a risk with newsletters is that often practically nobody reads them, and a particular risk with mono-thematic newsletters such as the SRHR newsletters will only be read by those already interested in the issue, which is not the purpose. Hence, we must try to better embed and integrate SRHR and abortion rights in other activities , such as inviting someone with experience of the human rights impacts of unsafe abortions to speak at the ICM. We need more real impact to reach to members in these issues.

A practical point is that it should be possible to work together to translate the newsletters and other documents to French and Spanish to increase the impact of them.

An idea is to create an AGM workshop on abortion and SRHR , that could be easily transported between sections and structures.

We can build a network of people interested in SRHR issues around AI, starting with an e-mail list.

The meeting is concluded by noting that we can never relax on this issue and that we can reach great results if we collaborate more between sections and structures on this questions.