WomanCare Global to Distribute Mifepristone inEurope and Africa

WomanCare Global announced today that mifepristone has been added to their reproductive healthcare portfolio.

Through an agreement with Linepharma, WomanCare Global will provide sales, marketing, provider training and distribution of mifepristone in seven European and seven African countries. Linepharma’s mifepristone is labeled for use as a single 200mg tablet of mifepristone to perform medical abortion in conjunction with a prostaglandin, in compliance with the World Health Organization’s recommendation.

Linepharma’s mifepristone is manufactured in Europe and is currently approved in five E.U. countries. The planned distribution of mifepristone by WomanCare Global in 14 countries will ensure that close to 55 million women will have another safe, quality product to manage their reproductive health.

Please read the entire press release at http://ow.ly/8W2Wz

 

Les droits des femmes sont remis en cause par des forces conservatrices en Europe

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2011/09/20/les-droits-des-femmes-sont-remis-en-cause-par-des-forces-conservatrices-en-europe_1575013_3232.html

Depuis quelques mois en Europe, de nombreux pays prennent des initiatives portant atteinte aux droits sexuels et plus particulièrement au droit à l’avortement. La crise mondiale et ses plans d’austérité sont les prétextes qui, sous couvert de dérisoires économies, permettent de légitimer les discours des forces les plus conservatrices d’Europe et remettent en cause ses droits et par là même les droits des femmes.

Toutes les instances internationales l’ont pourtant affirmé, le développement des populations y compris économique passe par des politiques d’égalité femmes/hommes, l’accès à l’éducation des filles, la planification familiale et par un accès facilité et sûr à la contraception et à l’avortement.

Ainsi, le 31 août, alors que la Pologne succède à la Hongrie à la présidence de l’Union européenne, la chambre basse du Parlement polonais examinait un projet de loi interdisant complètement l’avortement. Ce projet déposé par les mouvements anti-choix, soutenu par les ultraconservateurs et une bonne partie de la droite libérale au pouvoir a été rejeté à une courte majorité.

Rejeté aussi celui d’une députée de gauche proposant la libéralisation de l’avortement jusqu’à 12 semaines de grossesse et son remboursement. Pourtant, la Pologne a été condamnée en mai dernier par la cour européenne des droits de l’homme pour “ses carences dans la mise en oeuvre de sa législation sur l’avortement” déjà fort restrictive. L’Irlande, elle, a été sommée fin 2010 par cette même cour, de revoir sa législation sur l’avortement.

Le 30 août 2011, la Suisse a jugé recevable l’initiative lancée par les milieux anti-avortement. Ce texte exige que l’interruption de grossesse et la réduction embryonnaire soient radiées des prestations de l’assurance maladie de base à de rares exceptions près. Les suisses devront donc voter.

En septembre 2011, la Douma (le parlement Russe) sous couvert d’économies, se prononcera sur un texte proposé avec l’active participation de l’église orthodoxe sur le paiement de l’acte d’avorter par les femmes et sur la personnalisation des embryons. Y sont aussi prévues de multiples contraintes : obligation pour les femmes mariées d’obtenir une autorisation écrite de leur mari, suivis psychologiques et autres visionnages ou lectures de documents anti-avortement…

Pendant sa présidence de l’Union européenne, la Hongrie a lancé en mai dernier une vaste campagne de communication contre l’avortement avec le soutien financier de fonds européens du programme de solidarité sociale “Progress”. Celle-ci fait suite à l’adoption en avril de la nouvelle constitution qui, dans son article 2, s’engage à “protège(r) la vie du foetus depuis sa conception”.

L’opposition espagnole a de son côté clairement annoncé vouloir revenir sur la loi sur l’avortement entrée en vigueur au printemps si elle accédait au pouvoir en novembre 2011 lors des élections législatives anticipées.

Devons-nous voir dans ces initiatives, l’influence de la mondialisation qui organise de fait la diffusion d’idées défendues en particulier aux Etats-Unis où les tentatives déterminées de s’attaquer au droit à l’avortement se multiplient ? Au cours du premier semestre 2011, pas moins de quatre-vingt lois ont été votées par les législatures d’Etats américains pour durcir les conditions d’accès à l’avortement. Conséquences des élections de novembre 2010 ou anticipation de la présidentielle de 2012 par les républicains et le mouvement conservateur “Tea Party” ? Retour à un ordre moral mondialisé ?

L’utilisation politicienne et démagogue, sous le prétexte de contraintes économiques, de ce retour à l’ordre moral dont les femmes, moitié de la population, sont les grandes perdantes, ne peut que nous inquiéter. Ainsi affaiblies vis-à-vis de l’opinion car utilisées comme variables économiques d’ajustement, la voie est toute tracée pour justifier politiquement la remise en cause de leurs droits civiques, sociaux et économiques.

Seule une réelle prise de conscience collective et citoyenne pourra arrêter la “marche-arrière-toute” actuelle. Il est impensable, au XXI^e siècle, que l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes connaisse un tel recul alors qu’elle reste à conquérir dans trop de pays au monde.

En septembre 2008, le colloque européen “Droit à l’avortement : quels enjeux pour les femmes en Europe ?” organisé par Le Planning familial dans le cadre de la présidence française de l’Union européenne, adoptait à l’unanimité des dix-sept pays européens présents, une déclaration finale réaffirmant que “le droit à disposer de son corps est le socle fondamental permettant aux femmes de vivre dans une société égalitaire, plus juste, plus démocratique”. Cette déclaration lançait déjà un appel à la solidarité, à la vigilance extrême de l’ensemble des forces progressistes et citoyennes et à la création d’un réseau riche de nos différences et de notre volonté unitaire pour construire cette solidarité européenne, celle des femmes et des hommes libres et égaux.

Il est plus qu’urgent de mettre en œuvre cette déclaration car les femmes et les hommes qui luttent dans tous ces pays pour le droit de choisir et l’élargissement de la législation de l’avortement doivent être soutenus et défendus. La reconnaissance du droit fondamental des femmes à décider quand et si elles souhaitent avoir des enfants est aussi un enjeu de santé publique. Il en va de la démocratie européenne.

 

 

EU: Religious Opposition to SRHR is Rising in the EU

 Although the European Union is supposed to be a secular project, as enshrined in the treaty, the religious opposition to SRHR is on the rise and, as Dutch MEP, Sophie in’t Veld, President of the European Parliamentary Working Group on Reproductive Health, HIV/AIDS and Development in the European Parliament (EPWG), wrote in her recent article for The Guardian Online:  ‘increasingly religion is making its presence felt in the corridors of the European Union’. Further, the article illustrates the sheer political power religious institutions yield at the EU level, above and beyond all the Catholic Church. ‘The Conference of Catholic Bishops’ is one of the most powerful lobby groups in Brussels ’ and the EU has special diplomatic relations with the Vatican . The treaty of Lisbon includes article 17 on the dialogue of the EU institutions with churches and non-confessional organisations. This forms the basis for an annual summit of religious leaders with the leaders of the EU institutions. Secular organisations are largely ignored. The growing opposition is having adverse effects on women’s rights, gay rights and sexual reproductive health and rights and even access to certain aspects of healthcare such as contraception, abortion, condoms and IVF. Sophie int’ Veld states this is an abuse of freedoms and concludes the article by bolding stating, ‘Europe doesn’t do God,’ and suggests that ‘freedom of religion’ should be replaced by ‘freedom of beliefs of conscience’, as this is ‘an individual right than can be claimed by 500 million Europeans in all of their diversity.’ The regional news of this current issue: anti-choice community based initiatives in Poland and Bulgaria as well as legal actions in Russia and Hungary prove that opposition is on the rise both inside and outside the EU.

For Sophie in’t Veld’s article go to:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/17/europe-religious-right/print

 

EU: EP President considers MEP question concerning women rights to abortion inadmissible

EP President considers MEP question concerning women rights to abortion inadmissible. Using in an arbitrary manner the rules of procedure of European Parliament, the President Buzek deemed inadmissible the question of SYRIZA (GUE/NGL) Member of Parliament Mr. N. Chountis, referring to the resolution of the Council of Europe on abortion. At 7^th of October 2010 the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe adopted a resolution titled “the right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care” (1763/2010). In this resolution is mentioned “No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human fetus or embryo, for any reason.” The MEP questioned about what is the Commissions position in relation to the mentioned resolution and he asked which measures will the Commission take in order to prevent the prevalence of extreme conservative views on the pretext of freedom of conscience are trying to restrict the women rights. The question was deemed inadmissible by the Polish Christian Democrat President of the European Parliament, Mr Buzek. This incident adds to our concerns with the deteriorating situation for SRHR in the European Parliament. ASTRA Network believes that Mr Buzek’s behaviour represents dangerous signal regarding SRHR across the EU.

Source: GUE

More:http://newsportal.european-left.org/nc/english/newshome/news_archive/news_archive/zurueck/news-archive-3/artikel/ep-president-considers-mep-question-concerning-women-rights-to-abortion-inadmissible-1/

 

 

EU: Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte: „Tötungsspezialist“ ist Beleidigung

PRESSEMITTEILUNG              Berlin, 25.01.2011

 

Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte: „Tötungsspezialist“ ist Beleidigung

Aktivistinnen für sexuelle Selbstbestimmung von Frauen begrüßen das Urteil

 

Berlin – Am 13. Januar 2011 hat der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte geurteilt, dass

Abtreibungsgegner FrauenärztInnen, die Schwangerschaftsabbrüche durchführen, nicht als

„Tötungsspezialisten“ bezeichnen dürfen. Ist dies der Fall, sei eine Verurteilung wegen

Beleidigung gerechtfertigt, so das Gericht. Es liege keine Verletzung des Rechts auf freie

Meinungsäußerung vor.

 

2009 hat sich die „AG Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung“ gegründet. Diese ist ein Bündnis aus

Akteurinnen des Berliner Netzwerk Frauengesundheit, des Berliner Familienplanungszentrum –

BALANCE,  des Arbeitskreis  Frauengesundheit in Medizin, Psychotherapie und Gesellschaft e.V.

(AKF) und des Berliner Landesverband des Humanistischen Verbandes Deutschlands (HVD). 2009

hat die AG die „Erklärung eines Bündnisses für Entscheidungsfreiheit der Frauen über ihren

Körper und ihre Lebensplanung“ veröffentlicht. Bislang haben über 100 Einzelpersonen und

Institutionen das Papier unterschrieben.

 

Die „AG Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung“ tritt für die selbstbestimmte Entscheidung  der Frauen über

ihre Sexualität sowie ihre Familien- und Lebensplanung ein. Daher begrüßt sie das Urteil des

Straßburger Gerichtes ausdrücklich. Für die AG ist es längst an der Zeit klarzustellen, dass

Menschen und Institutionen, die sich für das Recht auf reproduktive Gesundheit von Frauen und

gegen die Diskriminierung von Frauen, die einen Schwangerschaftsabbruch vornehmen lassen

wollen einsetzen, nicht mehr von Abtreibungsgegnern beleidigt und diffamiert werden dürfen.

Das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofes wird Folgen für die deutsche Rechtsprechung haben

und Chancen eröffnen, sich gegen Abtreibungsgegner zu wehren.

 

Dass dies nötig ist, zeigen einige Beispiele: Auf Homepages von Abtreibungsgegnern werden u.a.

ÄrztInnen und Familienplanungszentren, die Schwangerschaftsabbrüche durchführen,

herabgesetzt und als „Tötungszentren“ oder „Mörder“ bezeichnet. Darüber hinaus gab es

zahlreiche Strafanzeigen von Abtreibungsgegnern gegen aufklärende, beratende und

praktizierende AkteurInnen. Ihnen wurde u. a. Werbung für Schwangerschaftsabbrüche

unterstellt.

 

Die „AG Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung“ wendet sich gegen christliche Abtreibungsgegner und sieht

in ihnen eine Gefahr für die Entscheidungsfreiheit der Frauen. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat sie am

12. Januar 2011 die Fachtagung  „Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung – Realität oder Utopie? Das Recht

auf reproduktive Gesundheit nach 20 Jahren Wiedervereinigung“ im Roten Rathaus Berlin

veranstaltet.  Teilgenommen haben prominente Landes- und Bundespolitikerinnen.

 

Eine Dokumentation der Tagung sowie weitere Informationen zum Thema finden Sie auf

http://www.fpz-berlin.de (unter Fachinfos/Schwangerschaftsabbruch).

 

Ansprechpartnerinnen:

Sybill Schulz, Sprecherin Netzwerk Frauengesundheit Berlin, Geschäftsführerin Berliner

Familienplanungszentrum – BALANCE, Tel. 030/236 236 80, Email: schulz@fpz-berlin.de

Isabel Merchan, Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Tel. 030/236 236 80, merchan@fpz-berlin.de

 

 

Abortion Support Network response to ABC case ruling

www.abortionsupport.org.uk/

Abortion Support Network Press Release
16 December 2010

Abortion Support Network disappointed by the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on the challenge to Ireland’s abortion ban

 

Abortion Support Network is extremely disappointed with today’s ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the challenge to Ireland’s abortion ban by three women who underwent considerable hardship and trauma by being forced to travel to England in order to access a safe and legal abortion. As an organisation that provides support to women who are forced to make this journey, we know the significant distress, worry and financial burden that women in Ireland are made to bear by being denied an abortion in their own country.

Every year thousands of women are forced to make this journey, and do so under extremely difficult, often desperate, circumstances. They face the struggles of finding the money to pay for the cost of the trip and procedure, of taking time off work, and sometimes the additional costs and difficulties of finding child care. These costs can range from anything between £400 and £2000. Women face the additional burden and stress of maintaining secrecy about their abortion back home. As a result, these women are incredibly isolated and many travel alone.

Abortion Support Network’s Director, Mara Clarke said:

“While we are encouraged by the ruling that woman “C”, who was undergoing chemotherapy when she fell pregnant, had her human rights violated, we are deeply saddened that the Court chose not to recognise the hardships faced by the two other claimants in the case.

The sooner the Irish government rectifies this long-standing injustice, the sooner women will be able to make their own decisions about abortion and make choices that are right for them.

Every week we hear from pregnant women living in Ireland who are in a state of crisis, with no other place to turn. As long as women in the Republic of Ireland do not have access to safe and legal abortions in their home country, Abortion Support Network will offer them immediate, practical support in the form of confidential, non-judgemental information, accommodation and financial help towards the costs of their abortion.

We will also continue to offer our support to women in Northern Ireland, and other countries where women’s rights continue to be violated by the denial of access to safe and legal abortions in their home countries.

We will help women irrespective of circumstance as it is our belief that women are capable of making their own decisions.”

In the words of one of the women that we have supported, a 37 year old mother of three:

“It was a very hard decision and I wouldn’t wish anyone to find themselves in this situation … I felt vulnerable, alone and upset. I felt I could contact ASN, that they cared and they were there to support me while in another country and alone … I will forever feel grateful for the help and support I received.”

 

The European Court of Human Rights on Abortion in Ireland

http://intlawgrrls.blogspot.com/2010/12/european-court-of-human-rights-on.html

On Dec 16th in A, B & C v Ireland the European Court of Human Rights held that Ireland’s failure to regulate how women can exercise the limited constitutional right to an abortion violates the European Convention. The Court did not extend the right to an abortion any further than the Irish Supreme Court itself had done in 1992 but the release of the judgment has created renewed momentum around the issue. As a general matter, abortion is illegal in Ireland and Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution provides “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right”. That opens up limited exceptions allowing for abortion, the extent of which was decided by the Supreme Court in the tragic circumstances of Attorney General v X in 1992.
X—a teenage girl—had become pregnant as a result of rape and was suicidal. It was decided that she would travel to England for an abortion. Attempts to prevent this culminated in a Supreme Court case. The Court held that the Constitution allows for abortion where there is a “real and substantial risk” to the life (although not the health) of a pregnant woman, including from suicide. Some 18 years later there has been no regulation of this right and we still have no system of determining whether abortion is lawful in particular cases.
The decision handed down today in A, B & C is really quite limited. Unless there is a risk to the life of a pregnant woman there is no right to an abortion in Ireland; rather being permitted to travel for an abortion is enough to satisfy the Convention. However, where there is such a risk to life (and, as a result, there is a constitutional entitlement to an abortion), there must be a coherent legal framework in which entitlement to an abortion can be determined.
Thus, the Court does not extend the right to abortion beyond what had already been recognised within the Irish Constitution itself; neither does it say there is a “human right to abortion”. That should immediately put any claims of ‘European interference’ to bed. In fact, the judgment is extremely respectful of the Irish position and recognises that the extent to which any country allows for an abortion is a matter in which that country is entitled to a significant degree of discretion. That does not mean, however, that the case will not result in controversy in Ireland.
Abortion remains a deeply contentious social issue here. With a general election forthcoming, the case has already reignited the national debate and the question of what any new government might do to respond to it may well become a dominant theme in the campaign. This is especially so because, if Ireland is to comply with the Convention, we now have two choices: either have a constitutional referendum to remove this limited right (or, although unlikely, to extend it) or regulate the right as recognised in the X Case. Either choice will cause social division, although a referendum would in all likelihood create a greater social rupture.
What is abundantly clear now is that the situation cannot reasonably remain as it is. Since 1992 doctors have operated under what the Court called the “chilling effect” of the regulatory vacuum and women whose lives are at risk have found it practically impossible to exercise their constitutional right to elect for a termination. That this situation has persisted for 18 years is an abject failure of Irish politics; if it continues following the General Election it will further reinforce the unwillingness of Irish politicians to finally confront one of Ireland’s most persistent social and legal controversies.

 

Comment of the Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning on Ireland

 

Warsaw, 16th of December, 2010 r.

 

POSITION 

OF THE FEDERATION FOR WOMEN AND FAMILY PLANNING ON THE JUDGMENT A, B AND C v. IRELAND ISSUED BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN STRASBURG

The Federation for Women and Family Planning is satisfied with the fact that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg has issued the judgment in the case A, B and C v. Ireland consistent with the Court’s judgment in the case Tysiąc v. Poland.

In the judgment issued on 16th of December the Court held that in case of the third applicant (the Irish citizen suffering from cancer who decided to have an abortion in UK because she feared that a pregnancy would negatively affect her health) there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of  Human Rights concerning the right to private and family life. The violation occurred because Ireland did not provide the appropriate medical procedures which would guarantee to obtain a honest diagnosis of the patient’s condition as well as the knowledge about a threat posing to her life because of a pregnancy.

It is worth noting that the Court clearly stated that the doctors cannot deny a woman the access to patient information, appropriate examinations and diagnostic procedures that may provide her with decision-making power about the future of  her pregnancy.

The Irish anti-abortion law is very strict. However the Court emphasized in it’s verdict that correcting the national law in that field or judging whether this law is right in isolation from a specific actual state is not it’s task. But in the cases like A, B and C v. Ireland the Court considers to what extent the country’s legally binding law influences the applicants’ lives in the specific situations.

The case of the C applicant is very similar to the case of Alicja Tysiąc. Consequently, we have to acknowledge distinctly that the judgment in the case Tysiąc v. Poland was not an incidental event.

Today’s verdict against Ireland proves that the Court has taken a permanent stand on the similar cases and contrary to the accusations bringing up in the case of Alicja Tysiąc it was not politically-driven.

The European Court of Human Rights aside from judging in the cases of presumptive violation of the Convention, it also sets the certain interpretive standards concerning the human rights. The judgment in the case A, B and C v. Ireland confirms the interpretive standard for Article 8 about the right to private and family life, also in the context of the reproductive rights. The Court in it’s verdict emphasized that a phrase “private life” used in the Article 8 of Convention is a very wide term including autonomy, physical and mental integrity and right to personal development. It is inseparably connected with such aspects like sexuality and reproduction.

Wanda Nowicka

The President

Federation for Women and Family Planning

 

REPORT BY CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE “IN GOOD CONSCIENCE” NOW AVAILABLE

In Good Conscience: Conscience Clauses and Reproductive Rights in Europe

This publication provides an overview of conscience clauses and reproductive rights in Europe, along with a progressive Catholic perspective on conscience, conscience clauses and the provision of reproductive healthcare services.

Download here:

Click to access InGoodConscience–Europe.pdf

 

 

Basic Info on the EU draft resolution on “Women’s access to lawful medical care: the problem of unregulated use of conscientious objection”

Importance of the PACE draft resolution on “Women’s access to lawful medical care: the problem

of unregulated use of conscientious objection”

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will discuss and vote on the resolution on

“Women’s access to lawful medical care: the problem of unregulated use of conscientious objection”

(Doc. 12347, 20 July 2010) on 7 October 2010 during the 2010 Ordinary Session in Strasbourg.

The draft report and resolution (attached to this summary) was prepared by Ms Christine McCafferty

(United Kingdom, SOC) and adopted by the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee on 22 June

2010.

Why is the draft resolution significant?



International law recognizes the importance of conscientious objection to the exercise of an

individual’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.1 However, international standards

also recognize this must be balanced against an individual’s rights including right to life, health,

privacy and non-discrimination.2 And that states have a duty to ensure that exercise of such refusals

does not harm the health and rights of patients. If adopted, this resolution will be in accordance with

international human rights standards, which include rights relevant to health care providers and users

in the context of conscientious objection, as set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

(ICESCR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

(CEDAW). This resolution will provide guidance to states on how the right to freedom of thought,

conscience and religion can appropriately be balanced with the right to access lawful medical

services. It has potential to ensure that interests and rights of both healthcare providers and

individuals seeking legal medical services are respected, protected and fulfilled.



In many member states of the Council of Europe, the practice of conscientious objection in the

medical field is largely unregulated. In a number of countries, women are denied access to lawful

reproductive health services, where conscientious objection most often arises, severely effecting their

health and lives. The unregulated practice disproportionately affects low income and rural women.

Two cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights against Poland illustrate the impact the

unregulated practice has on women’s lives. One in which a woman was repeatedly denied a genetic

prenatal examination she was legally entitled to receive3 and the other case concerns a woman with a

wanted pregnancy who was refused diagnostic care and treatment by doctors, in part, because of they

claimed it would harm her foetus. Tragically, she miscarried and then died due to the lack of care.4

In Austria healthcare professionals frequently conscientiously object to performing abortion and there are

no specific legal guidelines regarding this practice.5 In Bratislava, Slovakia’s capital, a recent news

report notes that only one out of five public hospitals provides abortion.6 Moreover, hostile and

judgemental treatment from some health personnel in the remaining hospital towards a woman

undergoing abortion on request has been reported.7 It is not unusual that practitioners who provide this

medical service face contempt and judgemental behaviour from their colleagues who object to performing

abortions.



Where comprehensive and clear regulations exist, many member states lack oversight and

monitoring mechanisms to ensure that healthcare providers act in accordance with these regulations

and that patients can exercise their right to access lawful health services (e.g. Poland or Italy).





According to data provided by Italy’s Ministry of Health, nearly 70% of gynaecologists and 50.4% of

anaesthetists in Italy refuse to perform or participate in abortions. In the southern parts of the country, the

numbers are even higher.8

What has the European Court of Human Rights said about this issue?

The European Court of Human Rights, in the only decision to date that addresses the issue in a

reproductive health care context, held that two French pharmacists, who refused to deliver medically

prescribed contraceptives, were imposing their beliefs on the public. The Court declared the application

inadmissible and explained that ‘religious beliefs can be manifested in many ways outside the

professional sphere’ and that the right to freedom of religion, as a matter of individual conscience, does

not always guarantee the right to behave in public in a manner governed by that belief. The Court

concluded “as long as the sale of contraceptives is legal and occurs on medical prescription nowhere

other than in a pharmacy, the applicants cannot give precedence to their religious beliefs and impose

them on others as justification for their refusal to sell such products.”9 This is the only case thus far

where the Court has ever addressed conscientious objection in access to health care.

What does the draft report and resolution recommend to member states?



To develop comprehensive and clear regulations that define and regulate conscientious objection

with regard to health and medical services, including reproductive health services, which:

a. guarantee the right to conscientious objection only to individual healthcare providers directly

involved in the performance of the procedure in question, and not to public/state institutions such

as public hospitals and clinics as a whole;

In France, a Constitutional Council decision recognized that conscientious objection applies to

individuals, not institutions.10 In Germany, the Federal Administrative Court indicated that public hospitals

must provide abortions, enabling women to realize their entitlement to abortion under the law.11

b. oblige the healthcare provider to:

 provide information to patients about all treatment options available (regardless of whether

such information may induce the patient to pursue treatment to which the healthcare provider

objects),

 inform the patient in a timely manner of any conscientious objection to a procedure, and to

refer patients to another healthcare provider in that case,

 ensure that the patient receives appropriate treatment from the healthcare provider to whom he

or she has been referred;

For example, in Poland a woman with wanted pregnancy died as a result of being denied necessary

medical treatment on the grounds that doctors conscientiously objected to this treatment for fear it would

harm the foetus.12

c. oblige the healthcare provider to provide the desired treatment to which the patient is legally

entitled despite his or her conscientious objection in cases of emergency (notably danger to the

patient’s health or life), or when referral to another healthcare provider is not possible (in

particular when there is no equivalent practitioner within reasonable distance).

Only eleven Council of Europe member states expressly prohibit the invocation of conscientious objection

in the case of emergency or risk of death as well as danger to the patient’s health.13



To provide oversight and monitoring, including an effective appeals mechanism if a patient is denied

access to services they are legally entitled to receive so as to ensure that everyone has access to an

effective and timely remedy, and to guarantee the effective implementation and enforcement of these

regulations within member states’ respective health services.

The aim of this recommendation is not an adversarial proceeding, but to ensure effective access

to lawful health care. In Tysic v. Poland, a case which did not concern denial of abortion due to

conscientious objection, but lack of an effective means of appeal in case of lawful therapeutic

abortion, the European Court of Human Rights recognized the importance of a timely remedy due

to legal and biological time restrictions on abortion and pregnancy, and emphasized that “[o]nce

the legislature decides to allow abortion, it must not structure its legal framework in a way which

would limit real possibilities to obtain it.”14

In Poland, Croatia and Hungary, laws require physicians to inform patients of any conscientious

objection to a procedure and refer such patients to other doctors, but they do not have an oversight

mechanism to ensure that this happens, leaving many patients without a referral.15 In addition, in

Poland, it has been reported that some doctors who refuse to perform lawful abortions in public hospitals

will offer patients to perform abortions privately, for excessive money.16



1

See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22: The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, UN Doc.

HR1/GEN/1/Rev. 1 (1993) (the right to conscientious objection can be derived from the right to freedom of thought, conscience and

religion); European Union Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, Opinion No. 4-2005: The right to conscientious

objection and the conclusion by EU Member States of concordats with the Holy See (2005).

2

See EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, id. See also Art. 9(2) of the European Convention on Human

Rights that reads: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law

and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for

the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”; Human Rights Committee (CCPR), General Comment 22: The right to freedom

of thought, conscience and religion, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR),

General Comment 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health, E/C.12/2000/4.

3

RR v. Poland, ECtHR, Appl. no. 27617/04, the case is pending.

4

Z. v. Poland, ECtHR, Appl. no. 46132/08, the case is pending.

5

PACE – Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, “Women’s access to lawful medical care: the problem of unregulated use of

conscientious objection”, Explanatory memorandum by Ms McCafferty, rapporteur, Doc. 12347, 20 July 2010 [hereinafter

“Explanatory memorandum by Ms McCafferty, rapporteur”], para. 46, citing to International Planned Parenthood Federation

European Network, Abortion Legislation in Europe.

6

“Potrat? Nerobíme! Chote inam, hovoria lekári Slovenkám” (“Abortion? We do not perform! Go somewhere else, the doctors say

to Slovak women”), 30 July 2010, available at: http://tvnoviny.sk/zeny/top-tema/potrat-nerobime-chodte-inam-hovoria-lekari-

slovenkam.html (last visit: 27 August 2010).

7

Id.

8

Explanatory memorandum by Ms McCafferty, rapporteur, supra note 5, para. 45, citing to Republic of Italy, Ministry of Health,

Report of the Ministry of Health on the Performance of the Law Containing Rules for the Social Care of Maternity and Voluntary

Interruption of Pregnancy: 2007-2008.

9

Pichon and Sajous v. France, ECtHR, Appl. no. 49853/99 (admissibility decision).

10

Explanatory memorandum by Ms McCafferty, rapporteur, supra note 5, para. 26.

11

Explanatory memorandum by Ms McCafferty, rapporteur, id. para. 27.

12

Z. v Poland, supra note 4.



Explanatory memorandum by Ms McCafferty, rapporteur, supra note 5, para. 40.

14

Tysic v. Poland (2007), ECtHR, Appl. no. 5410/03, ¶ 116.

15

Explanatory memorandum by Ms McCafferty, rapporteur, supra note 5, para. 33.

16

Reproductive Rights in Poland, the effects of the anti-abortion law, Federation for Woman and Family Planning, edited by Wanda

Nowicka (2008).