Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems, a newly revised publication of the World Health Organization, claims that objecting health care workers have an ethical responsibility to refer patients for abortion, or to provide abortions if referral is not possible. (Sec. 3.3.6, p. 69, Box 3.2,p. 73). It also claims that conscientious objection without referral is a barrier to health care and that referral is a legal obligation under human rights law. Chapter 4 of the text, which is the basis for these demands, was revised under the guidance of the Programme on International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law in the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (p. 11). Two professors from this faculty, Rebecca Cook and Bernard Dickens, have been making such claims for years. They have, in the past, seriously misrepresented the law on this point in an effort to make referral for abortion mandatory. (See Postscript for the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada: Morgentaler vs. Professors Cook and Dickens, and Conscientious Objection as a Crime Against Humanity.) The WHO document has been reviewed and criticized by Susan Yoshihara of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, but awaits a critique by medical and legal professionals.
Category: Law
Polish law and conduct of Polish physicians, clergy, activists and authorities leads to adverse judgement
The European Court of Human Rights has issued a judgement adverse to freedom of conscience and ordered Poland to pay two complainants, a mother and daughter, a total of 61,000 Euros in damages and costs. Subject to the possibility that the English translation of the judgement is faulty, the use of the term “anti-choice activist” by the judges brings their impartiality into question. However, the facts of the case outlined in the judgement suggest that the conduct of Polish health care personnel, anti-abortion activists, clergy and state authorities effectively guaranteed an adverse outcome.
A 14 year old girl, P. supported by her mother, S., sought an abortion for a pregnancy alleged to have been the result of a rape. While she obtained the necessary prosecutor’s certificate for the procedure, mother and daughter received contradictory information from two public hospitals in Lublin. Further, health care personnel clearly violated principles of patient confidentiality and informed consent in an effort to dissuade the girl from having an abortion. These violations included clearly coercive and manipulative tactics. P and S experienced
- the intervention of a priest and anti-abortion activists, unsolicited and unwanted,
- importuning by anti-abortion activists that included confrontations in public,
- national media attention, including a press release issued by a hospital concerning P,
- detention and six hours of questioning by the police,
- apprehension of the girl by state authorities, apparently for the express purpose of preventing the abortion,
- posting on internet by the Catholic News Agency of the girl’s travel to Gdansk for an abortion,
- the filing of criminal charges against the girl for having had unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (i.e., the rape that resulted in pregnancy)
While the court found that objecting physicians had a legal obligation to refer patients for abortion, the source of that legal obligation was Polish law. Article 39 of Poland’s Doctor and Dentist Professions Act imposes a legal obligation of referral. The imposition is objectionable in principle, but the European Court of Human Rights can hardly be criticized for applying Polish law to Polish citizens.
Over 100 plaintiffs in lawsuits against U.S. government birth control mandate
The Becket Fund reports that more than 100 plaintiffs have now joined lawsuits against the federal government as a result of an administration regulation that forces employers to provide insurance for birth control and sterilization even if they object for reasons of conscience. [Becket Fund HHS Page]
UN Human Rights Commission demands suppression of freedom of conscience
The UN Human Rights Commison has issued a document that purports to base the restriction or suppression of freedom of conscience among health care workers on human rights claims. Technical guidance on the application of a human rights based approach to the implementation of policies and programmes to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality. Section 30 of the document calls for changing laws and policies that allow conscientious objection “to hinder women’s access to a full range of services.” Section 61 states that laws, polices and regulations that allow “unregulated conscientious objection” should be changed, and “newly established obligations of providers and rights of individual users should be disseminated.” The resolution was endorsed by New Zealand, Burkina Faso, and Colombia and enumerates access to abortion among “sexual and reproductive health rights.” 20 of the 47 council members opposed the text. The UN General Assembly will consider adopting it later in October. [CFAM]
Appeal of Missouri court ruling on HHS birth control mandate
U.S. District Judge Carole Jackson of St. Louis has dismissed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandate brought by Frank O’Brien and his company, O’Brien Industrial Holdings LLC of St. Louis. The suit challenged the federal government regulation that requires O’Brien to provide employees with insurance for contraceptives, embryocides and surgical sterilization. A Catholic, O’Brien objects to facilitating any of the services for religious reasons. The judge ruled that the indirect support did not substantially burden the free exercise of O’Brien’s religious beliefs. Lawyer Frank Manion of the American Center for Law and Justice has filed an appeal on behalf of O’Brien. [ACLJ comment][St. Louis-Post Dispatch][Religion Dispatches]