“Countries are abusing Corona crisis to restrict abortion” – Radar

Around the world, health systems are using care and equipment to treat people diagnosed with Covid-19. This means that other procedures and procedures that are not considered essential are suspended or simply not offered. Abortion is so in some countries to become a non-essential health service.

Some countries, including the US and Poland, are trying to impose restrictions on access to abortion. Can you tell us more about these measures and the response of the Centre for Reproductive Rights and other partners?

Paola Salwan Therefore: “The response to Covid-19 has led to many violations of sexual and reproductive health rights. Also in the USA, where several bills restricting abortion are emerging. States like Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Idaho and others have decided that abortion is a non-essential health service. We are bringing that to court.

In most cases, the courts have sided with us, but there are also examples where this is not the case. We continue to question these restrictions because we often talk about states that have not had access to abortion and offer very limited opportunities to women. There are also fewer clinics in several places that have kept their doors open.

Are there no other priorities that should be concentrated instead of getting involved in women’s bodies?

Within Europe, Poland is using the pandemic to push through a very conservative agenda. The country is using the crisis to further restrict women’s rights. Our partners in Poland have sounded the alarm because Parliament wanted to debate two draft laws: the first concerns the restriction of the possibilities for abortions, the other is the criminalisation of those who provide services relating to sexual reproductive rights.

Previously, a massive mobilization of women’s protests on the streets had led to the legislative blocks being blocked. So there is a reason why the government is re-energising these proposals: it is not possible for women to take to the streets en masse at the moment.”

Are there any other examples?

“We know hospitals in Sao Paolo in Brazil, where they now categorize abortion as a non-essential medical service. This is happening in other countries, but this is less documented than the cases in the US and Poland.

There are also examples of some unfortunate statements by leaders, such as the President of El Salvador, who reiterated his opposition to abortion in a commentary on the crisis. Another example is the Pope, who has said that he wants to protect the world from war and abortion. I think there are other priorities that they should focus on, rather than interfere in women’s bodies.

Failure to recognise the essential nature of abortion violates international human rights

Fortunately, there are also good examples of states that have explicitly said that abortion is an essential health service. In France, activists have even persuaded the government to extend the deadline for medical abortions from seven to nine weeks to respond to the delays women may face as the health system of 19 patients is overrun. There have also been relaxations in access to medical abortion in the UK, including through online consultations.”

Where do you think abortion was most likely to be reduced to a non-essential procedure?

“This was especially true where access to abortion was already limited. The Covid-19 crisis proved to be an excellent political opportunity to further restrict access. Drugs used for medical abortion are an essential medicine, according to the World Health Organization. On its website, the message of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) from 1994, when it was established that every woman has the human right to decide freely and without coercion and violence over the number of children she wants and the time when she wants.

Access to legal and safe abortions is essential for the realisation of these rights. Therefore, the failure to recognise the essential nature of abortion is insignificant violation of international human rights law and WHO guidelines.”

We are still seeing governments around the world trying to restrict women’s and girls’ access to reproductive rights. Why is that?

“There is a desire to control women’s bodies. Reproductive justice and women’s right to physical autonomy are the foundations of equality. When a woman can decide for herself how many children she wants to have, when and with whom, she puts her on the same level as the man.

I see an opportunity to call for necessary changes

It wants the same rights, which is a problem for some societies. Social control over women means that they will continue to offer free work as mothers. Women therefore continue to care primarily for children, which immediately reduces their ability to play a more productive role or take on more social and political responsibilities. The rise of fundamentalism and populism, and the conservative idea that women and their bodies should be controlled, along with gender stereotypes, are the main reason why reproductive rights are still limited.”

Do you think that certain governments will step up the regressive measures?

“In times of crisis, women and marginalised groups are most affected and the main objective of restrictive policies. It is quite possible that we are seeing a decline in women’s rights as a result of this crisis.

But the crisis is also an opportunity for women, because nurses on the front line are very often women. We don’t need bankers, we don’t need people to show ads now. We need people to provide care and health care. These people are disproportionately female, and I see an opportunity for them to organise and mobilise because they are hardest hit. I see an opportunity to call for necessary changes.

Around the world, health systems are using care and equipment to treat people diagnosed with Covid-19. This means that other procedures and procedures that are not considered essential are suspended or simply not offered. In this way, abortion has become a non-essential health service in some states. Some countries, including the US and Poland, are trying to impose restrictions on access to abortion. Can you tell us more about these measures and the response of the Centre for Reproductive Rights and other partners? Paola Salwan said: “The response to covid-19 has led to many violations of sexual and reproductive health. Also in the USA, where several bills restricting abortion are emerging. States like Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Idaho and others have decided that abortion is a non-essential health service. We are bringing that to court. In most cases, the courts have sided with us, but there are also examples where this is not the case. We continue to question these restrictions because we often talk about states that have not had access to abortion and offer very limited opportunities to women. There are also fewer clinics in several places that have kept their doors open. Within Europe, Poland is using the pandemic to push through a very conservative agenda. The country is using the crisis to further restrict women’s rights. Our partners in Poland have sounded the alarm because Parliament wanted to debate two draft laws: the first concerns the restriction of the possibilities for abortions, the other is the criminalisation of those who provide services relating to sexual reproductive rights. Previously, a massive mobilization of women’s protests on the streets had led to the legislative blocks being blocked. So there is a reason why the government is re-energising these proposals: it is not currently possible for women to take to the streets en masse.” Are there any other examples?” We know hospitals in Sao Paolo, Brazil, where they now categorize abortion as a non-essential medical service. This happens in other countries, but this is less documented than the cases in the Us and Polen.Er are also some unfortunate statements by leaders, such as the President of El Salvador, who reiterated his opposition to abortion in a commentary on the crisis. Another example is the Pope, who has said that he wants to protect the world from war and abortion. I think there are other priorities that they should focus on, rather than interfere in women’s bodies. Fortunately, there are also good examples of states that have explicitly said that abortion is an essential health service. In France, activists have even persuaded the government to extend the deadline for medical abortions from seven to nine weeks to respond to the delays women may face as the health system of 19 patients is overrun. There has also been a relaxation of access to medical abortion in the UK, including through online consultations.” Where do you think abortion is most likely to have been reduced to a non-essential procedure?” This was particularly the focus where access to abortion was already limited. The Covid-19 crisis proved to be an excellent political opportunity to further restrict access. Drugs used for medical abortion are an essential medicine, according to the World Health Organization. Its website also states the message of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which states that every woman has the human right to decide freely and without coercion and violence on the number of children she wishes to have and on when she wants to. Access to legal and safe abortions is essential for the realisation of these rights. The non-recognition of the essential nature of abortion therefore runs counter to international human rights law and WHO guidelines.” Globally, we see governments trying to restrict women’s and girls’ access to reproductive rights. Why is this so?” There is a desire to control women’s bodies. Reproductive justice and women’s right to physical autonomy are the foundations of equality. When a woman can decide for herself how many children she wants to have, when and with whom, she puts her on the same level as the man. It wants the same rights, which is a problem for some societies. Social control over women means that they will continue to offer free work as mothers. Women therefore continue to care primarily for children, which immediately reduces their ability to play a more productive role or take on more social and political responsibilities. The rise of fundamentalism and populism, and the conservative idea that women and their bodies should be controlled, along with gender stereotypes, are the main reason why reproductive rights are still limited.” Do you think that certain governments will step up regressive measures?” In times of crisis, women and marginalised groups are most affected and the main objective of restrictive measures. It is quite possible that we are seeing a decline in women’s rights as a result of this crisis. But the crisis is also an opportunity for women, because nurses on the front line are very often women. We don’t need bankers, we don’t need people to show ads now. We need people to provide care and health care. These people are disproportionately female, and I see an opportunity for them to organise and mobilise because they are hardest hit. I see an opportunity to call for necessary changes.