International human rights can help reverse yet another heavy blow on sexual and reproductive health

25 June 2017 by

Koldo Casla  of the Policy, Research and Training Manager of Just Fair @JustFairUK, an organisation that monitors and advocates economic and social rights in the UK

Women’s sexual and reproductive rights are not safe and accessible in all corners of the United Kingdom: see Rosalind English’s post on the Northern Irish situation here and here.

Update: the government has announced its intention to make funding available for women travelling from Northern Ireland to have free termination services on the NHS in England (29 June 2017).

Abortion is still a crime in Northern Ireland. Women who choose to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights have to travel to mainland Britain, but they have to face costs (about £900 in the recent case discussed by Rosalind English) that would not apply if they lived in England, Wales or Scotland.

By a majority of 3 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled that, while this situation does in principle concern the right to enjoy a private and family life without discrimination (Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights), the difference in treatment is justified because the decision on this matter falls under the powers of the devolved administration of Northern Ireland (paragraph 20 of the Judgment). And therefore the human rights of women living in Northern Ireland are not being breached.

Well, international human rights bodies beg to differ.

A year ago, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recommended the UK to

amend the legislation on termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland to make it compatible with other fundamental rights, such as women’s rights to health, life and dignity

Last month, five countries put their voices together to reassert this particular recommendation in the Universal Periodic Review of the UK’s human rights performance.

The World Health Organisation, the European Court of Human Rights, the European Committee of Social Rights, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the list goes on, have all made perfectly clear that international human rights treaties voluntarily ratified by the United Kingdom protect women’s sexual and reproductive rights, including the right to seek a safe and legal abortion.

Last year, for example, the UN Human Rights Committee did establish when responding to an individual complaint that the criminalisation of abortion in the Republic of Ireland constitutes a violation of women’s rights. The woman that brought the case to the UN travelled from Dublin to Liverpool to get an abortion, for which she paid €3,000, including the round trip cost. A few weeks ago, two thirds of the Irish Citizens’ Assembly took the UN Committee’s advice and recommended the introduction of unrestricted access to abortion.

As observed by Lady Hale in her dissenting vote in the Northern Irish case (paragraph 93), our legal system enshrines the fundamental values of

autonomy and equality, both of which are aspects of an even more fundamental value, which is respect for human dignity. The right of pregnant women to exercise autonomy in relation to treatment and care has been hard won but it has been won.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court’s ruling is not the finish line.

Given the prominent role that the DUP is called on to play in British politics, the people of Northern Ireland and of the UK in its entirety will need the support of international human rights law and mechanisms now more than ever.

The UK has adopted a restrictive approach (compared with other European countries) to the jurisdiction of international human rights bodies. However, we have some tools at hand, and audacious strategic litigants will take this case or similar ones to the European Court of Human Rights or to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

While we should not jump to conclusions, there are strong reasons to suspect that both the Court and the Committee would find the UK in violation of international human rights law. In such case, domestic legislation and policy –whatever the competent authority, Westminster, Whitehall or Stormont– would have to be adjusted accordingly.

Editor’s note: The appellant in R (o.t.a A and B) v. Department of Health [2017] UKSC 41 has announced her intention to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. A podcast on the subject, from the 1 Crown Office Row series Lawpod UK, will be available shortly.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

 

 

1 comment;


  1. “Women who choose to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights …..”

    Females do not have any ‘reproductive rights’ should this term refer to the right to have an abortion.

    Contrary, Females must uphold the Law to Live, the Law of Life for the unborn.
    Females must be accountable for their actions.
    Have sex, play with nature, bear the consequences.
    Taking Life is murder. Abortion is murder. This is a criminal Act.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: