This paper provides an overview on the research report entitled "An Unfulfilled Human Right: Family Planning in Guatemala," by Bonnie Scott Jones, Staff Attorney of Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. The research examines Guatemala's reproductive health care networks. It also presents the factors influencing the high rates of maternal mortality, unwanted pregnancy and extreme poverty. The information gathered from indigenous women, traditional birth attendants, nongovernmental organizations and government officials revealed an appalling lack of support from the Guatemalan government for promoting and protecting its citizens' right to family planning information and services. In addition, the research indicated the role of the Catholic Church in the country's family planning programs.
This paper discusses the impact of mandatory delay and biased information laws on the reproductive rights of women who are seeking abortion in the US. Mandatory delay and biased information laws are included on the books of 19 states, but are enforced in only 13 states. The intention of these laws that are spearheaded by anti-choice legislators is to discourage abortion and protect women's health. These laws were considered unconstitutional by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, for they created an ¿undue burden¿ for women. Moreover, the study shows that the mandatory two-visit abortion regulations may be causing an increase in second-trimester abortion procedures. The two-trip situation creates financial and time burden for low income women and working women who are forced to travel long distances twice. Despite opposition, the state laws as well as established medical standards already ensure that women are provided with accurate and unbiased information about their health care options and give their informed consent for any procedure.
In June 2000, the UN will conduct a review of the Beijing+5 (B+5) platform for action to assess the progress women have made since the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995. This review is regarded by many women's rights advocates as an opportunity to advance the platform. Following the platform's 1995 recommendations, many countries began initiating new laws and policies addressing women's reproductive and sexual health needs as shown in the case of Brazil, France, Egypt, Japan, Cambodia and even the US. However, the B+5 platform is constantly challenged by concerted opposition and delaying tactics of the Vatican and a small group of Islamic and Catholic countries. Despite the progress made by the B+5 platform in the last 5 years, there are still some areas that need to be addressed particularly on the reproductive health needs of adolescents and young adults. Thus, it is hoped that the B+5 review will inspire women to continue to fight for freedom in exercising their reproductive rights.
On April 12, 2000, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP), the Center for Justice and International Law and three Latin American women's rights organizations filed a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging human rights abuses in Peru's health care system. The petition alleges violations of the woman's right to informed consent to medical treatment, as well as the rights to life, health, privacy and nondiscrimination. The initial petition was filed in 1999 following the death of a Peruvian woman from a rural area who underwent a sterilization procedure at a public health clinic. The woman agreed to a sterilization after being told that she was violating a national limit on family size by having more than 5 children and was at risk for prosecution by the government. The woman eventually died from complications and lack of proper treatment. Staff attorney Luisa Cabal is representing CRLP as a co-petitioner, with the assistance of fellow attorney Carla Avni.
On June 28, 2000, the US Supreme Court issued a decision that rejects Nebraska's ban on "partial-birth abortions." The decision affirmed that this abortion ban, and others like it, are extreme, deceptive and unconstitutional violations of the landmark decision that guaranteed women the liberty to choose abortion 27 years ago. While proponents of the Nebraska statute had attempted to convince the Court that the law only covered a particular abortion procedure known as dilation and extraction (D&X), the majority of judges agreed that the statute was written so broadly, it would affect other abortion procedures as well. Pro-choice organizations are elated by the decision; however, there are still some causes for concern. It is stated that while the Court's decision is a victory for women's rights to choose abortion, it also demonstrates how fragile this right is, as shown in the 5-4 decision. Still, even with only a small margin, this court decision will have immediate effect on rendering all similar statutes unconstitutional.
