Indignity in unwanted pregnancy: denial of abortion as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment

ABSTRACT

The value of women's reproductive role in society is often given the greatest weight in the debate over access to abortion. This article argues that by objectifying women as instruments of reproduction, restrictions on abortion are discriminatory and may constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by denying the fundamental relationship between dignity, equality and autonomy, which coalesce in the sphere reproductive choice. While the concept of human dignity can be elusive, an understanding of what qualifies as unjustifiable harm in this context can help to elucidate the intrinsic worth that recognition of dignity seeks to protect.

KEYWORDS:

• Dignity
• abortion
• CIDT
• women
• reproduction

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Isabella Moore holds a Bachelor of Laws from University College London and a Master of Public and International Law from the University of Melbourne. She works in public policy.

Notes

1 Associated Press in Asunción, ‘Paraguay Failed Pregnant Rape Victim Aged 10, UN Human Rights Experts Say’, The Guardian (12 May 2014). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/11/paraguay-failed-pregnant-victim-10-un-human-rights-experts-say

2 Associated Press in Asunción, ‘Paraguay Failed Pregnant Rape Victim Aged 10, UN Human Rights Experts Say’.

3 Michael Miller, ‘The Horrific Child Rape Case that is Tearing Paraguay Apart’, The Age (12 May 2015). http://www.theage.com.au/world/the-horrific-child-rape-case-that-is-tearing-paraguay-apart-20150512-ggzcb2.html?skin=dumb-phone

4 This article makes no distinction between ‘dignity’ and ‘human dignity’.

5 Christopher McCrudden, ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’, The European Journal of International Law 19, no. 4 (2008): 655–724, 688.

6 Thornburgh v American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 476 US 747 (1986).

7 UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), Article 1.

8 McCrudden, ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’, 679.

9 Ibid., 723.

10 Andrew Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (2006), 545–6.

11 Elaine Webster, ‘Interpretation of the Prohibition of Torture: Making Sense of “Dignity” Talk’, Human Rights Review 17, no. 3 (2016): 371–90, 375.

12 Webster, ‘Interpretation of the Prohibition of Torture: Making Sense of “Dignity” Talk’, 375; Jeremy Waldron, ‘Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment: The Words Themselves’, New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers (2008) 98, 38.

13 Waldron, ‘Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: The Words Themselves’, 38; Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Grego (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 37–8.

14 Webster, ‘Interpretation of the Prohibition of Torture: Making Sense of “Dignity” Talk’, 375.

15 This article does not seek to resolve the question of whether there is a gestational limit on the exercise of such agency.

16 Ronald Dworkin, Life's Dominion (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 10–11.

17 Ibid., 11–13.

18 Ibid., 15.

19 Ibid., 68–9.

20 Ibid., 86–94.

21 Ibid., 60.

22 Ibid., 166.

23 Kate Greasley, Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality and Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).

24 Greasley, Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality and Law, 18–19.

25 Ibid., 31.

26 Elizabeth Wicks, The Right to Life and Conflicting Interests (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 168.

27 Judith Jarvis Thomson, ‘A Defense of Abortion’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, no. 1 (1971): 47–66.

28 Wicks, The Right to Life and Conflicting Interests, 172.

29 Ibid.

30 Wicks, The Right to Life and Conflicting Interests.

31 Rhonda Copelon, Christina Zampas, Elizabeth Brusie, and Jacqueline deVore, ‘Human Rights Begin at Birth: International Law and the Claim of Fetal Rights’, Reproductive Health Matters 13, no. 26 (2005): 120–9, 126.

32 Catriona McKenzie, ‘Abortion and Embodiment’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 70, no. 2 (1992): 136–55, 151.

33 Dworkin, Life's Dominion, 137.

34 Ibid., 154.

35 Planned Parenthood v Casey 505 US 833 (1992), 851.

36 McCrudden, ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’, 700.

37 World Health Organisation, Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems, 2nd ed. (Geneva, 2012), 88. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70914/1/9789241548434_eng.pdf

38 Christina Zampas and Jaime M. Gher, ‘Abortion as a Human Right – International and Regional Standards’, Human Rights Law Review 8, no. 2 (2008): 249–94.

39 African Union, Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, 11 July 2003.

40 African Women's Protocol, Art 14(2)(c).

41 Zampas and Gher, ‘Abortion as a Human Right – International and Regional Standards’, 287; Copelon et al., ‘Human Rights Begin at Birth: International Law and the Claim of Fetal Rights’, 126.

42 Copelon et al., ‘Human Rights Begin at Birth: International Law and the Claim of Fetal Rights’, 126.

43 Rita Joseph, Human Rights and the Unborn Child (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers), 47.

44 Zampas and Gher, ‘Abortion as a Human Right – International and Regional Standards’, 263.

45 Copelon et al., ‘Human Rights Begin at Birth: International Law and the Claim of Fetal Rights’, 121–5.

46 Zampas and Gher, ‘Abortion as a Human Right – International and Regional Standards’, 262–8; Copelon et al., ‘Human Rights Begin at Birth: International Law and the Claim of Fetal Rights’, 121–5.

47 Paton v. UK, App. No. 8416/78, 3 Eur. H.R. Rep. 408 (1980).

48 Vo v. France, No. 53924/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2004).

49 Zampas and Gher, ‘Abortion as a Human Right – International and Regional Standards’, 251.

50 Zampas and Gher, ‘Abortion as a Human Right – International and Regional Standards’, 251; Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 5-13 September 1994, A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1 (1995), Chapter VIII C. Women's Health and Safe Motherhood para 8.2.

51 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Chile, 18 May 2007, UN Doc CCPR/C/CHL/CO/5, para. 8; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: El Salvador, 22 August 2003, UN Doc CCPR/CO/78/SLV, para. 14; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Poland, 2 December 2004, UN Doc CCPR/CO/82/POL, para. 8.

52 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Guatemala, 27 August 2001, UN Doc CCPR/CO/72/ GTM, para. 19; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Kuwait, 19 July 2000, UN Doc CCPR/CO/69/KWT, A/55/40, para. 16; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Lesotho, 8 April 1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.106, para. 11; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Trinidad and Tobago, 3 November 2000, UN Doc CCPR/ CO/70/TTO, para. 18; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: United Republic of Tanzania, 18 August 1998, CCPR/C/79/Add.97, para. 15; UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Concluding Comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Belize, 01 July 1999, UN Doc A/54/38, para. 56; UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Concluding Comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Chile, 25 August 2006, UN Doc CEDAW/C/CHI/CO/4, para. 19.

53 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Guatemala, 9 July 2001, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.154, para. 40; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Chad, 24 August 1999, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.107, para. 30; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Nicaragua, 24 August 1999, UN Doc CRC/C/15/Add.108, para. 35.

54 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: El Salvador, 22 August 2003, UN Doc CCPR/CO/78/SLV; para. 14; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Mali, 16 April 2003, UN Doc CCPR/CO/77/MLI, para. 14; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Poland, 2 December 2004, UN Doc CCPR/CO/82/POL, para. 8.

55 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Chile18 May 2007, UN Doc CCPR/C/CHL/CO/5, para. 8; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Guatemala, 27 August 2001, UN Doc CCPR/CO/72/ GTM, para. 19; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Mali, 16 April 2003, UN Doc CCPR/CO/77/MLI, para. 14.

56 World Health Organisation, Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems, 92.

57 World Health Organisation, Constitution of the World Health Organization, 47th ed. (Geneva, 2009).

58 World Health Organisation, Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems, 92.

59 World Health Organisation, Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems, 2nd ed. (Geneva, 2012), 9.

60 Zampas and Gher, ‘Abortion as a Human Right – International and Regional Standards’, 287.

61 UN Human Rights Committee, K.L. v Peru, 22 November 2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003.

62 K.L. v Peru, para. 6.4.

63 K.L. v Peru, para. 6.3.

64 Zampas and Gher, ‘Abortion as a Human Right – International and Regional Standards’, 286.

65 UN Human Rights Committee, L.M.R. v Argentina, CCPR/C/101/D/1608/2007.

66 R.R. v. Poland, No. 27617/04 Eur. Ct. H. R. (2011).

67 P. and S. v. Poland, No. 57375/08 Eur. Ct. H.R. (2008).

68 Ireland v. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. No. 5310/71, 167 (1978); A, B and C v. Ireland, No. 25579/05 Eur. Ct. H.R. (2010); UN Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations: Ireland, 17 June 2011, CAT/C/IRL/CO/1; UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Ireland, 21 December 2011, A/HRC/19/9; UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Ireland, 4 July 2014, UN Doc CCPR/C/IRL/CO/4; UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Ireland, 18 July 2016, UN Doc A/HRC/33/17; UN Human Rights Committee, Mellet v. Ireland, 17 November 2016, UN Doc CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013; UN Human Rights Committee, Whelan v. Ireland, 12 June 2017, UN Doc CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014; UN Committee Against Torture, Concluding Observations: Ireland, 11 August 2017, UN Doc CAT/C/SR.1565, CAT/C/SR.156.

69 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Ireland, 18 July 2016, A/HRC/33/17.

70 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Ireland, Addendum, 20 September 2016, A//HRC/33/17/Add.1.

71 ABC/Reuters, ‘Ireland Abortion Referendum Returns Huge Majority for Yes Campaign in Historic Vote’, ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-27/abortion-referendum:-ireland-votes-to-liberalise-laws/9803848

72 UN Human Rights Committee, Mellet v. Ireland, 17 November 2016, UN Doc CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013.

73 This is issue that may soon come to prominence in Australia. Abortion in the state of Tasmania was decriminalised in 2013, but government will not commit to providing funding to maintain a public provision service. Rather, a travel allowance will be provided for women to travel interstate. In light of Mellet and Whelan, where a Tasmanian woman's pregnancy is affected by fatal foetal abnormality the requirement to travel outside Tasmania would conceivably constitute a violation of Article 7; Clementine Ford, ‘Women in Tasmania Might Soon Be Unable to Get Abortions’, The Age (2 March 2018). https://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/women-in-tasmania-might-soon-be-unable-to-get-abortions-20180301-p4z2ez.html

74 UN Human Rights Committee, Whelan v. Ireland, 12 June 2017, UN Doc CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014.

75 Alyson Zureick, ‘(En)gendering Suffering: Denial of Abortion as a Form of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment’, Fordham International Law Journal 38, no. 1 (2015): 99–138, 1010.

76 Zureick, ‘(En)Gendering Suffering: Denial of Abortion as a Form of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment’, 101.

77 Ibid.

78 Zureick, ‘(En)Gendering Suffering: Denial of Abortion as a Form of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment’, 131.

79 Ibid., 132; Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, ‘The Distinction Between Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’, Torture 16 (2006):147, 149.

80 Zureick, ‘(En)Gendering Suffering: Denial of Abortion as a Form of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment’, 134–5.

81 Ibid., 140.

82 A, B and C v. Ireland [2010] ECHR 2032.

83 Tysiac v. Poland, Appl. No. 5410/03 Eur. Ct. H.R. (2007).

84 R.R v Poland; P. and S. v. Poland.

85 Zureick, (En)Gendering Suffering: Denial of Abortion as a Form of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment’, 117.

86 Waldron, ‘Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: The Words Themselves’, 24.

87 Ibid., 29.

88 The circumstances in which denial of access to abortion may constitute torture, and whether this would require a purposive element, are not contemplated in this essay.

89 Waldron, ‘Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment: The Words Themselves’, 33.

90 Ibid., 37.

91 Ibid., 38.

92 McCrudden, ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’, 699.

93 Mellet v. Ireland, Annex II: Individual opinion of Committee member Sarah Cleveland (concurring).

94 Whelan v. Ireland, Annex I: Individual opinion of Committee member Yadh Ben Achour (concurring).

95 Whelan v. Ireland, Annex I: Individual opinion of Committee member Yadh Ben Achour (concurring), para. 6.

96 Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright, ‘Feminist Approaches to International Law’, The American Journal of International Law 85, no. 4 (1991): 613–45, 627.

97 Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin, ‘The Gender of Jus Cogens’, Human Rights Quarterly 15 (1993): 63–76, 65.

98 Ronli Sifris, Reproductive Freedom, Torture and International Human Rights: Challenging the Masculinisation of Torture (United Kingdom: Routledge, 2014), 19, 57; Zureick, ‘(En)Gendering Suffering: Denial of Abortion as a Form of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment’, 105.

99 Charlesworth, Chinkin and Wright, ‘Feminist Approaches to International Law’, 628–9.

100 UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Report of the Inquiry Concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under Article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 23 February 2018, CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1.

101 Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, ‘Reproductive Choices and Informed Consent: Fetal Interests, Women's Identity, and Relational Autonomy’, American Journal of Law and Medicine 27 (2011): 567–623, 572; Whelan v. Ireland, Annex I: Individual opinion of Committee member Yadh Ben Achour (concurring), para. 5.

102 Ronli Sifris, ‘Restrictive Regulation of Abortion and the Right to Health’, Medical Law Review 18, no. 2 (2010): 185–212, 190.