Stop Amnesty International promoting abortion

23 August 2006

This page is based on the text of flyer published by SPUC. Further down this page there is a link to a PDF of the flyer. Please print copies of the flyer and distribute them as widely as possible.

Amnesty International (AI) is currently carrying out a consultation among its members about proposals to change its policy on abortion. All of AI's national groups are being consulted in preparation for AI's International Committee Meeting in 2007 when AI's policy will be decided.

If a pro-abortion policy is adopted by AI, it would encourage nations to go against international human rights law. To do this would seriously tarnish the reputation of AI, and hinder its ability to function as a respected international human rights watchdog;
The adoption of such a divisive policy might cause pro-life and other members to resign, cease supporting, or distance themselves from AI;
Abortion is a needless act of violence against innocent human beings and promoting this as a right would not help their cause;
The policy completely ignores the rights of one group of people: the unborn;
Asserting a right to kill worldwide would harm, not help, international human rights.

You can lodge your protest on the page on Amnesty's website for contacting the international secretariat or by writing to International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street, London, WC1X 0DW, UK.

Points you can make about abortion and human rights

There are some rights which the state has authority to confer (such as citizenship) but there are also fundamental rights of human beings. Fundamental rights, including the right to life, are inherent to, and derive from, the dignity of the human person. These rights are not bestowed by governments but must be recognised by them and protected in law. The right to life and equality is enshrined in a number of international human rights instruments.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with the articulation of the human values to be defended in terms of human rights: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person."

There is no agreed basis for dividing up the human family into persons and non-persons, but there is an agreement from science that, from fertilisation, we all share a common humanity; that we are all members of the "human family", to use the declaration's words.

The attempts to exclude some members of the human family from moral consideration have led to justifications of intolerable abuses of human rights including slavery and genocide. The declaration, following the United Nations Charter, rejects discrimination against any members of the "human family", and requires the "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family".

Also, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that: "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1959). This is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world.

It is true that the practice of abortion is widespread and, in many countries, legal, at least in some circumstances. There is, however, a mismatch between the human rights requirements of international law and the practice of individuals and nation states.

Prohibitions on abortion by sovereign states are not only compatible with the requirements of international human rights instruments but are, in fact, the most probable interpretation of those requirements. It would therefore not only be wrong but foolish for an international human rights organisation such as Amnesty International to adopt a policy in favour of abortion.

PDF of the flyer on which this page is based

If you are the leader of an organisation outside the United Kingdom and would like to enter your group's details on to the flyer, please contact johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk for permission; inside the UK the flyer will be distributed under the auspices of SPUC.

Background to the consultation

Four options are being discussed:

Amnesty International should continue to take no position on abortion until at least the next ICM (International Council Meeting) and that the ICM should continue to develop and extend the movement-wide consultation which preceded the 2005 ICM to ensure that the next ICM is in a position to consider whether to take an informed decision regarding AI policy on abortion.
That the IEC (International Executive Committee) should develop an AI position on abortion that supports the rights of women to have abortions in cases of sexual assault, rape and incest.
That the IEC should develop an AI position on abortion that is in line with the current international legal consensus (i.e. abortion should be decriminalised; where abortion is not against the law, it should be safe and accessible; women should always have access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion)
That the IEC should develop an AI position on abortion that is based on the understanding that a woman's right to physical and mental integrity includes her right to terminate her pregnancy, and that abortion should therefore be legal, safe and accessible to all women.

The consultation to date has been highly one-sided. In spite of asking "that all attendees come along with an open mind and a willingness to hear other people's views", the organisers of the seminar held by AIUK in July 2005 prior to the ICM in Mexico made no attempt at providing a balanced discussion on the issue of abortion. The speakers were exclusively pro-abortion and included a former Chair of International Planned Parenthood Federation and a representative from Marie Stopes International. According to promotional material, one of the speakers, Wanda Nowicka, co-founded the Federation for Women and Family Planning in Poland when "criminalisation of abortion began to be discussed in Poland" and "in response to the Church's growing involvement in the public sphere".

A pro-life member who complained about the absence of pro-life speakers received an apology but there has been little attempt since to redress the balance. The stance taken in printed material produced by Amnesty appears to assume that it is morally acceptable for the organisation to adopt a pro-abortion stance and uses established pro-abortion arguments to push its cause.

By adopting a pro-abortion policy, Amnesty would be turning its back on human rights, the very thing it has campaigned to protect for over forty years. This will seriously undermine AI's vital work in the field of human rights. The one-sided nature of the consultation to date implies that Amnesty has already decided that abortion should be supported as a human right, showing disregard for the views and sensitivities of many Amnesty members. Amnesty agrees that much maternal and infant mortality and morbidity are the result of poorly managed pregnancies and deliveries, problems that the World Bank estimates could be eliminated for as little as two-three US dollars per person per year. Abortion is a needless act of violence that will not improve the lives of women around the world.