Two Articles on Reproductive Rights

In the August issue of International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics Johanna Westeson from the Center for Reproductive Rights published the article "Reproductive Health Information and Abortion Services: Standards Developed by the European Court of Human Rights".The article analyses 3 important judgments of the ECtHR, RR. v. Poland, P. and S. v. Poland and A. B. & C. v. Ireland, and related standards of care that was considered by the Court.

Here is the abstract:

In 3 recent judgments, the European Court of Human Rights addressed the issue of access to abortion and related reproductive health services. In 2 of the judgments, the Court declared that the state violated women’s rights by obstructing access to legal health services, including abortion. In so doing, it referred to the state’s failure to implement domestic norms on prenatal testing and conscientious objection, and recognized the relevance of international medical guidelines. This illustrates that domestic and international medical standards can serve as critical guidance to human rights courts. In the third case, the Court showed its unwillingness to declare access to abortion a human right per se, which is troubling from the perspective of women’s right to health and dignity. The present article outlines the relevance of these cases for the reproductive health profession and argues that medical professional societies can influence human rights courts by developing and enforcing medical standards, not only for the benefit of abortion rights domestically but also for the advancement of women’s human rights worldwide.

The October issue of the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics contains the Article "Human Rights to In Vitro Fertilisation" written by Fernando Zegers-Hochschild, Bernard Dickens and Sandra Dughman-Manzur. This work explores the judgment of the ACtHR in relation with the ban on in vitro ferltilisation by Costa Rica.

Here is the abstract:

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court) has ruled that the Supreme Court of Costa Rica’s judgment in 2000 prohibiting in vitro fertilization (IVF) violated the human right to private and family life, the human right to found and raise a family, and the human right to non-discrimination on grounds of disability, financial means, or gender. The Court’s conclusions of violations contrary to the American Convention on Human Rights followed from its ruling that, under the Convention, in vitro embryos are not “persons” and do not possess a right to life. Accordingly, the prohibition of IVF to protect embryos constituted a disproportionate and unjustifiable denial of infertile individuals’ human rights. The Court distinguished fertilization from conception, since conception—unlike fertilization—depends on an embryo’s implantation in a woman’s body. Under human rights law, legal protection of an embryo “from conception” is inapplicable between its creation by fertilization and completion of its implantation in utero.