Why Abortion Neutrality is vital for Amnesty International

The recent adoption of a policy on abortion has been bad for Amnesty International for several reasons, but which can be described as falling into two categories; problems of principle, and problems of pragmatism. Below are just some of them.

Problems of Principle

The SRR policy failed to comprehensively address the needs of women who had been raped in time of war but who nonetheless who wanted to keep their foetus/child.
The SRR policy failed to show that it was going to pro-actively campaign to address issues of education and ignorance such as maintain in Darfur around societal perspectives and prejudices (eg that only women who want to have sex get pregnant, and that women who have been raped are stigmatised).
AI USA now campaigns for the repeal of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, in light of Amnesty's call for abortion to be decriminalised. This particular law prohibits the abortion procedure which involves the partial delivery of the foetus/child before the foetus/child is killed. At the very least, given that Article 1of the UDHR states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights..." and Article 3 states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person', this activity carried out by AI USA on behalf of the wider movement, can only be described as being troubling at the very least.
The fact that Amnesty has called for abortion 'within reasonable gestational limits' means that it has implicitly acknowledged that the foetus/child has rights, although they are not yet specifcally outlined by Amnesty itself. That Amnesty should put itself in the position of advocating rights of some (the mothers) at the direct expense of the right to life of others (the child/foetus) is to be regretted as it seriously damages Amnesty's moral authority.
Where women decide to travel to another country to procure an abortion as a result of being past the time limit allowed in their own country, but are prevented from doing so by their own Government, Amnesty has yet to declare whether it will now campaign on behalf of such women as women who have had their human rights violated. To be precise, will Amnesty consider such women prisoners of conscience and act as it usually would in such cases. If the answer is yes, then Amnesty's position with regard to 'reasonable gestational limits' is de facto a position which takes its lead from the lowest common denominator, ie the permitted limit in China, which is 7 months. If the answer is no, does this have implications for Amnesty's repeated assertions with regard to the Universality of Human Rights? Is Amnesty allowing Nation States to define the terms of a Human Right, and does this represent a significant departure in both policy and approach. In this regard, it is worth bearing in mind that Amnesty is permanently in a battle with Human Rights abusing countries such as China, who's Govt. maintains that Human Rights are not universal, but regionally and culturally defined. Is Amnesty's new policy as it currently exists now playing into the hands of such HR abusers by compromising the Universal aspect of the UDHR?
If Amnesty insists that Human Rights are Universal, then how can it reconcile that Universality with its current position of deferring to National Govts. with regard to when it is permissable to violate the rights of the child/foetus as must occur in the practice of abortion, which, as previously stated, Amnesty in the position adopted, has implicitly acknowledged.
A further complication arising out of the issue of foetal rights is whether Amnesty is going to call for the prosecution of women and abortion providers who either procure or provide abortions outside of their respective country's gestational limit. If Amnesty does not call for prosecution, then what are the implications for the coherency of Amnesty's policy platform, in the light of previous calls for an End to Impunity for Human Rights abusers? If Amnesty does call for prosecution, how can it do so consistently when one country differs from another as to when it is illegal to carry out abortions.
The policy as it exists currently, obligates medical professionals to facilitate abortions even if they object to abortion on grounds of conscience. That this poses a problem of coherence and integrity for an organisation designed to protect people of conscience is self-evident.
Amnesty has never previously advocated a position that could be construed as violating the right to life, which it now is, in the minds of people who hold that the right to life does not begin at birth, but before that.
The consultation process that was undertaken by Amnesty International with regard to the abortion issue was fundamentally flawed in that parity of esteem was not granted to what is traditionally known as the 'pro-life' position, and how that perspective conflicted with the rights of the women/girls involved. This factor has also led some members of Amnesty to believe that a decision on this issue was made prior to the consultation process. While this in itself is a serious concern, it is all the moreso given that Amnesty International proclaims itself a membership-led organisation.
As late as September of 2007, staff of AI UK were being sent to local groups to explain what Amnesty's position was on abortion. That this should have to happen five months after the decision was taken by the IEC in favour of a move towards a position on abortion, is a damning indictment of the quality of the consultative process in AI UK, which is traditionally known as one of Amnesty International's 'big four'. For more go here.

Problems of Pragmatism

The 'decriminalisation of abortion' clause which is the fourth strand of the abortion related policy calls for the decriminalisation of abortion in all circumstances, and not just with regard to the three issues of rape, incest, and threat to life/grave risk to the health, of the mother. This could be construed, and has been construed in the global pro-life movement, as calling for legislation in favour of abortion, as an act which carries no judicial criminal sanction when carried out, is in effect a legal act.
The loss of a significant social justice partner in the form of the Catholic Church who's entirely predictable reaction to the policy initiative has meant the loss of literally thousands of Catholic Church institutions and venues, and the impact that has had on campaigning, fundraising and outreach.
In countries such as Australia, where 25 - 30% per cent of the student population attend Catholic Church run schools, this decision has seen Amnesty groups proscribed / removed from schools. Not only does this reduce the number of those participating in activities, it means many students will not come in contact with Amnesty till later in their lives, if at all.
The inevitable divide in the membership that has occurred as a result of this move, as people of a 'pro-life' disposition now feel conscientiously obliged to withdraw their support both financially and actively. The Orlando Florida, USA Amnesty Group, who voted against the move, is a very good example of this divide, owing to the fact that the 'pro-life' members felt it meant Amnesty was advocating murder, while the 'pro-choice' members didn't feel the policy went far enough. "Our Orlando chapter of Amnesty International recently voted to not support AIUSA's recent position on abortion. We feel that this position upsets both pro-lifers, because of it's acknowledgement that abortion is sometimes necessary, and pro-choicers who feel the organization falls short in advocating for women's right to choose. We feel that there are a number of groups advocating for both sides and that Amnesty International should continue it's much-needed work on it's current campaigns. We thank you for your continued support." - www.amnestyorlando.org/ (bottom right corner)
Has caused long-time members and activists to resign
The inevitable consequence of the organisation in the future being made unapproachable to people of a 'pro-life' disposition who might otherwise share a common desire for the protection of human rights, on all other issues.
A necessary conclusion from the above point, is that future members of Amnesty will be perceived as being friendly to abortion in the current limited policy, if not out-right 'pro-choice'. With that being the case, Amnesty is exposed to being perceived as simply another 'pro-choice' lobby group.
The fact that Amnesty has now pitted itself against the very vigorous and mobilised international pro-life movement, when it already has enough adversaries in the form of Human Rights abusing Govts. At AI Ireland's Annual Conference in County Cork October 2007, Irish Amnesty members were for the first time ever, greeted by a demonstration protesting against Amnesty International. This was further compounded by the fact that those same protestors received popular support from passing traffic. That Amnesty Ireland should now face such an unsympathetic public when all of its other work is entirely defensible is unquestionably a troubling bi-product of the position on abortion.
Time and money expended on this internal issue could have been invested in the vast amount of work AI still needs to do elsewhere.
The manner in which the policy was delivered holds Amnesty International up to charges of hypocrisy, with allegations now being made publically, of the policy having been introduced by less than democratic means, and against the wishes of a significant number of members. The perceived lack of transparency and democracy lessens Amnesty's legitimacy and ability to campaign for democratic rights in despotic regimes.
The policy has handed a propaganda victory to Human Rights abusers who can now discredit AI with accusations of being 'baby-killers', regardless of whether that label is fair or accurate.