what happens when you mix religious beliefs and reproductive rights

“Certain practices associated with the manifestation of a religion or belief, or perceived as such,may constitute violations of international human rights standards. The right to freedom of religion or belief is sometimes invoked to justify such violations. The EU firmly opposes such justification, whilst remaining fully committed to the robust protection and promotion of freedom of religion or belief in all parts of the world. Violations often affect women, members of religious minorities, as well as persons on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief, 2013

On 5 and 6 July 2022 the UK Government hosted a human rights conference to urge increased global action on Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) for all. (Countries involved in this International Freedom of Religion or Belief Alliance do not include Belgium, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, or Switzerland, in the signatories. I am also unclear about the final purpose of this conference, beyond good-will statements.) Among several such statements, one brings a connection between FoRB and gender equality.

 The statement in its original format is quite mush-y-mash-y, as methinks promoting (one’s) religion rarely walks hand in hand with supporting (all) gender equality and even less reproductive rights. Witness the Catholic Church’s unremitting activism against abortion, up to this day, from Poland to the US.

“As such, FoRB serves not only to protect people from discrimination, inequality, and violence; it can also serve as a source of empowerment for those who find inspiration and strength in their convictions to fight for gender equality and justice.” Statement on freedom of religion or belief and gender equality, 7 July 2022

But the main issue here is that the final statement published by the UK Government eliminated reproductive rights that were present in the original version, as of below, which was signed by many of the participating countries. Without said countries being informed of the cancellation and some now refusing to sign the new version…

“…support and build capacities of local religious and belief leaders to advocate for gender equality, denounce sexual and gender-based violence and harmful practices and ensure access to sexual and reproductive health and rights”. Statement on freedom of religion or belief and gender equality, 7 July 2022

This is sadly connected with the unceasing attacks of religions on abortion rights. For instance, Malta suddenly appeared as a signatory of the final version, while missing from the earlier one. Which may have a correlation with Malta being a country where abortion is completely prohibited. (Nor Poland neither the USA have signed either.) And the (former) prime minister’s special envoy is co-chairing the MP “pro-life” group (funded by the anti-abortion “Right to Life UK” “charity”).

systemic realities?!

While the US Supreme Court has all but abolished Roe v. Wade, by allowing Texas to keep banning abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy, The New York Times continues to publish opinion pieces from anti-abortion editors. Like this one this weekend from an Anglican priest who can make preachifying statements like Roe v. Wade creating “realities where abortion becomes the easier choice for women who have unintended pregnancies” or where “pressure from the medical community to abort is common”… Or yet stating that “many European countries have far more restrictive abortion laws and lower abortion rates than the United States without curtailing the advancement of women.” As analysed in another NYT article,  this is also an argument made by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ill-boding for the future of the law. This is when solely considering the cutoff of Roe v. Wade, rather than the access to abortion which proves much more inaccessible in most US States than Western Europe countries (with the exceptions of Northern Ireland, the Faroe Islands, and Malta, plus Poland), from local regulations to financial hurdles, to inexistent offer. (And I wonder at the repeated use of realities in the tribune. There is one reality and it is pretty harsh on women seeking abortion. Unless one prefers alternative facts…)

solidarność z Polkami