Cuthbert-Flynn’s abortion spin
EARLIER THIS month, Juliet Cuthbert-Flynn moved a motion in Parliament for the legalisation of abortion. She cited certain international instruments, giving the impression that they support her call. This is not the case.
If one simply reads the named documents, it will be quite clear that none of those instruments demand or mandate the legalisation of abortion.
The MP cited the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which, in truth, says nothing about abortion. CEDAW actually called on governments to properly understand “maternity as a social function” and that the interest of children is the “primordial consideration” (Article 5), to provide “adequate nutrition during pregnancy” [Art.12] and “special protection to women during pregnancy in types of work proved to be harmful to them.” [Art. 11(2)(d)].
The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, also cited by Cuthbert-Flynn, in fact, speaks against abortion. Beijing confirmed paragraph 8.25 of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) that “[i]n no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning”. The declaration called on all governments, relevant intergovernmental organisations and NGOs “to reduce the recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family-planning services ... every attempt should be made to eliminate the need for abortion”.
Importantly, “post-abortion counselling, education and family-planning services should be offered promptly, which will also help to avoid repeat abortions”. [Beijing para. 106 (k)].
The very same Beijing Declaration called on governments to “... research to understand and better address the determinants and consequences of induced abortion. [para 109 (i)]
Understanding the reasons why women may choose or be forced to abort cannot be logically equated to a demand for repeal of the law. Furthermore, Beijing appreciated that abortion, in and of itself, has negative physical, emotional and mental consequences for the mother. This is why the concept of ‘safe’ versus ‘unsafe’ abortion is deliberately misleading.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were also cited by the MP but nowhere in the SDGs is abortion mentioned and none of the goals call for legalisation of abortion.
The term ‘sexual and reproductive health, including family planning,’ appears in the SDGs, and some may say that this phrase is an euphemism for abortion. This cannot be, as the SDGs’ affirmed Beijing and ICPD, which both prohibit using abortion as a method of family planning and in fact called for the reduction in use of abortion. Please note that ICPD also called for ‘appropriate steps to help women avoid abortion ... and in all cases provide for the humane treatment and counselling of women who had recourse to abortion” [para 7.24].
One can, therefore, confidently conclude that the suggestion that legalising abortion is an international obligation for Jamaica is unsubstantiated by the very international instruments cited.
In her motion, Cuthbert-Flynn also proposed that all parliamentarians have a moral obligation to ensure women can enjoy their personhood. We would remind parliamentarians that they have an existing and fundamental moral obligation to preserve ‘the dignity of the human person ...’ (para 4), which includes women and babies. This was Jamaica’s and other UN Member States commitment in the August 2015 SDG Declaration on achieving the Goals and Targets. The intentional destruction of human life by abortion is certainly inconsistent with affirming dignity and worth of the human person.
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Parliamentarians must also remember their moral and legal obligations under the Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989) to which Jamaica is a signatory and which should have been mentioned by the MP. This Convention declares 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.”
A recent local television programme suggested that the CEDAW committee has the authority to interpret the Convention and recommend that countries legalise abortion. This viewpoint is false.
The CEDAW Committee can only “make suggestions and general recommendations” which are non-binding on countries (Article 21, CEDAW). It has no authority to impose its own interpretation contrary to what intended and agreed on by the signatories to the Convention.
That TV programme also suggested that a ‘modern’ interpretation can be simply read into the text of an international instrument. This is also a false and flawed argument. The general rule of treaty interpretation is to apply the ordinary meaning of words in their context, object and purpose [Vienna Convention, Article 31 (1)]. No country is required to accept any ‘interpretation’ that fundamentally changes the meaning and intention of words that were contemplated.
Parliamentarians must also remember their moral and legal obligations under the Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989) to which Jamaica is a signatory and which should have been mentioned by the MP.