Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:19:28.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conscientious Objection to Abortion and Accommodating Women's Reproductive Health Rights: Reflections on a Decision of the Constitutional Court of Colombia from an African Regional Human Rights Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2014

Charles G Ngwena
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If applied in isolation from the fundamental rights of women seeking abortion services, the right to conscientious objection can render any given rights to abortion illusory, including the rights to health, life, equality and dignity that are attendant to abortion. A transformative understanding of human rights requires that the right to conscientious objection to abortion be construed in a manner that is subject to the correlative duties which are imposed on the conscientious objector, as well as the state, in order to accommodate women's reproductive health rights. In recent years, the Colombian Constitutional Court has been giving a judicial lead on the development of a right to conscientious objection that accommodates women's fundamental rights. This article reflects on one of the court's decisions and draws lessons for the African region.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , October 2014 , pp. 183 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS, University of London 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Menski, WComparative Law in Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa (2nd ed, 2006, Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Banda, FWomen, Law and Human Rights: An African Perspective (2005, Hart Publishing)Google Scholar at 13–15.

3 Omar, D “Constitutional development: The African experience” in Jackson, V and Tushnet, M (eds) Defining the Field of Comparative Constitutional Law (2002, Praeger) 175Google Scholar at 180–82.

4 Ackerman, B “The rise of world constitutionalism” (1997) 83 Virginia Law Review 771CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 An-Na‘im, A (ed) Human Rights Under African Constitutions: Realizing the Promise for Ourselves (2003, University of Pennsylvania Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klug, HConstituting Democracy: Law, Globalism and South Africa's Political Reconstruction (2000, Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Botha, H “Comparative law and constitutional adjudication: A South African perspective” (2007) Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 569Google Scholar.

7 L Wienrib “Constitutional conceptions and constitutional comparativism” in Jackson and Tushnet (eds) Defining the Field of Comparative Constitutional Law, above at note 3, 3 at 3–4.

8 Klug Constituting Democracy, above at note 5.

9 Decision of the Colombian Constitutional Court: Case T-388/09 (2009).

10 Morgan, M “Emancipatory equality: Gender jurisprudence under the Colombian Constitution” in Baines, B and Rubio-Marin, R (eds) The Gender of Constitutional Jurisprudence (2005, Cambridge University Press) 75Google Scholar; Rubio-Marín, R and Morgan, M “Constitutional domestication of international gender norms: Categorizations, illustrations and reflections from the nearside of the bridge” in Knop, K (ed) Gender and Human Rights (2004, Oxford University Press)Google Scholar 114 at 119–21 and 139–42.

11 CEDAW, GA res 34/180, adopted 18 December 1979 and entered into force 3 September 1981; Rubio-Marín and Morgan, id at 120 and 139–42; Morgan, id at 75.

12 Decision of the Colombian Constitutional Court: Case T-355/06 (2006); Cook, R “Excerpts of the Constitutional Court's ruling that liberalized abortion in Colombia” (2007) 15 Reproductive Health Matters 160CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Prior to Case C-355/06, the Colombian Constitutional Court's position was that the prohibition of abortion under the Colombian Penal Code, even in cases of rape, was compatible with the Colombian Constitution; see decisions of the Colombian Constitutional Court in Case C-133/94 (1994) and Case C-013/97 (1997).

13 Cook, id at 160–62.

14 Cook, R and Cusack, SGender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives (2010, University of Pennsylvania Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 85–87; Siegel, R “Reasoning from the body: A historical perspective on abortion regulations and questions of equal protection” (1992) 44 Stanford Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed 261 at 277.

15 Tribe, LAbortion: The Clash of Absolutes (1990, WW Norton & Co)Google Scholar.

16 The preamble to the Colombian Constitution mentions “life” as one of the values that the Colombian Constitution seeks to protect. Art 2 recognizes that the state exists in order to protect the life of the people in Colombia; art 11 says that the right to life is inviolable.

17 Case T-355/06, above note 12, para 5.

18 GA res 2200A (XXI), adopted 16 December 1966 and entered into force 3 January 1976.

19 Fredman, SHuman Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (2008, Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986: OAU doc CAB/LEG/67/3 rev 5, 1520 UNTS 217.

21 Id, arts 2 and 3.

22 Id, art 4.

23 Id, art 16.

24 Ngwena, C “Inscribing abortion as a human right: Significance of the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa” (2010) 32 Human Rights Quarterly 783CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 811–12.

25 Art 14(2)(c) of the Maputo Protocol, AHG/res 240 (XXXI), adopted 11 July 2003 and entered into force 25 November 2005.

26 Ngwena, C “Access to legal abortion: Developments in Africa from a reproductive and sexual health rights perspective” (2004) 19 South African Public Law 328Google Scholar.

27 Id at 335–38.

28 Cook, R and Dickens, B “Human rights dynamics of abortion law reform” (2003) 25 Human Rights Quarterly 1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 8–9.

29 Fraser, NJustice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition (1997, Routledge)Google Scholar at 11–39.

30 Cook, R and Howard, S “Accommodating women's differences under the Women's Anti-Discrimination Convention” (2007) 56 Emory Law Journal 1039Google Scholar at 1070–83.

31 Siegel “Reasoning from the body”, above at note 14 at 365; Cook and Howard “Accommodating women's differences”, id at 1048–51.

32 Smart, CFeminism and the Power of Law (1989, Routledge)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 88.

33 Cook, R et al. Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics, and Law (2003, Clarendon Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 213.

34 Cook and Dickens “Human rights dynamics”, above at note 28 at 8–9; Vuola, E “Thinking otherwise: Dussel, liberation theology and feminism” in Alcoff, L and Mendieta, E (eds) Thinking From The Underside of History: Enrique Dussel's Philosophy of Liberation (2000, Rowman & Littlefield)Google Scholar 149 at 166.

35 Countries falling into this category are: Angola, Central African Republic, Congo (Brazzaville), Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania and Uganda: Center for Reproductive Rights World's Abortion Laws Map 2013, available at: <http://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/4541/abortion-laws-map-center-for-reproductive-rights> (last accessed 29 January 2014).

36 Law of 31 December 1986 of Cape Verde.

37 South African Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996, as amended.

38 Tunisian Law No 65-25 of 1965, as amended.

39 Zambian Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1972.

40 Brookman-Amissah, E and Moyo, J “Abortion law reform in sub-Saharan Africa: No turning back” (2004) 12 Reproductive Health Matters 227CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boland, R and Katzive, L “Developments in laws on induced abortion: 1998–2007” (2008) 34 International Family Law Planning Perspectives 110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 115–16.

41 Center for Reproductive Rights World's Abortion Laws, above at note 35.

42 Maputo Protocol, above at note 25; Murray, RHuman Rights in Africa: From OAU to the African Union (2004, Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Banda Women, Law and Human Rights, above at note 2 at 66–82; Viljoen, FInternational Human Rights Law in Africa (2nd ed, 2012, Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 50–59.

43 Banda, ibid; Viljoen ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Ngwena “Inscribing abortion as a human right”, above at note 24.

46 Johnson, B et al. “Reducing unplanned pregnancy and abortion in Zimbabwe through postabortion contraception” (2002) 33 Studies in Family Planning 195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 195.

47 Ethiopia, Ghana and Zambia are the main examples in this regard. Their guidelines are respectively: Family Health Department Technical and Procedural Guidelines for Safe Abortion Services in Ethiopia (2006, Family Health Department)Google Scholar; Republic of Ghana Prevention and Management of Unsafe Abortion: Comprehensive Care Services, Standards and Protocols (2006, Republic of Ghana)Google Scholar; and Ministry of Health Standards and Guidelines for Reducing Unsafe Morbidity and Mortality in Zambia (2009, Ministry of Health)Google Scholar.

48 Cook, R and Dickens, B “Abortion laws in African Commonwealth countries” (1981) 25 Journal of African Law 60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 65.

49 World Health Organization Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Estimates of the Incidence of Unsafe Abortion and Associated Mortality in 2008 (2011, World Health Organization)Google Scholar at 27.

50 Id at 1.

51 Id at 28.

52 Ngwena, C “Conscientious objection and legal abortion in South Africa: Delineating the parameters” (2003) 28 Journal for Juridical Science 1Google Scholar.

53 Id “The history and transformation of abortion law in South Africa” (1998) 30 Acta Academica 32Google Scholar.

54 Id at 37–41.

55 Klare, K “Legal culture and transformative constitutionalism” (1998) 14 South African Journal on Human Rights 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Albertyn, C and Goldblatt, B “Facing the challenge of transformation: Difficulties in the development of an indigenous jurisprudence of equality” (1998) 14 South African Journal on Human Rights 248CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ngwena, C “Accessing abortion services under the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act: Realizing substantive equality” (2000) 25 Journal for Juridical Science 19Google Scholar at 24–30.

57 Haroz, A “South Africa's 1996 Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act: Expanding choice and international human rights to black South African women” (1997) 30 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 863Google Scholar at 873–76.

58 The CTOPA, sec 2(1)(a)f.

59 Id, sec 2(1)(b)(iv).

60 Id, sec 5(3).

61 Id, sec 2(2) as amended by the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act 1 of 2008.

62 Christian Lawyers' Association of South Africa v Minister of Health 1998 (4) SA 1113 (T), where the constitutional validity of CTOPA was upheld; Christian Lawyers' Association v National Minister of Health 2004 (10) BCLR 1086 (T), which upheld the constitutional validity of sec 5(3) of CTOPA which, inter alia, permits a minor, who has the capacity to give informed consent, to terminate a pregnancy without parental approval or consultation. See also: Doctors for Life International v The Speaker of Parliament and Others (2006) 12 BCLR 1399 (CC), where the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 38 of 2004, which had been “passed” with a view to enhancing accessibility to abortion services, was successfully challenged as constitutionally invalid.

63 Ngwena “Conscientious objection and legal abortion”, above at note 52 at 4.

64 Ibid.

65 Engelbrecht, MC et al. “The operation of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act: Some empirical findings” (2000) 23 Curationis 4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 6.

66 Reproductive Health Alliance Public Hearings on the Implementation of the 1996 Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act (2000, Reproductive Health Alliance)Google Scholar at 11.

67 Engelbrecht et al “The operation of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act “, above at note 65.

68 Ngwena “Conscientious objection and legal abortion”, above at note 52 at 9.

69 Debates of the National Assembly Hansard (November 1996) col 4780.

70 During the operation of the Abortion and Sterilization Act, only an average of between 800 and 1,200 mainly white, middle class women “qualified” for legal abortion each year. In contrast, each year an estimated 44,000 mainly black, poor women had recourse to unsafe abortion, resulting in the deaths of 425 women: Strauss, SDoctor, Patient and the Law (2nd ed, 1984, JL van Schaik (Pty) Ltd)Google Scholar at 218.

71 Debates of the National Assembly, above at note 69, col 4780.

72 Ministry of Health Standards and Guidelines, above at note 47.

73 Id at 9.

74 Id at 9.

75 Of the United Nation treaties, Zimbabwe has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted by GA res 2200A (XXI) on 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976), CESCR and CEDAW. Of the regional treaties, it has ratified the African Charter.

76 Rights in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No 20 of 2013 that can potentially support a right to abortion include the following: life (sec 48); liberty (sec 49); dignity (sec 51); freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (sec 53); equality and non-discrimination (sec 56); privacy (sec 57); and freedom of conscience (sec 60).

77 The right to immediate protection of fundamental rights is guaranteed by art 86 of the Colombian Constitution. It is guaranteed to everyone, may be filed before judges at all times and at all places, and must the determined within ten days: Morgan “Emancipatory equality”, above at note 10 at 76.

78 Exodus 20:13.

79 Case T-388/09, above at note 9, paras 5.3 and 5.4; arts 2 and 6 of the Constitution of Colombia.

80 Case id at para 5.3.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.

83 Ibid.

84 Above at note 12.

85 Decision of Colombian Constitutional Court: Case T-209/08 (2008); Cook, R et al. “Healthcare responsibilities and conscientious objection” (2009) 104 International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed at 250–52.

86 Case T-388/09, above at note 9, para 5.1.

87 Hammer, L “Abortion objection in the United Kingdom within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (1999) 6 European Human Rights Law Review 564Google Scholar.

88 African Charter, art 8. See also art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted 4 November 1950 and entered into force 3 September 1950: UNTS No 5; and art 12 of the American Convention on Human Rights, adopted 22 November 1969 and entered into force 18 July 1978: OAS Treaty Series No 36, 1144 UNTS 123.

89 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art 18: GA res 217A (III), UN doc A/810 at 71 (1948).

90 Above at note 75.

91 Human Rights Committee General Comment No 22: CCPR, art 18 on freedom of thought, conscience or religion (30 July 1993): CCPR/C/Rev. 1/Add.4, para 1.

92 Id, paras 3 and 8.

93 Id, para 11.

94 Ibid.

95 Dickens, B and Cook, R “The scope and limits of conscientious objection” (2000) 7 International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 71–72.

96 Case T-388/09, above at note 9, para 5.1.

97 Human Rights Committee General Comment No 22, above at note 91, para 8.

98 Id, para 2.

99 Id, para 8.

100 Dickens and Cook “The scope and limits of conscientious objection”, above at note 95 at 72 and 74–76.

101 Case T-388/09, above at note 9, para 5.1, recalling Case T-209/08, above at note 85.

102 [1988] 3 All ER 1079 (HL).

103 Abortion Act of 1967, sec 4(1).

104 Ngwena “Conscientious objection and legal abortion”, above at note 52 at 15.

105 Morgan “Emancipatory equality”, above at note 10 at 75.

106 Case T-388/09, above at note 9, para 5.2.

107 Ibid.

108 Id, para 5.3.

109 Singh, S et al. Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress (2009, Alan Guttmacher Institute)Google Scholar at 5 and 27–39.

110 Case T-388/09, above at note 9, para 5.1.

111 Ibid.

112 Dickens and Cook “The scope and limits of conscientious objection”, above at note 95 at 73.

113 Committee on CEDAW General Recommendation No 24: Art 12 of the Convention (Women and Health) (1999): A54/38/rev 1, chap 1.

114 Id, para 11.

115 Ibid.

116 Cook and Howard “Accommodating women's differences”, above at note 30 at 1040–48.

117 Albertyn, C “Substantive equality and transformation in South Africa” (2007) 23 South African Journal on Human Rights 253CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Cook and Howard “Accommodating women's differences”, above at note 30 at 1040–41.

119 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment No 14: The right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art 12 of the Covenant) (11 August 2000): E/C12/2000/4, para 12(b).

120 Tysiac v Poland (appln no 5410/03) [2007] 45 EHRR 42; A, B and C v Ireland (appln no 25579/05) [2010] ECHR 2032; RR v Poland (appln no 27617/04) ECHR (2011).

121 KL v Peru (comm no 1153/2003), adopted 24 October 2005, UN GAOR, Human Rights Committee 85th session: UN doc CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005); LC v Peru (comm no 22/2009): CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2011); and LMR v Argentina (comm no. 1608/2007): CCPR/C/101/D/168/2007, Human Rights Committee (2011).

122 Case T-388/09, above at note 9, para 5.1.

123 Cook and Howard “Accommodating women's differences”, above at note 30 at 1040.

124 Id at 1085–87.

125 N Rescher Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus (1993, Oxford University Press) at 2.

126 Id at 2–3.

127 Rawls, JPolitical Liberalism (2005, Columbia University Press)Google Scholar at 131–72.

128 Ibid.

129 Case T-388/09, above at note 9, para 5.1.

130 Rescher Pluralism, above at note 125 at 3–4.

131 Ibid.

132 Nussbaum, MWomen and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (2000, Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 188–89.

133 Dickens and Cook “The scope and limits of conscientious objection”, above at note 95 at 72.

134 Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, adopted 10 June 1998 and entered into force 25 June 2004: OAU doc OAU/LEG/MIN/AFCH/PROT(I) rev 2. Once operational, a new court (the African Court of Justice and Human Rights) will supplant the African court as part of a merger between the African Court and the Court of Justice of the African Union: art 2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights Merging the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, adopted 1 July 2008: Assembly/AU/Dec. 196 (XI).

135 N Lacey “Feminist legal theory and the rights of women” in Knop (ed) Gender and Human Rights, above at note 10, 13 at 40–41.

136 Ibid.

137 Sen, A “Elements of a theory of human rights” (2004) 32 Philosophy and Public Affairs 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 330–33; Nussbaum Women and Human Development, above at note 132.