..But not in the way you might think.

For some time now, abortion rights advocates and other social justice activists have been pushing to bring women’s rights into the rubric of human rights. A Center for Reproductive Rights button that I’ve often seen pinned to jackets and bags at rallies reads: Reproductive Rights are Human Rights. The same could of course be said for women’s rights more broadly — women’s rights are human rights. But the U.S. has been slow to recognize them as such, and has snubbed international human rights bodies (like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) even when it does recognize something as a human right. Women’s rights organizations fight against sexual exploitation and the enslavement of women around the world, again relying on human rights norms.

Which is why it’s so jarring to see radical anti-woman and anti-abortion activists trying to usurp these terms. As Salon’s Broadsheet reported yesterday, “a group of African-American antiabortion activists will be holding three events in the Bay Area this month in support of the idea that “abortion is the Darfur of America.” The leader of the event will be San Francisco’s Walter Hoye, the founder of the Issues4Life Foundation, who calls abortion “the leading cause of death in the African American community.” The rally’s organizers, like George W. Bush and other anti-abortion extremists, also compare abortion to slavery, and Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott. Hoye also likens opposition to reproductive justice and abortion rights to the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. From Broadsheet:

“‘It is not the first time a segment of the community has had their rights denied,’” he’s quoted as saying. “‘It is a civil rights issue because it is dehumanizing and not giving proper status as a citizen. Most people on the opposite side think it is not a person, just like they did during slavery. It is not the first time this country has done something wrong.’”

While I would agree with him that Dred Scott was wrong and that the U.S. has an ugly history of treating Blacks as less than full citizens, that’s where our agreement ends. And it’s worth noting a gaping hole in Hoye’s legal argument. Again from Broadsheet:

I have to admit to being a little confused by the logic here. Are we calling abortion genocide? Or are we saying that fetuses are slaves? Can you have civil rights if you don’t have fingernails? And do either of these comparisons make any sense? It seems as if they share the same general tactic: Think of something really, really bad, and then say it’s like abortion. This could lead to great bumper stickers: “Abortion = Auschwitz.” “Osama Bin Laden [hearts] Planned Parenthood.” “Your Doctor Raped My Fetus.” Attention-grabbers, sure — but not the most logical arguments on the block.

What’s more, Hoye, like so many other anti-woman extremists, not only fights against abortion rights, but also against the comprehensive sex education programs and healthcare reform that could prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, and could bring birth control usage rates among poor communities to levels equaling its use in wealthier areas. So Hoye, again like so many others with whom his views are aligned, pushes a lose-lose situation for women: continued lack of access to information and contraception coupled with an inability to terminate pregnancies that a woman does not want to or cannot bring to term.

And Hoye does all of this in opposition to the NAACP, the Nation’s leading Black civil rights organization. Rev. Amos Brown, the President of the San Francisco NAACP, isn’t mincing words. He says:

“San Francisco’s top civil rights issues are education, economic empowerment and political engagement,” Brown said. “African American students are behind every ethnic group in this city academically. People who are learned and informed do the right thing. If not, they engage in destructive behavior. These pro-life people are demagogues and ideologues…”

The bottom line is that abortion is a civil rights and human rights issue, but not in the ways that Hoye thinks it is. Abortion rights, and related reproductive justice initiatives, protect and advance the civil rights of women in the U.S. An expansion of funding for education and contraception and an end to the Hyde Amendment would ensure that no woman is denied her right to self-determination (a right so central to civil rights) simply because she is poor or because she lives in a certain part of the country or a certain state. If we really care about civil rights and not just the rhetoric surrounding them, this is the side we should be on.

This news item might be the least surprising of the day, but it’s still worth noting.

A Guttmacher Institute report issued today shows that abortions are no less common in countries where the procedure is illegal than in countries where it’s legally sanctioned. No surprise there. Those of us who follow this issue know that women will get abortions whether abortion is legal or not. We saw it in the U.S. before Roe, and we see it now in many countries around the world where abortion remains illegal or inaccessible.*
But illegal abortion is dangerous for women’s health.

Though abortion is very safe when performed in a clean facility by a medical professional, illegal abortions account for 13% of the world’s maternal mortality (see chart). This is especially worrisome given that 97% of unsafe abortions took place in poor countries, where medical care to treat the results of an unsafe abortion is severely lacking. And it affects the vast majority of women in the world, with 9 out of 10 women worldwide seeking abortions before their 45th birthdays.

Today’s report provides yet more proof that if we are really “pro-life,” we must support reproductive freedom and legal abortion. Because nothing is less supportive of life than a policy that ensures that women will die because they cannot obtain safe and clean health care when they need it and want it.

—

* Which is not to say that abortion is accessible in the U.S. Only 13% of American counties have an abortion provider, and several states have laws further restricting the availability of abortion for all women, but especially minors and poor women. But abortion is legal in the U.S.

There are over 1.1 billion Catholics in the world. The lion’s share of those are in South and Central America, where religious observance is high, abortion is often illegal, and rates of birth control use are low. And the Pope isn’t to happy about that. The New York Times reported the other day that the Pope, in a visit to Vienna, called on politicians to help reverse declining birthrates there and in other European countries:

Benedict stressed demographics as he repeated, in a strong multifront attack, the Vatican’s long-held opposition to abortion.

“I appeal, then, to political leaders not to allow children to be considered as a form of illness,” he said in his native German to a gathering of diplomats. “I say this out of concern for humanity. But that is only one side of this disturbing problem.

“The other is the need to do everything possible to make European countries once again open to welcoming children,” he added, in this nation with a low birthrate. “Encourage young married couples to establish new families and to become mothers and fathers! You will not only assist them, but you will benefit society as a whole.”

He further said that children should not “be considered a form of illness.” We can all recognize that birthrates in Europe are declining. Italy’s birthrate is at an all-time low. And religious observance is on the wane in countries that have long been among the most staunchly Catholic in the world. The Pope is right to say that Catholicism “profoundly shaped the [European] continent.”

But what makes me uncomfortable is what he said next: that Europe’s embracing of legalized abortion and rejection of Catholic teachings regarding birth control could threaten the continent’s existence, leaving a world where Catholicism predominates not in traditionally white European countries but in Latin American countries that are devout in the way Europe used to be.

While praying in the shadows of Vienna’s holocaust memorial, the Pope called out abortion as the threat to European humanity. Might that have been a good moment to talk instead about the horrors of genocide, and perhaps to bring up Rwanda or Darfur? Or to highlight the importance of universal healthcare in healing the ill and ensuring a society that respects its citizens? Seems to me like a real missed opportunity.

(h/t Sheila)