CC BY
6МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ И ЕВРОПЕЙСКОЕ
ПРАВО
DOI 10.24412/cl-37234-2024-1-11-22
THE LIMITATIONS TO THE RIGHT OF ABORTION DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC: HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES
N. Abgaryan, M. Gevorgyan
Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University Institute of Law and Politics (ILP) [email protected], mariagevorgyanlaw @gmail. com
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed the modern world and the sphere of human rights was not an exception. While before 2020 some rights guaranteed under IHR were considered either non-derogable or their limitations were acceptable in isolated cases during the pandemic, many countries faced the necessity of human rights limitations that were justified with the argument of not threatening the life of the nation. The limitations posed on the right to abortion are nowadays considered an example of a debatable restriction.
This paper will concentrate on different limitations imposed on the right to abortion within the period between 2020 and 2022 when the COVID-19 virus was widely spread throughout the world. Limitations on the right to abortion will be considered in light of Article 2 of the ECHR and Article 6 of the IC-CPR. At the same time, some other human rights that could have possibly been violated under the abortion ban will be considered.
Keywords: Abortion, Covid-19, human rights, right to life.
The outbreak of COVID-19 aggravated tensions between the possible limitations of individual rights and freedoms and the protection of public health1. One of the most prominent examples of these tensions concerns human rights in the area of reproductive health. Acute and emergency maternal and reproductive health services may take the biggest hit: life-saving treatments including caesarean sections and abortions can be postponed due to a shortage of personnel2. Lack of infrastructure mostly concerns operating and hospital wards. However, in addition to organizational challenges within the healthcare services, medical workers themselves can get sick, suffer from stress, and, undoubtedly, burn out due to the shortage of personnel which threatens their ability to
1 World Health Organization. What is a pandemic? World Health Organization 2010. Available from: https://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/pan-demic/en/ (accessed Oct. 29, 2022).
2 Hayes L.J., O'Brien-Pallas L., Duffield C., Shamian J., Buchan J., Hughes F. et al. Nurse turnover: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2006; 43(2): 237-63.
provide proper medical care3.
Recent public health emergencies have shown that access to safe abortion may not always be available during crises4. According to the evaluation provided by the family-planning organization Marie Stopes International "there could have been up to 2.7 million extra unsafe abortions performed as a consequence of COVID-19"5. As the crisis demands the reorganization of hospitals to deal with the pandemic, under certain circumstances it becomes necessary to delay the timing of abortion. However, gender-neutral emergency regulations take advantage of the situation by limiting or even derogating from certain human rights.
Poland, for instance, had taken advantage of the lockdown to discuss a ban on abortion in case of foetal abnormality6, however, as time proved, the anti-abortion ruling was made by came from the country’s politically compromised7 Constitutional Tribunal, which held that abortion because of “severe and irreversible foetal defect or incurable illness that threatens the foetus’s life” was unconstitutional. The Tribunal approved the abortion rollback after the executive branch had failed8 to push it through parliament, which indicates that the pandemic was just a good excuse for restricting the right to abortion. Currently, polish legislation prohibits abortion, unless the pregnancy threatens a pregnant person’s life or health, or is a result of rape or incest. Even in such circumstances, considerable barriers are still present, thus, the requirement to show a proof of rape makes it almost impossible for rape survivors to obtain abortions, including people who have fled the war in neighbouring Ukraine9.
3 Montgomery A., Todorova I., Baban A, Panagopoulou E. Improving quality and safety in the hospital: the link between organizational culture, burnout, and quality of care. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18(3): 656-62.
4 Julia Hussein (2020) COVID-19: What implications for sexual and reproductive health and rights globally? Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 28:1, 1746065, DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2020.1746065
5 Women are most affected by pandemics - lessons from past outbreaks. 2020. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02006-z (accessed Nov. 1, 2022).
6 Sebastian Shukla and Alex Klosok, Poland debates abortion bill amid coronavirus lockdown (CNN, 16 Apr., 2020), https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/15/world/poland-abortion-law-intl/index.html (accessed Nov. 1, 2022).
7 Poland’s body reviewing judicial nominations is illegal, rules European human rights court
2021. Available from: https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/11/08/polands-body-reviewing-judi-cial-nominations-is-illegal-rules-european-human-rights-court/ (accessed Nov. 1, 2022).
8 Constitutional court ends almost all legal abortion in Poland 2020. Available from: https://notesfrompoland.com/2020/10/22/constitutional-court-ruling-ends-almost-all-le-gal-abortion-in-poland/ (accessed Nov. 1, 2022).
9 Human Rights Watch. Two Years On, Poland’s Abortion Crackdowns and the Rule of Law
2022. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/22/two-years-polands-abor-tion-crackdowns-and-rule-law#:~:text=The%20tribunal's%20decision%20elimina-ted%20one,result%20of%20rape%20or%20incest. (accessed Nov. 1, 2022).
In Russia, after country’s Minister of Health statement10 that planned non-urgent operations should be deferred to prevent hospital overcrowding as part of the state’s Covid-19 response, many Moscow hospitals suspended the provision of legal abortion, that is confirmed by the surveys of Nasiliu.net. Thus, only 3 hospitals out of 44 agreed to carry out the procedure. Furthermore, according to the explanation of the Moscow health department, restrictions do not apply to cancer and certain other diseases11, but nothing had been said about abortion which is time-sensitive, essential health care that cannot be postponed12. A point to note is that this issue was not only limited to Moscow, various regions of Russia have also restricted access to safe abortion care: it was almost impossible to get an abortion during the pandemic and it was also clear that for persons without emergency indications for hospitalisation, the process dragged on regardless of the duration of pregnancy13. The majority of states demonstrated a similar trend14. For example, many clinics in Texas (USA) were closed after the adoption of the restrictive set of laws15. Even where the laws had been successfully challenged before the Supreme Court16, several clinics could not have been reopened after the abolition of the law17. The abortion ban in a geographically large state such as Texas posed significant obstacles for women since they would have to travel to another state to gain access to legal and safe abortion.
10 Murashko: non-urgent planned operations will be postponed in Russia. Available from: https://ria-m.translate.goog/20200330/1569331584.html?xtrsl=en&xtrtl=m&xtrhl=ru&x-trpto=wapp (accessed Nov. 2, 2022).
11 Human Rights Watch. Denying Women Abortion Access in Moscow 2020. Available
from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/28/denying-women-abortion-access-moscow
(accessed Nov. 2, 2022).
12 National Women’s Law Center, 2021 Issue Brief: Access to Abortion During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Recession. P.1.
13 Karina Merkuryeva, “Improving the Demographics”: Hospitals Refuse to Provide Abortion. Radio Svoboda, 2020. Available from: https://www.svoboda.org/a730630592.html (accessed Nov.2, 2022).
14 The Guardian. States use coronavirus to ban abortions, leaving women desperate: “You can’t pause a pregnancy”. April 30, 2020. Available from: https://www.theguard-ian.com/world/2020/apr/30/us-states-ban-abortions-coronavirus-leave-women-desperate (accessed Dec. 1, 2022).
15 Executive order GA 09 by the Governor of the state of Texas “Relating to hospital capacity
during the COVID-19 disaster”. March 22, 2020. Available from: https://gov.te-
xas.gov/uploads/files/press/EO-GA_09_COVID-19_hospital_capacity_IMAGE_03-22-2020.pdf (accessed Dec. 1, 2022).
16 Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016) Available from: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274 (accessed Dec. 1, 2022).
17 The Texas Tribune. Texas clinics resume abortion services as state acknowledges ban is no longer in place. April 2020, 2020. Available from: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/-04/22/texas-abortions-coronavirus-ban/ (accessed Dec. 1, 2022).
However, in all fairness, signs of liberalization are also present: thus, there are countries that initiated or implemented policy or protocol changes that facilitated access to abortion. Typical examples of such countries are France18, Ireland19, UK20, where a fully telemedical model of abortion care with consultations taking place via telephone or video call and medications delivered to home was established. As a result, women seeking an abortion during the coronavirus outbreak would not need to visit general practitioners in most cases.
Despite positive cases of efforts by states to protect access to abortion, this article concentrates on the question of legitimacy of the above-mentioned restrictions. As the research shows, obstacles caused by restrictive laws or administrative demands to access abortion services, in conjunction with the rise of domestic vio-lence21, make it highly difficult to access this essential health care and may put human lives and health at risk, violating human rights, thus demanding an adequate legal response22. It is a necessity to recognize abortion as essential health care to ensure that person can safely access it. An important reason why certain public authorities and professional organizations could limit access to abortion services is that reproductive rights are still rarely recognized as human rights. None of the international judicial bodies has expressly recognized the right to abortion as a basic human right, although some have come close to such statements. While the European Court of Human Rights has concluded that violations of domestic abortion laws amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment violating Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it has so far refused to recognize the right to abortion under the European human rights system.
It must be emphasized that none of the basic human rights instruments explicitly
18 Haute Autorite de Sante. Interruption Volontaire de Grossesse (IVG) medicamenteuse a la 8eme et a la 9eme semaine d’amenorrhee (SA) hors milieu hospitalier. Saint-Denis La Plaine: HAS. April 2020.
19 Houses of the Oireachtas. Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Bill 2020: Committee and Remaining Stages. Dail Eireann debate. 2020; Vol. 992 No. 4.
20 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Abortion care. NICE guideline [NG140], 2019. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng140 (accessed Dec. 2, 2022).
21 Peterman, A. et al. Pandemics and Violence Against Women and Children: Working Paper 528 (Center for Global Development, 2020).
22 Human Rights Watch. Europe: Abortion Curbs Endanger Women, Girls in Pandemic. 2020. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/08/europe-abortion-curbs-en-danger-women-girls-pandemic (accessed Nov. 2, 2022).
concern the issue of abortion, let alone determining the abortion: neither the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights23 nor the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights include the term. Abortion is commonly defined as the ‘intentional termination of pregnancy with reasonable knowledge that such termination will cause death of the embryo (embryos and embryonic stem cells) or foetus’24.
On the other hand, there is insufficient opinio juris to claim the existence of customary rule25: there is no general right to abortion under customary international law, moreover, there is no rule prohibiting abortion. However, there is a customary rule and general principle of law under which “the option of abortion must be offered to a pregnant woman or girl whose life is in imminent threat or will be in grave peril if she takes the pregnancy to the full term”26. To act otherwise is to violate the jus cogens prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life. A right to be granted access to abortion in case of either incest or rape, as well as in cases whereby a person has a fatal foetal abnormality, is probably de lege ferenda but is much less outlined due to the lack of opinio juris27.
In the interpretation of the right to life under ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee in General Comment 36 found that although State parties may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary termination of pregnancy, those measures must not result in a violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl, or her other rights under the Covenant. Thus, restrictions on the ability of women or girls to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives, making them subject to physical or mental pain or suffering that violates article 7 of the Covenant, discriminate against them, or arbitrarily interfere with their privacy28. Under the Covenant, State parties may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary termination of pregnancy but restrictions must not undermine the very substance of the right to life. Thus, State parties are urged to provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion where the life and health of a pregnant woman or a girl are at risk, or where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause substantial pain or suffering, especially where
23 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; approved by UN General Assembly Resolution 217 A, adopted on 10 December 1948.
24 Oxford Constitutional Law. Radhika Rao. Abortion. 2016. Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Comparative Constitutional law. P.1.
25 Casey-Maslen S, & Heyns C. (2021). The Right to Life under International Law. In The Right to Life under International Law: An Interpretative Manual (pp. I-Ii). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 292.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 36 on the right to life, para. 8.
pregnancy is a result of rape or incest or where pregnancy is not viable29. Furthermore, it must be noted that in all other cases, it is unacceptable to regulate pregnancy or abortion in a way that runs contrary to the duty to ensure that women and girls do not have to resort to unsafe abortions30; the restrictions on the possibility of obtaining a legal abortion must neither jeopardise the lives but nor subject person to physical or mental pain or suffering that violates article 7 of the Covenant, discriminate against them or arbitrarily interfere with their privacy31.
In this context, attention may also be drawn to the General Recommendation 35 of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, issued in 2017, stating that violations of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, in particular denial and delay of safe abortion and post-abortion care, and forced continuation of pregnancy “are forms of gender-based violence that, depending on the circumstances, may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”32.
Referring to the restrictive measures, attention should be paid to the position of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the definition “other public emergency threatening the life of the nation” as “an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency which affects the whole population and constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community of which the State is composed”33. The Court found that the emergency must be “actual or imminent34. The criterion of the imminent nature of the emergency is of key importance for a pandemic situation since permits states to take early restrictive measures and derogations to prevent any of the more dangerous consequences. There is no longer any doubt that the COVID-19 crisis fits within those criteria, with an actual and imminent threat (depending on the country) to all individuals” right to health and right to life35.
Nevertheless, state powers have limitations: international human rights conventions outline conditions under which derogation to human rights can be applied. In
29 Mellet v. Ireland (CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013), paras. 7.4-7.8; CCPR/C/IRL/CO/4, para. 9.
30 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 28 (2000) on the equality of rights between men and women, para. 10. See also, e.g., CCPR/C/ARG/CO/4, para. 13; CCPRC/J-AM/CO/3, para. 14.
31 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 36 on the right to life, para. 8.
32 CCPR/C/USA/CO/4, para. 11; CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev. 1, para. 30.
33 ECHR. Lawless v. Ireland (1961), §28.
34 Deemed to be the authentic one in the “Greek case”: ECHR. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands v. Greece (1969), §122.
35 Lebret A. COVID-19 pandemic and derogation to human rights. J Law Biosci. 2020 May 4;7(1): lsaa015. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa015. PMID: 32728461; PMCID: PMC7239178.
addition to the requirement of notification36, the implementation of derogatory measures shall meet certain criteria. First, states may not derogate from non-derogable rights, among which are the right to life37, prohibition of torture and ill-treatment38, and prohibition of slavery39- Second, concerning other rights, Article 15 of the ECHR states that derogating measures must be “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation” and “not inconsistent with states other obligations under international law”. The strict necessity involves a demonstration of the close connection between the situation and the measures and that less stringent measures would be inefficient.
It is vital to consider that if measures adopted by legislators or governments in the COVID-19 context affect everyone, they can especially harm vulnerable groups40. In this context, it is important to adequately assess what is “strict necessity”. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights encourages that ‘all restrictions or suspensions are based on the best scientific evidence41. And if earlier it was increasingly difficult to evaluate the adequacy of the restrictions and their proportionality, now given the current knowledge of COVID-19, it is possible to give a legal assessment of the adopted measures. Vulnerability is a social construct, which is supposed to be taken into account by states to embrace greater equality between people42.
Some measures adopted by the states (see above), run counter to the recommendations of leading physician experts, according to whom abortion is: “a time-sensitive service for which a delay of several weeks, or in some cases days, may
36 Article 4(1) ICCPR requires an official recognition of the emergency in the country that intends to use derogation. See also General Comment no 29-States of emergency (Article 4), §2. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11. Concerning the ACHR, in Zambrano Velez et al. v. Ecuador (2007), the Inter-American Court found that failure to comply with this duty to inform implies the failure to comply with the obligation contained in Article 27(3).
37 Article 2 ECHR, Article 6 ICCPR.
38 Article 3 ECHR, Article 7 ICCPR.
39 Article 4 ECHR (slavery and forced labour), Article 8 ICCPR (slavery, servitude, but not including forced labour).
40 “The particular effects [their restrictions or suspensions of rights] may have on the most vulnerable groups, in order to ensure that the impact is not disproportionate, and take such affirmative measures as may be necessary. Any decision or measure taken in this context must take gender, intersectional, linguistic and intercultural perspectives particularly into account”// IACHR, Pandemic and Human Rights in the Americas, Resolution 1/2020, 10 Apr., 2020, § 3(g), § 27.
41 General Comment no 29-States of emergency (article 4), §2. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, §27.
42 Lourdes Peroni and Alexandra Timmer, Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law, 11 International // Journal of Constitutional Law, 1056 (2013).
increase the risks or potentially make it completely inaccessible”43. Complication rates from abortions climb higher as time in pregnancy passes. Related mortality is 0.1 per 100,000 procedures through eight weeks of gestation but rises to 8.9 per 100,000 at 21 weeks and above44. Restrictions on abortions frequently drive pregnant people toward pursuing unsafe and dangerous alternatives that have significant negative health consequences. Late-term abortions also limit the number of physicians trained to provide the procedure, further restricting access. Furthermore, as stated earlier, abortion is time sensitive procedure and delays in performing abortions lead to the excision of the legal period of viability, thereby depriving a person the ability to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy and bear its attendant risk - forced to continue a pregnancy and undergo childbirth, the patient will incur a risk of death that is 14 times higher than that of abortion itself45.
It would therefore seem important to analyse the anti-abortion groups’ claims that abortion often leads to complications that end with the patient needing care in the emergency department. According to research, the major complication rate (hospital admission, surgery, or transfusion) from a first-trimester aspiration (surgical) abortion is 0.16 percent46. Forcing a pregnant person to continue an undesired pregnancy does not achieve the expressed aims of these executive orders limiting health care to essential procedures. It is important to consider that pregnancy requires intensive prenatal care, which includes extensive use of medical resources, in particular, personal protective equipment (PPE). Studies show that an uncomplicated patient with a first pregnancy is typically scheduled for a visit every four weeks until 28 weeks of gestation. In addition, pregnancy may take urgent visits to the labour floor, calls to nursing staff or on-call residents, pharmacy visits to pick up medications, ultrasounds, and routine blood draws for laboratory testing. Surgical abortions are typically brief, day procedures requiring minimal numbers of staff and PPE. As
43 On March 18, 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in collaboration with other leading groups of obstetrician-gynaecologists, issued a statement about abortion during the COVID-19 outbreak // Available from: https://www.acog.o-rg/news/news-releases/2020/03/joint-statement-on-abortion-access-during-the-covid-19-outbreak (accessed Nov. 12, 2022).
44 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin № 135: Second-Trimester Abortion. June 2013. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clini-cal-guidance/practice-bulletin/articles/2013/06/second-trimester-abortion (accessed Nov. 12, 2022).
45 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion Number 815. December 2020. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidan-ce/practice-bulletin/articles/2013/06/second-trimester-abortion (accessed Nov. 12, 2022).
46 Obstetrics & Gynecology: January 2015,Volume 125, Issue 1. PP. 175-183. doi: 10.1-097/AOG.0000000000000603.
regards medical abortions, after an initial in-person visit, the procedure can be completed at home with telemedicine-based follow-up. This also demonstrates the limitations of the arguments that the suspension of abortion will allow the diversion of a substantial amount of PPE, medical chambers, or other necessary resources to providers treating COVID-19 patients. Consequently, postponing abortions during the pandemic lacks a legislative basis since this will lead to a rise in late-term abortions and pregnancies, which in turn require more intensive use of providers, resources, and protective equipment. Thus, the anti-abortion groups’ affirmations are simply not based on any credible research.
The invoked examples indicate the existence of the pragmatic approach to access legal abortions amid the pandemic. However, a public health crisis cannot be used as a pretext to legitimate unnecessary derogations to the right to abortion. States, as noted earlier, must refrain from measures that force a person to seek and perform illegal abortions and in all cases, protect the individual against any risks related to unsafe abortions in this manner. Some States postponed possible alternative solutions by adopting restrictive measures to provide a safe abortion, thereby forcing pregnant people to seek illegal abortions, putting at risk their lives and physical and mental health. The most recent estimates indicate that in developing countries alone, 7 million women per year were treated in hospital facilities for complications of unsafe abortions47. Risks associated with unsafe abortion include complications such as infection, heavy bleeding, and loss of life. Each year, 7.9% of maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortion48. In developed regions, it is estimated that 30 women die per every 100 000 unsafe abortions. In developing regions, that number rises to 220 deaths per 100 000 unsafe abortions49. Thus, some government’s actions (see above) in imposing restrictions on access to legal abortions run contrary to their duty to ensure that pregnant people do not have to undertake unsafe abortions. Furthermore, governments’ actions in conjunction with the above figures demonstrate a strong possibility of violation of the right to life, the suspension of which ‘is irrelevant to the legitimate control of the state of national emergency50. Instead, the regulation should be aimed to facilitate access to safe abortion in all
47 Singh S., Maddow-Zimet I. Facility-based treatment for medical complications resulting from unsafe pregnancy termination in the developing world, 2012: a review of evidence from 26 countries. BJOG 2015; published online Aug 19. DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13552.
48 Say L., Chou D., Gemmill A., Tungalp O., Moller A.B., Daniels J. et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun; 2(6):e323-33.
49 Ganatra B., Gerdts C., Rossier C., Johnson Jr. B. R., Tuncalp O., Assifi A. et al. Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010-14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. The Lancet. September 2017.
50 General Comment 23, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1.Add.6, para 10.
cases, especially in a time of crisis when the pandemic puts people in a very stressful position. The experience of the above-mentioned countries that established telemedicine abortion shows that there is an opportunity to achieve minimising visits to medical facilities without severe restrictions. Moreover, the study’s results suggest that this option works well for people seeking access to abortion and healthcare pro-viders51. The implementation of telemedicine abortion has contributed to the recognition of abortion as essential and time-sensitive healthcare. Such actions taken by the governments during the pandemic constitute a right-based approach to abortion care and set the stage for a legislative review process focused on pregnant people’s needs with the aim of expanding access to safe abortion care in law and practice.
REFERENCES
1. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin № 135: Second-Trimester Abortion. June 2013. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidan-ce/practice-bulletin/articles/2013/06/second-trimester-abortion (accessed Nov. 12, 2022).
2. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion Number 815. December 2020. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/pra-ctice-bulletin/articles/2013/06/second-trimester-abortion (accessed Nov. 12, 2022).
3. Casey-Maslen, S., &Heyns. (2021). The Right to Life under International Law. In The Right to Life under International Law: An Interpretative Manual (pp. I-Ii). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 292.
4. Constitutional court ends almost all legal abortion in Poland 2020. Available from: https://notesfrompoland.com/2020/10/22/constitutional-court-ruling-ends-almost-all-legal-abortion-in-poland/ (accessed Nov. 1, 2022).
5. ECHR. Lawless v. Ireland (1961), § 28.
6. ECHR. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands v. Greece (1969), §122.
7. Executive order GA 09 by the Governor of the state of Texas ‘Relating to hospital capacity during the COVID-19 disaster’. March 22, 2020. Available from: https://gov.texas.gov/up-loads/files/press/EO-GA_09_COVID-19_hospital_capacity_IMAGE_03-22-2020.pdf (accessed Dec. 1, 2022).
8. General Comment no 29-States of emergency (article 4), §2. CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 11, §27.
9. Human Rights Committee, General Comment 36 on the right to life, para. 8.
10. Human Rights Watch.Europe: Abortion Curbs Endanger Women, Girls in Pandemic. 2020. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/08/europe-abortion-curbs-endanger-women-girls-pandemic (accessed Nov. 2, 2022).
11. Human Rights Watch. Denying Women Abortion Access in Moscow 2020. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/28/denying-women-abortion-access-moscow (accessed Nov. 2, 2022).
12. Houses of the Oireachtas. Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Bill 2020: Committee and Remaining Stages. Dail Eireann debate. 2020; Vol. 992 No. 4.
51 Lohr P.A., Lewandowska M., Meiksin R., et al. Should COVID-specific arrangements for abortion continue? The views of women experiencing abortion in Britain during the pandemic BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health 2022; 48: 288-294.
13. Haute Autorite de Sante. Interruption Volontaire de Grossesse (IVG) medicamenteuse a la 8eme et a la 9eme semaine d’amenorrhee (SA) hors milieu hospitalier. Saint-Denis La Plaine: HAS. April 2020.
14. Human Rights Watch. Two Years On, Poland’s Abortion Crackdowns and the Rule of Law 2022. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/22/two-years-polands-abortion-crackdowns-and-rule-law#:~:text=The%20tribunars%20decision%20elimi-nated%20one,result%20of%20rape%20or%20incest. (accessed Nov. 1, 2022).
15. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 28 (2000) on the equality of rights between men and women, para. 10. See also, e.g., CCPR/C/ARG/CO/4, para. 13; CCPR/C/JAM/CO-/3, para. 14.
16. Hayes L.J., O’Brien-Pallas L, Duffield C, Shamian J, Buchan J, Hughes F., et al. Nurse turnover: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2006;43(2): 237-63.
17. Julia Hussein (2020) COVID-19: What implications for sexual and reproductive health and rights globally? Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 28:1, 1746065, DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2020.1746065
18. KarinaMerkuryeva, “Improving the Demographics”: Hospitals Refuse to Provide Abortion. Radio Svoboda, 2020. Available from: https://www.svoboda.org/a/30630592.html (accessed Nov.2, 2022).
19. Lebret A. COVID-19 pandemic and derogation to human rights. J Law Biosci. 2020 May 4;7 (1):lsaa015. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa015. PMID: 32728461; PMCID: PMC7239178.
20. Peroni L. and Timmer A., Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law, 11 International Journal of Constitutional Law, 1056 (2013).
21. Montgomery A., Todorova I., Baban A., Panagopoulou E. Improving quality and safety in the hospital: the link between organizational culture, burnout, and quality of care. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18(3):656-62.
22. Murashko: non-urgent planned operations will be postponed in Russia. Available from:
23. https://ria-ru.translate.goog/20200330/1569331584.html?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=-ru&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp (accessed Nov. 2, 2022).
24. Mellet v. Ireland (CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013), paras. 7.4-7.8; CCPR/C/IRL/CO/4, para. 9.
25. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Abortion care. NICE guideline [NG140], 2019. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng140 (accessed Dec. 2, 2022).
26. National Women’s Law Center, 2021 Issue Brief: Access to Abortion During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Recession.
27. Oxford Constitutional Law. Radhika Rao. Abortion. 2016. Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Comparative Constitutional law. P. 1.
28. Obstetrics & Gynecology: January 2015, Volume 125, Issue 1. PP. 175-183
29. Poland’s body reviewing judicial nominations is illegal, rules European human rights court 2021. Available from: https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/11/08/polands-body-reviewing-judicial-nominations-is-illegal-rules-european-human-rights-court/ (accessed Nov. 1, 2022).
30. Peterman A. et al. Pandemics and Violence Against Women and Children: Working Paper 528 (Center for Global Development, 2020).
31. Singh S., Maddow-Zimet I. Facility-based treatment for medical complications resulting from unsafe pregnancy termination in the developing world, 2012: a review of evidence from 26 countries. BJOG 2015; published online Aug 19.
32. SayL., Chou D., GemmillA., Tungalp O., MollerA.B., Daniels J. et al. Global causes ofmatemal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun; 2(6):e PP. 323-333.
33. Sebastian Shukla and Alex Klosok, Poland debates abortion bill amid coronavirus lockdown (CNN, 16 Apr., 2020), https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/15/world/poland-abortion-law-intl/index.html (accessed Nov. 1, 2022).
34. The Guardian. States use coronavirus to ban abortions, leaving women desperate: “You can’t
pause a pregnancy”. April 30, 2020. Available from: https://www.theguar-
dian.com/world/2020/apr/30/us-states-ban-abortions-coronavirus-leave-women-desperate (accessed Dec. 1, 2022).
35. The Texas Tribune. “Texas clinics resume abortion services as state acknowledges ban is no longer in place”. April 2020, 2020. Available from: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/04-/22/texas-abortions-coronavirus-ban/ (accessed Dec. 1, 2022).
36. Universal Declaration of Human Rights; approved by UN General Assembly Resolution 217 A, adopted on 10 December 1948.
37. United Nations (General Assembly). 1966. “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” Treaty Series 999 (December): 171.
38. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582, (2016).
39. World Health Organization. What is a pandemic? World Health Organization 2010. Available from: https://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/pandemic-/en/ (accessed Oct. 29, 2022).
ОГРАНИЧЕНИЕ ПРАВА НА АБОРТ В ПЕРИОД ПАНДЕМИИ COVID-19: ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВ ЧЕЛОВЕКА
Н.Г. Абгарян, М.Г. Геворгян
Российско-Армянский (Славянский) университет Институт права и политики (ИПП)
АННОТАЦИЯ
Пандемия COVID-19 существенно изменила современный мир, и сфера прав человека не стала исключением. Если до 2020 г. некоторые права, гарантированные МППЧ, считались либо не допускающими ограничений, либо их ограничение допускалось в отдельных случаях во время пандемии, то теперь многие государства столкнулись с необходимостью ограничения прав человека, что оправдывалось существующей угрозой жизни нации. В данной статье рассматриваются различные ограничения права на аборт в период с 2020 по 2022 год, когда коронавирусная инфекция широко распространилась по всему миру. Ограничение права на аборт рассматривается в контексте статьи 2 ЕКПЧ и статьи 6 МПГПП. В то же время в статье рассматриваются иные права, которые могли быть нарушены в результате установления запретов и ограничений на аборты.
Ключевые слова: аборт, Covid-19, права человека, право на жизнь.
