Polskie veto dla deklaracji ONZ o dostępie do "zdrowia reprodukcyjnego łącznie z dostępem do metod planowania rodziny", czyli m.in. prawa i dostępu do aborcji.
Ostatnia sesja Rady Gospodarczej i Społecznej Narodów Zjednoczonych (ECOSOC), która odbyła się tydzień temu w Genewie, była najważniejszym spotkaniem ONZ dotyczącym zdrowia publicznego w 2009 r. Jej podstawowym zadaniem była ocena realizacji tzw. Milenijnych Celów Rozwoju. Jednym z nich jest ograniczenie zbyt wysokiej na świecie umieralności okołoporodowej kobiet, związanej często ze źle przeprowadzonymi nielegalnymi aborcjami. Chodzi tu, przede wszystkim, o kobiety w Afryce, niektórych krajach Azji i Ameryki Południowej.
Proponowana deklaracja w sprawie "zdrowia reprodukcyjnegołącznie z dostępem do metod planowania rodziny” nie stanowi prawa w krajach członkowskich ONZ, a wytycza jedynie ogólne kierunki działania.
Wszystkie kraje członkowskie opowiedziały się „za”, przeciwko deklaracji, poza Polską, głosowały tylko Irlandia i Malta. Ale tylko Polska jest członkiem ECOSOC i to dzięki jej głosowi deklaracja została odrzucona.
Polskie Ministerstwo zdrowia tłumaczy postawę polskiej delegacji obowiązywaniem w Polsce antyaborcyjnej ustawy, w związku z czym polska delegacja nie mogła postąpić wbrew wewnętrznemu prawu swojego kraju.
Katolickie media w Polsce i na świecie (np. w USA) z satysfakcją obwieściły triumf katolickiej moralności:
"Aborcyjna ofensywa odparta. Dzięki Polsce. Była to reakcja na wielką ofensywę aborcyjną zmierzającą do zdefiniowania zabijania nienarodzonych jako prawa człowieka i usługi medycznej"(dziennikarz katolicki Tomasz Terlikowski, Fronda.pl.
Tym sposobem, po raz kolejny Polska potwierdziła prowadzenie oficjalnej polityki przeciwko prawom kobiet, wbrew stanowisku UE. Rzecznik rządu RP oświadczył, że Polska może zaakceptować wspólne stanowisko UE w dziedzinie zdrowia reprodukcyjnego pod warunkiem wyłączenia z niego kwestii zgody na aborcję na innych warunkach, niż w polskim prawie (zagrożenie życia lub zdrowia matki, ciężkie uszkodzenia płodu, ciąża w wyniku czynu kryminalnego).
Polski katolicki fundamentalizm zamierza narzucać politykę antyaborcyjną również poza granicami Polski, także w krajach, gdzie międzynarodowe standardy zdrowia reprodukcyjnego mogłyby uratować życie milionów kobiet.
Misja narzucania światu tzw. „wartości chrześciajńskich” stoi w jaskrawej sprzeczności z wartościami demokratycznymi, z pełnią praw obywtelskich dla kobiet, w tym z prawem kobiet do stanowienia o własnym ciele oraz do dostępu do zdrowia reprodukcyjnego.
W przypadku Unii Europejskiej oznacza to przyzwolenie na przekreślenie zdobyczy, które kobiety europejskie wywalczyły w trudnej i długiej walce o swoje prawa. Bez nich demokracja w Unii Europejskiej jest pustym frazesem.
Podpisz poniższy list domagający się zniesienia restrykcji Google wobec reklamy usług aborcyjnych, doradztwa w sprawie aborcji i innych szczegółów związanych z aborcją:
(list niedługo będzie dostępny w języku polskim)
June 24, 2009
Google Inc. Legal Department
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
Google AdWords, Google Ann Arbor
201 S. Division St., Suite 500
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
To: The Google AdWords Team and the Google Inc. Legal Department
Re: Google AdWords Advertising Policy Update: Restricting Advertisements that Promote Abortion Services
We are writing on behalf of Women on Waves (“WOW”), a non-profit organization providing health services and sexual education to prevent unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortions, and the Health Equity and Law Clinic, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, an academic clinic specializing in reproductive and sexual health law and policy. This letter concerns a change to Google Adwords policy respecting the advertising of abortion services.
On September 17, 2008, WOW received notice of a Google AdWords Advertising Policy Update (“Revised Policy”).[ii][i] Under the Revised Policy, Google AdWords will:
no longer accept ads that promote abortion services and that target any of the following countries: Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Spain, or Taiwan. 'Abortion services' include, but are not limited to, abortion clinics and abortion counselors.
While we acknowledge much consideration was given to your decision on the advertising of abortion services and the potential effect of the Revised Policy, we request the policy be reviewed for the following reasons:
1. The effects of the Revised Policy for persons other than Adwords advertisers. We are concerned about the adverse effect of the Revised Policy for women seeking safe and lawful abortion services. By restricting access to information, the Revised Policy may contribute to unsafe abortion in a manner inconsistent with human rights principles.
2. The justification for the Revised Policy. We understand that Google may refuse or terminate any advertisement at any time and for any reason. Given the adverse impact of the Revised Policy on human rights to safe abortion, a reasoned justification in this instance is warranted but lacking.
We believe these reasons merit the rescission of the Revised Policy.
Google plays an important role in the protection of human rights. Through participation in the Global Network Initiative and other programs, Google has demonstrated its commitment to protect access to information as a human right consistent with internationally recognized laws and standards. These include the human rights outlined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[iii][ii] among other international treaties.
Given the impact of the Revised Policy on human rights to safe abortion, we respectfully request the policy be reviewed and rescinded. If following your review, Google decides there are reasons to maintain the Revised Policy we request these reasons be publicly disclosed. Justification for the Revised Policy avoids an adverse inference that Google is acting without concern for the human rights impact of its policies.
1. The Adverse Impact of the Revised Policy on Human Rights to Safe Abortion
We are concerned about the adverse effect of the Revised Policy for women seeking safe and lawful abortion services. By restricting access to information, the Revised Policy may contribute to unsafe abortion in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized human rights.
Unsafe abortion is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. Every year an estimated seventy thousand women die and five million more women suffer with disability from unsafe abortion.[iv][iii] Many women who resort to unsafe abortion live in countries where abortion is lawful under certain conditions, such as where necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to protect her physical and mental health. Women resort to unsafe abortion because they cannot access safe services to which they are lawfully entitled within the health system.[v][iv] Unsafe abortion is a consequence of access barriers to safe and lawful services.
Access to health services without discrimination is an essential component of the rights to health and equality under international law.[vi][v] Women’s right to health includes an entitlement to access services specific to their health needs. It is discriminatory under international law to restrict the promotion or provision of appropriate health services for women, including those related to reproductive health, and to obstruct action taken by women in pursuit of their health goals.[vii][vi] Given the Revised Policy restricts advertising on abortion services, sex-specific health care, its adverse impact is borne exclusively by women thereby raising equality concerns.
Access to information – the right to seek, receive and impart information on health issues – is a key determinant of access to health care.[viii][vii] This is especially true respecting access to abortion services. Many women seek unsafe abortion because they lack access to information on the legal status of abortion and the availability of services.
Women and health providers in many countries are uninformed about the legal status of abortion, the conditions under which it is lawful.[ix][viii] Many wrongly believe that abortion is prohibited by criminal law in all circumstances. Despite satisfying the conditions for lawful abortion, women are unfairly denied services and/or seek unsafe services in clandestine settings.[x][ix]
The stigmatization of abortion, attributable in part to its criminal regulation, also deters women from inquiring about the availability of services. Women may be reluctant to request services for fear of health provider judgment or refusal, and public disclosure and retribution from families and communities. Many women for this reason do not consult their regular health providers and seek care outside their communities. They are without traditional sources of health information. Recognizing the vulnerability of women seeking inter-jurisdictional access to abortion services, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasized the right to impart and receive information on abortion services as essential to ensuring women’s health and well-being.[xi][x]
Advertisements on abortion services can be a valuable source of information on both the legal status of abortion and the availability of services, and thus a crucial measure to mitigate access barriers to safe and lawful abortion. International law recognizes advertisements as a protected media for the exchange of information.[xii][xi]
The United States Supreme Court, in holding a law that restricted advertisements promoting abortion services as unconstitutional, recognized that such advertisements contained factual material of public interest.[xiii][xii] The advertisement did not merely inform readers of available commercial services, valuable information itself. Viewed in its entirety, the advertisement conveyed information about the subject matter including the law on abortion. The mere existence of the services, the possibility that the advertiser was typical of other organizations and the availability of the services, was important information. Recent reform in the United Kingdom on television advertisement of abortion services was similarly motivated by the public health need for access to full and complete information on abortion services.[xiv][xiii]
The internet is a primary health information source. It is of particular importance to individuals who lack access to traditional sources of health information, require confidential and timely access to information and seek services outside of their communities. Online advertisements that promote abortion services can improve access to information on the legal status of abortion and the availability of lawful services, and can thereby reduce recourse to unsafe abortion.
Vehicles such as a Google Adwords moreover increase the credibility of information sources, defined in terms of their expertise and trustworthiness. The service facilitates access to relevant information by isolating the advertisement and the availability of services from a string of search engine results, which in the case of a political and social issue such as abortion may be overwhelming for an individual woman seeking services.[xv][xiv]
By restricting access to information on safe and lawful abortion, the Revised Policy may thus contribute to unsafe abortion in a manner inconsistent with human rights under international law.
2. Justification for the Revised Policy and its Adverse Human Rights Impact
Given the human rights impact of the Revised Policy, we believe that a reasoned justification for the policy is warranted. Google’s decision on the advertising of abortion services may have been informed by the following considerations:
A. the criminal regulation of abortion,
B. abortion as a high-risk health service,
C. legal restrictions on the advertisement or promotion of abortion services, and
D. government or other political pressure.
Careful analysis demonstrates these considerations cannot justify the Revised Policy and its adverse human rights impact.
A. The Criminal Regulation of Abortion
The Revised Policy may have been informed by the criminal regulation of abortion in the target countries, and the concern that acceptance of advertisements promoting abortion services may be construed as promotion or the aiding and abetting of criminal activity.
Rather than illicit activity, counseling and information about abortion services, even where criminally restricted, is regarded as an important component of harm reduction and safe abortion initiatives. The Ministry of Health in Uruguay, for example, has enacted guidelines that allow health providers to provide information and counseling about abortion to women ineligible to receive lawful services.[xvi][xv]
More importantly, in all target countries of the Revised Policy abortion services are lawful under certain conditions.[xvii][xvi] A blanket restriction on advertisements that promote abortion services for reason of their criminal status is therefore unjustified. Women are entitled by law to access abortion services albeit under a set of regulated conditions. The target countries in this respect cannot be distinguished from the many countries, such as the United Kingdom, to which the Revised Policy does not extend. Abortion is a lawful and legitimate health service in all of the target countries.
B. Abortion as a High-Risk Health Service
The Revised Policy may have been informed by evidence of maternal mortality and morbidity related to unsafe abortion, and thus concern about accepting advertisements that promote a high-risk health service. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between unsafe and safe abortion.
Unsafe abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by individuals without the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards, or both.[xviii][xvii] When appropriately regulated and provided by skilled persons under conditions that meet medical standards, abortion is a safe, low-risk procedure, safer than pregnancy and childbirth.[xix][xviii]
The Revised Policy may have been directed to particular concerns about online abortion services, the sale of abortifacients or medicines for use in pregnancy termination. As a non-invasive alternative to surgical abortion, medication abortion is widely regarded as having significantly improved access to safe abortion. It is safe and effective, with few serious complications and success rates of 95–98%.[xx][xix]
Medication abortion, moreover, is an especially important innovation for safe abortion because it may be delivered by a more diverse set of providers in a range of health settings. Research demonstrates that outcomes of services provided through telemedicine (provision of medicines, counseling and information through the internet) are comparable with results reported in studies on medication abortion in outpatient settings.[xxi][xx]
A restriction on advertisements that promote abortion services for reason of safety is therefore unjustified. The Revised Policy is over-inclusive insofar as it restricts access to information on safe health services. It is also under-inclusive. Safety concerns about the online sale of medicines is not limited to abortion services, but of equal relevance to all health services. Ensuring the safe provision and use of online health services is a legitimate concern, and we encourage Google to develop a tailored policy directed to this objective.
C. Legal Restrictions on the Advertisement or Promotion of Abortion Services
The Revised Policy may have been implemented because of domestic laws or policies respecting the advertisement of abortion services in the target countries. Some (e.g. Brazil and France) but not all target countries have laws specific to the advertisement of abortion services. No target country, however, absolutely prohibits the advertisement of abortion services. Advertisements are permissible in Brazil, for example, where the conditions under which abortion is lawful are appropriately indicated.[xxii][xxi] This policy recognizes that under certain conditions abortion services are lawful and should be treated without distinction from other health services. Rather than an absolute prohibition against advertisements that promote abortion services, theRevised Policy should reflect a similar flexible standard. The Revised Policy in this respect is inconsistent with Google Adwords’ general policy on advertisements subject to legal regulation, which states that it is the responsibility of the advertiser to ensure that its advertisements are in full compliance with the applicable domestic law.[xxiii][xxii] There is no clear reason why the same approach cannot be applied to abortion service advertisements, which may be subject to different legal regulation across jurisdictions.
D. Government or other Political Pressure
The Revised Policy may have been informed by government policies that abortion, even when lawful, should not be promoted as a health service. Such policies are often based on the mistaken assumption that greater access to information and services will increase abortion rates. Evidence confirms that increased access to safe and lawful abortion does not increase the number of abortions nor lead women to use abortion as an alternative to contraception for family planning. Rather it ensures that a greater number of abortions are safe abortions.[xxiv][xxiii]
Such policies are more importantly inconsistent with human rights principles. Individuals should not be denied access to information as a measure to change health-seeking behaviour. Women are entitled as of right to information about all safe and lawful health services, including those related to reproductive and sexual health. We believe that Google shares this conception of access to information as a fundamental human right.
The lack of reasoned justification for the Revised Policy given its impact on human rights to safe abortion merits its rescission. We thus respectfully request in light of Google’s demonstrated commitment to protect access to information as a human right that the Revised Policy be reviewed and rescinded. If Google decides there are reasons not addressed in this letter to maintain the Revised Policy, we would appreciate your sharing these reasons with us.
We look forward to your response and appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Gomperts
gro.sevawnonemow|strepmog#gro.sevawnonemow|strepmog
Women on Waves Foundation
P.O. Box 15683, 1001 ND Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 465 0004, Fax: +31 20 465 0004
Joanna Erdman
ac.otnorotu|namdre.annaoj#ac.otnorotu|namdre.annaoj
Susan Newell
ac.otnorotu|llewen.nasus#ac.otnorotu|llewen.nasus
Health Equity and Law Clinic
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
78 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C5
Phone: 416-946-3755, Fax: 416-978-2648
The undersigned organizations support this letter and its request that the Revised Policy be reviewed and rescinded.
1. Name, Organization, Contact Info
2. Name, Organization, Contact Info
/źródło: Międzynarodowe Biuro Laickie, Paryż (RLI-UFAL)/
Wakacyjne Pogotowie Pontonowe czyli Telefon Zaufania dla Młodzieży
1 lipca o godzinie 18.00 rusza czwarta już edycja Wakacyjnego Pogotowia Pontonowego czyli Telefonu Zaufania dla Młodzieży, pod którym przez całe wakacje wolontariusze będą odpowiadali na pytania młodych ludzi związane z dojrzewaniem, zdrowiem, seksualnością i antykoncepcją. Pytania można zadawać codziennie przez lipiec i sierpień wysyłając sms-y lub dzwoniąc od godziny 18.00 do 21.00.
Wakacyjne Pogotowie Pontonowe
Telefoniczna pomoc edukatorów seksualnych dla młodzieży
Pod numerem komórkowym
0 507 832 741
Od 1 lipca do 31 sierpnia codziennie w godz. 18 – 21
Wakacyjny Telefon Zaufania, w którym młodzi ludzie mogą uzyskać informacje zakresu edukacji seksualnej jest bardzo ważną inicjatywą, która co roku cieszy się dużym powodzeniem wśród młodzieży. Jest to już czwarta edycja Wakacyjnego Pogotowia Pontonowego. Kontynuujemy naszą akcję ponieważ z roku na rok czujemy się coraz bardziej potrzebni. Ubiegłoroczna edycja potwierdziła po raz kolejny, że młodzież ma ogromną potrzebę informacji i rozmów na temat własnej seksualności, niestety potrzeby tej nie zaspokajają ani dom ani szkoła. W ubiegłe wakacje w ciągu trzygodzinnego dyżuru dostawaliśmy czasem ponad 100 sms-ów z pytaniami. W poprzednich latach młodzież najczęściej pytała nas o antykoncepcję, ale dostawaliśmy również wiele sygnałów świadczących o tym, że młodzi ludzie nie mają wystarczającej wiedzy na temat własnej płodności i fizjologii dojrzewania. Zgłosiło się do nas aż 15 nastolatek w nieplanowanej ciąży. Szczegółowy raport z ubiegłorocznego wakacyjnego telefonu zaufania można znaleźć na naszej stronie:
http://www.ponton.org.pl/downloads/Raport_Wakacyjny_Telefon_Zaufania_2008.pdf
Raporty z dyżurów w wakacyjnym Telefonie Zaufania „Pontonu” corocznie przekazujemy Ministerstwu Edukacji Narodowej. Mamy nadzieję, że i w te wakacje młodzież obdarzy nas zaufaniem i będzie zadawać nam pytania, a my w miarę naszych możliwości będziemy starali się pomagać i udzielać informacji z zakresu dojrzewania, antykoncepcji seksualności, asertywności. Przypominamy, że wolontariusze Pontonu nie są ekspertami, jedynie doradcami młodzieżowymi. Naszą rolą jest także kontaktowanie osób potrzebujących pomocy z odpowiednimi instytucjami, jeśli problem przerasta nasze kompetencje.
Jak co roku liczymy na pomoc mediów w nagłośnieniu naszej akcji, a sami reklamujemy Wakacyjne Pogotowie Pontonowe za pomocą vlepek rozklejanych przez wolontariuszy
w różnych miastach Polski.
