In honor of the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, the United Nations declared October 2 the International Day of Non-Violence. twistedchick wrote about the nonviolent tactics being used by Buddhist monks in Burma/Myanmar, and the similarity between their actions and those espoused by Gandhi.

Amnesty International (yes, I know, but when they’re right they’re right) has a letter campaign urging the government to release the protestors.

Amnesty International has been claiming that its new policy on abortion (local copy) is limited in scope, because it will only push for states to guarantee access to abortion “for women who become pregnant as a result of rape, sexual assault or incest — or whose lives or health are at grave risk due to pregnancy.” Think about what the phrase “health at grave risk” means to you. It probably conjures up images of injury or illness that brings a person near death, or that may result in permanant disability. It probably doesn’t bring to mind a situation in which a healthy mother carrying a healthy baby seeks an abortion due to poverty or abandonment by the child’s father.

What does the health clause mean to Amnesty International?

When U.S. members were surveyed for their views on the exact language of the new policy on abortion (recall that they were not asked for their views on whether the new policy should be adopted at all), AI distributed explanatory material (local copy) along with the survey. The penultimate paragraph of this material reads:

“The scope of this policy will depend very substantially on the choice of options in paragraphs 8 and 9. If the broader options are chosen in both cases, then AI will be in a position to call for access to legal and safe abortions in almost all cases since the courts and medical practice in many countries have recognized that very many factors (ranging from fetal abnormalities to socio- economic pressures) can adversely affect a woman’s mental and physical health.” [emphasis added]

What are paragraphs 8 and 9 of the draft policy (local copy)? Paragraph 8 was about whether or not states could place any gestational limits on abortion. The broad option for paragraph 8 was not chosen, so Amnesty will accept “reasonable gestational limits”. But what about paragraph 9?

9. At a minimum, states must take all necessary measures to ensure that safe and legal abortion services are available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality for all women who require them in cases of:
(a) unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape, sexual assault or incest;

EITHER: (b1) pregnancy which endangers the life of the woman
OR: (b2) pregnancy which endangers the life of the woman or risks grave permanent injury to the physical health of the woman;
OR: (b3) pregnancy which endangers the life of the woman or risks grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the woman;

Option 9(b3) — the broadest “health”-related option — is the closest to the language in the newly adopted policy.

This goes well beyond the talking points Amnesty has been careful to put out in the press about “not wanting women to go to jail” or “ensuring access to abortion for women who have been raped”. Amnesty’s view is that their new policy lets them call upon states to ensure that women can have abortions in “almost all cases”, at least within (unspecified) gestational limits.

“Grave risk to health” amounts to “almost all cases”. That’s not pro-life paranoia or exaggeration. Those are Amnesty’s own words — they’re just not for public consumption.

Don’t let abortion poison human rights advocacy! I again urge people who are leaving Amnesty over this issue to continue to support other human rights groups. I’ve linked a few here and here.

I don’t want to say that the Vatican shouldn’t have weighed in, because they have both the right and responsibility to do so. It’s just unfortunate that their involvement in the controversy has made it all too easy for the usual suspects to dismiss any opposition to abortion as solely a religious issue.

From Nonviolent Choice Blog: a chance for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to work together to assist a woman in Poland, and others like her.

From Consistent Life: an opportunity to let Amnesty International know what you think about their recent policy change on abortion.

Dear Jen,

Thank you for your email and interest in our organization. Women for Women International does not advocate for or against abortion. During our rights awareness training session on women’s reproductive health, we focus on educating women about standard health practices for themselves and their children. We discuss prenatal care, infant and child care, nutrition during pregnancy, natural family planning methods and other topics designed to reduce the maternal and infant mortality rates in the communities where we work. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

I’m very glad to hear that. WWI seems like a great organization. Their stated purpose is “Supporting women in war-torn regions with financial and emotional aid, job-skills training, rights education and small business assistance so they can rebuild their lives.” You can become a “sister” and sponsor another woman, or just donate to WWI, who will use the funds for their educational programs and administrative costs. There are also other, non-monetary ways to get involved.

They are highly rated by Charity Navigator and the American Institute of Philanthropy.

Consistent Life are suggesting the following:

Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC)

National Religious Campaign Against Torture

Human Rights First

Friends Committee on National Legislation

I sent a donation to FCNL, with a note explaining that I was coming over from Amnesty and why. I also let AI know that I would be supporting other organizations and why.

Additionally, I have been looking into Women for Women International, for people who want to offer women in war zones such as Darfur life-affirming, nonviolent assistance.* I don’t think that WWI is involved with abortion advocacy, but I have written to them for a clarification.

* I was particularly infuriated this week by the Amnesty spokesperson who cited a World Health Organization estimate that 68,000 women die annually as a result of abortions, and said, “Once we looked at that figure, neutrality would have meant essentially saying it’s okay that 68,000 women a year die because of criminalization of abortion.” That is a monstrous claim, and the exact equivalent of warmongers accusing those of us who opposed the Iraq invasion of saying it was okay for Saddam Hussein to murder his own people.

Although AI keeps claiming that the decision was made in consultation with its membership, this move is in fact being made without the knowledge or input of most members and against the wishes of many who have made their opinions known. As recently as May 2006, callers to AIUSA’s office were being told that AI took no position on abortion and that there was no movement to change that — yet AI claims that it has been consulting the membership for two years. The membership of the UK branch voted against adopting the new policy, but the branch adopted it anyway; similarly, AIUSA conducted a little-publicized online survey about the new policy in the members-only section of its website, but has never announced the results. I’d like to think that even supporters of this policy change would be disturbed by the high-handed and sneaky way in which it was imposed.

AI is being disingenuous in another way. The organization claims that it takes no position on when life begins or whether the unborn have human rights. However, nowhere in all of the explanatory material about the new policy is there any indication that anyone other than the mother might have anything at stake in abortion. Effectively, then, AI’s position is either that unborn human beings have no human rights, or that their rights don’t matter.

For an organization which so prizes freedom of conscience, AI is showing remarkable contempt for the consciences of many of its members. Its FAQ answer to the question “My neighbor says that AI is violating human rights by adopting this policy. How can I respond to this?” is patronizing and dismissive: “While some religions believe that life begins at conception and that, therefore, abortion represents a violation of the right to life of a fetus, international law is silent on the point when life begins.”

Of course, that’s no answer at all. It doesn’t even take the question seriously.

Members who believe that Amnesty’s new position condones human rights violations (and contrary to AI’s apparent belief, not all of them are religious) are being patted on the head and told that they can simply work on other issues. Anybody still believe AI’s assertion that they listened to people on all sides of the issue before making their decision?

I noticed the other day that AIUSA finally issued a public statement, a mere eleven days before the deadline for member input (and including no mention of the member survey). The statement claims that “The organization’s policies are determined by AI members worldwide through a democratic process.” This comes after months of apparently trying to stifle any notice or debate among members on the proposed policy change — even going so far as to tell callers to the national office that no change of policy on abortion was being considered! That’s the kind of “democratic process” I expect from the Bush administration, not Amnesty International.

Friends –

Please remember to send any supporters of Amnesty International who are upset at their move to view abortion as a human right to register their disapproval at this site:

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/consistentlife

Consistent Life had an excellent presence at the Midwest regional conference of Amnesty International; to read about it, go to:

http://www.consistent-life.com/news.html#AIMidwest

There is much discussion about the relative merits of remaining or becoming members of AI in order to try to influence policy, or whether instead to note that an undemocratic decision-making process has occured with a distressing decision and withdraw support entirely. For those who would like to take the approach of attempts to influence by participation, we offer the following action suggestions.

Action suggestion from CL Board member Richard Stith:

Buried deep in the AI website, accessible only to persistent members, are many abortion documents: the 2005 decision that got things rolling, the proposed policies, the survey for input on the policies, and the 14-page HIGHLY one-sided explanatory background for the policies. They are linked from this survey.

But to fill out the survey, you have to be a member yourself. If you are a member or know anyone who is a member, please get them to fill out the survey. The deadline is December 1.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/members/survey/index.html

Action suggestion from CL Advisory Board member Mary Krane Derr:

Please join the “16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence,” November 25-December 10, 2006.

The 16 days are an annual event that Amnesty International, with over 2000 other groups worldwide, sponsors to end violence against women. It begins on November 25, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and ends December 10, International Human
Rights Day.

We know that abortion is itself violence against women, and that other types of violence against women lead to abortion, in addition to being atrocities in and of themselves. There is even direct violence against women by men who wish them to abort when they don’t want to. Because of this knowledge, we have something to contribute to this advocacy. Those of us that know that all violence is connected can add much needed insight.

This year’s focus is on honoring the women who struggle to create and run places of safety and healing for abused women and their children, including Native Americans. This includes sexual assault of Native American women and impunity of perpetrators. Perpetrators often walk free because they fall into jurisdictional gaps or gray areas among federal, tribal, state, and local legal systems. The few Native-run shelters struggle with minimal funds and indifference or even hostility by tribal governments and federal authorities. Native American women are assaulted 3.5 times more often than other groups.

To sign up for the campaign, see: http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/16days.