‘Reproductive health’ is the subject of numerous international conferences, United Nations meetings, agency reports, and NGO papers, yet the meaning of the term can vary widely—and very consequentially. Clarity about reproductive health is increasingly necessary as United Nations Member States seek to honor the Millennium Development Goals, one component of which is achieving universal access to reproductive health. This requires clarity about exactly what reproductive health is.
A newly issued World Youth Alliance white paper that I authored seeks to set the record straight. It begins by looking at the Programme of Action, the consensus document resulting from the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, the first United Nations conference to define reproductive health. Although not legally binding, the Programme of Action’s definitions of terms such as ‘reproductive health,’ ‘reproductive health care,’ and ‘reproductive health services’ are instructive because the document is a declaration of political will, meaning that States who approved it are committed to carrying out its objectives; further, it is the most cited document on reproductive health in global health policy discussions. Delegates at the ICPD consciously did not include abortion as a component of reproductive health, expressly reserving changes in abortion policy to individual States and local governments. Follow-up commissions to the ICPD, in addition to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 and its own follow-up commissions, have not elaborated on the definition of reproductive health provided in the Programme of Action, and States have continued to express their understanding that abortion is not a part of reproductive health.
The white paper objectively investigates international law, examining what human rights treaties actually say—and do not say—on the topic. Only one treaty even mentions reproductive health, and none establishes a right to reproductive health. The paper further explains that treaty-monitoring bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee, do not have the authority to create new rights not enumerated in international treaties. Nor do they have the authority to bind States with their concluding observations.
Materials from various UN agencies and NGOs like the Center for Reproductive Rights and the International Planned Parenthood Federation often assert without basis that abortion is the primary aspect of reproductive health and that there is an international right to reproductive health. But promoters of abortion as a necessary component of reproductive health do not acknowledge the actual definition of reproductive health agreed on in Cairo in 1994, even though they are ready and willing to cite the Programme of Action’s call for an international right to reproductive health. Those who identify an international right to abortion do not quote actual provisions of international treaties but instead make tenuous connections between right-to-life treaty provisions and abortion; after all, “safe” abortion guarantees the right to life of all women. They cite treaty-monitoring bodies as if their word were law. Unfortunately, the constant repetition that abortion is necessary for reproductive health has had some effect, leading some to give “soft law” more weight than it is due.
These distortions demonstrate the need for white papers in global health policy discussions. A white paper simultaneously educates readers and advocates for a particular position. Misinformation and disinformation are rampant in global health discussions, and white papers provide an opportunity for clarification. Developing countries are often the intended audience, given that they have limited resources in policy battles. A white paper gives them a straightforward analysis of the law, exposing the gaps left by other organizations and agencies.
The white paper thus becomes an important tool for developing countries in maintaining their ground at the United Nations and in other international negotiations. These countries are sometimes threatened by their more powerful counterparts—including the United States—with the withholding of foreign aid if they do not implement new policies and programs that match the agenda of the Western world. If they are equipped at the negotiating table with accurate information about the law, they are better equipped to maintain their positions.
Of course, it is possible for white papers to mislead. Proponents of non-existent human rights often make assertions without citing any sources, an omission that should alert the reader to the likely falsity of the claim. A good white paper is well sourced, and readers must be discriminating about the authority of the sources, though unfortunately, certain organizations are so visible that people think whatever they say must be true. The World Youth Alliance’s reproductive health white paper is helpful in this regard, identifying where organizations and agencies have made unfounded claims about international law.
White papers are needed to clarify confusion about some of the most salient topics in global health policy discussions, including family planning, maternal health, and HIV/AIDS. If countries are educated about where international law stands on these issues and are provided with evidenced-based information, they will be able to develop their own—and therefore appropriate and more likely effective—health policies without bowing to pressure from the bullies of international policy.
Meghan Grizzle is Research and Policy Specialist at the World Youth Alliance. She graduated from Harvard College in 2007 with a Bachelor’s and a Master’s in Linguistics and from Harvard Law School in 2011.
RESOURCES
Meghan Grizzle, World Youth Alliance White Paper on Reproductive Health
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
I am a pro-life Catholic. And while you may be correct that abortion proponents shy away from the 1994 Cairo definition, having read myself the supremely broad definition of 'reproductive health' issued in Cairo in 1994, I suggest that the wording accommodates anyone with an anti-life bent. I quote the 'definition' (below). Please tell me where I am mistaken.
“Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system, and to its functions and processes. Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicitly in this last condition are the right of men and women to e informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulations of fertility which are not against the law and the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant. In line with the above definition of reproductive health, reproductive health care is defined as the constellation of methods, techniques and services that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health problems. It also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations, and not merely counselling and care related to reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases.”
The white paper can be found at http://www.wya.net/advocacy/research/reproductivehealth.html.
Young people need to know there's more variety and options for them to express their desire to see the dignity of every person at every stage of life.
The "non-personhood" of the embryo, ehh?
Well at least they've medically/rationally realized they've got no shot at proving the baby isn't alive.
Chilling, though, that Dr. Brettongarcia has to resort to the same arguments used to justify slavery hundreds of years ago.
In a way it is sad, but the hatred and insanity on that website will probably do more to promote the pro-life argument than to hurt it.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102
Another paper , that covers the reverse , on how nations and familes fall'apart , when we walk away from truth and charity , may be using examples of Christian nations adopting contraception and abortion - Russia , England that are now are faced with malaise at all levels , could also help, let us hope !
Indeed the real, core of the Church, was the call to the priestood (and the nunnery). And the essence of that, was to not get married, or have children. Following St. Paul, we did not get married, we did not have children. In order to have more time to devote ourselves to other better, higher things.
For various reasons, in the 20th century, elements of the Church itself, had begun to abandon the traditional, core, marriage-less and childless ideal of the Church. Many priestly ideals were increasingly abandoned. So that the ordinary middle class ideal - of getting married and having children - could take its place. Many everyday Catholics apparently, could not really believe as much in the priestly life; or in the nunnery any more. And so the marriageless, childless ideal, was in many ways, dropped. By radical new "conservative" Catholic outlets, like EWTN and so forth.
And yet however? Though the priestly ideal is increasingly dropped by Catholics, many of our more intellectual/spiritual citizens, now and then, still feel some of the same urges that once led many to become priests and nuns: to abstain if not from sex, then at least to abstain from marriage and/or having children; in order to devote ourselves more fully to doing good work. Helping the poor and disadvantaged, etc..
And so, I suggest Catholicism is in transition. And two new Catholic lifestyles emerge. Many 1) Catholics simply dropped the old priestly ideal; to get married and emphasize having children. But if these Catholics are allowed to deviate from the Old Catholicism? Maybe 2) our new liberal Catholics might be allowed a revision of the old priestly model too. To create a new version of the life devoted not to children; but devoted to doing social work, and helping mankind. W
Where we do not get married or have children. In order to devote ourselves more fully to doing useful work. Helping the poor and uneducated, and so forth.
In some ways, very much like the old priests and nuns.
But to revive a least some elements of this old lifestyle? We need our more reproductive brethren, to begin to look at, acknowledge and accept, the elements of the Bible and Church tradition, that were not focused on reproduction, and forming a family. But that were always more devoted to the life of the mind, and the spirit; the life of doing good works. For the good of all.
I completely agree with your thought that we must be "ready for the next onslaught." When the current trends from the left are taken to their immediate limit, I see this probable progression in the minds of many:
Having already successfully dissociated procreation from the act, both physically and mentally, the mind is now being increasingly accustomed to regard contraception as a right. Having accomplished this much, with little encouragement, the next act may be to habituate the mind to think of contraception not only as a right, but also as a duty.
There are already many so called arguments that can be easily coupled to the argument that contraception is now a duty: reduction of the family's carbon foot print, overpopulation, scarce natural resources including the food supply, global climate change, women's economic progress being adversely affected by motherhood, patriarchal and oppressive nature of the traditional family, rational management of choices available to individuals, humans crowding out other species, etc, etc.
Beyond the immediate limit of these trends, this may be waiting:
If the mindset that contraception is a duty is ever successfully imposed, then the argument that the state has the right to licence procreation is almost a given. Sterile sex may, perhaps, remain at the disposal of individuals, but fertile sex is now under state control.
I am going over your Reproductive Health White Paper and will use it in class discussion.
Keep up the great work.
†
At times the call to be childless, marriageless, was said to be directed not at everyone. And yet to be sure? It was often presented to everyone. As the higher, better call, for those who could hear it.
Even in the biggest Catholic families, they knew it; that the child who heard the call to become a childless, marriageless priest or nun, was answering a higher calling.
This is not self-interest calling; it is not rationalization either. This is a careful (if as yet informal and preliminary), Bible-based argument. For two new paths in Catholicism, at least. Including not just reproductive families. But also at last, a new priesthood, or laity. Whose members do not pursue biological reproduction, but mental/spiritual reproduction, as it were.
If I had the time, I would sketch out the rest of my theory. As it turns out, "Natural law" should be based on science; which does not support current conservative contraceptive theories. Today we know for example, that women past childbearing years, still can profit from sexual activity, etc.. So that sex is not, as the Church has thought, so entirely aimed solely at biological reproduction.
Perhaps someone else would like to sketch out this theory more fully here, or elsewhere?
If there is a single sympathetic ear in this place, to hear it and pursue it?
If you want to have even more fun with middle-class mores, try our Separated Brethren. There is little room in Protestantism for anyone but the married.
Unnatural contraception is evil and can be shown, scientifically, to be harmful. It causes cancer and harms the environment. When sex is disconnected from procreation, in violation of God's law, it leads to psychological and social ills, too. Free-sex is highly correlated with unhappiness and divorce. Even married couples who worship sexual pleasure rather than God need more and more exotic experiences to remain aroused. They very often use pornography and pornographic movies. This is a terrible way to remain "connected." Divorce and the breakdown of the family leads to horrible societal problems. (Sin begets sin, yea unto the fourth generation.) Child molestation is at least 95% perpetrated by step-parents. Because of widespread divorce, there are too many step-parents in this neo-pagan, post-Lambethian world.
Truth cannot contradict Truth.
†
Umm, the accuracy of your assertions about the theology of the Church is seriously called into question by your demographic, factual fabrications. At no time in Church history have "millions" of priests been alive at one time. The current total number of priests is around 500,000, if you want to include those in formation.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/number_of_worlds_catholics_remains_steady_number_of_priests_grows_slightly/
As far as EWTN goes, I think you would be hard-pressed to find an organization within the Church that portrays the priestly and religious vocations with as much public respect and respectability.
I would point out that St. Paul promoted marriage for those (most) who would be led into sin and temptation by celibacy. Paul was expecting the end of the world within his lifetime, and thus his emphasis on celibacy makes sense--why get distracted by the "things of this world" when he thought it would shortly cease to be?
Other New Testament writers stress that clergy should be "married only once" and demonstrated to be good fathers. Priestly celibacy was always practiced in some form in the Church, from its earliest days, but it was not made a requirement until much, much later, and then primarily as a result of nepotism and abuses by some married priests and their children.
I see some of the same axes being ground in your posts, 'Wentham'--and a similar writing style--as is found on 'Dr. Brettongarcia's' website. One begins to wonder if you are the same person...
Examples:I have a cousin with severe diabetes who has been told that a pregnancy would significantly risk or shorten her life. She is the proud mother of two through adoption. Woman who have other health conditions, high blood pressure, who are over 40 , obese or have just had a child within the past year, run serious risks if they become pregnant. Certainly many of these woman should and do have succesfull pregnancies when managed carefully. But should this not be a medical and personal decision between the woman and the doctor who knows her medical history best? It is no accident that one of the first things a doctor discusses with a woman after she gives birth is contraception. Doctor's know that it is not in the best interest of a woman medically in most cases to become pregnant within a year or so of giving birth. Sure it happens. but it carries some serious risks to mother and child.
And let us not forget woman in the third world, who can barely nourish their own bodies and may face some or many of the risks above. Medical care in many of these countries is shoddy at best. Recurrent pregnancies kill many of these woman. Yes, the best answer to this is improving maternal and child care everywhere. Who is not for this? But allowing access to safe, affordable contraception(that is completely voluntary), is also a key part of the solution.
In closing, the ability to prevent pregnancies safely is a major boon to health for woman and a good thing. Let us not confuse that development, with the "sexual revolution" as a whole or individual choices people have made in regards to their own sexuality. Much is bad of the lack of intimacy and the nature of our "hook up culture", I do agree. But saying that contraceptives are responsible for this is almost like saying guns are responsible for school shootings and the free market is responsible for selfishness and poverty. Sometimes you can have good things that people use poorly.Unfortunately, this seems a part of the human condition.
So yes, access to voluntary and carefully chosen and manged contraception is an essential part of woman's health care. Those who say otherwise simply are not aware of the entire medical picture, or are so blinded by their personal ideaology, that they do not care to be made aware.
Jane
