Documenting activism and advocacy around medication abortion in Central, East, and West Africa.

Medication abortion, a safe and effective method for terminating pregnancy in the first and second trimester, can reduce overall maternal mortality. However, little is known about how advocates for abortion view medication abortion in their communities, particularly where abortion is legally restricted. We conducted in-depth interviews (2018-2019; N=24) with health workers and community leaders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Nigeria, Malawi, and Tanzania identified from the Mobilizing Activists Around Medication Abortion (MAMA) network. Interviews focused on the role of advocacy in medication abortion provision. Participants identified benefits of medication abortion to women, including privacy, accessibility, and safety, and community benefits, including perceived reduction in maternal mortality. Participants described challenges to providing support for medication abortion, including difficulties operating in legally restrictive environments and stigma. Findings highlight the role of grassroots advocacy to overcome challenges and provide an alternative model of abortion access and care to women.

Self-Managed Abortion in Africa: The Decriminalization Imperative in Regional Human Rights Standards.

Self-managed abortion holds particular promise for revolutionizing people's access to quality reproductive care in Africa, where the burden of abortion-related mortality is the highest globally and where abortion remains criminalized, in violation of various internationally and regionally recognized human rights. Increasingly safe and effective, self-managed medication abortion is still subject to many restrictions, including criminal laws, across the continent. Drawing on recent evidence and human rights developments around self-managed abortion, this paper explores whether and to what extent Africa's regional legal framework builds a normative basis for the decriminalization of self-managed abortion. We conclude that the region's articulation of the rights to dignity, to freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and to nondiscrimination, among others, provides strong grounds for decriminalization, both concerning individuals who need abortions and concerning the constellation of actors who enable self-management.

How the Uruguayan Judiciary Shapes Access to High-Priced Medicines: A Critique through the Right to Health Lens.

Uruguay has witnessed an ever-increasing number of domestic court claims for high-priced medicines despite its comprehensive universal coverage of pharmaceuticals. In response to the current national debate and development of domestic legislation concerning high-priced medicines, we review whether Uruguayan courts adequately interpret the state's core obligations to provide essential medicines and ensure non-discriminatory access in line with the right to health in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Using a sample of 42 amparo claims for the reimbursement of medicines in 2015, we found that the circuits of appeal fail to offer predictable legal argumentation, including for nearly identical cases. Moreover, the judiciary does not provide an interpretation of state obligations that is consistently aligned with the right to health in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These findings illustrate that medicines litigation in Uruguay offers relief for some individual claims but may exacerbate systemic inequalities by failing to address the structural problems behind high medicines prices. We recommend that the judiciary adopt a consistent standard for assessing state action to realize the right to health within its available resources. Moreover, the legislature should address the need for medicines price control and offer a harmonized interpretation of the right to health. These transformations can increase the transparency and predictability of Uruguay's health and legal systems for patients and communities.

Global Survey of National Constitutions: Mapping Constitutional Commitments to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights.

General Comment No. 22, issued in 2016 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), clarifies states' legal duties to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Our study analyzes domestic constitutions around the world to investigate whether and to what extent the right to sexual and reproductive health is respected, protected, and fulfilled; to what extent these provisions are inclusive and non-discriminatory; and to what degree the interlinkages between this and other human rights are acknowledged. Of the 195 constitutions accessed, 27 enshrine sexual and/or reproductive health, and seven adopt restrictive approaches to this right. In the 27 constitutions, provisions most frequently enshrine respect of one's sexual health and family planning decisions, the protection of sexual health, and the provision of reproductive health care and family planning services (fulfillment). Most of the 27 constitutions fail to adequately respect reproductive health rights; to protect reproductive health, family planning, and abortion services from third-party interference; and to fulfill all dimensions of sexual health and access to abortion. Three of the 27 constitutions enshrine a universal right to SRH, and additional constitutions protect specific vulnerable groups (such as women, children) and/or restrict the scope of rights holders to couples. Among the 27 constitutions, nine explicitly link the right to sexual and reproductive health to the rights to education, science, and/or to make autonomous decisions about sexuality and reproduction. Our results can serve as a baseline measure to track constitutional reforms in pursuit of the realization of sexual and reproductive health and rights, and as building blocks for future lawmakers committed to realizing these rights through domestic legal reform.