July, 08 2009, 01:55pm EDT
Saudi Arabia: Women's Rights Promises Broken
Evidence Shows Male Permission Still Being Required for Surgery, Travel
WASHINGTON
Saudi officials continue to require women to obtain permission from male guardians to conduct their most basic affairs, like traveling or receiving medical care, despite government assertions that no such requirements exist, Human Rights Watch said today. The government made its assertions most recently in June 2009, to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Saudi Al-Watan newspaper reported on July 2 that Saudi doctors have confirmed that Health Ministry regulations still require a woman to obtain permission from her male guardian to undergo elective surgery. In late June, Saudi border guards at the Bahrain crossing refused to allow the renowned women's rights activist Wajeha al-Huwaider to leave the country because she did not have her guardian's permission, al-Huwaider told Human Rights Watch.
"The Saudi government is saying one thing to the Human Rights Council in Geneva but doing another thing inside the kingdom," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "It needs to stop requiring adult women to seek permission from men, not just pretend to stop it."
Human Rights Watch documented in an April 2008 report, Perpetual Minors, the impact of the "guardianship" system, which requires Saudi women to obtain permission from male guardians before they can carry out a host of day-to-day activities, such as education, employment, travel, opening a bank account, or receiving medical care. The report demonstrated the negative consequences for women whose guardians - fathers, husbands, brothers or male children - refused to give such permission. Similarly, the Al-Watan article pointed out the dire situation of women living in discord with husbands who refuse to grant them a divorce.
The government itself has repeatedly denied the existence of such guardianship requirements under Islamic law. Most recently, at its review before the UN Human Rights Council in June, Saudi Arabia stated that any purported Shari'a concept of male guardianship over women is not a legal requirement in the kingdom, and that "Islam guarantees a woman's right to conduct her affairs and enjoy her legal capacity." The Health Ministry specifically denied any requirement for a guardian's permission for women seeking surgery, in response both to Human Rights Watch in March 2008 and, again, to Al-Watan in July 2009.
Evidence obtained by Human Rights Watch and Al-Watan indicates that such permission is a requirement, however. For its 2008 report, Human Rights Watch spoke to four physicians and two women who confirmed the need for a guardian's permission. A clinical psychologist told Human Rights Watch, "If a [pregnant] woman comes in to the hospital with a guardian, then she can leave with anyone, even the driver. If she comes in without a guardian, it becomes a "police case," and she'll need a guardian to come to the hospital in order for her to get discharged. She stays here if no one picks her up." The Al-Watan article cited four doctors, including surgeons, who confirmed the requirement of a male guardian's consent for a woman to undergo surgery.
"Saudi Arabia continues to treat women as perpetual minors by refusing to allow them to make decisions about their own health," said Whitson. "In Saudi Arabia, men get to decide how healthy a woman can be."
It appears that the government also continues to insist that Saudi women obtain a male guardian's permission to travel. Al-Huwaider tested the government's assertion at the Human Rights Council that guardianship was not a legal requirement by travelling to the Saudi-Bahraini border on three separate occasions, on June 25, 26, and 27, without the traditional guardian approval document. However, border guards turned her back each time and prevented her from leaving the kingdom because, they explained, she had no permission from her guardian, Huwaider told Human Rights Watch.
Through its ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 2001, Saudi Arabia assumed the obligation to take action to end discrimination against women in all its forms. The convention obliges Saudi Arabia "to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women," including "any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women ... of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field."
Article 12 of the convention obliges states to "take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning." Article 15(4) obliges states to "accord to men and women the same rights with regard to the law relating to the movement of persons and the freedom to choose their residence and domicile."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Biden Urged to 'Hold the Line' Against For-Profit Medicare Advantage Industry
"Do not let them bully you," said Alex Lawson of Social Security Works. "Corporate insurers are holding the country's health hostage and demanding bags of cash."
Mar 28, 2024
Opponents of healthcare privatization gathered at the White House on Thursday to send President Joe Biden a message from tens of thousands of Americans: "Do not give in to corporate insurers."
With the Biden administration set to unveil its final payment rate for privatized Medicare Advantage (MA) plans on April 1, Alex Lawson of Social Security Works and Brittany Shannahan of Public Citizen delivered around 28,000 petition signatures to the White House imploring Biden to "reduce MA rates to a level commensurate with traditional Medicare and recoup all overpayments."
"Do not let them bully you," Lawson said during a livestream in front of the White House on Thursday. "Corporate insurers are holding the country's health hostage and demanding bags of cash."
Medicare Advantage is a privately run program funded by the federal government, and the major for-profit insurers that dominate the MA industry are notorious for denying patients necessary care and overbilling the government by making patients appear sicker than they are—a practice known as "upcoding."
One recent study estimated that Medicare Advantage plans overcharge U.S. taxpayers to the tune of $140 billion per year, which would be enough to zero out Medicare Part B premiums.
"Medicare is under threat from greedy corporations that are more focused on profit than providing patient care," said Brittany Shannahan, a Medicare for All organizer. "This is a threat to Medicare. This should be on campaign ads."
The Biden administration is expected to propose a 3.7% payment increase for Medicare Advantage in 2025. More than 30,000 people have submitted comments opposing that rate, according to Social Security Works.
Insurers, a powerful lobbying force in Washington, D.C., are also pushing back on the administration's plan—demanding that they receive more, not less, government money.
"Taking our money and denying our care: That's their business model," Lawson said Thursday.
Lawson and Shannahan welcomed the Biden administration's recent efforts to curb Medicare Advantage overbilling and other abuses.
Survey results released earlier this week by Data for Progress show that the Biden administration's efforts to curtail MA plans' wrongful care denials and overbilling are overwhelmingly popular across party lines.
In a blog post on Tuesday, Just Care USA president Diane Archer noted that "since its inception," MA has "cost the Medicare program more per enrollee than traditional Medicare" even as it imposes "obstacles to care that don't exist for people in traditional Medicare, including burdensome prior authorization requirements and restricted physician and hospital networks."
"Our government is spending more and enrollees are too often getting fewer Medicare benefits than they would in traditional Medicare," Archer wrote.
In their remarks in front of the White House on Thursday, Shannahan and Lawson urged the Biden administration to "hold the line" and take bolder action to rein in Medicare Advantage plans, which now cover half of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries.
"We need to see more," said Shannahan. "We know that Medicare Advantage insurers are throwing around cash trying to make sure that they can continue to exploit their patients undetected and unchecked."
Carmen Rhodes, senior adviser and programs director at Be A Hero—a group founded by the late Medicare for All champion Ady Barkan—wrote in an op-ed for Common Dreams on Thursday that the Biden administration must hold Medicare Advantage plans "accountable for their greed, not give them a raise."
"Hundreds of our grassroots supporters have shared their painful stories of being delayed or denied care by faceless, cruel insurance companies," Rhodes wrote. "Others reveal feeling tricked or even forced onto a Medicare Advantage plan and then being stuck in the 'Hotel California.' Their heartbreaking stories called Ady and now call all of us to take action."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Court Rules Racist Florida Voting Map Backed by DeSantis Can Remain for 2024 Election
“This is not only disappointing, but it sets a perilous precedent," said Ellen Freidin, CEO of FairDistricts NOW.
Mar 28, 2024
A federal three-judge panel unanimously ruled on Wednesday that Florida's congressional map may remain after it was challenged by former Rep. Al Lawson and the watchdog group Common Cause.
Lawson is a black Democrat whose district was dismantled when the map was created in 2022. Lawson and Common Cause alleged that the map was discriminatory against Black voters, but the federal court rejected those claims. Two of the three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.
“After clearly recognizing Florida’s history of racial discrimination, the court ignored its most recent iteration, greenlighting legislative adoption of the Governor’s racially motivated map,” says @CommonCauseFL’s Amy Keith, on the discriminatory map ruling.
— Common Cause (@CommonCause) March 28, 2024
The plaintiffs argued that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was acting with racial animus when he called for Lawson's district to be dismantled. The court ruled that even if DeSantis was acting with racial animus, the plaintiffs couldn't prove the Legislature was when it created the map.
"This is not only disappointing, but it sets a perilous precedent. The court is saying that a state legislature can erase a performing Black district for political gain as long as it can blame the governor for coming up with the racist scheme in the first place," said Ellen Freidin, CEO of FairDistricts NOW. "The ultimate result permits legislators to conspire with the governor to keep themselves and their party in power while remaining insulated from the law."
A Florida judge had ruled the map was unconstitutional in 2022 because "it diminishes African Americans' ability to elect candidates of their choice."
One of the judges on the federal court panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan, did say he believed DeSantis had racist reasoning behind his actions.
"I do not think that Governor DeSantis harbors personal racial animus toward Black voters," Jordan wrote. "But I do believe that he used race impermissibly as a means to achieve ends (including partisan advantage) that he cannot admit to."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Leads Charge as Surge of Oil and Gas Projects Threaten Hope for Livable Planet
"The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle," said one analyst.
Mar 28, 2024
Fossil fuel-producing countries late last year pledged to "transition away from fossil fuels," but a report on new energy projects shows that with the United States leading the way in continuing to extract oil and gas, governments' true views on renewable energy is closer to a statement by a Saudi oil executive Amin Nasser earlier this month.
"We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas," the CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil company, said at an energy conference in Houston.
A new report published Wednesday by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) suggests the U.S. in particular has abandoned any plans to adhere to warnings from climate scientists and the International Energy Agency (IEA), which said in 2021 that new oil and gas infrastructure has no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C.
Despite the stark warning, last year at least 20 oil and gas fields worldwide reached "final investment decision," the point at which companies decide to move ahead with construction and development. Those approvals paved the way for the extraction of 8 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe).
By the end of the decade, companies aim to sanction nearly four times that amount, producing 31.2 billion boe from 64 oil and gas fields.
The U.S. led the way in approving new oil and gas projects over the past two years, GEM's analysis found.
An analysis by Carbon Brief of GEM's findings shows that burning all the oil and gas from newly discovered fields and approved projects would emit at least 14.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
"This is equivalent to more than one-third of the CO2 emissions from global energy use in 2022, or all the emissions from burning oil that year," said Carbon Brief.
GEM noted in its analysis that oil companies and the policymakers who continue to support their planet-heating activities have come up with numerous "extraction justifications" even as the IEA has been clear that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with avoiding catastrophic planetary heating.
The report notes that U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) "supported ConocoPhillips' Willow oil field, arguing that the Alaskan oil and gas industry has a 'better environmental track record,' and not approving the project 'impoverish[es] Alaska Natives and blame[s] them for changes in the climate that they did not cause.'"
Carbon Brief reported that oil executives have claimed they are powerless to stop extracting fossil fuels since demand for oil and gas exists for people's energy needs, with ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods tellingFortune last month that members of the public "aren't willing to spend the money" on renewable energy sources.
A poll by Pew Research Center last year found 67% of Americans supported the development of alternative energy sources. Another recent survey by Eligo Energy showed that 65% of U.S. consumers were willing to pay more for renewable energy.
"Oil and gas producers have given all kinds of reasons for continuing to discover and develop new fields, but none of these hold water," said Scott Zimmerman, project manager for the Global Oil and Gas Extraction Tracker at GEM. "The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle."
Climate scientist and writer Bill McGuire summarized the viewpoint of oil and gas executives and pro-fossil fuel lawmakers: "Climate emergency? What climate emergency?"
The continued development of new oil and gas fields, he added, amounts to "pure insanity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular