SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 20 2015, 12:15pm EDT
Contact:
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7413 5566,After hours: +44 7778 472 126,Email:,press@amnesty.org
Abortion is Not a Crime, Doctors Warn Governments
Doctors and health professionals from every region of the world today added their voices to the growing pressure for the decriminalization of abortion, with 838 from 44 countries signing an open letter to governments published today by Amnesty International.
The letter calls on governments to stop interfering with health professionals' ability to provide care, warning that criminalizing abortion puts women and girls' health and lives at risk.
WORLDWIDE
Doctors and health professionals from every region of the world today added their voices to the growing pressure for the decriminalization of abortion, with 838 from 44 countries signing an open letter to governments published today by Amnesty International.
The letter calls on governments to stop interfering with health professionals' ability to provide care, warning that criminalizing abortion puts women and girls' health and lives at risk.
"The criminalization of abortion prevents healthcare providers from delivering timely, medically indicated care in accordance with their patients' wishes," the letter says.
"It impedes and disregards sound medical judgment and can undermine the professional duty of care and confidentiality that doctors bear towards their patients."
Globally, 40% of women of childbearing age live in countries where abortion is banned, highly restricted or otherwise inaccessible. Unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of maternal deaths, resulting in 47,000 women and girls dying each year.
"So many respected health professionals speaking out reaffirms what women have been saying for years; governments can no longer claim that criminalizing abortion has no impact on the health care that women and girls receive," said Sara MacNeice, Manager of Amnesty International's My Body My Rights campaign.
"Making criminals of women for abortion violates their human rights and can endanger their lives. In numerous countries around the world, Amnesty International has documented shocking cases of women forced to continue unviable pregnancies because of restrictive laws. We have seen women and girls pregnant as a result of rape forced to carry the foetus to term and give birth.
" International law is clear: at the very least women should have access to an abortion when the pregnancy poses a risk to the life or health of a pregnant woman or girl, in cases of severe or fatal foetal impairment, and in cases of rape or incest. International law is also says that under no circumstances should a woman be made a criminal for having an abortion."
Amnesty International's global My Body My Rights campaign aims to stop the control and criminalization of sexuality and reproduction by governments. It has highlighted the situation in El Salvador, Ireland and Chile, three countries where legal barriers to abortion severely limit doctors' ability to provide women the healthcare they need.
Doctors in Ireland, El Salvador and many other countries have spoken to Amnesty International of the restrictions abortion laws place on their ability to provide care to their patients.
El Salvador
Health professionals in El Salvador risk prosecution and imprisonment of six to 12 years for providing abortion services, under any circumstances. As a result, they are reduced to monitoring the woman's condition for sufficient deterioration before undertaking any procedure, which could harm the foetus, according to an Amnesty International report issued in September 2014.
A doctor working in a maternal health unit in a public hospital in El Salvador told Amnesty International how the law prevents doctors from acting if complications during pregnancy threaten a woman's health:
"We're not discussing a medical question, but a purely legal one. We all know what needs to be done, but we go back to the fact that we all have our hands tied by what is written in the law."
Ireland
Doctors and health care providers in the Republic of Ireland may face up to 14 years in jail if they provide, or assist in providing, an abortion other than when a woman or girl's life is at risk, even where they act to protect her health.
In a June 2015 report, doctors told Amnesty International that they face a choice of either breaking the law or providing potentially dangerous - and unethical - care to their patients.
Dr. Peter Boylan, an obstetrician, gynaecologist and former Master and Clinical Director of Ireland's National Maternity Hospital told Amnesty International about the legal and ethical tightrope medical staff are forced to walk:
"Under the [current law] we must wait until women become sick enough before we can intervene. How close to death do you have to be? There is no answer to that."
Chile
In Chile, under the Criminal Code health professionals risk prison for assisting or carrying out an abortion. Health professionals themselves often report abortions to the police.
Obstetrician Rene Castro highlighted the problems caused by having to wait until there is an imminent danger before being able to take action:
"Today there is a much greater consensus internationally when talking about quality of life. The issue is whether I wait until a woman is in intensive care because of a grave complication of a pre-existing condition before taking action, or whether I'm going to forestall this serious episode and accept it when a woman tells me "Doctor, I'd prefer to terminate the pregnancy before I get to that point" because "the focus should be on the woman's own decision"."
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
LATEST NEWS
AOC Commits to Opposing ‘Any Spending on Arms for Israel,’ Including Iron Dome
The progressive congresswoman has been named as a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender.
Apr 01, 2026
A private meeting between Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and an increasingly influential progressive New York City organization on Tuesday evening revealed new evidence of Israel's "weakening position," as one journalist observed, as the potential 2028 presidential contender committed to voting against any military funding for the Middle Eastern superpower, including for "defensive" weapons.
To the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), whose New York City chapter Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) met with on Tuesday, the congresswoman's failure to vote against a 2021 funding package for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system—instead voting "present"—represented a significant betrayal of the fight for Palestinian rights and against Israel's violent anti-Palestinian policies.
The congresswodefeman further angered solidarity organizers in 2024 when she voted in favor of a resolution to adopt a definition of antisemitism that conflates the term with criticism of Israel, and last year she voted against an amendment to strip Iron Dome funding from a must-pass defense spending bill. She then voted against the Defense Appropriations Act itself, which included spending for offensive weapons for Israel.
On Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez was clear when asked by a DSA organizer whether she would support an arms embargo on Israel, which has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians in Gaza since beginning its US-backed assault there in 2023; is currently joining the US in attacking Iran; and has killed over 1,000 people in the region in the last month as it's pledged to use Gaza as a "model" for its attacks on Lebanon.
“I have not once ever voted to authorize funding to Israel, and I will never,” Ocasio-Cortez said in response to the question. “The Israeli government should be able to finance their own weapons if they seek to arm themselves."
A member asked to clarify in a follow-up question, asking specifically, “If the moment presents itself in Congress, will you commit to voting ‘no’ for any spending on arms for Israel, including so-called ‘defensive capabilities?’”
“Yes,” Ocasio-Cortez replied, according to a partial recording of the meeting.
DSA members who attended the forum also reported that Ocasio-Cortez committed to opposing the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of antisemitism, which claims that "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor," and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis," are examples of anti-Jewish bias.
The positions expressed by Ocasio-Cortez at the DSA forum have already been embraced by other progressive lawmakers like Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), but some observers noted that Ocasio-Cortez committed to voting against all military funding for Israel as she's been named a potential contender for the 2028 presidential race.
Political strategist Chris Sosa said Ocasio-Cortez's clear position against all weapons for Israel "will echo across the Democratic Party" and is a sign of a new "common litmus test" for candidates.
"Whatever Israel’s level of popularity is right now is its ceiling, because Israel is going to take a huge part of the blame for the financial crisis and likely recession about to hit us," said Ryan Grim of Drop Site News, referring to the growing economic turmoil that's resulted from the US-Israeli war on Iran. "And while the global economy is on its knees, Israel will *still* be pushing for the war on Iran to continue. And people will have had more than enough."
"Alexandria Ocasio-Corronez breaking against Israel here is a major sign of their weakening position," added Grim.
A poll released last month by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies found that more US voters now view Israel negatively than positively. In 2023, 47% of Americans viewed Israel in a positive light, versus 24% who had negative views of the country's government.
At Groundwork DSA, a faction within the organization that aims for the DSA to "become a genuine, mass political party," one organizer noted that Ocasio-Cortez's position sets her apart from other Democrats who are thought to be likely presidential contenders, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris, who refused to back an arms embargo during her 2024 campaign.
Neither Newsom nor Harris "will be ideologically willing to even consider an arms embargo against Israel," wrote organizer J. Kraush ahead of Tuesday's forum. "More importantly, they can not be swayed on the topic, precisely because there is no political or financial benefit for them to move. We can expect them to receive millions in funding from Zionist organizations such as AIPAC, especially if AOC remains a front-runner."
While establishment Democrats continue to back military funding for Israel, Ocasio-Cortez's commitment "is the right thing to do and the leadership Democratic voters want to see," said progressive organizer Daniel Denvir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Accused of ‘Intimidation Tactic’ for Attending Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Hearing in Person
In an unprecedented move, Trump arrived at the court after accusing conservative justices of being "disloyal" for ruling against him in previous cases.
Apr 01, 2026
President Donald Trump is being accused of trying to "intimidate" the US Supreme Court as it hears oral arguments on his attempt to kill birthright citizenship.
Trump broke nearly 250 years of precedent as he arrived at the high court on Wednesday morning to personally observe the proceedings, which no sitting president has done.
As Kathryn Watson, a reporter for CBS News, explained, historically, "presidents have avoided attendance in part to honor the separation of powers."
Trump was in attendance as the justices—three of whom he appointed—mulled what could be their most consequential decision in decades: whether to uphold an executive order that would strip away a fundamental guarantee of citizenship enshrined in the US Constitution.
Making it all the more unnerving were the president's comments about the high court on Tuesday night in the Oval Office after letting reporters know he was "going" to keep tabs on Wednesday's proceedings.
He specifically zeroed in on the Republican-leaning justices, describing those he appointed as “disloyal” for ruling against him in previous cases. While describing the liberal justices as rank partisans, who’ll vote against him no matter what, he said the conservatives were “very different.”
"They want to show how honorable they are, so a man can appoint them, and they can rule against him and be so proud of it," Trump said.
"Some people would call it stupidity," Trump went on. "Some people would call it disloyal."
The court is expected to rule this summer on the legality of Trump’s executive order declaring that the children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas would no longer automatically become US citizens.
A lower court has already ruled against Trump's order, declaring it in violation of the 14th Amendment, which was passed following the Civil War and plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The Supreme Court will now hear arguments from the Trump administration seeking to undo that fundamental understanding, including ones advanced over a century ago by a former Confederate officer who also helped to establish the “separate but equal” doctrine that legalized racial segregation for over half a century.
If the court votes to uphold Trump's executive order, hundreds of thousands of American citizens could become effectively stateless.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said it could also throw the citizenship of tens of millions more into doubt, as it would effectively require people with legal birth certificates to "prove" their parents' legal status.
Trump's effort to strip millions of people of their citizenship comes as his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has pushed to ultimately deport "100 million people" from the country—a number that far exceeds the population of undocumented immigrants in the US.
DaMareo Cooper explained on Tuesday for Common Dreams that the Supreme Court's decision will determine "whether a president can rewrite one of the clearest promises embedded in American law":
If the court strikes down birthright citizenship, it would let the government decide who counts as American based on the circumstances of their birth.
The 14th Amendment’s authors understood the danger of that approach.
Once citizenship becomes conditional, every other right soon follows. Ending birthright citizenship would affect everyone—not just children of immigrants—in a system that has long questioned the belonging of people of color, including Black Americans.
Allowing the Trump administration to determine who counts as a citizen takes on even more weight in light of another likely unconstitutional executive order signed by the president on Tuesday, requiring DHS to create a "citizenship list" to determine who is allowed to vote in the 2026 election.
Given these extraordinary stakes, many observers fear that Trump’s appearance before the Supreme Court's deliberations on Wednesday is designed to send a message to the justices he's accused of being "disloyal."
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Trump's arrival at the high court an “intimidation tactic to remind judges of the costs of defying him.”
Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, said, "The separation of powers is pure fiction at this point."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Constitution Is Not a Suggestion': Supreme Court Told to Protect Birthright Citizenship
One critic warned that upholding President Donald Trump’s executive order “would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides.”
Apr 01, 2026
As the US Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump's executive order revoking birthright citizenship, several legal experts, advocacy groups, and commentators warned about the dire consequences that would come from not striking it down.
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, published an analysis on Monday explaining that, in an ideal world, the Supreme Court wouldn't even be entertaining arguments for upholding Trump's order because it so obviously violates the plain text of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution," wrote Waldman. "This has been the law for more than 150 years. The amendment overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, which said that even free Black Americans could not be US citizens. The Supreme Court in 1898 confirmed the 14th Amendment’s plain meaning. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it ruled that children born here are citizens, even if their parents are not."
Waldman argued that "Donald Trump tried to Sharpie this out of the Constitution" with his executive order, but insisted that the 14th Amendment is "open and shut," making it easy for the Supreme Court to rule against the president.
The New York Times' Jamelle Bouie echoed Waldman's arguments in a Wednesday column, writing that "there are few lines in the Constitution that are as straightforward as the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment," whose "explicit aim... was to settle the question of American citizenship for good."
Bouie also dissected assorted arguments made by right-wing legal scholars in support of Trump's executive order, finding that they fail to offer "any new evidence regarding the drafting of the 14th Amendment, the intent of its framers, or the public meaning as understood at ratification."
"The evidence in favor of the traditional view of the citizenship clause is overwhelming," Bouie added. "To rule otherwise is to say, in essence, that two plus two equals five."
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, argued that the Supreme Court must strike down Trump's order because "the Constitution is not a suggestion, and its guarantees do not shift with the political winds of any one president."
"When the courts allow one president to change the definition of American citizenship with a stroke of a pen, it puts every American citizen at risk," Solomón added. "The Supreme Court must reject these unconstitutional overreaches before they cause irreversible harm to our families and our nation’s future."
Garrett Epps, legal affairs editor at Washington Monthly, warned that failing to uphold the 14th Amendment would create "an exploitable non-citizen class" who would live in the country without any constitutional rights or protections.
Picking apart Trump aide Stephen Miller's remarks about denying citizenship to children of a "foreign labor class," Epps argued that the real goal of the Trump administration's attack on the 14th Amendment isn't strictly mass deportations, but the elimination of rights to an entire group of US-based workers.
"As a practical matter," explained Epps, "reinstating a hereditary, lifelong, inferior status—which, after all, is what removing 'full political rights, including welfare and the right to vote' would mean—recreates the conditions for the growth of a racialized slave economy."
TV host and activist Padma Lakshmi, writing in a Wednesday New York Times column, also pointed to the horrific impact that eliminating birthright citizenship would have on families across the country.
"If the Supreme Court doesn't block this executive order, it would create a mess of legal and logistical consequences," Lakshmi argued. "Confusion would replace certainty, opening the door to discrimination and a patchwork of rules governing noncitizens’ access to our society. Hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States would be thrown into legal limbo every year."
The end result, Lakshmi said, "would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular