united states

In the U.S., all eyes on Texas in the Reproductive Rights Debate

/ Aparna Polavarapu / Leave a comment

The reproductive rights debate rages on in the U.S. as much as in the rest of the world, with the most recent hotspot of activity in Texas.  Yesterday, during its last night of a special legislative session, the Texas Senate considered a bill that would severely restrict access to abortions within the state.  Among other things, the bill would ban (with limited exceptions) abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges with a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic, a high bar for rural area clinics.  Delving deeply into the rules of parliamentary procedure, opponents managed to block the passage of the bill by delaying any vote on it until after the session expired at midnight.

Emerging as a pro-choice hero was state Senator Wendy Davis, whose plans to filibuster for approximately 13 hours were interrupted 11 hours in by a discussion of whether Davis’s filibuster had ended due to her alleged violations of parliamentary procedure.  During the filibuster and discussion (when it remained unclear whether her filibuster had officially ended), Davis remained standing, without leaning, eating, drinking, or taking a bathroom break, as per the rules of the Senate.  Davis’s colleagues supported her to the end, prolonging the discussion and preventing a vote by raising a number of parliamentary points of order.  The Senate finally voted to end Davis’s filibuster with minutes remaining in the session, despite several attempts by Senator Leticia Van de Putte to be heard before the vote.  Van de Putte perhaps had the last word of the night, however, when she asked, “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?,” provoking a deafening uproar from pro-choice protestors in the gallery which ultimately prevented the passage of the bill before the session expired.

The issue, discussed for the better part of 11 hours through Senator Davis’s own words and the anecdotes of supporters around the state, highlighted the importance of access to women’s health facilities for all women regardless of economic class, and the notion that the bill wouldn’t lower the number of abortions but would instead drive these medical procedures underground.  Indeed, around the world, lack of access to safe and legal abortions has been connected to a rise in women seeking unsafe, clandestine abortions.

This may be a small victory for reproductive rights advocates, as the bill may simply be put to vote again in another special session.  Even still, for the many following along in person, on the live feeds, or on Twitter, the day and night felt momentous.  To the many pro-choice advocates, the coming together of the Senators and the public in the gallery was proof of democracy at work.  The filibuster, a tool designed to allow a minority to fight against complete majority rule, did precisely that last night.

The intensity of the last few hours of the legislative session may also be an indicator of an increasingly intense debate to come.  Texas is one of several states that has attempted to or succeeded in severely restricting abortion access in recent years, despite vociferous protest from pro-choice advocates and constitutional injunctions in states like North Dakota preventing strict abortion rules from becoming practice.  But the scene in Austin last night showcased the dedication of the pro-choice movement, surprising many who did not expect such a showing from Texas.  This may very well have renewed the momentum of the movement.  Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood and daughter of former Texas governor Ann Richards, has proclaimed:

“They lit the fuse in Austin – but the fire is catching all over the country.” 

EDITED TO UPDATE:  Texas Governor Rick Perry confirmed that he will be calling a special session, beginning July 1, 2013, to revisit the bill.

Book on UN offers glimpse of views as Samantha Power readies for hearings

/ Diane Marie Amann / Leave a comment

powerobamaNews of Samantha Power’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations prompted me to read her biography of that 68-year-old international organization. In truth, the book is a biography of the top diplomat killed 10 years ago when a car bomb gutted U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Yet because that diplomat had effectively grown up alongside the United Nations – he was born fewer than 3 years after its Charter entered into force, and he would serve under 5 of its 8 Secretaries-General – Power’s Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World (2008) tells the life story of both the man and the organization. The book thus indicates what Power (prior IntLawGrrls post) thought of the United Nations back when she was advising then-Senator Barack Obama on foreign policy.

Emphasized throughout Chasing the Flame is Vieira de Mello’s transformation from a man of humanitarian action alone to one who comes to realize, indeed to embrace, the significance of politics in humanitarian endeavors. Recounting his late-1980s role in repatriating Vietnamese refugees, Power wrote with disapproval of Vieira de Mello’s decision to “downplay his and the UN’s obligation to try to shape the preferences of governments” (p. 69, emphasis hers). She likewise criticized his early ’90s stance of neutrality while serving in UNPROFOR, the hapless U.N. Protection Force mission in Bosnia: “impartial peacekeeping between two unequal sides was,” she wrote, “its own form of side-taking” (p. 179). In contrast, Power conveyed approbation when she wrote that by the late 1990s, after working to return Hutu refugees to Rwanda, Vieira de Mello “was now convinced that UN officials would better serve the powerless if they could find a way to enlist the power of the world’s largest countries” (p. 219). According to Power’s epilogue, the key to harnessing that power is flexibility (p. 516-17):

power‘While many have responded to today’s divisions and insecurities with ideology, Vieira de Mello’s life steers us away from one-size-fits-all doctrine to a principled pragmatism that can adapt to meet diffuse and unpredictable challenges.’

The United Nations, she added (p. 519), has a critical role to play:

‘UN civil servants had to become more self-critical and introspective, accepting what had taken Vieira de Mello years to learn: that they are agents of change themselves and not simply the servants of powerful governments.’

In this book as in A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (2002), Power put much blame on the U.S. government. The United States’ perception of its own self-interest often appeared short-sighted and inept. U.S. officials’ resistance to the International Criminal Court won them no favor. Ineptitude was especially evident in the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq – events that would place Vieira de Mello and other humanitarians in Baghdad on the fateful date of August 19, 2003.

Power herself began working for the U.S. government not long after Chasing the Flame was published. As Special Assistant to President Obama and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the White House-based National Security Council, she spent years working on issues at the heart of her earlier writings.  (An account of a central effort, establishment of an Atrocities Prevention Board made up of officials from various U.S. agencies, was the subject yesterday of a New York Times article.) She’s reported to have played a pivotal role in the U.S. decision to intervene in Libya based on U.N. Security Council resolutions that invoked a concept discussed in her book, the responsibility to protect; to be precise,at p. 528 and elsewhere, Power stressed Vieira de Mello’s espousal of the emerging doctrine. These experiences may have adjusted Power’s views on the relation between the United Nations its member states. Yet most likely her 5 requirements for foreign policy success, distilled from her account of Vieira de Mello’s life, remain a constant. Quoted in full from p. 523, they are:

  • Legitimacy matters, and it comes both from legal authority or consent and from competent performance.
  • Spoilers, rogue states, and nonstate militants must be engaged, if only so they can be sized up and neutralized.
  • Fearful people must be made more secure.
  • Dignity is the cornerstone of order.
  • We outsiders must bring humility and patience to our dealings in foreign lands.

(Cross-posted from Diane Marie Amann)

Congressional Briefing on The International Criminal Court and US-ICC relations

/ Megan A. Fairlie / 4 Comments

stephen-rappDelighted to return to intlawgrrls, and to have attended the June 10 briefing on the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered by U.S Ambassador-at-Large, Stephen J. Rapp,(photo, left) head of the Office of Global Justice in the U.S. Department of State and hosted by the Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court (WICC) and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Those present heard an up-to-date perspective on the ICC, including its relationship with the United States, moderated by Christopher “Kip” Hale, Senior Counsel for the American Bar Association and Director of the ABA’s International Criminal Court Project.

Ambassador Rapp set the stage for his briefing by discussing the global leadership of the United States in the field of international criminal justice, beginning with the Nuremberg proceedings and continuing through to the work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

He followed with an extensive and detailed discussion of the work of the Court to date, along with an incisive analysis of the evolving role played by the United States over the course of the ICC’s development.

Among other themes, Ambassador Rapp discussed:

  • The ways in which ICC practice and US policy are aligned: The clear preference of the United States is to see justice performed at the national level. This position, Rapp emphasized, is consistent with the Court’s principle of complementarity. Under each approach, the priority is for cases to be prosecuted at the national level unless nations lack the will or capacity for domestic prosecutions.
  • The benefits of engaging with the ICC: Rapp highlighted that the current policy of constructive engagement ensures that U.S. interests and perspectives are well-represented as the Court goes forward. To place the importance of this positioning in perspective, Rapp noted that  a number of Court’s developments—particularly those related to the crime of aggression—might have gone differently, and perhaps preferably, had the United States been a part of the ICC conversation from 2002-2008.
  • The need to structure engagement with the Court within the confines of existing laws: Federal law presently prohibits direct financial support to the ICC. Thus, Rapp discussed alternative means of US assistance including the U.S. Rewards for Justice Program which, with bipartisan backing, was recently expanded to include support for the apprehension of individuals wanted by the ICC.
  • The salutary benefits of the ABA’s ICC project: Federal law also limits U.S. non-monetary assistance to specific ICC cases,  precluding the United States from acting in ways designed to benefit the Court as a whole. Rapp lauded the ABA’s ICC Project for filling this void.  Promoting practitioner engagement and training is one of the three pillars of the ABA project, which aims to unite ICC lawyers and staff with their domestic counterparts, enhancing investigation and advocacy skills through such vehicles as best practices conferences and training workshops.

The overall tenor of the briefing was markedly positive. Noting the U.S. commitment to hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable, Rapp reasoned that the United States ought to do what it can to assist the Court in bringing alleged war criminals to justice.

When I asked Rapp to identify what, in his view, was the most significant impediment to the United States joining the ICC, he first acknowledged that U.S. ratification of international treaties has historically been a lengthy process. Rapp noted, however, that before moving in this direction, the United States would have to overcome its concern that the Court might be used unfairly against it.  In Rapp’s view, this process will require more time for the United States to assess how prosecutors act and how ICC judges decide admissibility standards, in order to establish confidence that the U.S. would not be unfairly targeted by the Court.

faculty_megan_fairlie2This author is looking forward to discussing Rapp’s briefing next week at the International Criminal Court Summer School in Galway, Ireland, where she will be lecturing on the U.S. and the ICC.   The upcoming course, offered by the Irish Centre for Human Rights boasts a distinguished list of speakers, including the founding Director and now Honorary Chairman of the Centre, Professor William A. Schabas, fellow intlawgrrl, Nadia Bernaz, numerous ICC insiders and Don Ferencz, executive director of the Planethood Foundation and member of the Board of Advisors on the ABA-ICC Project.

A video-recording of the briefing is available here.

Sex selection abortions in India and the United States

/ Sital Kalantry / Leave a comment

In an article in Slate, “It’s a Trick“, I described the great care taken by the makers of “It’s A Girl,” a “documentary” on sex selection abortion in India and China to disguise connections to anti-abortion groups in the United States and to use the language of women’s equality movements.  Many feminist groups across the country and on university campuses have been screening this movie.  When I was asked to moderate a discussion after one such screening, I became curious about the financing sources for the film and the background of its director.   Through searching the ownership of several domain names, I found that Evan Davis, the director of the film worked for Harvest Media Ministries, a media company that makes anti-abortion and other videos for Church groups.  When I asked him about his financing sources, he refused to disclose them, but did admit that some donors were people he met during his tenure at Harvest Media Ministries.

The “documentary” paints a partial picture of the complexities of the situation in India.  Without  knowledge of the realities in India, some people may have been misled by the slanted portrayal to support the film and donate to charities it promotes.  The only scenario on abortion presented in the film is one where those who believe in autonomy rights of women and those who believe in the right of the fetus agree – a woman should not be forced to have an abortion because her fetus is female (or for any other reason).  To this end, the movie extensively covers Mitu Khurana, a woman who left her husband because he physically abused after she refused to abort her female fetuses.

The film, however, fails to depict the most common cases in India –- women who make the choice to abort a female fetus without physical violence or overt coercion.  Poor women in villages have told me that they do not want to bring girls into the world and do not want them to go through what they have faced.   Some might argue that these women cannot make this choice “freely” in the context of widespread “son preference.”

The other type of situation that the film fails to depict is one where a woman would face violence from her husband and in-laws if she didn’t abort the fetus, but gave birth to a girl instead.  Mitu Khurana’s family is depicted as middle class and she escaped from her husband with the financial support of her parents.  Countless poor women do not have that luxury.  Indeed, they are in a “double-bind” — they face violence at home if they do not have an abortion, and face jail if the do.

Continue reading →