Fundamentalisms and the Challenge to Women's Reproductive and Sexual Rights

Structures of dominance pervade the organisation and philosophy of most of the major world religions. Consequently, religious fundamentalisms are particularly inimical to the human rights of women in that they explicitly challenge women's right to bodily integrity by calling for the control of women's bodies, reproductive lives, and sexualities. All forms of religious fundamentalism oppose women's right to sexual freedom and pleasure, the right to make their own decisions with respect to abortion, and, importantly, the right to occupy positions of power and decision making either within their religious communities or in the wider society. Clearly, this has very concrete implications for women's human rights.

When fundamentalist political forces and ideologies are on the rise, governments, even as they attempt to restrict such forces in the struggle for political power, tend to acquiesce to them in matters relating to women. In the process, their different political interests collude with sexist male interests in denying women's human rights. They do so by enforcing family codes that discriminate against women in matters of sexuality, marriage, polygamy, divorce, repudiation, alimony, custody and guardianship of children, and inheritance. In particular, when fundamentalists organise politically to prevent women's access to reproductive health services, government officials and policymakers -- who are generally men who are educated within and benefit from such patriarchal religious traditions -- are more willing to accept fundamentalist claims as grounded in tradition and therefore legitimate. In contrast, more liberal perspectives are viewed with distrust as "new" or "foreign" and therefore not legitimate.

There are many examples of oppressive practices and polices, targeting women's reproductive and sexual lives, which are perpetuated in name of religion. For example, in Pakistan women are killed by male relatives when they are suspected of "immoral activities." Such "honor killings" are tacitly or explicitly condoned by families and the government as part of an understandable process to re-establish "family honour." In the US, Christian religious fundamentalists use terrorist tactics to prevent women from having abortions; clinics that provide abortions have been bombed and some doctors who carried out legal abortions have been murdered. In Nepal, there is an absolute prohibition on abortion resulting in hundreds of women serving prison terms -- including rape and incest victims who have sought abortions. In the Republic of Ireland, a similar prohibition ensures that only the well-off and better educated can avail of abortions by travelling in secret to neighboring Britain. In doing so, they risk intense social stigma and possible medical complications due to the absence of routine follow-up care back at home.

These laws, policies, and practices are frequently said to flow from the imperatives of religious faith. However, in the case of Islam, for example, there is considerable variation in actual laws and policies from one Muslim country/community to another. For example, across the Muslim world, policies on fertility regulation range from a total ban on contraception to forced abortion and sterilization, depending on the political interests that dominate at the moment. What is similar across all the Muslim world is the use of Islam as justification of such dissimilar policies.

Ultimately, all fundamentalist movements, whether religious, economic, scientific or cultural, are primarily about gaining political power. They thrive in societies where diversity is denied and violence is condoned to repress opposition from groups and individuals who reject their values. In order to overcome fundamentalisms, it is important to underline that no religious, ethnic or cultural community is monolithic. Within each community, where there are repressive tendencies there will also be more liberating counter tendencies. There is no "religious" reason why governments should accept and encourage the fundamentalist forces within a religious, cultural or ethnic community against progressive, pro-human rights voices in the same community. When it comes to women's reproductive health, it must be recognised that the Holy See or Iran, for example, are not advancing theology; they are asserting political power and control over women's lives.

Human Rights as a Challenge to Fundamentalisms

Respect for bodily integrity is one of the most basic principles of human rights. Human rights affecting sexuality and reproduction cover two basic areas: the right to sexual and reproductive health care and the right to sexual and reproductive self-determination. The term "reproductive rights" gives expression to a range of human rights that pertain to human reproduction, and in a broader sense, to reproductive health and well-being. This includes rights that are undermined in the context of population development policies. Although these rights are not specified as such in any of international legal instruments of human rights, they are implicit in all of them and are defined in an array of non-treaty human rights declarations and action platforms. For this reason, we can say that reproductive rights are recognized internationally and are binding.

Women's sexual and reproductive rights under international human rights law draw on a combination of civil, political, social, cultural, and economic rights. This includes the right to health and family planning; the right to life, freedom, integrity, and security; the right not to be assaulted or exploited sexually; the right not to be tortured or to be the object of cruel, inhuman, degrading punishment or treatment; the right not to be subject to sex-based discrimination; the right to privacy; the right to intimacy; and the right to enjoy scientific progress and the right not to be subjected to scientific or medical experimentation without full consent.

Several human rights treaties and other documents, approved by the international community, have established a consensus on universally applicable rights in this area. The Program of Action adopted at the International Conference of Population and Development (The Cairo Action Program 1994) was the first international conference to define the term "reproductive rights" if not "sexual rights." Specifically, the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo 1994) defined reproductive health as a "state of general physical, social and mental well-being" and not just "the absence of illness in all the aspects related to the reproductive system, its functions and processes." Reproductive health, therefore, includes the capacity to enjoy a satisfactory sexual life without risks, and the freedom to decide whether or not to have children, when and how many. This last condition underpins the right of men and women to full information about and access to effective, accessible, and acceptable the family planning methods. It also includes the right to access other legal methods to regulate fertility, and the right to receive adequate healthcare to facilitate healthy pregnancies and births, offering couples the maximum possibility of having healthy children.

However, at the Beijing Conference in 1995, and throughout the Cairo+5 and Beijing + 5 review meetings, sexual and reproductive rights were repeatedly challenged by both Catholic and Muslim fundamentalist movements. Some conservative states and their allied NGOs attempted to weaken the existing agreements by blocking consensus in areas such as unsafe abortion, the explicit inclusion of language on sexual and reproductive rights, and measures to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, ongoing North-South debates on Development Aid, reduction of debt, and globalization often over-shadowed consideration of women's concerns make negotiations to advance the rights of women very difficult. The challenging global political climate outlined here highlights the particular need to sustain global solidarity among groups in their struggles to combat fundamentalisms and to ensure ongoing information exchange and collaborative strategizing across countries and regions affected by different forms of fundamentalism.

Sources:

Women Living Under Muslim Laws, Statement on Reproductive Rights (Cairo, August 1994)

Frances Kissling and Serra Sippel, Women Under Oppressive Regimes: Women and Religious Fundamentalisms, Catholics for a Free Choice, 2001.

Sajeda Amin and Sara Hossain, Women's reproductive rights and the politics of fundamentalism: A view from Bangladesh, Women Against Fundamentalisms Journal, no.7, 1995. pp 8-12.

Ana Elena Obando, Sexual and Reproductive Rights, WHRnet, March 2003.