Girls, Not Mothers

Girls, Not Mothers: Preventing Forced Pregnancy in Latin America and Beyond

UN Human Rights Committee (2025)

The United Nations Human Rights Committee set new human rights standards to ensure that sexual abuse survivors can access sexual education, safe abortion services, and other protections. The cases were brought in 2019 by the Center for Reproductive Rights and its partners against Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala on behalf of four Latin American girls—aged 12 and 13—who were raped, denied access to abortion care and other health services, and forced to give birth. The Committee’s rulings in the four cases call on States to amend their legislation to ensure abortion access and prevent forced pregnancies and motherhood. The far-reaching rulings extend to more than 170 countries that are member States of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Bungoma County v. Josephine Oundo Ongwen

The Right to Quality Maternal Health Care in Kenya: The Josephine Majani Cases (Appeal)

Kenya Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2018 (2024)

The Court of Appeal of Kenya affirms the right to respectful maternal health care under the Kenyan Constitution. The Court’s 2024 decision upholds a landmark 2018 judgment by the Kenyan High Court defending the human rights of a pregnant woman who was denied quality maternal health care, physically and verbally abused by hospital staff, and left to deliver her baby on the hospital floor. The sweeping decision reaffirms that the Constitution of Kenya protects the right to the highest attainable standard of health care, including maternal care, and underscores the government’s obligation to ensure functional health care systems.

LHRC & CRR v. Tanzania

Ending Tanzania’s School Ban on Pregnant Girls and Young Mothers

Legal and Human Rights Centre and Center for Reproductive Rights v. United Republic of Tanzania (2022)

The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) ruled that the practice of expelling pregnant students from school violated adolescent girls’ human rights and recommended that Tanzania reform its education policies. The case was brought by the Center and the Legal and Human Rights Centre of Tanzania (LHRC) on behalf of six adolescent girls who were expelled from school for being pregnant, as well as all girls in Tanzania. It challenged the government’s practice of forcing girls in public schools to take mandatory pregnancy tests and expelling pregnant girls permanently— denying thousands the opportunity to continue their formal education. The ACERWC’s ruling marks a victory for millions of adolescent girls across the continent, since more than 50 countries have ratified the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

PAK & Salim Mohammed v. Attorney General

PAK and Salim Mohammed v. Attorney General and Three Others

Malindi High Court Petition Number E009 of 2020 (2022)

The High Court of Kenya in Malindi affirmed that abortion care is a fundamental right under Kenya’s 2010 Constitution and that it’s illegal to arrest and prosecute patients and health care providers for seeking or offering abortion services. The Court directed the Kenyan parliament to enact an abortion law and public policy framework that aligns with the Constitution. The ruling came in a case—brought in 2020 by the Center and the Reproductive Health Network Kenya (RHNK) —involving a minor’s right to receive reproductive care, a clinician’s right to treat her, and the obligations of Kenya under its Constitution.

Causa Justa

Decriminalizing Abortion in Colombia

Causa Justa Lawsuit to Decriminalize Abortion in Colombia (2022)

The Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled to decriminalize abortion up to 24 weeks of gestation. Prior to the ruling, abortion in Colombia was a crime with only narrow exceptions. The ruling makes Colombia the eighth country in Latin America and the Caribbean to decriminalize abortion during initial stages of pregnancy and the first to have a model legalizing abortion up to 24 weeks. The case was brought in 2020 by the Causa Justa Movement, of which the Center is a member. It sought to eliminate abortion as a crime, reduce barriers to legal abortion care, and end the risk of abortion-related criminal prosecution.

Syed v. Sindh Province

Ensuring Access to Obstetric Fistula Treatment in Sindh, Pakistan

Syed & Others v. Province of Sindh & Another, Sindh High Court of Pakistan (2015)

This was the first case filed in Pakistan to recognize that the widespread incidence of obstetric fistula—an easily preventable condition—violated women’s fundamental rights to dignity and life under the Pakistan Constitution. As a result of this case, women in the Sindh Province of Pakistan can now access obstetric fistula repair services in government hospitals. Obstetric fistula is a hole that develops between the birth canal and the rectum or bladder, leading to continuous, uncontrollable flow of urine, feces or both. The primary cause is obstructed labor that is not properly addressed through timely emergency obstetric care. Since women from low-income backgrounds in Pakistan often give birth without access to trained birth attendants or medical facilities, they face increased risks of developing obstetric fistula.

Manuela v. El Salvador

Manuela v. El Salvador

Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2021)

This case marked the first time an international court has addressed the barriers to reproductive health care in El Salvador, which has a total ban on abortion. In its ruling, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established standards to protect women seeking abortion and other reproductive health care in El Salvador. It also found the state responsible for the death of Manuela, a woman unjustly convicted of aggravated homicide, who died in prison after suffering an obstetric emergency and losing her pregnancy. The impact of this ruling will be felt across Latin America and the Caribbean, where most countries have restrictive abortion laws, since the Court’s rulings are binding to all States under its jurisdiction. 

Paola Guzmán Albarracín v. Ecuador

Paola Guzmán Albarracín v. Ecuador

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2020)

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights established legally binding standards to protect girls from sexual violence and harassment in schools throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. In a wide-reaching ruling, the Court held Ecuador responsible for violating the right to life, personal integrity, private life and dignity, education, and the right to live free from gender violence and discrimination for failing to protect an adolescent public-school student from sexual violence in school. For the first time, the Court clarified that the right to education must include age-appropriate, comprehensive, and evidence-based sexual and reproductive education. More broadly, the Court established that the rights to personal integrity and privacy entail the right to sexual freedom and freedom to control one’s own body, including for adolescents.

Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt & Howe

Hodes & Nauser MDs, P.A., et. al. v. Schmidt & Howe

2019

The Kansas Supreme Court established for the first time that the Kansas Constitution protects the right to abortion independently of the U.S. Constitution. The decision affirms a preliminary injunction blocking a ban on dilation and evacuation, the standard of care for ending a pregnancy after about 15 weeks. The Kansas Supreme Court also explains that laws limiting abortion access must meet the highest standard of judicial review to satisfy the requirements of the state Constitution.

FIDA Kenya v. Attorney General

Securing the Right to Safe Abortion for Sexual Abuse Survivors in Kenya

FIDA Kenya & 3 others v. Attorney General & 2 others, High Court of Kenya (2019)

In this first-ever case to address abortion as a constitutional right in Africa, Kenya’s High Court reaffirms protections for legal abortion when a pregnant woman’s life or health is threatened. The life and health protections include the woman’s physical, mental and social wellbeing. The Court emphasized that this also includes victims of sexual violence. Representing FIDA Kenya, two community advocates, and a minor who died after suffering complications from an unsafe abortion, the Center challenged the Kenyan government’s withdrawal of standards and guidelines pertaining to unsafe abortions. Because of this case, health care providers can be trained in abortion care and offer services without fear of prosecution. The case marks a critically important step toward improving maternal health outcomes for Kenyan women.

Jackson Namunya Tali v. Kenya

Abortion Stigma and Its Effect on Access to Justice

Jackson Namunya Tali v. The Republic of Kenya (2019)

The Court of Appeal of Kenya acquitted a registered nurse who had been sentenced to death in September 2014, after a young woman with pregnancy complications died in his care. While the prosecution alleged that the woman died because Mr. Tali assisted her with an illegal abortion, , the Court found that that argument relied on an unproven, unreasonable abortion theory. This case addressed how health care providers’ and law enforcement officers’ uncertainty and stigma about abortion undermine the constitutional rights of women and girls. This case also helps reduce the chilling effect on medical workers providing reproductive health care. 

Josephine Oundo Ongwen v. Attorney General

Josephine Oundo Ongwen (Majani) v. Attorney General & 4 others

Bungoma High Court Petition No. 5 of 2014 (2018)

The Court recognized that the neglect and abuse of women seeking maternity health care constitute a violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Kenya and international human rights instruments. The Court declared that the physical and verbal abuse Josephine experienced during her delivery amounted to a violation of her right to dignity and her right to not be subjected to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. The Court also found that Josephine was mistreated because the National and Bungoma County Governments failed to monitor and set standards for free maternal health care and services. The Court’s decision emphasized the need to develop and implement policy guidelines to make quality, accessible health care services available to all Kenyans—especially maternal health care.

Mellet v. Ireland; Whelan v. Ireland

Reforming Abortion Law in Ireland

Mellet v. Ireland; Whelan v. Ireland, United Nations Human Rights Committee (2016)

In two landmark rulings, the United Nations Human Rights Committee determined that Ireland’s strict abortion ban subjected women to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. For the first time in response to an individual complaint, the Committee recognized that criminalizing and prohibiting abortion violates human rights, including the rights to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, to privacy, and to equality and non-discrimination. The Committee instructed Ireland to prevent future violations by legalizing abortion and ensuring access to abortion care in Ireland.

Millicent Awuor & Margaret Oliele v. Attorney General

Addressing Disrespect and Abuse in Maternal Health Care Facilities in Kenya

Millicent Awuor (Maimuna) & Margaret Anyoso Oliele v. Attorney General & others (2015)

The High Court of Kenya underscored the government’s obligations to protect the rights of women seeking maternal health services in public health care facilities. The High Court recognized that detaining and abusing women who are unable to pay for maternity services at Kenyan public hospitals is arbitrary, unlawful, and in violation of Kenyan Constitutional and international human rights standards. The decision demands that the Kenyan government take all necessary steps to protect patients from detention in health care facilities. The government is also required to develop clear guidelines and procedures for implementing a fee waiver system in all public hospitals, as lack of funding for maternal health services is a driving cause of patient detention.

M.M. v. Peru

M.M. v. Peru

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2014)

In a Friendly Settlement Agreement before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Peru admitted its international responsibility for violating the human rights of a woman who was drugged and raped by a public health service doctor when she was seeking medical services. The Peruvian government compensated the 19-year-old victim and took steps to improve legal and administrative policies on sexual violence. 

P. & S. v. Poland

P. and S. v. Poland

European Court of Human Rights (2013)

The European Court of Human Rights set standards for adolescents’ right to reproductive health services. For the first time, it addressed adolescents’ special vulnerability and confirmed their autonomy over their reproductive health. The court reaffirmed that once a state has adopted statutory regulations that allow abortion in some situations, it must also make abortion accessible in practice.

L.C. v. Peru

L.C. v. Peru

UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2011)

The United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) ruled that Peru’s failure to guarantee access to essential reproductive health services, including legal abortion, violated international treaty obligations. The  case involved a young girl who was raped and then denied emergency spinal surgery because she was pregnant—despite the fact that abortion is legal in Peru when health and life are at risk. CEDAW ruled that Peru violated its obligation to eliminate discrimination against women in health care and to eliminate prejudices and gender stereotypes concerning the protection of the fetus over the health of the mother. CEDAW demanded that Peru establish a mechanism to help women access abortion to protect their physical and mental health; change its laws to allow abortion in the case of rape; and implement training programs to help provide reproductive health services to adolescent girls and victims of sexual violence.

R.R. v. Poland

R.R. v. Poland

European Court of Human Rights (2011)

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Poland’s denial of legal reproductive care violated human rights. It found that in failing to ensure timely access to medical information and prenatal testing, Poland undermined informed decision-making in pregnancy and caused acute anguish—amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court held that Poland must put in place an effective legal and procedural framework guaranteeing that complete, relevant, and reliable information is available to women so that they can make informed decisions about their pregnancy. The Court also asked Poland to ensure that women’s access to legal reproductive health services is not jeopardized by medical professionals’ refusals of care with reference to the “conscience clause” under Polish law.

Alyne da Silva Pimentel v. Brazil

Alyne da Silva Pimentel v. Brazil

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2011)

In the first-ever maternal mortality case decided by an international human rights body, the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) ruled that States are obligated to address and reduce maternal mortality. The ruling condemned Brazil for failing to provide timely, nondiscriminatory, and appropriate maternal health services to Alyne Da Silva. It also orders the country to adopt measures to reduce maternal mortality and redress Alyne’s family. The committee recognized that states have a human rights obligation to reduce maternal mortality, to ensure women’s rights to safe motherhood, and to provide affordable access to adequate emergency obstetric care that meets women’s specific, distinctive health needs—particularly women from low socioeconomic backgrounds and historically marginalized groups.

Lakshmi v. Nepal

Lakshmi v. Nepal

Supreme Court of Nepal (2009)

Nepal’s Supreme Court concluded that the government must guarantee access to safe and affordable abortion services. The Court ordered Nepal to adopt a comprehensive abortion law that establishes a national fund for abortion procedure costs, ensures stronger safeguards for women’s privacy, promotes access to safe services for all women, and widely disseminaties information about safe abortion services to health service providers and the public.

Paulina Ramirez v. Mexico

Paulina Ramirez v. Mexico

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2006)

In a Federal Agreement Settlement, the Mexican government agreed to establish guidelines for rape victims’ access to abortion care. The agreement led to a federal decree calling for the development and implementation of guidelines and procedures to guarantee rape victims’ right to access timely abortion care. This paves the way for legislative change to partially decriminalize abortion in Mexico City. The agreement also led to legal reform in the Mexican state of Baja California so that women who are victims of rape receive information about legal abortion. In this case, Mexico admitted responsibility for violating the rights of a 14-year-old rape victim after public health officials used a series of obstacles to convince her to withdraw her request for an abortion.

K.L. v. Peru

K.L. v. Peru

U.N. Human Rights Committee (2005)

The U.N. Human Rights Committee established that women and girls have a human right to access safe and legal abortion. The committee held that denying access to legal abortion violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ protection for the right to be free from cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as the right to privacy and the special protection of the rights of a minor.

María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez v. Peru

María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez v. Peru

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2005)

In the first case on reproductive rights admitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Peru was held responsible for its forced sterilization policies. In a settlement agreement, Peru admitted responsibility for the forced sterilization of María Mamérita Mestanza and for her death following inadequate care. It agrees to implement recommendations made by Peru’s Human Rights Ombudsman concerning the forced sterilization of women, particularly in marginalized and Indigenous communities. Peru agreed to compensate Mestanza’s family members and to change its laws and policies on reproductive health and family planning to eliminate discrimination and respect women’s autonomy. 

North Florida Women’s Health v. Florida

North Florida Women’s Health and Counseling Services, Inc. v. Florida

United States Supreme Court (2003)

The Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Florida Constitution included the right to abortion, establishing stronger protections for the right to abortion in Florida than those provided by the U.S. Constitution. The decision struck down a forced parental involvement and mandatory delay law and affirmed a then-decade-old precedent that abortion restrictions must pass the strictest standard of judicial review to be upheld under the Florida Constitution.

Ferguson v. City of Charleston

Ferguson v. City of Charleston

United States Supreme Court (2001)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a South Carolina public hospital policy of surreptitiously drug-testing pregnant women and turning over positive test results to law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court concluded that public officials’ interest in preventing prenatal cocaine exposure does not constitute a “special need” that justifies conducting unconsented searches without a warrant for the purposes of collecting evidence for law enforcement. 

Stenberg v. Carhart

Stenberg v. Carhart

United States Supreme Court (2000)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Nebraska’s method ban on abortion is unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer finds that the Nebraska ban is invalid under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, as banning the most-used method of performing a second-trimester abortion imposes an undue burden.

NARAL v. Johnson

New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson

New Mexico Supreme Court (1998)

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a policy that prevented patients from using Medicaid coverage for medically necessary abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or a life-threatening condition, violated the Equal Rights Amendment to the New Mexico Constitution. The court concluded that the policy created an unconstitutional disparity, because medically necessary procedures for men were covered by Medicaid while some medically necessary procedures for women were not. The U.S. Supreme Court then denied the State’s petition for writ of certiorari in 1999, declining to overturn the ruling.

Valley Hospital Association v. Mat-Su Coalition

Valley Hospital Association v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice

Alaska Supreme Court (1997)

The Alaska Supreme Court established even stronger protections for abortion rights in Alaska than those guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In its decision, the court struck down a policy at an Alaska hospital that prohibited abortions from being performed at the facility, finding for the first time that reproductive rights – including the right to abortion – are fundamental rights encompassed within the broader right to privacy in the Alaska Constitution.

Women of Minnesota v. Gomez

Women of Minnesota v. Gomez

Minnesota Supreme Court (1995)

The Minnesota Supreme Court established that the right to abortion was protected under the Minnesota Constitution independently of the U.S. Constitution. In its ruling overturning a ban on the use of state funds to cover abortion care, the state’s highest court held that prohibiting the use of public funds for therapeutic abortion infringed on a woman’s fundamental rights under the state constitution. It concluded that the right to privacy under the Minnesota Constitution includes a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.