Policy & Resources

Fact sheet: The Global Gag Rule and Human Rights

  • Explainer
  • Policy
12 min. read

Explore Resource

Table of Contents

  1. Summary
  2. What is the GGR?
  3. Undermining health and human rights
  4. Health impact
  5. Human rights impact
  6. The right to equality and non-discrimination
  7. The right to life
  8. The right to health
  9. The right to information
  10. The right to privacy
  11. The right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
  12. The right to freedom of expression
  13. Call to action
  14. Get help for your org
  15. Citations
Summary

Under a newly expanded “Global Gag” Rule, the U.S. is turning its back on human rights around the world.

This unprecedented expansion of a deeply harmful policy—which already restricted the use of U.S. foreign assistance funds for abortion—weaponizes foreign assistance to impose the Trump administration’s anti-rights agenda around the world. At its core, the policy attempts to ban abortion; erase trans, nonbinary, and intersex people; and restrict work on diversity, equity, and inclusion, advancing gender equality, and the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals. The Global Gag Rule undermines fundamental human rights to life, health, equality, information, privacy and expression.

What is the GGR?

What is the Global Gag Rule (GGR)?

The Mexico City Policy, also known as the “Global Gag Rule” (“GGR”), originally prohibited non-governmental organizations incorporated outside of the United States and receiving U.S. family planning funds from providing or promoting abortion, even with their own funds. The policy, first implemented in 1984, has since been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines. In his first term, President Trump reinstated and expanded this policy to apply to all U.S. global health assistance funds. Now in his second term, the Trump administration reinstated and now further expanded the scope of this policy dramatically with three separate, but inter-related final rules, the so-called “Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance (PHFFA)” policy.1

Under this policy, foreign and domestic nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), multilateral organizations, foreign governments and parastatals that receive U.S. non-military foreign assistance funds for grants or cooperative agreements are prohibited from using this money or, in certain cases, any of their own funds to perform or actively promote abortion as “a method of family planning”; promote “gender ideology”; and promote Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)-related policies and activities. The rule prohibits providing referrals and counseling for women seeking an abortion as “a method of family planning” or advocacy to make abortion safe and legal as “a method of family planning.”2

The GGR states that the only abortions not considered “a method of family planning” are those in the cases of rape or incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term.3 Entities subject to the rule will now be required to certify that they do not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning as a condition of receiving assistance from the U.S. government.4

The requirements are more narrowly tailored for U.S. NGOs and foreign governments than other entities. Under the rule, U.S. NGOs cannot provide abortion services outside of the U.S. with any funding source, but they can engage in other abortion related activities as long as they use other funding sources and they strictly segregate those funds and activities from the U.S. funds (physical and financial separation). Conversely, the rules do not say that this policy is automatically applied to foreign governments. Instead, the rules defer to a State Department assessment on whether to apply the rule to foreign government, and if it were, then they too would have to segregate the US funds from their other funding.

The GGR puts impacted entities in a difficult position: they must choose between either losing vital funds that support a range of health services they provide or accepting the funds and undermining their patients’ well-being by being unable to provide the full range of lawful sexual and reproductive health services and information. Complying with the GGR could also put entities in conflict with national laws related to the provision of health care, such as laws guaranteeing referrals and ensuring evidence-based counselling. The new GGR applies to a wide range of foreign assistance provided by the U.S. government, impacting funds for contraception, safe motherhood, treatment of HIV/AIDS, Zika, Ebola and other infectious diseases, humanitarian aid, civil society and democracy programs, and more5—affecting an estimated $39.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid.6

The GGR, by inhibiting access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services and information, and by barring advocacy on abortion law reform, undermines human rights.

Undermining health and human rights

Undermining health and human rights

Public health and U.N. human rights bodies have long recognized that denying women and girls access to abortion does not stop women from seeking abortion services, it just makes the procedure less safe and contributes to maternal mortality.7 The GGR undermines access to a vital component of women’s reproductive health care and has a chilling effect on access to other sexual and reproductive health services, and curtails advocacy on liberalization where abortion is legally restricted. By doing so, it inhibits women’s access to trained providers who offer safe and legal procedures and accurate information about their options and their rights. The GGR proliferates misinformation and heightens stigma related to sexual and reproductive health care, leading to greater mistrust in the health system. Ultimately, the GGR puts women’s health and human rights at risk.

Health impact

Health impact

As the U.S. is the single largest donor country to development assistance,8 the GGR is expected to have far-reaching impacts on humanitarian response efforts and health initiatives across the globe, including sexual and reproductive health. Although we have yet to see the exact impacts of this policy, previous iterations of the policy—which were narrower—already had devastating effects on access to care. Since its inception, the GGR has created a chilling effect on access to all sexual and reproductive health services, as providers fear the outsized consequences of violating the policy. For example, there is evidence of service providers refusing patients permissible post abortion care.9 Data collected after the 2017 GGR went into effect also showed that it disrupted care by shuttering clinics10 and cutting off contraception and vital reproductive services for millions,11 increasing the rate of unplanned pregnancies, driving many to seek unsafe abortions, and increasing the rate of maternal mortality.12

Finally, it must be noted that under the new GGR, the health impacts will reach far beyond sexual and reproductive health. The policy will now also restrict efforts to promote what the administration calls “gender ideology” and diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”). While the exact impact of this policy change is still unclear, the rule defines these terms so broadly that there is no doubt that the consequences will be devastating. For example, the rule appears to prohibit US foreign assistance funding from going to any organization that is working towards achieving equity for any specific community, but it could also extend to any organization that uses DEI in their internal hiring policies. The policy could also mean that groups focused on providing health care to transgender people abroad can’t get U.S. funding.

Human rights impact

Human rights impact

Under the GGR, the U.S. is not only turning its back on its commitments to public health and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, it is also undermining human rights, particularly the rights of women and girls. The United States played a central role in developing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the foundational document providing a road map to the rights of individuals everywhere and from which all modern human rights treaties and their obligations, including sexual and reproductive rights, derive.13 The UDHR was driven, in part, by the U.S. and the U.S. has subsequently ratified several human rights treaties that include reproductive rights.14 Sexual and reproductive health and rights are made up of a range of human rights, including those listed below. By ratifying human rights treaties, States become obligated to respect, protect and fulfill these rights. The right to sexual and reproductive health specifically requires that ‘international assistance should not impose restrictions on information or services existing in donor States… [and] donor States should not reinforce or condone legal, procedural, practical or social barriers to the full enjoyment of sexual and reproductive health that exist in the recipient countries.’15

The GGR, by inhibiting access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services and information, and by barring advocacy on abortion law reform, undermines these human rights. International human rights standards also require states to ensure that everyone, particularly those directly affected, have an opportunity to be meaningfully involved in the design and development, implementation, monitoring and review of SRHR laws, policies and programs. Participation on a nondiscriminatory basis requires attention to the involvement of marginalized groups, such as women and adolescents, who are particularly impacted by abortion laws.16 Such restrictions also implicate the freedom of association, which guarantees an individual’s right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members.

Where women are only legally permitted to access abortion services on limited grounds or where they are denied access to lawful abortion, they are denied reproductive autonomy. Restrictive abortion laws and policies reinforce gender-based discrimination and perpetuate gender norms about women’s expected role as a mother and undermines a broad range of their human rights.17 Restrictive laws and policies also reinforce the gender-based stereotype that women are not competent to make decisions about their bodies and their future.18

In addition, the GGR’s restriction on advocacy undermines fundamental principles of democracy, including civic participation and the related right to freedom of expression.

The right to equality and non-discrimination

The right to equality and non-discrimination19

Denying women access to services only needed by women, such as abortion, is a form of discrimination against women.20 States must address women and girls’ distinct health needs in order to ensure equality and fulfill obligations of non-discrimination.21 Women and girls from marginalized populations, including those with disabilities, indigenous women and other ethnic or racial minorities, rural women, and economically disadvantaged women, are particularly impacted by such restrictions because of the intersectional discrimination that they face.22

Furthermore, the denial of women and adolescents’ reproductive autonomy, which the Global Gag Rule does by limiting access to a needed service as well as to information on abortion and abortion advocacy, perpetuates discriminatory social norms about their role in society. This in turn affects all facets of their lives, including their educational attainment, ability to pursue economic opportunities, and their participation in public and political life.

The right to life

The right to life23

The Global Gag Rule, which limits access to abortion, has implications on the right to life of pregnant women.

Evidence shows that abortion restrictions do not decrease abortion rates, but only make the procedure less safe by pushing abortion underground and increasing maternal deaths.24 States must ensure that women can survive pregnancy and childbirth, including by ensuring their access to adequate pre- and post-natal care, emergency obstetric services, and skilled birth attendants.25 Human rights bodies have long linked high rates of maternal mortality to lack of access to reproductive health services, particularly to abortion and to contraception; as well as to adolescent pregnancy and child marriage.26

The right to health

The right to health27

The right to health encompasses the right to sexual and reproductive health.28 States have an obligation to guarantee available, accessible, acceptable, and good quality reproductive health information, services, goods, and facilities for all women and girls, free from discrimination, violence and coercion.29 The Global Gag Rule inhibits the realization of the right to health by creating a chilling effect on access to all sexual and reproductive health services, in addition to the direct health impacts of denying access to safe and legal abortion.

The right to information

The right to information30

The Global Gag Rule censors health care providers from informing patients of all their options related to abortion and censors advocates from calling on States to fulfill their obligation to ensure that information on sexual and reproductive health provided to women and girls both in and out of health care settings–in public and to individuals– is complete and accurate and that information is not censored and withheld.31 Human rights standards specifically place this obligation on both national and donor States.32 These standards recognize that such restrictions, which impede access to information and services, can fuel stigma and discrimination.33

The right to privacy

The right to privacy34

The right to privacy requires all health services to be consistent with the human rights of women and girls, including the rights to autonomy, confidentiality, informed consent and choice.35 Human rights bodies recognize that ‘acceptable health services are those that are delivered in a way that ensures fully informed consent, dignity, guarantees confidentiality and is sensitive to the woman’s or girl’s needs and perspectives.’36 Human rights bodies have found that certain restrictions on abortion and other reproductive rights violate the right to privacy.37

The right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment

The right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment38

Human rights bodies recognize that denying women access to abortion, including, but not limited to, pregnancies resulting from sexual violence and in cases of fatal fetal impairment can amount to such mental and physical anguish that it rises to the level of ill-treatment.39 While the GGR provides only limited exceptions— namely, for referrals for abortion as a result of rape or incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,40 it does not provide an exception for abortions “performed for the physical or mental health of the mother and abortions performed for fatal fetal abnormalities.” 41 The GGR would bar performance of or referral for an abortion in these cases, which human rights bodies have found amounts to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.42

The right to freedom of expression

The right to freedom of expression43

The Global Gag Rule contains direct restrictions on opinion and expression for multilateral organizations, and non-U.S. organizations and their doctors and clinicians in the provision of health- care services. The GGR prohibition on advocating for abortion law reform and barring public information campaigns on the benefits of abortion, inhibits the provision of information and participation in law reform efforts by persons in organizations that have knowledge and accurate information on its impact and which can shape public discourse and law reform in effective and productive ways. International and regional human rights bodies have repeatedly condemned restrictive abortion laws, calling on states to liberalize such laws and guarantee women access to safe abortion services.44

Call to action

Call to action

States must ensure women and girls are able to realize their rights to life, health, privacy, information, non-discrimination and freedom from ill treatment, including by reforming restrictive abortion laws, ensuring the delivery and availability of quality abortion and other reproductive health care services, and ensure sufficient funding for these services.

Donor states which are part of initiatives prioritizing access to sexual and reproductive healthcare, such as She Decides and FP2030, should uphold these commitments and ensure they represent new funds. We also call upon more States to join these initiatives.

More than ever, States around the globe must show political leadership at the United Nations and at the national level on the need for a comprehensive approach to sexual and reproductive health and rights in law and policy.

The U.S. Congress should conduct hearings and hold the administration accountable for the human rights violations and negative health impacts caused by the Global Gag Rule.

Get help for your org

Get help for your organization

If you need help understanding the GGR and its potential impact on your organization, we may be able to connect you with pro bono counsel.

Contact us at [email protected].

Citations
Citations
  1. The name refers to the fact that the policy gags health care providers and advocates from even speaking about abortion in most cases. The ban is known as the Mexico City policy after the location of the United Nations conference where Ronald Reagan first announced the ban in 1984. Every Democrat elected since Reagan has suspended the policy. See The Mexico City Policy—Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (Jan. 24, 2025), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/memorandum-for-the-secretary-of-state-the-secretary-of-defense-the-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-the-administrat;or-of-the-united-states-for-international-development/; U.S. Dep’t St, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, 91 Fed. Reg, 3319 (Jan. 27, 2026), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/27/2026-01519/protecting-life-in-foreign-assistance; U.S. Dep’t, Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance, 91 Fed. Reg. 3332 (Jan. 27, 2026) available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/27/2026-01516/combating-gender-ideology-in-foreign-assistance; U.S. Dep’t St, Combating Discriminatory Equity Ideology in Foreign Assistance Rules, 91 Fed. Reg, 3345 (Jan. 27, 2026), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/27/2026-01517/combating-discriminatory-equity-ideology-in-foreign-assistance-rules  ↩︎
  2. In this document, we will focus on the rule imposing restrictions on abortion “Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance “ see U.S. Dep’t St, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, 91 Fed. Reg, 3319 (27, 2026); available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/27/2026-01519/protecting-life-in-foreign-assistance  ↩︎
  3. Id.  ↩︎
  4. Id. ↩︎
  5. Under previous rules instituted by Presidents Reagan and Bush, the GGR only applied to assistance for family planning. Under the first Trump Administration’s expansion, the GGR applied to Foreign NGOs receiving U.S. government health assistance for family planning, maternal and child health, nutrition, HIV/AIDS (including PEPFAR), infectious diseases, malaria, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases. The GGR now applies to all non-military foreign assistance, including global health, humanitarian assistance, civil society programs and democracy programs, and more. ↩︎
  6. Kellie Moss, Jennifer Kates et al, The Trump Administration’s Latest Expansion of the Mexico City Policy: A Funding Analysis, KFF (Jan 28, 2026), available at https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/the-trump-administrations-latest-expansion-of-the-mexico-city-policy-a-funding-analysis/#2ac758e5-3e0b-40ca-ba6e-f74acf8816f6   ↩︎
  7. See WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO), SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS 18, 87-88 (2nd ed. 2012) [hereinafter WHO, 2012 SAFE ABORTION GUIDANCE]; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), para. 28, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/ GC/22 (2016) [hereinafter ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 22].  ↩︎
  8. Development Co-operation Profiles: United States, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-profiles_04b376d7-en/united-states_884f742e-en.html (last visited Feb.11,2026)  ↩︎
  9. Gallagher, M. C., Vernaelde, J. M., & Casey, S. E. Operational reality: the Global Gag Rule impacts sexual and reproductive health in humanitarian settings, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 28(3), 68–70 (Oct. 13,2020) available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/26410397.2020.1824320?needAccess=true  ↩︎
  10. Patty Skuster, Elizabeth A. Sully, Amy Friedrich-Karnik, Evidence for Ending the Global Gag Rule: A Multiyear Study in Two Countries, Guttmacher Institute (April, 2024) available at https://www.guttmacher.org/report/evidence-for-ending-global-gag-rule  ↩︎
  11. Nina Brooks, Eran Bendavid, Grant Miller, USA aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa: an analysis of the Mexico City Policy, The Lancet Global Health, Volume 7, Issue 8, e1046 – e1053 (Aug. 2019) available at https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2214-109X%2819%2930267-0  ↩︎
  12. MSI choices, The impact of the Global Gag Rule on frontline reproductive healthcare,  (October 2020) avaiable at msi-briefing-impact-of-the-ggr-on-reproductive-healthcare.pdf  ↩︎
  13. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted Dec. 10, 1948, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948) [hereinafter UDHR].  ↩︎
  14.  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted Dec.16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No.16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar.23, 1976) [hereinafter ICCPR]; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, U.N. GAOR, 39th Sess., Supp. No. 51, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force June 26,1987) [hereinafter CAT]; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted Dec. 21, 1965, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), Annex, 20 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 14) at 47, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1966), 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (entered into force Jan. 4, 1969) [hereinafter CERD].  ↩︎
  15.  ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 22, supra note 7, para. 52. Seealso Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of 
    the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Rep.of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of 
    the highest attainable standard of health, transmitted by Note of the Secretary-General, para. 33, U.N. Doc. A/71/304 (Aug. 5, 2016).  ↩︎
  16. See, e.g., ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 22, supra note 7, para.28.  ↩︎
  17. See CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 35 on gender based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, para. 31 (a), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/35 (2017); CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (Women and Health), para. 11, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1, chap. I (1999) [hereinafter CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No.24]; ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 22, supra note 7, para.28; Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Rep. of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on a gender-sensitive approach to arbitrary killings, paras. 94-95, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/35/23 (Jun. 6, 2017) (by Agnes Callamard); UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and practice, Rep. of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and practice, Human Rights Council (32nd Sess.), paras. 79, 107(b)-(c), U.N. Doc. A/HRC/32/44 (2016)[hereinafter UN Working Group on DAW 2016 Report].  ↩︎
  18. UN Working Group on DAW 2016 Report, supra note 20, paras. 79, 86.  ↩︎
  19. ICCPR, supra note 14, art. 3; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted Dec. 16, 1966, art. 3, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) (entered into force Jan. 3, 1976) [hereinafter ICESCR]; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted Dec. 18, 1979, G.A. Res. 34/180, U.N. GAOR, 34th Sess., Supp. No. 46, at 193, U.N. Doc. A/34/46 (1980), U.N.T.S. 13 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1981) [hereinafter CEDAW]; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted Dec. 13, 2006, art. 5, G.A. Res. A/RES/61/106, U.N. GAOR, 61st Sess., U.N. Doc. A/61/611 (1980) (entered into force May, 3 2008) [hereinafter CRPD].  ↩︎
  20. See CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No. 24, supra note 17, para. 11; L.C. v. Peru, CEDAW Committee, Commc’n No. 22/2009, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 (2011). See also, generally, CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 33 on women’s access to 
    justice, paras. 47(b), 49, 51(l), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/33 (2015); Mellet v. Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 2324/2013, Appendix II (opinion of Cleveland, S., concurring,), Appendix I (opinion of Ben Achour, Y., concurring), Appendix IV (opinion of Rodríguez Rescia, V., de Frouville, O., Salvioli, S., concurring), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013 (2016).  ↩︎
  21. See CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Congo, para. 35(f),U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/COG/CO/6 (2012); Uruguay, para. 203, U.N. Doc. A/57/38 (2002); ESCR Committee, General Comment No. 16: Article 3, para. 29, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I) (2008); CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 32 on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, paras. 3-4, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/32 (2014).  ↩︎
  22. See L.C. v. Peru, CEDAW Committee, Commc’n No. 22/2009, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 (2011); Mellet v. Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 2324/2013, paras. 7.10, 7.11, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013 (2016); UN Working Group on DAW 2016 Report, supra note 20, para. 107. See also ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 22, supra note 7, para. 30.  ↩︎
  23.  ICCPR, supra note 14, art. 6; Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted Nov. 20, 1989, art. 6, G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, U.N. GAOR, 44th Sess., Supp. No. 49, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989) (entered into force Sept. 2, 1990) [hereinafter CRC].  ↩︎
  24. See WHO, 2012 Safe Abortion Guidance, supra note 7, at 23, 90, 94; Gilda Sedgh, et al., Induced Abortion: Incidence and Trends Worldwide From 1995 to 2008, 379 The Lancet, at 630-631 (Jan. 19, 2012).  ↩︎
  25. See CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Belize, para. 56, U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1 (1999); Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Mali, para. 14, U.N. Doc. CCPR/ CO/77/MLI (2003); Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee), Concluding Observations: Democratic Republic of Congo, paras. 33-34, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/COD/CO/2 (2009).  ↩︎
  26. See CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Malawi, para. 31, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/MWI/CO (2006); ESCR Committee, Concluding Observations: El Salvador, para. 22, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/SLV/ CO/3-5 (2014); Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Panama, para. 9, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/PAN/CO/3 (2008); CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Haiti, para. 46, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/ Add.202 (2003); Committee Against Torture (CAT Committee), Concluding Observations: Yemen, para. 31, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/YEM/ CO/2/Rev. 1(2010).  ↩︎
  27. ICESCR, supra note 22, art. 12; CEDAW, supra note 22, art. 12; CRC, supra note 23, art. 24; CRPD, supra note 22, art. 25.  ↩︎
  28. See ESCR Committee, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (art. 12), para. 8, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4 (2000) [hereinafter ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 14]; ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 22, supra note 7.  ↩︎
  29. See ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 14, supra note 31, para. 12; ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 22, supra note 7, paras. 62-63; CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No. 24, supra note 17, para. 2.  ↩︎
  30. ICCPR, supra note 14, art. 19; ICESCR, supra note 22, art. 12; CEDAW, supra note 17, art. 16; CRPD, supra note 19, art. 21.  ↩︎
  31. ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 22, supra note 7, para. 41. Safe abortion services are primary health care procedures that can be provided early on by range of providers.  ↩︎
  32. Id. ↩︎
  33. Id. ↩︎
  34. See ICCPR, supra note 22, art. 17; K.L. v. Peru, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 1153/2003, para. 6.4, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005); Mellet v. Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 2324/2013, para. 7.8, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013 (2016); Whelan v. Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 2425/2014, paras. 3.4-3.5, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 (2017). See also ESCR Committee, Gen. Comment No. 22, supra note 7, para. 10.  ↩︎
  35. CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No. 24, supra note 17, para. 31 (e).  ↩︎
  36. CEDAW Committee, Gen. Recommendation No. 24, supra note 17, para. 22  ↩︎
  37. See K.L. v. Peru, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 1153/2003, para. 6.4, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005).  ↩︎
  38. See CAT, supra note 14; ICCPR, supra note 22, art. 7; UDHR, supra note16, art. 5; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted Nov. 4, 1950, art. 3, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, Eur. T. S. No. 5 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953).  ↩︎
  39. See Mellet v. Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No.2324/2013, para. 7.6, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013 (2016); Whelan v. Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 2425/2014, paras. 5.3-5.5, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 (2017; K.L. v. Peru, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 1153/2003, para. 6.3, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005); L.M.R. v. Argentina, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 1608/2007, para. 9.2, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/101/D/1608/2007 (2011); P. and S. v. Poland, No. 57375/08 Eur. Ct. H. R., paras. 157-169 (2013); CAT Committee, Concluding Observations: Peru, para. 23, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/PER/CO/4 (2006).  ↩︎
  40. U.S. Dep’t St, Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, 91 Fed. Reg, 3319 (Jan. 27, 2026), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/27/2026-01519/protecting-life-in-foreign-assistance  ↩︎
  41. Id. ↩︎
  42. K.L. v. Peru, Human Rights Committee, Commc’n No. 1153/2003, para. 5.2, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005).  ↩︎
  43.  ICCPR, supra note 14, art. 19; CRPD, supra note 19, art. 21.  ↩︎
  44. L.C. v. Peru, CEDAW Committee, Commc’n No. 22/2009, para. 8.15, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 (2011); CRC Committee, General Comment No. 15, para. 70, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/15 (2013); Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Ireland, para. 9, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/ IRL/CO/4 (2014); Sierra Leone, para. 14, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/SLE/CO/1 (2014); Guatemala, para. 20, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GTM/CO/3 (2012); CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations: Bahrain, para. 42(b), U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/BHR/CO/3 (2014); CAT Committee, Concluding Observations: Paraguay, para. 22, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/PRY/CO/4-6 (2011); CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Chad, para. 30, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.107 (1999); Chile, para. 56, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/CHL/ CO/3 (2007); Costa Rica, para. 64(c), U.N. Doc. CRC /C/CRI/CO/4 (2011); ESCR Committee, Concluding Observations: Dominican Republic, para. 29, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/DOM/CO/3 (2010); Chile, para. 53, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.105 (2004).  ↩︎