Members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic
Námestie Alexandra Dubčeka 1
812 80 Bratislava 1
7 September 2020

Dear Members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic,
We are writing on behalf of 111 organizations to express our deep concern regarding current threats to reproductive rights in Slovakia.
At this time Parliament is debating draft legislation1 that if adopted would impose new barriers to accessing lawful abortion care, harm women’s2 health and well-being, and undermine their decision-making and privacy. It would also force doctors to act in conflict with their professional obligations to their patients. If enacted, the legislation will create dangerous chilling effects on the provision of lawful abortion care in Slovakia, and increase the harmful stigma surrounding abortion.The draft legislation seeks to double the mandatory waiting period currently required before accessing abortion on request and extend its application, impose a new layer of medical authorization requirements for abortion on health grounds, and introduce a requirement obliging women to state the reasons for seeking an abortion and to provide other private information when requesting an abortion. Such information would then be transmitted to the National Health Information Center. The draft legislation also seeks to restrict the information that medical professionals can provide publicly about abortion services by prohibiting so-called “advertising” on abortion, and to strengthen the dissuasive nature of the mandatory information doctors are required to provide to women seeking abortion.
Our organizations are deeply concerned by these proposals. If adopted, they will harm women’s health and well-being and contravene international public health guidelines, clinical best practices and Slovakia’s international human rights obligations.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has outlined that countries should ensure that women’s decisions to access lawful abortion care are respected and that abortion care is “delivered in a way that respects a woman’s dignity, guarantees her right to privacy and is sensitive to her needs and perspectives.”3 International human rights mechanisms have stressed that states must ensure the availability, accessibility and quality of abortion services in line with the WHO guidelines. They have called on states, including Slovakia, to remove barriers to safe and lawful abortion, including mandatory waiting periods, mandatory counseling and third-party authorization requirements4. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has held that “[o]nce the legislature decides to allow abortion, it must not structure its legal framework in a way which would limit real possibilities to obtain it”5 and has underscored that European states have “a positive obligation to create a procedural framework enabling a pregnant woman to exercise her right of access to lawful abortion.” 6
Extending the mandatory waiting period: The proposed extension of the mandatory waiting period from 48 to 96 hours and its proposed application to abortions on specific grounds would substantially increase delays in women’s access to abortion care, thereby placing their health and lives at risk. The WHO has outlined that “[m]andatory waiting periods can have the effect of delaying care, which can jeopardize women’s ability to access safe, legal abortion services.”7 As the WHO has underlined, while abortion is a very safe medical procedure, risks of complications, though still small when abortion is performed properly, increase with the duration of pregnancy.8 The WHO has underlined that “[o]nce the decision [to have an abortion] is made by the woman, abortion should be provided as soon as is possible”9 and without delay. Besides jeopardizing women’s health and well-being, mandatory waiting periods also often lead to discrimination and social inequities as they increase the financial and personal costs involved in obtaining lawful abortion by requiring at least one extra visit to a doctor prior to abortion.
Mandatory waiting periods also undermine women’s agency and decision-making capacity. The WHO has made it clear that mandatory waiting periods “demean[] women as competent decision-makers” and specified that medically unnecessary waiting periods should be eliminated to “ensure that abortion care is delivered in a manner that respects women as decision-makers.”10
Imposing onerous authorization requirements: Introducing a new layer of medical authorization
requirements in situations where an abortion is necessary for health reasons will delay women’s access to lawful abortion and jeopardize their health in situations where it is already at risk. Requiring two doctor certifications, instead of the single doctor certification now required in such cases, will also increase the costs of accessing abortion care, create burdensome administrative procedures, and generate a chilling effect for the provision of lawful abortion services. The WHO has specified that onerous authorization procedures, including where multiple medical professionals are required to provide certification, should not be required for abortion care.11
Restricting medical providers’ provision of information on abortion: Introducing the proposed prohibition on so-called “advertising” of abortion would restrict doctors’ ability to provide evidence-based information on abortion care and where women can access lawful abortion. The legislation would have a chilling effect on the provision of such information by medical providers, which could jeopardize women’s health and safety. International human rights mechanisms have underlined that legal restrictions on the availability of evidence- based information on sexual and reproductive health, including safe and legal abortion, contradict states’ obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil women’s right to the highest attainable standard of health. They have made it clear that “[s]uch restrictions impede access to information and services, and can fuel stigma and discrimination” and have called upon states to “[e]nsure that accurate, evidence-based information concerning abortion and its legal availability is publicly available.”12 Similarly, the WHO has stressed the importance of ensuring access to evidence-based information on abortion and the entitlements to lawful reproductive health care.13
Reasons for abortion: Requiring women seeking an abortion to state the reasons for their decision, which is often a very personal and private matter, could deter women from seeking care within the formal health system.14 International human rights mechanisms have already urged Slovakia to “[e]nsure the confidentiality of the personal data of women and girls seeking abortion, including by abolishing the requirement to report the personal details of such women and girls to the National Health Information Centre.”15
If adopted, this legislation will wholly contradict international public health guidelines and clinical best practice. It will undermine Slovakia’s compliance with its obligations under international human rights treaties to guarantee women’s rights to health, privacy, information, to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment, and the principles of non-discrimination and equality in the enjoyment of rights. In addition, the adoption of these proposals will be contrary to the fundamental international legal principle of non-retrogression. In its 2019 review of Slovakia, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights explicitly urged the government to avoid any retrogression in relation to women’s sexual and reproductive health rights.16
We call on all Members of Parliament to reject this regressive and harmful legislative proposal and to refrain from further attempts to restrict women’s reproductive rights in Slovakia.
Yours sincerely,
Abortion Rights Campaign, Ireland
Abortion Support Network, UK
Accountability International Action for Choice, Ireland
Aid Access, Austria
AIDOS - Associazione Italiana Donne per lo Sviluppo, Italy
Albanian Center for Population and Development (ACPD), Albania
Alliance for Choice, Northern Ireland
AMICA (Association of Italian Doctors for Contraception and Abortion), Italy
Amirat OBK Association, Hungary
Amnesty International
Arbeitskreis Frauengesundheit e.V., Germany
Associação para o Planeamento da Família (APF), Portugal
Association for Advancement of Gender Equality, Republic of North Macedonia
Association for Liberty and Gender Equality (A.L.E.G.), Romania
Association HERA-XXI, Georgia
ASTRA – Central and Eastern European Network for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
Aube Nouvelle pour la Femme et le Développement (ANFD), DR Congo
Austrian Family Planning Association (OGF), Austria
Catholics for Choice, USA
Center for Curricular Development and Gender Studies: FILIA, Romania
Center for Feminist Foreign Policy, Germany/UK
Center for Reproductive Rights
CESI - Center for Education, Counselling and Research, Croatia
CHU Saint-Pierre, Belgium
Coalition Margins, Republic of North Macedonia
Coalition of African Lesbians, South Africa
Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment, Ireland
Conseil des femmes francophones de Belgique, Belgium
Consell Nacional De Dones D’Espanya, Spain
Danish Family Planning Association, Denmark
DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era)
Doctors for Choice Germany e.V
DSW (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung), Germany
Enclave Feminista, Spain
Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives, Romania
European Roma Rights Centre, Belgium
Family Planning and Sexual Health Association, Lithuania
Family Planning Association of Moldova
Federación de Planificación Familiar Estatal, Spain
Fédération des Centres de Planning et de Consultations, Belgium
Fédération des Centres de Planning familial des Femmes prévoyantes socialistes, Belgium
édération des Centres Pluralistes de Planning Familial and Gacehpa, Belgium
Federation for Women and Family Planning, Poland
Fédération Laïque des Centres de planning familial, Belgium
FOKUS - Forum for Women and Development, Norway
Fondazione Pangea, Italy
French Ligue des droits de l’Homme, France
FRONT Association, Romania
Fundacja im. Kazimierza Łyszczyńskiego, Poland
Furia vzw, Belgium
Garance, Belgium
Gender-Centru, Moldova
HERA - Health Education and Research Association, Republic of North Macedonia
Human Rights Watch
ILGA-Europe
International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion
International Commission of Jurists
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network
Ipas
Irish Family Planning Association, Ireland
Latvia’s Association for Family Planning and Sexual Health
Le Planning Familial, France
Lobby Europeo de Mujeres en España - LEM, Spain
Marie Stopes International
Medical Students for Choice, USA
Mujeres Supervivientes de Violencias de Género, Spain
NANE, Hungary
National Collective of Community Based Women’s Networks (NCCWN), Ireland
National Network to End Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, Republic of North Macedonia
National Women’s Council of Ireland, Ireland
OMCT - World Organisation Against Torture
rganisation Vishakha, India
Organization of Women of Municipality of Sveti Nikole, Republic of North Macedonia
PATENT Association, Hungary
Plataforma catalana de Suport al lobby europeu de dones, Spain
Plural Association, Romania
Polish Women’s Strike, Poland
Pro-Choice. Rete italiana contraccezione aborto, Italy
pro familia Bundesverband, Germany
RadioAttive, Italy
Reactor - Research in Action, Republic of North Macedonia
Reproductive Health Training Center of the Republic of Moldova
Reproductive Rights Platform, Croatia
Romanian Women’s Lobby Network, Romania
Rutgers, Netherlands
Santé Sexuelle Suisse – Sexual Health Switzerland
Sensoa, Flemish expertise centre for sexual health, Belgium
Serbian Association for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Serbia
Sex og Politikk, Norway
SEX vs The STORK Association, Romania
Society for Education on Contraception and Sexuality, Romania
Society for Feminist Analyses AnA, Romania
Society Without Violence, Armenia
Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RSFU), Sweden
UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development & Reproductive Health, UK
Union Women Center, Georgia
Vrouwenraad, Belgium
VUB Dilemma, Belgium
Women’s Aid, Ireland
Women for Women’s Human Rights (WWHR) – New Ways, Turkey
Women Global Network for Reproductive Rights
Women’s Link Worldwide
Women on Waves, Netherlands
Women on Web, Canada
Women’s Resource Center, Armenia
Women’s Rights Center, Armenia
Women’s Room - Center for Sexual Rights, Croatia
Women Spaces Africa, Kenya
YouAct - European Youth Network on Sexual and Reproductive Rights
Youth Coalition for Sexual and Reproductive Rights
1
Draft Law
which Amends and Supplements Act No. 576/2004 Coll. of Laws on Healthcare,
Healthcare-related Services, and on Amending and Supplementing Certain Acts As
Amended, and which Amends and Supplements Certain Acts (Print no. 154,
19.06.2020), proposed by members of OĽANO - Ordinary People and Independent
Personalities.
2 Although
abortion relates mainly to the experience of cisgender women, we recognize that
abortion restrictions can have profoundly devastating impacts also on the lives
of transgender men and nonbinary individuals who have the capacity to become
pregnant and may also require abortion care.
3 World Health Organization (WHO), SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 64. 4 See, e.g., Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 22 on the right to sexual and reproductive health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), para. 41, E/C.12/GC/22 (2016); Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Concluding Observations: Hungary, para. 31(c), CEDAW/C/HUN/CO/7-8 (2013); Slovakia, para. 31(c), CEDAW/C/SVK/CO/5-6 (2015); Russian Federation, paras. 35(b), 36(a), CEDAW/C/RUS/CO/8 (2015); Macedonia, para. 38(d), CEDAW/C/MKD/CO/6 (2018); Committee on the Rights of the Child,
6 Concluding Observations: Slovakia, para. 41(d),
CRC/C/SVK/CO/3-5 (2016); Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of
Europe, Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Europe (2017), at
11.
5 Tysiąc
v. Poland, No. 5410/03 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 116 (2007).
6 R.R. v. Poland, No. 27617/04 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 200 (2011).
7
WHO, SAFE
ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at
96.
8 WHO,
SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012),
at 21, 32.
9 WHO, SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at 36, 64.
10
WHO, SAFE
ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at
96-97.
11 WHO,
SAFE ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012),
at 94-95. See also CESCR, General Comment No. 22, supra note 4, para. 41;
CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (women and
health), (20th Sess.,
1999), para. 14, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. II) (2008).
12 CESCR,
General Comment No. 22, supra note 4, para. 41; Special Rapporteur on the Right
of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and
Mental Health, Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,
para. 65(l), A/66/254 (Aug. 3, 2011).
13
WHO, SAFE
ABORTION: TECHNICAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE FOR HEALTH SYSTEMS (2d ed. 2012), at
95.
14 While
the draft legislation states that this information would be collected for
statistical purposes, it would still be a breach of women’s privacy to require
them to fill in this information and provide reasons for abortion prior to
receiving abortion care.
15 CEDAW, Concluding Observations: Slovakia, para. 31(f), CEDAW/C/SVK/CO/5-6 (2015). See also CESCR, Concluding Observations: Slovakia, para. 42(d), E/C.12/SVK/CO/3 (2019).
16 CESCR, Concluding Observations: Slovakia, para. 42(e), E/C.12/SVK/CO/3 (2019).
| Tweet |
English