Opposition Escalates to Amnesty International's New Abortion Policy

The decision by Amnesty International (AI) to forgo its neutrality on abortion almost seemed as if it had taken place in slow-motion. Part of that is because AI's decision was only gradually unveiled. Part of it, I suspect, is that many traditional allies could not believe the London-based AI would take such an unfortunate step.

At AI's International Council Meeting in Mexico earlier this month, the organization reaffirmed a policy adopted by its International Executive Committee in April but which only gradually became public. A June 14 Amnesty International press release spelled out the new policy, which is "to support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure women have access to health care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women's access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger."

Late last week Bishop William S. Skylstad, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged AI to reverse its policy and correct its error.

"After nearly a year of dialogue with leaders of Amnesty International (AI), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly protests the recent action of AI's International Council to promote worldwide access to abortion," Bishop Skylstad wrote. "This basic policy change undermines Amnesty's longstanding moral credibility and unnecessarily diverts its mission. In promoting abortion, Amnesty divides its own members (many of whom are Catholics and others who defend the rights of unborn children) and jeopardizes its support by people in many nations, cultures and religions who share a consistent commitment to all human rights."

This action of Amnesty International, Bishop Skylstad wrote, "will lead people of conscience to seek alternative means to end grave human rights abuses, fight injustice, and promote freedom of conscience and expression." He concluded, "We call upon Amnesty International once again to act in accord with its noblest principles, reconsider its error, and reverse its policy on abortion."

The policy change of AI's executive committee was deliberately kept quiet, according to Ryan T. Anderson, a junior fellow at First Things magazine, who found the information in early May on a members-only section of Amnesty's web site.

The site includes a letter to volunteer leaders, stating, "This policy will not be made public at this time."

Sections spell out Amnesty's call for "decriminalization," which it defines as "the removal of all criminal penalties (including imprisonment, fines, and other punishments) against those seeking, obtaining, providing information about, or carrying out abortions."

In addition, the group states that it calls on countries to "Ensure access to abortion services to any woman who becomes pregnant as the result of rape, sexual assault, or incest, or where a pregnancy poses a risk to a woman's life or a grave risk to her health."

AI's policy shift has strained relationships with many erstwhile allies, particularly within the Catholic Church.

"The Church teaches that it is never justifiable to kill an innocent life. Abortion is murder," Cardinal Renato Martino told the National Catholic Register in June.

More recently, Bishop Michael Evans of the Roman Catholic Diocese of East Anglia posted a statement on the diocese's web site. "Very regretfully, I will be ending my 31-year membership of Amnesty International," wrote Bishop Evans. He warned that AI's new abortion policy would "almost certainly divide Amnesty's membership and thereby undermine its vital work."

It is not as if AI's statement represented was only rhetorical support from the organization's headquarters. According to the London Times, "The decision is automatically binding for Amnesty's members in each member country, including those where abortion is illegal."

Going beyond even that, "As the largest and most influential human rights group, Amnesty is now likely to put its legal expertise and lobbying power into helping to shape international treaties and agreements that favour legal abortion," the Times reported.