Violence Against Women and Girls

Sandra Osborne Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce). There were many interesting facts from his experience and visits that I had not heard before, and I thank him. I congratulate the Select Committee on the report, and the Government on their efforts to tackle the problem.

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has described violence against women and girls as one of the most pervasive human rights violations in the world. It is both endemic and epidemic. It limits self-esteem, life chances, economic opportunity and development. Gender-based violence reinforces women’s inequality. As to the rate and frequency of violence against women, there is no one particular country or cultural tradition that it is confined to. This country suffers from it too. In Colombia for example, a woman is killed by a current or former partner every six days. In Somalia, 98% of women have undergone female genital mutilation. In Amhara, Ethiopia, 50% of girls are married by the time they are 15 years old.

Today I want to highlight two tragedies connected to the plight of women. The first is forced and child marriage, which is practiced in too many parts of the world, including the UK. Those affected may become vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation, early pregnancy, with a high risk of maternal mortality and morbidity, and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections and HIV. Teen pregnancy is the No. 1 cause of mortality for girls between the ages of 15 and 19 and nearly 10% of all adolescent girls in low and middle-income countries are mothers before they are 16.

Taking action against early and forced marriage will ensure that more young women and girls can continue their education, act with agency and make independent decisions about their futures. I commend the work that DFID is doing and the references to the subject in the Select Committee report, but the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health, of which I am a member, has also produced a report. “A Childhood Lost”, about child marriages in the UK and abroad, was published a year ago. The report says that it is estimated that every year 5,000 to 8,000 people, including many young girls, are at risk of forced marriage in England. The chair of the all-party group has tabled amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently being debated in the other House, to safeguard 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK, who are currently able to marry with parental consent. I want to repeat the comments made in the Select Committee report, about FGM in the UK, with reference to this topic: while it is beyond my remit to comment on domestic policy in this debate, I believe

“that—as it stands—the UK’s credibility in calling to end the practice overseas is undermined by the failure to tackle the problem at home.”

I shall follow the debate in the other House with interest and I hope the Government will agree to safeguard young girls. That will send a strong message to practising communities at home and abroad.

The second issue to do with violence against women that I want to talk about is often ignored. It is one on which the UK has the potential to assert global leadership. That is the denial of abortion to girls and women who are raped in situations of armed conflict, in violation of their rights under international humanitarian law. The Select Committee report has a chapter entitled “Abortions for women raped in conflict”. Currently, the major providers of medical humanitarian services, including those funded by DFID, routinely exclude the option of abortion to girls and women raped in armed conflict. That forces the majority of rape victims—including young girls whose bodies are unprepared for motherhood —to endure unwanted, dangerous, and life-threatening pregnancies and childbirths. Denying rape victims access to safe abortion in humanitarian medical settings leads to further inhumane treatment of people already brutalised by war, because it compounds the physical injuries and psychological devastation of the rape itself.

Studies have shown that for girls and women who become pregnant from rape in armed conflict, maternal mortality is heightened owing to both the physical injuries from rape and the difficult conditions imposed by war. Girls impregnated by war rape are especially vulnerable, as

“when their bodies are not yet mature,”

pregnancy and childbearing

“can result in the rupture of the uterus and death of both the mother and the child.”

If both survive, there are also the emotional and practical difficulties of raising a child that frequently is unwanted, in a war zone—especially when the society is one that ostracizes victims of rape, and children conceived in rape.

Sky News has just reported the story of a 16-year-old girl who was impregnated by rape in the ongoing conflict in the Central African Republic, and forced to bear a child in dangerous circumstances. After being raped she was kicked out of her home and left alone to struggle with her pregnancy in the midst of war. This month she gave birth in a local hospital, which was facing a shortage of drugs to treat any complications she might develop. As the Sky News correspondent who witnessed the delivery reported:

“It was a brutal birth to a baby boy she never wanted, into a dangerously chaotic and unstable country.”

Her story is one of the countless and uncounted stories of girls and women forced by rape, as well as humanitarian aid policies, to endure dangerous and unwanted pregnancies in war zones.

As was referred to in the International Development Committee report, girls and women raped in situations of armed conflict are considered “the wounded and sick” under the Geneva conventions, with inalienable rights to comprehensive, non-discriminatory medical care. To further protect those rights, the Geneva conventions require that doctors treating war victims make medical decisions based solely on the best interests of the patient, and mandate that they are immune from prosecution under domestic laws, including laws prohibiting abortion. Accordingly, women and girls who are impregnated by rape in armed conflict have an absolute right to any and all medical treatments, including abortion, that could restore them to the highest level of physical and mental health.

Let me give some examples. Approximately 500,000 women suffered violence during the genocide in Rwanda. Many more were victimised during the aftermath of the 2010 flooding in Pakistan. Lack of access to reproductive health care in disaster and conflict zones is harming women and girls around the world. As is often the case, the world’s poorest are suffering the most. Every year 47,000 women die from unsafe abortions, and millions more suffer serious life-threatening injuries.

Let us be clear on unsafe abortions. Denying a woman access to abortion in situations of rape, of incest and of endangerment of the mother’s life is an act that coerces a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, infringing her dignity and autonomy by severely restricting decision making in respect of her sexual and reproductive health. That pattern of coercive control over women’s rights to health and autonomy can result in physical and psychological harm, and can amount to a state-sanctioned pattern of gender-based violence.

As such, I wish to highlight the concern that overall investment and commitments to eradicate unsafe abortion are being diluted and diverted in light of misinterpretation of guidelines from the United States Agency for International Development, with disastrous and often fatal consequences for women and children. DFID has recently said:

“On access to abortion services, UK policy is clear: the UK development budget can be used, without exception, to provide safe abortion care where necessary, and to the extent allowed by national laws.”

That clarity is to be commended. Will the Government now give guarantees that they will tackle the matter head on and ask the US to lift the practice of banning funding for abortion services?

I wish to draw attention to the commendable work of many non-governmental organisations—including the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International—that are working with displaced populations in conflict areas to provide training and support on the provision of abortion services. That includes work to improve access to information and to sexual and reproductive health services for communities in humanitarian settings, initially throughout the Asia-Pacific region, where 3,900 professionals have been trained in 18 countries and 76 in-house trainings have been rolled out. In addition to training professionals working in crisis and post-crisis situations, that work also co-ordinates key health and relief agencies, providing regional and national level advocacy to politicians and policy makers, and provides technical assistance and dissemination of information to professionals in humanitarian settings. In light of its success, regional training is also being rolled out in Africa and the middle east and north African region, in partnership with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the UK Family Planning Association.

The United Nations Security Council and Secretary-General agree that victims of rape in armed conflict must be provided with the option of abortion. On October 18 2013, the Security Council unanimously passed resolution 2122, a groundbreaking resolution supporting abortion services for girls and women impregnated by war rape. Although the Security Council does not use the term abortion in resolution 2122, its language makes clear that member states and the UN must ensure that all options are given to women impregnated by war rape, stating that it notes

“the need for access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, including regarding pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination”.

That provision directly responds to the Secretary-General’s recommendation to the Security Council in September 2013 that girls and women raped in armed conflict must be ensured access to

“services for safe termination of pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination and in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law.”

That language reaffirms that medical care for girls and women raped in war is governed by the Geneva conventions rather than national or local abortion laws.

I will finish there, so that other Members have the chance to join in the debate.