Defending the Global Right to Choose

Countries worldwide are witnessing historic rollbacks on women's equality on all fronts. Since 2006, the gender gap has improved by only 0.1 points, from 68.5% to 68.6%. This sluggish progress means it will take 134 years—five generations—beyond 2023 to achieve gender parity.

Misinformation and disinformation, intermingled with a rise in misogynistic rhetoric and sexist abuse has undermined access to medically sound information on reproductive rights, fueling an infodemic on women's rights, and undermining their health autonomy. During the sixty-ninth Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69), UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the situation as "a siege against women" and declared that "the poison of patriarchy is back." Guterres's remarks underscore the reversal of reproductive rights and gender equality initiatives.

Access to abortion care is one necessary reproductive health service that has been under attack. Comprehensive abortion care is recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an essential health service. Yet 753 million women of reproductive age live in countries with restrictive abortion laws or where rights have recently been rolled back.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 harms women's and girls' health and has inspired reversals on gender equity policies in other countries. In 2022, South Korea announced plans to abolish its Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, plans that have since been on the table. In 2024, Argentina ended its Ministry of Women, Genders, and Diversity, which supported the domestic violence hotline program, and the Plan Nacional de Prevención del Embarazo No Intencional en la Adolescencia (National Plan for the Prevention of Unintentional Pregnancy in Adolescence) program. In 2025, Canada eliminated its Minister of Women and Gender Equality, jeopardizing decades of progress on gender equality.

These reversals infringe Article 16(1)(e) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which guarantees women "the right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights."

More action is needed to sustain the momentum of progress and counter the growing backlash against gender equality

Although the implementation of progressive abortion laws following the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action [PDF] in 1995 led to significant advancement in reproductive rights, including the right to decide, more action is needed to sustain the momentum of progress and counter the growing backlash against gender equality.

At this critical juncture, the movement for reproductive rights demands a collaborative effort and bold action from academics, activists, and global health actors to protect and expand the hard-won gains of the past three decades.

Academics Respond to Gender Backlash

Academics are essential in generating knowledge and producing evidence-based arguments for legal and policy reforms. Their research strengthens advocacy efforts and holds governments accountable for their human rights obligations. A striking example came in the 2024 High Court Ruling in Zimbabwe, which relied on empirical evidence to reaffirm abortion access for girls younger than 18. The court referenced data showing that girls age 10 to 14 are five times [PDF] more likely to die during childbirth than women older than 20.

Before this ruling, the Termination of Pregnancy Act [PDF] in Zimbabwe permitted abortion only on limited grounds, such as when the pregnancy posed a threat to the woman's health or resulted from unlawful intercourse. The law, however, did not explicitly recognize sex with a girl younger than 18 and marital rape as forms of unlawful intercourse, even though both are criminal offenses in the African nation.

In addition to supporting legal and policy reform, academic researchers can mitigate or respond to emerging challenges in global and public health that threaten the right to health. Researchers at the University of Connecticut have sounded the alarm on the emergence of an abortion infodemic in the United States and its impacts on women's health and lives. Their research highlights how misinformation and scientifically unsound policies and laws contribute to harmful health outcomes.

One example of a policy to reproductive health grounded in misinformation on the science of pregnancy is Ohio Bill HB 413, which states that in order to avoid criminal charges—including murder—a physician must attempt "to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman's uterus" —a task that is medically impossible. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, often in the fallopian tubes. This life-threatening condition requires urgent medical intervention, which includes removal of the pregnancy.

An ultrasound sonographer guides a resident during an ultrasound on a patient, before her surgical abortion at the Trust Women clinic in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on December 6, 2021. — An ultrasound sonographer guides a resident during an ultrasound on a patient, before her surgical abortion at the Trust Women clinic, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on December 6, 2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

Where less restrictive abortion laws exist, academic research can help assess gaps in implementation that hinder the right to decide. In Italy, although voluntary abortion is legal within the first 90 days of pregnancy, researchers found that conscientious objection strongly influences women's and girls' access to safe and timely abortion care, signaling a need for legal reform to ensure effective implementation of the law. Data from the Italian Ministry of Health shows that, in some regions, more than 80% of gynecologists are conscientious objectors. For Valentina Milluzzo, the refusal of a timely abortion at Cannizzaro Hospital in 2016 caused her to develop septic shock and multi-organ failure that ultimately killed her.

In Zambia, where abortion is legal for economic reasons [PDF], researchers found that certain laws hindered access—including one that requires abortions to take place in registered hospitals and another that requires three medical doctors to sign related documentation.

Academics can serve as bulwarks against misconceptions and myths about abortion care, such as the misinformation that abortion causes infertility, life-threatening complications, mental illness, and death. Decades of research have determined that the pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live babies is higher than the mortality rate for induced abortions. One recent study found that staying pregnant was 35 to 39 times deadlier than induced abortion, countering the notion that abortion is more likely to lead to death than carrying a pregnancy to term.

The work of academics and activists should be complemented by the Commission on the Status of Women, an intergovernmental body dedicated to the promotion of gender equality globally. In its current role, the CSW holds two-week sessions at the United Nations in New York every year. These gatherings, which include government representatives and members of civil society, are valuable for assessing progress, sharing best practices, and renewing commitments to gender equality. Given the increasing global challenges to women's rights, however, radical reform is needed.

A New Era in the Fight for Gender Equality

Beyond the CEDAW and its optional protocol, the CSW should evolve into a more binding body that moves beyond political rhetoric to actively hold countries accountable for their international commitments.

To strengthen its role, the CSW should establish in-country and regional grievance mechanisms that are accessible to victims in countries with a UN presence, such as UN Development Program and UN Women, to lodge complaints for violations of CEDAW.

Dedicated CSW violations and monitoring commissions could serve as a platform for victims to share their testimonies and submit expert evidence on direct violations of their rights, particularly for countries that cannot access the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. This would provide a mechanism for accountability and visibility in cases of rights violations for victims from the 75 countries that have not ratified the CEDAW optional protocol. Currently, the CEDAW Committee only provides a complaints platform for women and girls from 114 countries that have ratified the optional protocol. The CSW violations and monitoring commissions can support strategic monitoring of the states parties' implementation of treaty obligations within their territories and regions.

To enhance its accountability procedures, the CSW should also convene biannual regional meetings in addition to its annual gathering in New York. Regional gatherings would serve as a more targeted monitoring tool, enabling precise, timely monitoring and responses of progression and regression in gender rights. These platforms would expand access to the CSW for more women and girls—particularly those who face significant barriers due to financial constraints or strict visa regimes to travel to New York. Furthermore, regional engagement would bolster grassroots advocates for gender equality.

To effectively counter the renewed threat to women's rights, academics and activists should continue to generate evidence and drive policy reforms. The push for protecting gender equality and protecting women's and girls' right to decide demands a bold new agenda of reform for a key global institution entrusted with advancing gender equality.

The lives of women and girls depend on it.