Towards Shifting Reproductive Rights Framings: Argentina in the Organization of American States
- Human Rights in Context
- 42 minutes ago
- 7 min read
Dr Lourdes Peroni (left)
Lourdes is a post-doctoral Researcher at the Faculty of Sociology of the University of Warsaw (Poland). Lourdes has written this contribution within the framework of the European Union (ERC Consolidator Abortion Figurations, 101044421). Views and opinions expressed are the authors’ only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Dr María Angélica Peñas-Defago (right)
María Angélica is a researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council of Argentina (CONICET). Deputy Director of the Institute for Studies on Law, Justice, and Society (IDEJUS/CONICET). Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Córdoba (Argentina). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8190-907X
Introduction
In recent decades, the Organization of American States (OAS), the world’s oldest regional institutional system, has gained increasing salience in promoting human rights in the Americas. Over the last thirty years, the organization has strengthened various processes aimed at expanding the recognition of human rights, including the eradication of gender-based violence and the recognition of sexual and reproductive rights. Two key OAS institutions have been the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (see, e.g., the Rapporteurship on the Rights of Women) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (see, e.g., Cotton Field v. Mexico 2009; Artavia Murillo v. Costa Rica 2012; Manuela v. El Salvador 2021). Another OAS body whose role has been noteworthy in this regard is the Inter-American General Assembly, which is the supreme organ of the Organization of American States. The General Assembly annually brings together not only Delegations of OAS Member States but also hosts special guests, such as non-governmental organisations, upon invitation from the OAS Secretary General in response to these organisations’ requests to attend the Assembly. For just over a decade now, and in a gradual manner, as sexual and reproductive rights have advanced within the Inter-American System of Human Rights, several governments and civil society groups have resisted such progress, particularly in the context of the OAS General Assembly (Moragas, 2020; Panotto, 2020; Peñas Defago, 2024; 2025). In this post, we discuss Argentina's paradigmatic example of resisting and reframing reproductive rights in the OAS (and other international human rights forums).
Argentina at a Historical Human Rights Crossroads
Since the return of democracy in 1983, the country has stood out for its human rights advances in the region, particularly in the area of sexual and reproductive rights, as illustrated by the 2012 Argentine Supreme Court ruling in the F.A.L. case, concerning access to legal abortion for rape victims and the 2020 Law 27.610, allowing for voluntarily interrupting pregnancy up until the 14th week (and from the 15th week onwards in cases of rape and danger to the life/health of the pregnant person).
However, following the 2023 presidential election, the country now faces a historic crossroads on human rights. Through a far-right agenda, Argentina’s current President, Javier Milei, has been systematically dismantling national policies on gender-based violence, sexual and reproductive rights, non-discrimination and socioeconomic rights, among others. The provision of policies related to sexual and reproductive health services—including the distribution of injectable and oral contraceptives—reportedly declined from 4.9 million treatments in the third quarter of 2023 to 2.3 million in the same period in 2024, representing a 53.9% decrease. However, the most significant reduction occurred in the distribution of medications for Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy (VTP), such as misoprostol and mifepristone, a right established by Law 27.610. While 106,737 treatments were officially recorded in 2023, none were recorded for 2024 (and 2025). In 2024, the distribution decline was 100% at the national level. Civil society organizations have drawn attention to the discontinuation of the distribution of contraceptive supplies and abortion medications by the National Health Ministry. In this context, the responsibility for ensuring access to VTP has been delegated to the provincial jurisdictions. This decentralization has resulted in profound disparities and inequalities in the effective exercise of sexual and reproductive rights. These human rights rollbacks are occurring alongside a harsh crackdown on social protest, with implications for democratic backsliding.
At the international policy level, a fundamental tenet of Milei's rejection of sexual and reproductive health policies is his critique of and opposition to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN). The Argentine government's rejection of the 2030 Agenda was subsequently reiterated by President Javier Milei in his address at the 2024 G20 summit, as well as in his interventions at the United Nations General Assembly (2024) and the Davos Forum (2024 and 2025). A central tenet of Milei's opposition to the 2030 Agenda is his assertion that it seeks to promote
Argentina’s Shifting Reproductive Rights Framings in the OAS
The 2024 OAS General Assembly, held in Asuncion (Paraguay), is another illustration of the recent radical shift in Argentina’s human rights framing. In an OAS Draft Resolution on Human Rights Promotion and Protection (AG/doc.5840/24), the Argentinean Permanent Mission called into question gender and intersectionality, proposing instead other framings such as vulnerability (AG/doc.5840/24 add. 1).
Most recently, amidst the OAS General Assembly’s publication of the organizations registered to participate in the 2025 session held in Saint John’s (Antigua and Barbuda), Argentina objected to the participation of Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir, one of the historically leading feminist organizations in the movement towards legalizing the voluntary interruption of pregnancy in the country. Although the Argentinean request is not binding on the General Assembly, the objection represents a seemingly unprecedented attempt to symbolically veto an organisation’s participation in the OAS General Assembly, reinforcing the aforementioned shift in human rights framing. The objection was included as a sole footnote in the OAS Permanent Council Resolution (CP/RES. 1286 (2552/25), which authorizes the Secretary General to extend invitations to 116 civil society organizations to attend the fifty-fifth regular session of the General Assembly as special guests in St. John’s. The footnote reads:
… authorized by the Permanent Council, Argentina wishes to state that it expressly dissociates itself from the inclusion of Asociación Civil por el Derecho a Decidir / Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir Argentina in the list of Argentine organizations. This dissociation is based on our understanding that it is essential that the organizations that participate in the highest deliberative body of the Organization strictly respect, without exception, the fundamental principles and values recognized in the Charter, as well as in the relevant international instruments of the inter-American system, including the American Convention on Human Rights, in particular Article 4 thereof. Likewise, the Argentine Republic reaffirms its commitment to protecting human life from the moment of conception. In addition, we wish to reiterate the position presented at the meeting of the Permanent Council of May 21, 2025, on the need for a transparent, clear, and precise mechanism by which the member states of the Organization can ensure the highest standards for the participation of civil society organizations.
In this footnote, Argentina based its objection on the fact that Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir does not respect the principles and values of the OAS Charter without, however, spelling out which principles and values exactly. Given the context of the statement, the objection seems instead based on a possible disagreement over the interpretation of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life “in general, from the moment of conception.”
In Artavia Murillo v. Costa Rica, an in vitro fertilization case decided in 2012, the Inter-American Court held that the protection of the right to life under the American Convention is not absolute but gradual and incremental to embryo development (paragraph 264). While Artavia is an IVF case, the Court’s interpretation of the right to life has potential implications for abortion, as it opens up the possibility for balancing fetal protection with various human rights. The Argentinean government’s interpretation of Article 4 of the American Convention not only overlooks the Court’s interpretation in Artavia. It also contradicts domestic laws currently in force in Argentina, such as the above-mentioned Law 27.610.
Objecting to organizations’ participation in OAS activities on the sole basis of disagreement over interpretations of regional human rights instruments undermines precisely the foundational principle of democracy, recognized in the OAS Charter (Articles 2 b) and 3 d), not to mention rights fundamental to democratic practice, such as the right to participation recognized in the American Convention itself (Article 23). Like other multilateral human rights bodies, the OAS has been issuing a series of documents since the 1990s to promote accountability processes and enhance civil society participation (Bianculli, 2003; Peñas Defago, 2024).
Conclusion
Argentina has a long-standing tradition of promoting and defending human rights, a defining aspect that paved the way for the country's return to democracy in 1983. Years later, this tradition also positioned Argentina as a pioneer in Latin America in the field of sexual and reproductive rights, as illustrated by the enactment of a series of laws and public policies that advance and recognise these rights. Within this context, the country's women's and feminist movements framed the demand for the legalisation of VTP as a pending debt of democracy owed to women and other gestational persons (Sutton and Borland, 2019), a phenomenon that resonated across the region.
However, the current government has brought about a paradigm shift in Argentina's human rights approach, repudiating commitments the country has undertaken, such as those under the 2030 Agenda. This is coupled with the assault on and dismantling of national public policies on gender, sexuality and human rights—enacted after decades of both national and international debate and mobilisation—and in its stance towards abortion in the OAS's latest GA.
The Argentine case also illustrates how, in contexts of democratic crisis, challenges to and attacks against civil society organisations in regional and international human rights forums represent a mode of erosion for both global democracy itself and the very concept of human rights debated and endorsed in those forums.
The Human Rights in Context Blog is a platform that provides an academic space for discussion for those interested in human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. We are always interested in well-written and thoughtful comments and analyses on topical events or developments. Scholars from all disciplines, students, researchers, international and national civil servants, legislators and politicians, legal practitioners and judges are welcome to participate in the discussions. We warmly invite those interested in writing a post to send us an e-mail explaining briefly the relevance of the topic and your background as an expert. We will get back to you as quickly as we can. All contributors post in their individual capacity, and their opinions do not necessarily reflect the official position of Human Rights in Context, or any organisation with which the author is affiliated.