Lift flap, then pull down & tear here

“i draw the line because...”

2013 ANNUAL REPORT

PB Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 1 ...I work at the only abortion clinic in North Dakota — and extremist politicians do not speak for the majority. It’s time they were reminded of that. Tammi Kromenaker, North Dakota ...No one should tell a woman what to do with her body! Joan Jett, singer and musician

“i draw Place the line postage here Thank you because...” for Drawing the Line. Center for Reproductive Rights Communications 120 Wall street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005

Tell us why you Draw the Line against attacks on reproductive freedom...Write it down. Send it in.

2 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 3 Our Mission The Center for Reproductive Rights uses the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental right that all governments are legally obligated to protect, respect, and fulfill.

Our Vision Reproductive freedom lies at the heart of the promise of human dignity, self-determination, and equality embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Center works toward the time when that promise is enshrined in law in the United States and © 2013 Center for Reproductive Rights throughout the world. We envision a world in which all women are free to Printed in the United States decide whether and when to have children; where all women have access to the best reproductive health care available; where all women can exercise Any part of this report may be copied, translated, or adapted their choices without coercion. More simply put, we envision a world where with permission from the author, provided that the parts copied are distributed free or at cost (not for profit) and the Center all women participate with full dignity as equal members of society. for Reproductive Rights is acknowledged as the author. Any commercial reproduction requires prior written permission from the author. The Center for Reproductive Rights would appreciate receiving a copy of any materials in which information from this report is used.

Center for Reproductive Rights 120 Wall Street, 14th Floor New York, New York 10005 Tel +1 917 637 3600 Fax +1 917 637 3666

ReproductiveRights.org DrawTheLine.org

this is why we draw ...I am exhausted after 60 years of defending MY BODY. the line Terri S., Lenexa, Kansas

...Contraception is HUGELY IMPORTANT ...Reproductive Rights should not be a and should be free and available to all who perk, or an economic issue. It’s a human ...I had more freedoms and choices need it. rights issue. concerning my reproductive health when I was in my teens and 20s Phyllis D., Annacortes, Washington Alfre Woodard, Emmy® Award-winning actress (during the 1970s) than my daughters do now. We are moving backward. Lynne W., Bethlehem, Pennsylvania i believe this is a fundamental right and must be protected

...The dignity of our mothers, sisters, ...I believe a woman’s health care decisions daughters, girlfriends, and wives is belong between her and her health care at stake. provider and is nobody’s business but Lou S., Columbus, Ohio her own. Martha W., Burlington, North Carolina

...I am a father and a husband, and regardless of my personal opinions, I have ...As a medical student, I am committed to too much respect for them to ever force my providing COMPLETE reproductive health opinions on my wife or daughter when it care to my future patients. comes to decisions about their body. Hannah Tilden, Glendale, Arizona John S., Trumbull, Connecticut

6 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 7 A Message from our A Message from our Board Chair President and CEO Rebecca Cook Nancy Northup

ourage is neither a strategy nor a mission statement. An and resources to make the Center a world-class organization. n December 2012, the Inter-American Court of Human contraception without unnecessary governmental barriers. Corganization can’t hire consultants to cultivate it or send The same can be said of the Center’s unrivaled staff, from IRights declared Costa Rica’s ban on in vitro fertilization a That means they will get the medication without delay and staff to a workshop to acquire it. the dozens of attorneys possessing decades of litigation violation of the rights to privacy, liberty, and personal integrity, prevent countless unintended pregnancies. experience to the top-flight professionals supporting our and the right to form a family, as recognized in international Courage is the foundation on which the Center for program work. law. We won another case against Poland in the European Reproductive Rights was built. And it’s inherent at every level Court of Human Rights, increasing international pressure in this organization, which is why I chose to stand with the That is why I am so proud to chair the Center’s board of The court’s landmark decision did far more than simply on the government to protect the human rights of its Center beginning in 2004. remarkable people who champion its courage, its mission, condemn a government’s failures to respect its citizens’ women, and guarantee that they can live free of stigma and its work. Thank you for embracing the Center through rights. It restored the dreams of building a family to countless and endangerment—both physical and mental—by the Day in and day out, each member of this organization’s staff your steadfast support. couples throughout Latin America. And, in a larger context, it entrenched intolerance of society at large. strives to uphold one tenet, central to every action taken: returned and strengthened their right to determine, as much The right of access to the full range of reproductive health as anyone can, their future. These triumphs feed our vision for a new era of reproductive care is inalienable and fundamental for all women. Behind rights across the globe. Every day, we’re fighting against the that commitment is the relentless pursuit of health, dignity, This powerful ruling truly struck home for me because it forced pregnancy testing of schoolgirls in Tanzania and the equality, and autonomy for all women everywhere. Rebecca Cook is emblematic of the work we do here every day. Yes, we outrageous practice of child marriage in South Asia. And we’re Chair of the Board fight to keep reproductive health care clinics open to deliver battling to protect access to health care for the millions of I suspect that you support the Center for these very reasons. essential medical care. We challenge age-old cultural and women in Texas, North Dakota, Arizona, and numerous other social traditions—allowed to endure by biased governments— states under siege by extremist politicians. Perhaps you were inspired by the Center’s epic battle that violate the human rights of women and girls. And we against the U.S. government, taking on the Food and Drug stand with doctors who face unconscionable governmental We are determined to make history in the United States Administration and two White House administrations—and interference in trying to do the work of helping people. All of by calling on Congress to stop the wholesale assault on winning. this we can pursue thanks to your enduring and generous reproductive health care in this country, and we won’t rest support. until such protection becomes law. Or perhaps it was our lengthy history of firsts before international courts and human rights bodies, including At the root of these top-line objectives, though, is an overriding All of these endeavors, varied as they are, reach for the same establishing a human rights obligation to guarantee all value that all of us share: to ensure that each of us has the end: a world where all women have the same measure of self- women timely, quality maternal care; bringing the first cases right and the ability to make the personal decisions that guide determination that promises equality and dignity. Thank you to focus on access to legal abortion as a human right; and our lives and well-being. so much for standing with us and making that world possible. establishing a precedent that reproductive rights violations can constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Through the lens of the past year’s major victories, we see the reach and impact of our conviction and hard work. Our success, broad in its reach, deep in its impact, would be unfathomable without the longstanding dedication of the After battling the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for more Nancy J. Northup Center’s donors and partners who provide the foundation than a decade, women across the nation can get emergency President and CEO

8 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 9 The Center is shining a light on the “I believe in the basic countless women who do not have access to reproductive health care principles upon which in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. this country was founded, individual rights for all.”

Diane F., Stillwater, New York

Defending Access to Essential Health Care

10 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 11 DRAWING THE LINE: Nuestro Texas

he relentless assault on women’s “Right now, I’m not prepared for Trights in Texas has affected all another child,” says Nancy. “My women in the state, but the hardest financial situation is rough, pretty 77% hit have been the most underserved: rough… I don’t know how to get more immigrant women in rural, low- pills because they charge for them of the women income areas. The Rio Grande Valley now. [The clinics] have no funds for is one such region—a chronically that. No one does now.” in the Rio marginalized, largely Latino area at the southern tip of Texas. Unable to get the contraception that Grande Valley family planning clinics once made When the Texas legislature slashed affordable and accessible, many are uninsured, state funding for family planning low-income women in the Valley now services by more than 60 percent struggle to maintain control over their putting private in 2011, from $111 million to $37.9 reproductive lives. million, the situation for women in the doctors beyond Rio Grande Valley went from bad to In collaboration with the National Latina worse. There are no public hospitals Institute for Reproductive Health, the their reach. in the region, and with 77 percent of Center for Reproductive Rights has women uninsured, private doctors launched a campaign to document are out of reach for most. The budget and expose the many barriers women cuts were specifically targeted to hit like Nancy face in the Rio Grande non-public family planning clinics, Valley when trying to access all health even though those facilities provide care, but especially reproductive reproductive health services to almost health services. The ultimate goal is to 40 percent of women in Texas. Women translate these findings into action by like Nancy, a mother of two. mobilizing Latinas in Texas to advocate for their health and rights. She was getting “desperate” when we met with her. Planned Parenthood Katrina Anderson, human rights had provided her a year’s supply of counsel in the U.S. Legal Program, has contraception before it was shuttered been leading the effort for the Center. by the funding cuts. When we “The budget cuts for family planning interviewed her, she had only about a exacerbated problems that have week’s worth left. She was terrified of existed for many years in this medically increasing the burden on her family. underserved area,” she says. “We

Women should never have to choose between food and contraception. 12 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 13 wanted to capture the stories of women who struggle to get When Elizabeth finally got the tests she needed, at a clinic the health care they need.” in Mexico, she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. Her own mother had recently died from breast cancer at age 60, and For many women in the area, family planning clinics have Elizabeth was devastated at the thought of having to wage a Women in the Rio Grande Valley are facing been their only health care provider. Though much of similar battle. A Bold a health crisis of epic proportions. the funding slashed in 2011 was restored in 2013, the legislature has managed to steer that money away from the Unable to pay for even the least expensive surgery but While the solution to that crisis ultimately lies in the state family planning clinics. Primary care clinics that remain in unwilling to let her children lose their mother, she quit her job Partnership legislature and possibly the courts—the Center’s areas of the Rio Grande Valley are overwhelmed by patients who to meet income eligibility for Medicaid. “I had to go to human expertise—any effort at change would be futile without would otherwise have gone to a family planning clinic. services to ask for help,” she recalls. “Thank God, they understanding the consequences to women and their families. helped me. Right now I’m seeing a doctor.” For Texas The Center partnered with the National Latina Institute for As a consequence, the human tragedy in the Rio Grande Reproductive Health, an advocacy group that has worked in the Valley worsens every day. Over the course of this long- Elizabeth’s story is hardly unusual in an area that’s being Rio Grande Valley for several years, to connect with women in term campaign, the Center and the Latina Institute have starved of health services. “As Texas continues to make it Latinas the community and gather their stories. partnered to bring national attention to this urgent issue, increasingly difficult for Latinas to access life-saving health and to amplify the voices of women whom Texas politicians care, the need for their stories to echo across the nation “Since Texas passed the law in 2011, defunding family have for too long ignored. becomes more and more critical,” says Jessica González- planning services, we’ve heard plenty about the impact on Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for providers and what the advocates are doing,” says Katrina Reproductive Health. “Our partnership with the Center for Anderson, the Center’s human rights counsel in the U.S. Legal Reproductive Rights will ensure that the voices of Texas Program. “But what about the women? And their families? To a “As a woman, I want my voice Latinas are heard.” large extent, Latinas, especially in rural Texas, are the ones who are really living through something of a catastrophe, brought on heard. We can’t keep quiet We have heard from 188 women, a fraction of those affected by this law. And we needed to tell their stories.” by this callous law. They have been harmed by the actions about all that’s going on.” of hostile anti-choice politicians, but they are anything but For the past six years, the Latina Institute has been educating defeated. “As a woman I want my voice heard,” says a woman and organizing women in the Rio Grande Valley, and thus Elizabeth, a single mother of three living in Pharr, Texas, from Edinburg. “We can’t keep quiet about all that’s going on.” had on-the-ground knowledge about the 2011 state budget is one of these women. She became dangerously anemic cuts on women’s access to reproductive health services. “Our and had to be hospitalized for a blood transfusion in This project will ensure that their voice will be heard at a activists, their friends, family members, and community were 2012. She sought follow-up care at the community health volume that cannot be ignored. We demand attention and being directly and negatively impacted,” says Elizabeth Guerra, clinic in Pharr, but a severe backlog at the facility meant action from Texas, Congress, and the White House. We make Director of Community Mobilization at the Latina Institute. it would take months to get an appointment. “I knew I had the case for a fair allocation of health resources, focusing “We knew that in partnering with the Center for Reproductive to go for some tests here and that it was going to cost me investments in rural, migrant, and poor communities that Rights, which brings expertise in applying the human rights a lot,” she remembers. But with all her income going to need it most. And we insist that government breaks down, framework, we would be able to create a means to elevate the the care of her children, she faced an impossible choice. once and for all, the barriers that limit access to reproductive voices of our activists and bring a different level of attention to “I couldn’t afford that amount of money, so I just let it go, health care and that undermine the dignity and well-being of the dire state of women’s health care in Texas.” let it go, till it got worse.” these women and their families. Together the two organizations developed a comprehensive advocacy strategy, leveraging the Center’s expertise in human rights law and the Latina Institute’s many years of work in the Rio Grande Valley and relationships with the communities there. “Their network of activists on the border will stay in touch with these women and mobilize them to lobby their elected officials on policies that build healthy families and communities,” says Katrina. “This allows us to meet a key goal of human rights documentation generally and of this project in particular—to empower those most affected by harmful policies to be agents for change.”

This report is the culmination of 188 interviews with women throughout the Rio Grande Valley about how the 2011 law has directly affected their lives. But it is only a first step. Together, the Center and the Latina Institute will continue working with other advocates, promotoras (community health outreach workers), and those affected by this policy to promote equitable health care policies that benefit everyone.

14 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 15 DRAWING THE LINE: A Historic Victory

very one of our cases requires Pressure on the FDA mounted in Full access Eexhaustive effort. Each begins as 2003, when the pill’s manufacturer a daunting challenge: a modestly petitioned the agency to have the drug to emergency sized non-profit battling against made available without a prescription, an institutional opponent with vast and an independent FDA panel of contraception resources. Every case demands a experts found the drug could be fierce belief that what we are fighting safely used by women of all ages. Yet is non- for is right and worthy. leading officials at the FDA continued to stonewall. negotiable. Because of these ingredients, our many victories always taste especially By this time, it was glaringly apparent It is every sweet. that the politics of President George W. Bush’s administration were playing woman’s But rarely does one case embody an active role in the emergency each of those elements so absolutely contraception saga. right. as did our fight against the U.S. government over access to emergency First, the FDA failed to respond to contraception. the Center’s petition. (See page 19.) Then, the FDA rejected the It began 14 years ago when the manufacturer’s application despite the Center, on behalf of reproductive recommendations of its own expert health care advocates who panel. recognized the potential for a safe, new drug that could prevent a Responding to these outrageous pregnancy after unprotected sex, filed actions, the Center filed a lawsuit in a Citizen Petition asking the Food and 2005 that laid the foundation for this Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the year’s decision, arguing that the FDA product to be made available over the acted unreasonably in ignoring its counter, without a prescription. By own scientific recommendations and 2001, our hopes that the FDA would treating emergency contraception make widespread access a priority differently than other pharmaceuticals. faded. The agency refused to take any action and failed to rule on the The degree of high-level political Citizen Petition. interference in what should have been a scientific process would soon

When it comes to health care, pol itics should never trump science. 16 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 17 become clear. As a result of the suit, the Center would learn that leading FDA officials, taking signals from the Bush administration, applied pressure to obstruct any forward Pushing progress. Ultimately, a federal judge accused the FDA of acting in “bad faith” and of “improper behavior.” the Envelope But science didn’t instantly prevail over politics with the arrival of President Obama. In 2009, a federal judge ruled—after unyielding pressure from the Center—that Against the FDA the FDA’s previous decision to limit over-the-counter access to emergency contraception to women over 18 Back in the late 1990s, a group of respected was based on politics rather than science. He ordered the scientific experts testified before theFood and agency to reconsider its decision, which it did—but only after the Center filed a motion for contempt of court, in Drug Administration (FDA), in a near consensus, 2010. When the FDA was finally ready to bring emergency that certain oral contraceptives could be used contraception out from behind the pharmacy counter, the Obama administration overruled the agency in a stunning, safely as emergency contraception. unprecedented, and highly disappointing action. Soon thereafter, the agency approved Plan B, an emergency contraceptive brand, as a prescription drug to go on the U.S. “This was David versus Goliath.” market. Immediately after the decision, the Center went into action to determine the best way to increase women’s access to the drug, The same federal judge issued a decision in April of this as it had the potential to dramatically address the high number year against the FDA, and his trenchant criticisms of the of unplanned pregnancies in the country. agency were all the more satisfying in the face of this epic struggle. In his final opinion, the judge wrote: “More “People were very excited when the FDA approved emergency than 12 years have passed since the citizen petition was contraception,” says Janet Crepps, the Center’s senior counsel. filed and 8 years since this lawsuit commenced ... the “But we realized pretty quickly that women weren’t going F.D.A. has engaged in intolerable delays in processing the to have the kind of access that was necessary to make it petition. Indeed, it could accurately be described as an effective.” administrative agency filibuster.” To begin the process of broadening access, the Center filed a Countless women paid the price for this government Citizen Petition of the FDA, asking them to make EC available interference—with their health, their well-being, and to all women without a prescription. “One thing I really love their future. about this case,” says Janet, “is that we really used some out- of-the-box thinking to make our case, and I think that’s really Even though the FDA made one form of emergency characteristic of the Center’s work.” contraception available without a prescription, the battle is not over. Oklahoma recently passed a law nullifying the The next 12 years brought political interference into a scientific court decision. If it goes into effect, all women will have to process from two presidential administrations, an epic lawsuit, bring proper ID to get emergency contraception. And if they and a multitude of stunning rebukes of the FDA by one federal don’t have it, or come to the drug store when the pharmacy judge who showed little tolerance for what he described on gates are already closed, they’ll be denied access to a safe, more than one occasion as an “administrative filibuster”—all effective way to prevent a pregnancy. the way up to his landmark decision this spring granting all women over-the-counter access to emergency contraception. Will this be a trend? The latest scheme for extremist politicians to further relegate women into second-class “We were pushing the envelope every step of the way,” says status? It’s too soon to say, but the Center for Reproductive Bonnie Scott Jones, who left the Center in 2013 after nearly 17 Rights has been at the heart of this battle, and we intend years as an attorney to work with the Women Centers, operators to remain there. We will fight this Oklahoma law and of four reproductive health care centers on the East Coast. send a message to the opposition that full access to this She got the perfect going away gift: a letter from the FDA, just reproductive health care is non-negotiable—that it is every weeks after our courtroom victory, granting the Citizen Petition. woman’s right. “It was pretty awesome,” says Bonnie. “This was David versus Goliath.”

18 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 19 DRAWING THE LINE: in Costa Rica

ustice was delivered too late for protections of a fertilized egg, “People will JMiguel and Ileana Yamuni. which the court asserted begin at conception. Local advocates quickly need in vitro In 2012, the Inter-American Court of jumped into battle to overturn this Human Rights (IACHR) struck down dangerous precedent, and the Center fertilization in Costa Rica’s ban on in vitro fertilization joined forces with partners in the and ordered the country to legalize region, filing friend-of-the-court briefs the future. the procedure. The couple had spent and providing key legal assistance. years fighting for the right to bring a As an international organization, we I want it to be child into their family, but by the time also used our global reach to shine of the ruling, the fertility window had a spotlight on the case beyond Costa available.” closed for them. Rica’s border.

Nevertheless, it wasn’t an empty The fundamental reproductive rights victory. As Miguel told the Center of women throughout the region were for Reproductive Rights while the at risk. Costa Rica argued that the case was still in court, “People will American Convention on Human need [IVF] in the future. I want it to Rights required that countries give be available.” absolute protection to prenatal life from the moment of fertilization. If In fact, the ruling was a colossal the IACHR were to side with that victory for every woman, man, and argument, the precedent would family in Costa Rica and the 21 not only wipe out access to IVF but other countries under the court’s also jeopardize even the narrowest jurisdiction, throughout Latin America avenues to terminate unintended and the Caribbean—because pregnancies and restrict access to ultimately, more was at stake than many kinds of safe and effective access to IVF in Costa Rica. contraception methods, such as IUDs. (The personhood laws that extremist Costa Rica’s IVF ban arose from a politicians in the U.S. have sought to Constitutional Court decision in 2000 pass—unsuccessfully—would almost that held that in vitro fertilization certainly have the same effect.) violates the legal personhood

The right to form a family must be protected as a human right. 20 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 21 The IACHR’s far-reaching authority also meant that a victory for personhood in the court would have made it even more difficult to reclaim the hollowed-out reproductive THE IMPACT OF A rights in countries like Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, where absolute abortion bans endanger the lives of women every day. LANDMARK RULING The court ultimately found that Costa Rica’s ban on IVF The 2012 Inter-American Court of Human Rights was an outright violation of the rights to privacy, liberty, (IACHR) decision overturning Costa Rica’s ban and personal integrity, as well as the right to be free from discrimination, and the right to form a family. on in vitro fertilization has implications that reach far beyond the case’s specific issues. “The court sent a powerful message with its decision,” says Lilian Sepúlveda, director of the Global Legal Program at The decision established vital legal precedent that will help protect the Center. “These kinds of assaults on reproductive rights against future reproductive rights violations and bolster ongoing tear at the fabric of our human rights—dignity, equality, battles against current violations throughout the region. After more and autonomy.” than a decade of committed work, the decision was a hard-fought victory for women throughout the Western Hemisphere—and the Center for Reproductive Rights and our partners. “These kinds of assaults on The IACHR clarified that any protections must be issued reproductive rights tear gradually and incrementally in tandem with its development. Several countries in the region with the most restrictive abortion at the fabric of our human bans—the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Chile—have justified their policies by arguing that the convention rights—dignity, equality, granted absolute protection to the right to life from conception. These bans force women to seek out unsafe abortions that kill and autonomy.” more than 40,000 women every year and send roughly a million women to the hospital with serious injuries.

The court’s ruling makes clear that under no circumstances can While the decision allowed for embryos to be given some the fundamental human rights of women be nullified. “These legal protections, those protections cannot be absolute and countries now know that under international law, women’s must develop in tandem with the fetus. Furthermore, those reproductive rights cannot be discarded,” says Alejandra protections must be balanced with the human rights of the Cárdenas, one of the Center’s legal advisers for Latin America woman. The court also recognized the harm that the cruel and the Caribbean, who supported the design of the legal ban and lengthy legal battle had caused and ordered the strategy to litigate the case in its final stage. state to provide mental health services to the victims in the case. And finally, underlining the absurdity and injustice “For cases related to abortion, it will reinforce our argument of the Costa Rican law, the IACHR ordered Costa Rica’s supporting a woman’s right to choose,” says Alejandra, “because Constitutional Court to implement an education program to the court recognized that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental train the nation’s judicial officials on reproductive rights. part of the protection of women’s personal integrity, privacy, and liberty, and that those rights cannot be nullified under the idea It was a stirring victory for human rights in the Western that embryos are persons with an absolute right to life. Hemisphere, a global precedent for ensuring reproductive rights—and the restoration of hope for countless couples “It will also reinforce our arguments around discrimination, like Miguel and Ileana Yamuni, throughout Costa Rica and The court’s ruling because the court recognized that women were discriminated beyond. against due to negative gender stereotypes that see motherhood makes clear that as a duty and not as a right. The court rejected outright the position that once a woman is pregnant she becomes a means of under no circumstances reproduction and the right of an embryo trumps any consideration of the rights of the woman. The court also recognized that women can the fundamental were denied access to certain health care services that only they could need. This case will have a dramatic impact in all the human rights of women battles we fight in Latin America and the Caribbean.” be nullified.

22 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 23 The Center is standing up for the 55,000 “I have three daughters Tanzanian schoolgirls expelled IN the previous decade because of forced who deserve to make pregnancy testing. their own decisions regarding their health.”

Thomas H. Warren, Pennsylvania

Defending Rights under Attack

24 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 25 DRAWING THE LINE: in Tanzania

atu, 13, discovered she was The actions of school and health “When we enter Tpregnant after officials at her school officials are truly horrifying, especially in Tanzania forced her and all her given the country’s failing record on the room we female classmates to take a surprise providing sexuality education and pregnancy test. preventing sexual abuse. And the meet a nurse consequences have haunted women, “The class teacher came and said, their families, and the larger Tanzanian who gives us a ‘Today, all girls, take your hoes, we are society for decades. going to the hospital to dig there and bottle to put put out the grasses,’” she remembers. After Tatu received her positive test “But it was an ambush.” results from the school, she was our urine in paralyzed with worry. “I couldn’t face my “When we get to the hospital, the parents, even my mother,” she says, “to and then [we] teacher says, ‘Now put down your hoes, tell her I was pregnant. She would beat and I want to show you where to dig,’” me. I didn’t have the courage to stand come back says Tatu. But they didn’t go anywhere by my relatives and say I’m pregnant. near a field or mound of dirt. “When we Even my boyfriend, if I told him . . . he with our urine enter the room we meet a nurse who could say, ‘It’s not my pregnancy,’ or he gives us a bottle to put our urine in and could beat me and ask how I can prove to test. No then [we] come back with our urine to it’s his pregnancy.” test.” one thinks But in the end, as a 13-year-old girl, she “No one thinks they can say no,” she had to tell. It so happened that Tatu’s they can says. boyfriend was the son of her teacher. The teacher begged Tatu’s mother to say no.” While the details might be different, the keep the pregnancy secret and didn’t broad arc to Tatu’s story is shockingly tell the school administrators about the similar to that of thousands of girls pregnancy. The teacher gave Tatu’s and young women in Tanzania and mother some money, and they both throughout Africa. Between 2003 and agreed to take their children out of 2011, more than 55,000 Tanzanian girls school rather than have them expelled. have been forced to drop out of, or been expelled from, primary and secondary Tatu went to live with her uncle in Dar schools due to pregnancy. This year, the es Salaam, Tanzania’s largest city, where Center took a crucial step in exposing she tried, unsuccessfully, to induce an this outrageous policy with the release unsafe abortion. She eventually gave of its fact-finding report Forced Out: birth to a boy. Mandatory Pregnancy Testing and the Expulsion of Pregnant Students in Barriers to education for Tanzanian Tanzanian Schools. girls are high, and nearly unscalable

I Believe That All Girls Have a Right to Determine their Future. 26 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 27 for a girl who leaves school because of a pregnancy. Tatu’s boyfriend found a new school with ease, but her efforts to re- enroll proved insurmountable. The school she tried to attend The Power required a confirmation letter from her old school, which refused to provide it until she confirmed why she had dropped out. Like so many girls before her, she was trapped. of Collaboration Tatu’s experience has been all too common and serves Our report on the forced expulsion of pregnant to perpetuate a harmful disparity between the education of boys and girls. In Tanzania, boys have higher rates schoolgirls in Tanzania is an example of the of enrollment and performance in primary schools and, Center’s multilevel approach to advocacy crucially, in secondary school. Meanwhile, more than 44 around the globe—tackling human rights percent of girls in mainland Tanzania have either given birth or are pregnant by the time they turn 19, leaving them violations through national, regional, and exposed to expulsion from school—a practice that has no international channels. legal mandate yet is a regular occurrence. At the heart of that approach is the development of strong relationships with local partners. Our work can’t begin without Pregnant students are an understanding of what is happening at the grassroots level. entitled to the same The Center worked with the Tanzania chapter of the Forum of African Women Educationalists, the Tanzania Women Lawyers educational opportunities Association, and Tanzania’s Legal & Human Rights Centre, among others. “These are local organizations with resources and skills as other students. that are a natural complement to our human rights work,” says Evelyne Opondo, the Center’s new regional director for Africa. While the Tanzanian government is currently in the midst of “The result is a powerful collaboration.” drafting a comprehensive education policy and accompanying guidelines that would enable girls like Tatu to continue some On the national level, the Tanzanian government has been in the form of education, the current draft guidelines still punish process of drafting an education policy that will address some adolescent girls for becoming pregnant. The proposed new of the inequalities for girls. While the new policy doesn’t reflect guidelines would require schools to suspend girls and impose all of the Center’s goals, “We hope that when we launch this a mandatory period of maternity leave of between 6 and 12 report we will have that robust discussion and engage the people months. New mothers would be required to breastfeed for at making these policies to improve them,” Evelyne says. least six months. The new guidelines also make no account for girls who miscarry or have abortions, and allow girls just one Evelyne also hopes that the report will allow the Center to re-admission opportunity following a pregnancy. engage in ongoing discussions during Tanzania’s constitutional review. There is potential for the review to codify the right to Evelyne Opondo became the Center’s regional director for reproductive health care. The Center’s report demonstrates how Africa in 2013, and one of her first responsibilities was to see women’s access to reproductive health care dovetails with other the Tanzania report to its conclusion. “Pregnant students must human rights. “We hope this report will contribute to what finally be accommodated and treated with dignity,” says Evelyne. ends up in the constitution and we can see that protection of “They are entitled to the same educational opportunities as girls is entrenched in the constitution,” she says. other students. An education is crucial in providing these girls with opportunities that would enable them and their Evelyne has experience with incorporating reproductive rights children to graduate from the cycle of poverty that they already issues in a constitutional reform process. In 2010, she was experience. Singling pregnant students out for discriminatory involved in successfully lobbying for the inclusion of positive or punitive treatment is a gross violation of their constitutional language on reproductive rights in the constitution in her and statutory rights, as well as their rights under international native Kenya. Today, the Kenyan constitution provides stronger human rights law.” protections for women’s health, including the right to health Our work can’t begin services and reproductive health care. Tatu’s son is now four years old. She thinks that the government should re-examine the expulsion policy. without an understanding Finally, the Center continues its work at the regional and “It damages [young] girls completely,” she says. “It is a international level, preparing shadow reports on human rights girl’s right to get an education, but they don’t know how of what is happening at treaties, as well as lobbying the African Commission on Human to do it if they get pregnant or how to prevent pregnancy.” and Peoples’ Rights, the African Union, and the United Nations Today she works as a fruit vendor. the grassroots level. to urge African nations to strengthen legal frameworks to protect women’s reproductive rights.

28 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 29 DRAWING THE LINE: in Poland

n 2009, the United Nations Special P was 14 when she was raped by Simply put, IRapporteur on the Right to Health a classmate. Under Polish law, a visited Poland to assess how the woman has to prove she has been Polish women country ensured its citizens’ right to raped before she can be allowed health, particularly in the context of to get an abortion. With the help of aren’t getting sexual and reproductive rights. The her mother, P did so, and received subsequent report documented what a certificate from the prosecutor the reproductive has been evident throughout the confirming that her pregnancy was Center’s history of work in Poland: the result of a criminal act. Yet three health care to The reality of reproductive health care different hospitals refused to provide doesn’t measure up to even the limited the abortion, in each case giving her which they are promise of access offered by the mixed and confusing information country’s laws. about the legal requirements for the legally entitled. procedure. One doctor told P that she Simply put, women aren’t getting needed a priest, not an abortion. the care to which they are legally entitled—in large part because Worse, one of the hospitals disclosed of cultural barriers entrenched her identity to the press, creating throughout the country, at every level a storm of controversy and public of society. attention around the girl and her mother. Anti-abortion activists The challenge in Poland is one of harassed P and S, forcing them to the toughest to overcome. It requires seek protection from the police. an unyielding effort that breaks Instead, the police targeted them, down deep-seated hostility and and based on unfounded accusations discrimination by documenting the that the mother was trying to coerce harm that women suffer. her daughter into having an abortion, P ended up in a juvenile detention Our 2012 victory in P & S v. Poland is center. the latest crucial step toward realizing this goal. At its core is a story of an When the Polish Ministry of Health adolescent girl, known by the initial eventually intervened, it spirited her P, and her mother, S, who together hundreds of miles away to receive fought against the institutional forces a hasty abortion during which her that actively sought to deny P’s human care was shockingly callous—she rights. was not told when she was being No one should impose their relI gious beliefs on another person. 30 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 31 anaesthetized, did not have the procedure explained to her, and was provided no post-abortion care. After the “The physical and mental procedure, she was told to leave immediately. suffering of women in BUilDiNG A PATH Calling what P and S endured an ordeal is a huge understatement. And the cruelty they encountered can be health care settings is TOWARD DIGNITY found in other women’s experiences seeking legal abortion care. more than comparable In March 2013, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Méndez, issued a In R.R. v. Poland, a pregnant woman who discovered that to what is traditionally the fetus had a cyst on its neck was repeatedly denied the groundbreaking report affirming that the denial necessary medical screening to find out whether that cyst considered torture or of some reproductive rights could be declared was a serious genetic defect. In one instance, she was a form of torture or ill-treatment, because of sent for an appointment with a doctor 300 miles away. The mistreatment.” stalling continued until the legal cut-off for a termination the severe physical and mental suffering these on the basis of severe fetal anomaly had passed. In July violations inflict on women. 2002, R.R. gave birth to a baby girl suffering from Turner Syndrome, a genetic condition in which a female does not The Center worked with the special rapporteur for two years have the usual pair of two X chromosomes. in the development of the report and following its publication. “People tend to look at torture and ill-treatment in the context of a prison setting or war,” says Amanda McRae, an advocacy adviser in the Center’s Global Legal Program, “This report presents a The courage of P and S is a variety of cases in which the physical and mental suffering of women in health care settings is more than comparable to what is true inspiration and carries traditionally considered torture or mistreatment.” us to the next fight for justice. The case that broke new ground was K.L. v. Peru. A 17-year-old was forced to deliver an anencephalic fetus that had no chance of survival but that put the young woman at serious risk of physical When the Center took these two cases to the European and mental suffering. Hospital authorities ignored doctors’ advice, Court of Human Rights, we won groundbreaking decisions claiming that K.L. was not entitled to an abortion under Peruvian on both counts: in P & S, for adolescents to maintain law. autonomy, and in R.R., for women to be free of inhuman and degrading treatment. “The importance of these The Center, with its partners, brought the case to the United victories for women in Poland cannot be overstated,” says Nations Human Rights Committee, which deemed the denial of a Johanna Westeson, the Center’s regional director for Europe. therapeutic abortion to be a violation of K.L.’s right to be free from “While change on the ground is slow, in the longer term cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, among other rights. the Polish government cannot ignore the clear message from the European Court: Poland’s weak laws and flawed That decision laid the groundwork for other courts and implementation violate women’s fundamental rights. These human rights mechanisms to recognize the suffering that can statements are increasingly becoming an embarrassment accompany the denial of an abortion. In P & S v. Poland, the to the Polish establishment, and change will come. Until European Court of Human Rights found that Poland had violated then, we will continue to work with partners to expose the a young woman’s right to be free from inhuman and degrading systemic ills of Poland’s reproductive health policies through treatment. The failure to implement the right to access legal litigation and advocacy.” abortion, coupled with the heavy influence of the Catholic Church in the health sector and deep-seated biases against Lasting change in Poland—or in any country that imposes abortion—especially among doctors—allowed health care harsh restrictions on reproductive health care—demands providers to inflict severe mental suffering on the young woman. the same resilience and fortitude that P and S demonstrated in securing and exercising their fundamental rights. The This report is another vital step on the road to having other courts recent court victories are built on the courage of people like and states recognize that the denial of a woman’s reproductive P and S, who decided to take on a government and fight for rights can constitute torture or ill-treatment. what they believed in. That courage is a true inspiration and carries us to the next fight for justice. “The special rapporteur is one of the leading experts in human rights generally,” says Amanda McRae, “so when he classifies reproductive rights violations as forms of torture or ill-treatment, that really helps us in the work we do.”

32 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 33 DRAWING THE LINE: in North Dakota

or the past 12 years, the Red “I just want to run a clinic,” she says. “I “I just want to F River Women’s Clinic has been don’t want to have to deal with all these the sole provider of outpatient challenges.” run a clinic. abortion services in North Dakota. Over that time, thousands of women These challenges are, to a large I don’t want to have counted on the clinic and degree, exactly that: legal challenges its staff to provide services critical to an increasingly hostile torrent of have to deal to their health, well-being, and legislation clearly designed to shutter future. And these days, they are Red River and deny women abortion with all these abundantly aware that such care services in their own state. The Center could disappear under the unyielding has stood with Tammi and her staff challenges.” assault on their rights by North since 2001, working to beat back every Dakota’s extremist legislators. measure that threatens their mission to deliver high-quality and compassionate Tammi Kromenaker has run Red River reproductive health care. for 15 years. Her job has evolved over that span. There was a time when the Tammi remembers relatively smooth issues that occupied her day were sailing through 2008. There were almost entirely about providing health demonstrators, of course, but the care. No more. Today, she lobbies government mostly left Red River legislators, works with the Center’s alone. The winds changed in 2009, attorneys on litigation, acts as a national and in 2011 anti-choice politicians spokesperson for reproductive rights, delivered a major blow by trying to ban and so much more. medication abortion.

Access to reproductive health care is a constitutional right. 34 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 35 “Right now, in North Dakota, it feels different than FORCE FOR CHANGE it ever has. Before this legislative session, for so The Draw the Line campaign launched in many people, abortion wasn’t on their radar. But October 2012 with the express purpose of putting the rampant attacks on women’s this session has put abortion on everyone’s radar. reproductive health care on the entire People are finally outraged.” nation’s radar. We conceived of the campaign and the Bill of Reproductive Rights as a way to speak to a much larger audience—to illustrate the range of critical women’s health services that we believe must be guaranteed as fundamental human rights, and to rally massive numbers of people behind efforts to strengthen Known commonly as the abortion pill, medication abortion This bill also demonstrates how little extremist politicians protections of these rights in U.S. federal law. The time was gives a woman a safe, less invasive, and more private know about the health care they’re trying to regulate. long overdue to forcefully articulate a positive vision for the method of ending a pregnancy in its earliest stages, in a Abortion is among the safest outpatient procedures future—of what we’re fighting for. setting where she feels most comfortable. After receiving practiced in medicine today. Requiring hospital accurate and unbiased information about her options, she’s privileges does nothing to make women safer, especially “To build the political will necessary for meaningful federal supported through the procedure by a medical professional. at a clinic like Red River, which has an exemplary record action to protect the reproductive rights of all women, we have of service. to demonstrate public support that’s as broad and vocal as So legislators tried to make it impossible to access possible,” says Chris Iseli, director of communications. medication abortion by imposing unnecessary restrictions We have stopped all three bills from taking effect, often that did nothing to improve women’s health. This has the with a resounding message. A federal judge called The campaign quickly made headlines and waves. The Bill most dramatic impact on women who travel long distances North Dakota’s outright ban on abortion “a blatant found support among a number of high profile personalities— to Red River; nearly half of the clinic’s 1,300 patients each violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to Meryl Streep, Kevin Bacon, Kyra Sedgwick, Olympia Dukakis, and year travel more than two hours each away. Many travel all women.” While the legal process will continue to many more—who lent their voices to a video series that went more than four hours each way. play out, the law is clear on these matters, and we are viral and received national media attention. clearly on the right side of the law. In April, a judge permanently blocked the state’s onerous And people flocked to the Draw the Line website, where they restrictions as unconstitutional, describing legislators’ Our confidence in defending Tammi and the Red River found a declaration that speaks to the fundamental importance purported safety concerns as “exaggerated or contrived.” Women’s Clinic is matched by the certainty that these of reproductive rights: Women should be able to make personal won’t be the last attacks on reproductive rights. “We decisions about their health and future without the government Tammi and staff had little time to celebrate. A month know something’s coming,” says Tammi. “And we know intruding, and they should be able to act on those decisions earlier, the legislature—which meets every two years—had we’re going to have to handle it.” At least one of those free of barriers, including prohibitive cost. unleashed four more bills aimed at stripping women of their things is a so-called personhood measure, which would reproductive rights. Red River and the Center again joined confer legal rights upon fertilized eggs. It’s set to appear Within weeks, more than 100,000 people had put their names forces to fight the two most egregious laws. One is the most on the 2014 ballot. on the Bill of Reproductive Rights. extreme anti-choice law to pass anywhere in the United States: a ban on abortion at the first sign of cardiac activity, But this avalanche of extremism has brought something Today, more than a quarter million people have signed. as early as six weeks into pregnancy—quite often before a else to North Dakota: widespread anger. “Right now, in woman even knows she is pregnant. North Dakota, it feels different than it ever has,” says Draw the Line continues to evolve and will remain central to our Tammi. “Before this session, for so many people, abortion public outreach and advocacy in the U.S. and beyond. The assault on North Dakota’s sole abortion provider comes wasn’t on their radar. But this session has put abortion on directly from the pre-packaged bills available in the anti- everyone’s radar. People are finally outraged.” “The widespread outrage that people are feeling about all choice playbook developed by Americans United for Life. the efforts by hostile politicians to turn back the clock on The second law the Center is fighting comes from those very With each demeaning, dangerous law passed, the reproductive rights can be a force for great change,” says Chris. pages: a burdensome and unnecessary requirement that stakes become ever clearer to people across the nation. “I’m standing up for the “Draw the Line is an important means of focusing that energy, all doctors performing abortion to have admitting privileges And those stakes are highest in places like North and transforming it into action.” with a local hospital. This is copycat legislation, pure and Dakota and Mississippi, where the health, dignity, rights of my children, my simple. The Center has prevented the exact same measure and autonomy of an entire state’s women hang in the from taking effect in Mississippi, another state with only one balance. This is about far more than just one clinic. And two beautiful daughters.” abortion clinic. that will be reflected in every action we take. Mark Ruffalo, Actor

36 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 37 The Center recognized the opportunity “Every woman to build capacity AND EFFECT LASTING CHANGE in South Asia. deserves access to health care. This assault on our basic rights is shameful.”

Sally J. Austin, Texas

Strengthening and Building Support

38 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 39 DRAWING THE LINE: elissa Upreti, the Center’s regional • Establish new norms and “The idea was to take these concepts a Mdirector for Asia, spent five years accelerate the time it takes step further into something that could going to law school in India. “I never to implement decisions into then be developed and filed as a case,” once heard the phrase ‘reproductive policy and practice says Melissa. The Center identified rights,’” she says. “It simply wasn’t part four cases through the workshop. in South Asia of the legal vocabulary.” • Build a network of South Asian lawyers to enable a new Lawyers in India are working on two The South Asia Reproductive Justice generation of legal experts to cases aimed at barriers to contraceptive and Accountability Initiative (SARJAI) foster recognition of women’s access and access to safe abortions. is a response to that void of academic reproductive rights in the Another will take on maternal mortality training—an attempt to spread the region. issues in Pakistan. And a fourth case will knowledge and learning that Melissa tackle access to contraception in Nepal. and other lawyers had to, for the most “The workshop aimed at developing part, acquire beyond their coursework. cases— public interest litigation—that The workshop also allowed lawyers could be filed in national courts to from across the region to meet and South Asian countries such as Nepal, seek legal accountability for violations exchange ideas from different legal India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri of women’s rights, especially the lack perspectives. “We had our own Lanka, may not have strong traditions of access to contraception and lack of international legal perspective on of legally enshrined reproductive access to safe abortion,” says Melissa. arguments they could develop,” says rights—or the legal training to Melissa. “Abortion is usually seen as establish them—but as Melissa A vital objective of the workshop— a health issue and not always as a points out, there are opportunities for which was funded by the David and discrimination issue, or as an issue setting important precedents. Lucile Packard Foundation— was that where one can claim a woman’s right cases would be driven by local lawyers, to be free from inhuman and degrading In Nepal, a significant amount of not by the Center. The leadership of treatment has been violated, so we litigation on women’s rights, notably local lawyers in these cases is crucial go in to point out that, ‘Look, a whole the landmark Supreme Court case to their success as they are the ones range of rights have been violated.’ on behalf of Lakshmi Dhikta that who have the expertise in national the Center supported, led to the law and are passionate about the Another workshop in South Asia is establishment of abortion as a surrounding issues. planned for late 2013. And the concept constitutionally protected right. is finding footholds elsewhere. “We’ve The landmark Additionally, India’s longstanding Building cases and setting legal already started to take lessons from tradition of public interest litigation, precedents is only the first step in this model and apply it in Africa,” Supreme Court paired with the judiciary’s reputation effecting change. “Litigation is just one says Melissa. The Center held the first for making huge strides in economic, legal accountability strategy—we use workshop in East Africa in April 2013. case on behalf of social, and cultural rights, suggests a it as a starting point,” says Melissa. rich environment for progress. “We were motivated to organize the Melissa points out that the legal Lakshmi Dhikta led workshop to help foster transnational and precedents being set are merely one The Center recognized the potential intraregional collaboration among lawyers part of a broader strategy. The network to the establishment to build capacity in the region, concerned about the status of women’s of lawyers and advocates—and their leading to the launch of SARJAI and reproductive rights and empower these ability to motivate and inspire each of abortion as a its first case development workshop, lawyers and activists to speak out and other—is a key piece of the strategy. in July 2012. back their concerns with action.” “The members of the network have constitutionally already started sharing developments The goals of SARJAI are clearly Prior to the three-day workshop—the and supporting the leadership goal,” protected right. defined: first of its kind in the region—the Center says Melissa. “That’s what SARJAI is set up a competitive selection process all about: innovation, action, leadership • Develop new litigation in which local lawyers submitted and positive change. These cases are initiatives ideas for litigation relating to access to huge steps forward, but advocacy must contraception or abortion services. follow.”

Together we can change millions of women’s lives. 40 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 41 DRAWING THE LINE: THE GALA There was much to celebrate at the Center for Reproductive Rights 2013 Annual Gala.

In the previous 30 hours, we secured victories for women in Texas and Oklahoma. And we presented awards to Senator Richard Blumenthal and Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme and former prime minister of New Zealand, for their commitment to protect and advance women’s reproductive rights. Alfre Woodard, Special Guest & Speaker But there was a deeper current running through the night’s festivities, once again at Jazz at Lincoln Center. Each person brings a story or a principle to our mission to protect a woman’s right to make personal decisions about her Nancy Northup presenting the award to our honoree Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme & former Prime Minister of New Zealand health and future. The willingness to share that personal perspective is critical to establishing access to reproductive health care as a fundamental right for all women.

Our special guest, Emmy-winning actress Alfre Woodard, couldn’t have said it better when she closed the night’s ceremonies. “The Center needs us to use the power of our voices to spread the word,” said Alfre, “to tell our stories, to do as everyone here tonight has done and inspire the people around us to join the fight. To wake women up to cross all imagined boundaries and realize we’re in this together.”

A stirring, evocative video demonstrated the cutting power of story. Shot on location in El Salvador, the Philippines, North Dakota, and Texas, the film showed how the consequences of restrictions on reproductive rights are truly Pamela Buffett, Gala Co-chair, & Jane Orans universal—and why we must fight on all fronts. Cynthia Blumenthal accepts Senator Richard Jessica Wong, Shannon Wu, Gala Host Committee, & Susan Lehman Blumenthal’s Gala Award All 350 guests had the chance to start speaking out in a special Draw the Line photo booth set up for the night, including legendary rocker Joan Jett. And, of course, many more signed their names to the Bill of Reproductive Rights. At night’s end, the Center raised more than $925,000 to help us continue our many battles across the globe to ensure that all women live in health, equality, dignity, and self-determination.

The annual Gala once again proved to be an incredibly inspiring night, with so many people standing up for women and their rights. It was the strongest possible affirmation that in fighting this battle, we are many and we are strong. And that we will never let up, not for one moment, until all women’s fundamental rights are protected.

Melissa & Robert Soros Margaret Munzer Loeb, Gala Co-chair, & Joan Jett Wendy Mackenzie, Roberta Schneiderman, & Jodi Magee

42 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 43 Throughout Fiscal Year 2013, Global Legal Program we had great success in further advancing our global vision U.S. Legal Program for a world in which reproductive rights are fundamental human rights—guaranteed and protected by all governments. 24 Countries The Center worked to advance reproductive rights in 24 countries. 60 Cases We worked on 60 active cases across the globe. 156 Partners We worked side by side with 156 organizations throughout the world. Defending Rights under Attack

44 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 45 FISCAL FY 2013 Revenues BALANCE 7%7% SHEET YEAR 25% 25% 2013 29%29% (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013) 20102010 REVENUE REVENUE 20102010 EXPENSES EXPENSES 39%39%

The Center’s total public support and FoundationsFoundations -$7,317,675 -$7,317,675

revenue for work in Fiscal Year 2013 ProPro Bono Bono Services Services - $4,753,975- $4,753,975 ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents $ 9,375,044 IndividualsIndividuals - $6,667,531- $6,667,531 totaled $18,827,330. This included Certificates of deposits 2,032,109 GalaGala - $1,264,875- $1,264,875 Investments 9,068,576 $14,073,355 in financial support, which Other - $88,148 Other - $88,148 Grants and contributions receivable - net 13,248,618 Foundations Prepaid39%39% expensesFoundations and other assets 29%29% ProPro Bono Bono Services Services 389,296 consisted of grants, charitable financial 29%29% ProPro Bono Bono Services Services 23%23% U.S.U.S. Legal Legal Program Program Security depositsIndividuals 121,822 25%25% Individuals 20%20% GlobalGlobal Legal Legal Program Program Fixed assets Other- net 369,417 donations, and miscellaneous revenue. 7%7% Other 7%7% CommunicationCommunications s 4%4% GovernmentGovernment Relations Relations 10% Fundraising Of this $14,073,355 in financial Total assets 10% Fundraising $ 34,604,882 6%6% ManagementManagement and and General General support, 52 percent ($7,317,674) FY 2013 Expenses Liabilities & NET ASSets came from foundations and 38 percent Liabilities 4%4% ($5,402,657) from individuals donors. 1212%% Accounts payable and accrued expenses $ 597,190 24%24% Accrued salaries and related benefits 386,847 The balance of the Center’s financial 7% 7% Deferred rent payable 110,845 Deferred revenue 238,500 support, $1,353,024, was derived from 11%11% 19% Total Liabilities $ 1,333,382 gala revenue, international organization 19% 22%22% grants, bequests, and miscellaneous Net assets Unrestricted revenue. In addition, the Center received Operating 12,921,839 ProPro Bono Bono Services Services - $4,753,975- $4,753,975 Board designated endowment fund 415,350 $4,753,975 in donated services U.S.U.S. Legal Legal Program Program - $3,834,571- $3,834,571

GlobalGlobal Legal Legal Program Program - $4,344,771- $4,344,771 Total Unrestricted $ 13,337,189 which consisted primarily of pro-bono FundraisingFundraising - $2,359,004- $2,359,004

CommunicationsCommunications - $2,220,386- $2,220,386 legal services. Temporarily restricted 18,930,191 Management and General - $817,538 Management and General - $817,538 Permanently restricted 1,004,120 GovernmentGovernment Relations Relations - $1,413,422- $1,413,422 Total Net Assets $ 33,271,500

Total liabilities and net assets $ 34,604,882

46 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 47 STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For the Year Ended June 30, 2013

Temporarily Permanently Public support, revenues & OTHER SUPPORT Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total Foundation grants $ 669,998 $ 13,620,602 $ 14,290,600 Contributions (including in-kind contributions of $15,880) 3,851,814 8,087,350 11,939,164 Bequests 745 745 Foreign governments and international organizations grants 39,865 39,865 Donated services 4,753,975 4,753,975 Special event 1,264,875 1,264,875 Direct costs of special event (172,608) (172,608) Other income 37,539 37,539 Net assets released from restriction 8,248,384 ($8,248,384)

Total public support, revenues & other support 18,654,722 13,499,433 32,154,155 Expenses Program services U.S. Legal Program 7,039,510 7,039,510 Global Legal Program 5,563,241 5,563,241 Communications 2,239,680 2,239,680 Government Relations 1,705,015 1,705,015 Total program services 16,547,446 16,547,446

Supporting services Management and general 822,480 822,480 Fundraising 2,201,133 2,201,133 Total supporting services 3,023,613 3,023,613 Total expenses 19,571,059 19,571,059

Change in net assets before investment INCOME (916,337) 13,499,433 12,583,096 Investment income 995,558 81,893 1,077,451

Change in net ASSETS 79,221 13,581,326 13,660,547 Net assets—beginning of year 13,257,968 5,348,865 $ 1,004,120 19,610,953 Net assets—end of year $ 13,337,189 $ 18,930,191 $ 1,004,120 $ 33,271,500

48 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 49 OUR SUPPORTERS draw the line beCAuse...

The Center Reproductive health We need more young and social health are REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS people involved in is enormously I WANT TO essential to allow women the next generation to control their destiny. ARE THE CORNERSTONE of advocacy to stop grateful to this backslide and Dr. David Rosenfeld each and PRESERVE TO WOMEN’S ABILITY TO hold onto our rights. Debbie Sharnak every one of REACH THEIR POTENTIAL our donors, WOMEN’S WE NEED Susan Schewel WOMEN SHOULD I saw friends and relatives suffer whose REPRODUCTIVE ALWAYS BE ABLE TO KEEP through the physical pain, danger, generosity and emotional trauma of illegal TO MAKE THEIR makes our RIGHTS FIGHTING abortions. Then I saw the contrast OWN DECISIONS work possible. DAVID A. RICHERT LUCY HADAC after Roe v. Wade. Deborah Tannen Kris Gilbert

50 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 51 $500,000+ $25,000 - $49,999 The Lazar Foundation Mary Beth Hastings Sara R. Gadd Donors Anonymous (2) AJG Foundation Lebowitz Family Foundation Betty S. Hoffenberg/Sidney Stern Faith Gay and Francesca Zambello Laura and John Arnold The Isabel Allende Foundation Sandra Lowery Memorial Trust Alene H. Gelbard The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Anonymous (4) Libby Mallon Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Alice Geller, Esq and The Huber Foundation The Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Josephine A. Merck Chris Stern Hyman Alan George The JPB Foundation Foundation, Inc. Laurie Michaels Advised Fund of Aspen Anne Hale Johnson Audrey Gerson The Partridge Foundation, Cecilia and Garrett Boone Family Fund at Community Foundation Mary A. Johnson Deborah Goldberg matching a Polly & John Guth Charitable Trust Dallas Women’s Foundation The Arjay and Frances Miller Foundation The Mark Krueger Charitable Trust Susan B. Goldsmith William C. Bullitt Foundation Inc. The Millstream Fund Sylvia A. Law The Grodzins Fund $100,000 - $499,999 Laurie Campbell The Morningstar Foundation Thomas A. Lehrer Bonnie and Sy Grossman gifts Anonymous Julie Chaiken The Morrison & Foerster Foundation Teresa E. Lindsay Elizabeth L. Grossman and Pamela Buffett, The Rebecca craigslist Charitable Fund Barbara S. Mosbacher Janice MacAvoy Joshua L. Boorstein Susan Buffett Foundation The William H. Donner Foundation Stewart R. Mott Foundation Walter and Ruth MacGinitie Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation The Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, Inc. Ellen Paradise Fisher Christopher Murphy and Dan Kagan The Elinor and Manyard Marks Melissa D. Ingalls Rebecca Cook and Bernard Dickens Nicki Nichols Gamble The New-Land Foundation Charitable Trust Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore LLC Educational Foundation of America David and Ruth Gottesman New Morning Foundation Poppi Massey Caroline B. Kennedy The Ford Foundation Hemera Foundation Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Diane L. Max and Adam E. Max Lloyd Group Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Maisie Houghton Kimberly C. Oxholm The Purple Lady/Barbara J. Meislin Fund of Edith McBean Foundation, Inc. The Kaplen Foundation Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & the Jewish Community Endowment Fund Valerie McCarthy Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund The Libra Foundation Garrison LLP Marcie and Robert Musser Adviser Fund of Suzanne Mcgee Grossman Family Charitable Foundation Wendy Mackenzie Sarah Peter Aspen Community Foundation Elizabeth Gosnell Miller Peter and Brie Grousbeck Martin and Brown Foundation Phoebe Haas Charitable Trust “A” Neda Nobari Foundation Abigail Moses The Irving Harris Foundation Katharine E. Merck Deborah Santana Jean B. Northup Gabriel and Wendy Nagy Betsy Karel The Moriah Fund Elizabeth Sherman Lawrence B. Pedowitz Fran and Fred Nathan Margaret Munzer Loeb and Daniel Loeb Orchard Foundation The Susan Stein Shiva Foundation Planned Parenthood Federation of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP The John D. and Catherine The Prospect-Hill Foundation, Inc. Barkley Stuart and Ann Glazer America, Inc. Leslie O’Loughlin T. MacArthur Foundation The Scherman Foundation W. Henry Vandeveer Praxis Consulting Group, Inc. Jeanne L. Oliver The Martin Foundation Inc. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Peter Wheeler and Elizabeth Munro Project Noise Foundation Amy Palladino Open Society Foundations The Summit Foundation White & Case LLP David A. Reichert Robert M. Pennoyer The Overbrook Foundation Wallace Global Fund Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Shearman & Sterling LLP JaMel and Tom Perkins The David and Lucile Packard Foundation The Mary Wohlford Foundation Patricia Brown Specter Marnie Pillsbury The Rice Family Foundation $10,000 - $24,999 Sophia Yen, MD, MPH Bayard T. Storey, PhD Mona S. Reis Roberta Schneiderman Anonymous (6) Felicia Woytak Lora D. Reynolds Jennifer and Jonathan Diana Bersohn $5,000 - $9,999 Carla Wragge Susan Cohn Rockefeller Allan Soros Foundation Yvonne Y.F. Chan Jose E. Alvarez Ropes & Gray LLP Fred and Alice Stanback Lois Chiles Anonymous (4) $2,500 - $4,999 Katharine C. Sachs Lawrence C. Stanback James J. Clark Joan Sagner Benesch Anonymous Elizabeth H. Scheuer WestWind Foundation Bertram and Barbara Cohn Steven Bills Jonathan Atkins Leslie Smith Trammell S. Crow Briar Foundation Renee Baruch Orin Snyder $50,000 - $99,999 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Brown Family Foundation BeP Earthwise Foundation Trust Stainman Family Foundation Anonymous (3) Brennan Diaz and Sadie Holzman Diaz Mike Browne Carl and Sharon Borine Julie Taymor Butler’s Hole Fund of The Boston Foundation DLA Piper LLP Frederick and Judith Buechner Jill Braufman Sally Warren The Irene Diamond Fund The Dubrof Group Lisa L. Carnoy Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Serena Whitridge Bertie Bialek Elliott Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Gladys G. Cofrin Carol Chandler The Donald and Susan Wilson Fund of the The David B. Gold Foundation Jacobson LLP Sylvan C. Coleman Foundation Ellen Chesler and Matthew J. Mallow Princeton Area Community Foundation The Grove Foundation Sallyann Garner Brit d’Arbeloff Clarence B. Coleman and Joan F. Coleman Tim and Starleen Wood Foundation David and Katherine Moore General Service Foundation Peggy and Dick Danziger Charitable Foundation Jane E. Worthen Family Foundation Amy Goldman Fowler Directions for Rural Action Fund Jennifer Cunningham Amy Yenkin Jane Orans Yvette and Larry Gralla Dagmar Dolby Nancy L. Davenport Cynthia Young Pfizer Inc. Sigrid Gray Stanley Eisenberg Hester Diamond Fiona and Eric Rudin Lucy Hadac Ettinger Foundation, Inc. Helen G. Doppelt $1,000 - $2,499 United Nations Population Fund Bambi Hatch Cynthia A. Fields Judith T. Drake Rosalind Abernathy Marshall M. Weinberg The J.M. Kaplan Fund Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Fiona Druckenmiller Jonathan and Joy Alferness Lois Q. Whitman Jackson Lewis LLP Susan Gibson Katherine D. Durant Allegheny Reproductive Health Center Hope and Grant Winthrop James E. Johnson Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP Blair Effron Dr. Machelle Harris Allen Shannon Wu George W. Krumme Roberta Goss and Lee Hetfield Ira M. Feinberg Marcia and Franz Allina

52 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 53 American Civil Liberties Union Greater Kansas City Community Foundation Traci Nauser Judy E. Tenney Foundation, Inc. Harry W. Green Aryeh Neier Andrew E. Tomback Over $4.8 Million Anonymous (15) Suzanne Grosso Andrew Nelson The Towbes Foundation Allan J. Arffa and Kay Matschullat Gail M. Harmon Audre W. Newman Donna Zaccaro Ullman Ariel Investments, LLC Jane L. Havemeyer Nancy J. Newman Phyllis and Gordon Vineyard in Pro Bono Support Sheila Ary David R. Heilbroner Christopher Newton and Jessica Smith Vision Publications Holly G. Atkinson, MD The Hellman Family Foundation Melanie Mason Niemiec Madeleine and Richard Wachter Anna and Dean Backer Sharon Hicks Lee Niven Sandra Warren The Baltimore Community Foundation John Hirschi Nancy Northup Eliza Weber Steven and Beth Bangert Mr. and Mrs. Hans A. Huber Mary Beth Norton Marcia D. Weber Dedicated lawyers from around the world are critical Maryam Banikarim Emily M. Kahn Peggy Oster Sue Ann Weinberg Phebe T. Banta Dale S. Kammerlohr The Over the Line Fund Jane and Stuart Weitzman to the success of the Center’s mission to advance Hanna and Jim Bartlett Joanne Keith Larry and Sandy Parker Louly Williams Eileen Bazelon Linda K. Kerber Debra A. Parmet John D. Wilson reproductive rights as fundamental rights. For fiscal Carole Becker Carol Kieschnick Katharine Phares Joyce G. Wolf Gail Beitz Harold and Ruth Kingsberg John T. Pigott Susan Wright year 2013, volunteer attorneys at 17 law firms, plus Berman Field Foundation Joseph B. Kittredge Sally and George Pillsbury Andrew Zachary Susan Bernfield and Claude Millman Rochelle Korman Bettina Plevan other professionals, contributed services valued at Stephanie H. Bernheim Edward and Shirley Kornreich Cynthia Hazen Polsky and Leon B. Polsky Matching Gifts Jewelle W. Bickford Jill Lafer Ellen M. Poss, M.D. Apple Matching Gift Program $4.5 million. Their participation was crucial to our Betsy Blattmachr Barbara F. Lee Patricia Powers Bank of America Matching Gifts Program Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Legacy ll Philanthropic Fund at the Constance B. Price Bristol-Myers Squibb litigation and legal advocacy efforts on behalf of Rena Bransten Community Foundation for Joseph Prince CA Technologies Matching Gifts Program Doug Braunstein Greater Buffalo Brooke and Aaron Quinlan Direct TV women around the globe, allowing us to leverage Christopher Brown Jamie A. Levitt The Raben Group EMTA, Inc. Donnaldson K. Brown Susan Levy William Ramos, MD ExxonMobil Foundation the contributions of individuals and institutional Nancy L. Buc Ali T. Lichtenstein Elizabeth G. Raymond The Freddie Mac Foundation Employee Jack and Jan Buresh Ronni Lieberman Michele Reimer Giving Progam donors. We are proud to acknowledge the following Marie Burke Mary D. Lindsay Mr. Robert A. Resnik GE Foundation Matching Gifts Program Brenda S. Butzel Martin and Susan Lipton Mary V. Riddell Google Gift Matching Program firms, organizations, and individuals for their valued M. P. Casey Robyn Lipton John Robb Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. LLC Anja Castner John Loveridge Debbie and Cliff Robbins JP Morgan Chase Foundation partnership and support. Renee and Edward Chelian Helen and Lou Lowenstein Jennifer and Jeffrey Robinson Macy’s Inc. Matching Gifts Program Alice Chew Barbara Luder James E. Russell Mal Warwick Associates Harvey and Naomi Cohen Dorothy Lurie Lois Russell Mead Johnson Nutrition Employee Arnold & Porter LLP Phyllis Cohen and Lewis Linn Joanne Lyman Naomi Rutenberg Matching Gift Program Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Jonathan Cohn, MD Joy S. Mankoff Laurah Samuels Microsoft Matching Gifts Program Epstein Becker Green Susan Coleman Lara Marcon Schwab Charitable Fund Motorola Solutions Foundation Matching Feldman Orlansky & Sanders Willard Cook Amelia Mattler Jodi Schwartz Gift Program Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Joyce B. Cowin McBride Family and Aspen Business Samuel Seymour Mutual of America Gómez-Pinzón Zuleta Ron Daley Center Foundation Kay Shipton Newmont Mining Corporation Hardwick Law Firm, LLC Marlene De La Rosa Maureen A. McKenzie Shook, Hardy, & Bacon LLP Ogden CAP Properties McDuff & Byrd Amy C. Denton Deborah McManus Myra Shulman Open Society Institute Matching Gifts Morrison & Foerster LLP France Desilets Elizabeth McQuade Dianne C. Shumaker The David and Lucile Packard NERA Economic Consulting Sharon and Lorin Duckman Littler Mendelson P.C. John Sieron-Bethencourt Foundation-Matching Gifts O’Melveny & Myers LLP East Bay Community Foundation Ken Menges Monique Signorat Pfizer Foundation Matching Gifts Program Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Amy Fang Audrey J. Meredith Claire Silberman Xcel Energy Employee Involvement Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Denise T. Finard Frederick Millhiser Janet Singer Programs Rittenberg, Samuel & Phillips LLC Ronnie C. Foont MINDset Jill S. Slater Spivey & Grigg LLP Doris J. Foster Foundation Dr. Deborah Moody Melissa and Robert Soros Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Aaron Frankel Mrs. Garrett Moran Stoller Family Charitable Lead Annuity Trust White & Case LLP Constance Gibb Adeline S. Morrison Anita U. Strauss Ellen Berland Gibbs Pat Morrissy and Jean Campbell David Sutphen Kris Gilbert Peter Mostow Shakti Sutriasa Alice Goldman Constance Murray Jan and Susan Suwinski Gail Gorlitzz Samuel Murumba Kat Taylor and Tom Steyer

54 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 55 Ensuring Access to Opposing Bans and Restrictions on SECURING ACCESS TO PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER Abortion Abortion THE CONTRACEPTION ADOLESCENTS -- Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien v. -- Louis Jerry Edwards, M.D. v. Joseph -- Tummino v. Hamburg (New York) -- Planned Parenthood of the Great Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Defending Access to Abortion When Beck, M.D. (Arkansas) -- Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Northwest v. State of Alaska (Alaska) (Maryland) DOCKET Legal -- Paul Isaacson, M.D. v. Tom Horne, Justice v. Oklahoma State Board of -- Interights v. Croatia / Legal Advisers -- Denise and Brian Walker v. Lucinda -- Hodes & Nauser, M.D.s, P.A. v. Derek (Arizona) Pharmacy (Oklahoma) (European Committee of Social Rights Jesson (Minnesota) Schmidt (Kansas) -- MKB Management Corp. d/b/a Red -- Lourdes Osil and Others v. Office of under European Social Charter) -- Brittany Prudhome v. June Medical River Women’s Clinic and Kathryn the Mayor of Manila City and Others / (Implementation phase) 1 Services, L.L.C. (Louisiana) L. Eggleston, M.D. v. Birch Burdick Amici and Legal Advisers (Philippines This case was initially filed in the Court of -- K.P. and Hope Medical Group for (North Dakota) Regional Trial Court)1 COMBATTING BANS ON IVF Appeals and later in the Supreme Court. Women v. Lorraine Leblanc (Louisiana) -- A.B.& C. v. Ireland / Third-Party -- Manju Tamang and others v. -- Gretel Artavia Murillo y Otros It was filed in the Regional Trial Court of -- Gretchen Stuart, M.D. v. Ralph Intervenor (European Court of Human Government of Nepal, Writ no. (“Fecundación in Vitro”) v. Costa Manila in 2009. Loomis, M.D. (North Carolina) Rights) (Implementation phase) 070-WO-0194 Rica / Amici (Inter-American Court 2 CHARM filed a case back in 2009 which -- MKB Management Corp. d/b/a Red -- In re Abortion Law Challenge in of Human Rights) (Implementation did not move forward. They filed a fresh River Women’s Clinic v. Birch Burdick Nicaragua / Amici (Supreme Court of FIGHTING FORCED phase) case in 2011 with a new set of facts and (North Dakota) Nicaragua) STERILIZATION AND VIOLENCE we have sent them a new brief in support -- Nova Health Systems d/b/a -- Manuela v. El Salvador / Co-petitioners AGAINST WOMEN PROMOTING SAFE AND HEALTHY of it. Reproductive Services v. E. Scott Pruitt (Inter American Commission on PREGNANCIES 3 (Oklahoma) Human Rights) Coercive Sterilization -- Alyne da Silva Pimentel v. Brazil / Limited to a rebutting a specific issue -- Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive -- Nikhil Datar v. Union of India and -- A.S. v. Hungary / Amici (UN Petitioners (UN Committee on the raised in 2011 relating to nutrition Justice. v. Terry Cline (Oklahoma) Others / Amici (Supreme Court of Committee on the Elimination of Elimination of Discrimination against benefits for pregnant women raised by the -- Texas Medical Providers Performing India) Discrimination against Women) Women) (Implementation phase) government in the broader case, which has Abortion Services v. David Lakey, M.D. -- Z. v. Moldova / Legal Advisers to (Implementation phase) -- Centre for Health and Resource been pending for over a decade). (Texas) Representatives (European Court of -- I.G. and Others v. Slovakia / Management (CHARM) v. State of Bihar Note: Some of the above-listed cases fit into -- Aurora v. Costa Rica / Co-Petitioners Human Rights) and Amici (Supreme Legal Advisers to Representative and Others / Legal Advisers / Amici more than one of the above categories, but (Inter-American Commission on Court of Moldova) 2 (European Court of Human Rights) (2011 ) (High Court of Bihar, India) each case was only listed once. Human Rights) -- Municipio de Asunción Ixtaltepec, (Implementation phase) -- Snehalata Singh v. The State of Uttar -- A.N. v. Costa Rica / Co-petitioners Oaxaca v. H. Congreso del Estado -- F.S. v. Chile / Co-Petitioners (Inter- Pradesh and Others / Amici (2008) (Inter-American Commission on Libre y Soberano de Oaxaca / Amici American Commission on Human (High Court of Uttar Pradesh, India) Human Rights) (Supreme Court of Mexico) Rights) -- Center for Health, Human Rights -- K.L. v. Peru / Co-petitioners -- Procurador de Derechos Humanos -- K.H. and Others v. Slovakia / and Development (CEHURD) v. The (UN Human Rights Committee) de Baja California v. H. Congreso Legal Advisers to Representative Attorney General (Constitutional (Implementation phase) del Estado Libre y Soberano de Baja (European Court of Human Rights) Petition No. 16 of 2011) / Legal -- L.C. v. Peru / Co-petitioners (UN California / Amici (Supreme Court of (Implementation phase) Advisers to the Petitioners Committee on the Elimination of Mexico) -- María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez v. (Constitutional Court of Uganda) Discrimination against Women) Peru / Co-petitioners (Inter-American -- People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. (Implementation phase) CHALLENGING RESTRICTIONS Commission on Human Rights) Union of India & Others, W.P. Civ. 196 -- Lakshmi Dhikta and Others v. ON ABORTION PROVIDERS (Implementation of friendly settlement) of 2001/ Amici (Supreme Court of Government of Nepal / Public interest -- Hodes & Nauser, M.D.s, P.A. v. India)3 petition, Melissa Upreti named as Robert Moser, M.D. (Kansas) Violence against Women -- Millicent Awour Omuya & Margaret a co-petitioner (Supreme Court of -- Choice, Inc. of Texas d/b/a Causeway -- M.M. v. Peru / Co-petitioners (Inter- Anyoso Oliele v. Attorney General & 4 Nepal) (Implementation phase) Medical Clinic v. Bruce Greenstein American Commission on Human others (High Court of Kenya at Nairobi -- P. and S. v. Poland / Legal Advisers (Louisiana) Rights) (Implementation of friendly Constitutional Petition No. 562 of to Representatives (European Court -- Hope Medical Group for Women v. settlement) 2012) of Human Rights) (Implementation Anthony Keck (Louisiana) -- M.N.N. v. Kenyan Attorney General / phase) -- Jackson Women’s Health Organization Amici (High Court of Kenya) COMBATTING DISCRIMINATION -- R.R. v. Poland / Legal Advisers to v. Mary Currier, M.D., M.P.H. -- Paola Guzmán Albarracín v. Ecuador BASED ON HEALTH STATUS Representatives (European Court of (Mississippi) / Co-petitioners (Inter-American -- A.G v. FBN Capital Nig. Ltd. / Legal Human Rights) (Implementation phase) -- MKB Mgmt. Corp. d/b/a Red River Commission on Human Rights) Advisers (High Court of Lagos State, -- Tysiąc v. Poland / Third-Party Women’s Clinic v. Birch Burdick and -- W.J. v. Starikoh and 3 others / Nigeria) Intervenor (European Court of Human Terry Dwelle, M.D. (North Dakota) Amici ( High Court of Kenya) -- Case 35866/300/2011/ Amici Rights) (Implementation phase) -- Planned Parenthood v. Gregory Abbott (Bucharest District Court, Romania) (Texas) -- AIDS Law Project v. Attorney General/ Opposing Criminalization of Abortion Amici (High Court of Kenya) -- In re Initiative Petition 395, State Question No. 761 (Oklahoma )

56 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 57 OUR GLOBAL LEGAL Program Reproductive Rights: Uganda toolkit: A Technical Guide to Understanding the Legal and Policy PUBLICATIONS A Tool for Monitoring State Obligations Framework on Termination of Pregnancy in Uganda This tool outlines and provides a means to monitor the These toolkits provide much-needed clarification to women, health care providers, implementation of state obligations under international and advocates, and regulators about the unclear and often confusing abortion laws and regional human rights law on a wide range of reproductive rights policies result in many women turning to unsafe, clandestine abortion when, in fact, legal issues, identifying key questions to assess a state’s compliance abortion was available to them because of the circumstances surrounding their unintended with its obligations. pregnancies.

The Stakes are High: The Tragic Impact of Unsafe Abortion and Inadequate Access to Contraception in Uganda Whose Right to Life? Uganda’s government fails its women and girls by fostering a Women’s Rights and Prenatal Protections under Human Rights and highly restrictive reproductive health care environment behind Comparative Law a narrow abortion law and a deliberate scarcity of sexual health This toolkit analyzes how states can meet their international human rights obligations as information. This report documents the vast human rights they seek to protect the value of prenatal life. Human rights law recognizes that the basic violations because of this and calls on the Ugandan government to right life begins at birth, and human rights bodies and courts worldwide have clearly improve the lives of Ugandan women and girls through systematic established that any prenatal protections must be consistent with women’s human rights. change.

ICPD and Human Rights: 20 Years of Advancing U.S. LEGAL PROGRAM Reproductive Rights through UN Treaty Bodies and Legal Reform These fact sheets examine the progress states have made during REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN 2012: A Look Back at the States This tool, released in January 2013, outlines and provides a means to monitor the the past 20 years in fulfilling the commitments made in the implementation of State obligations under international and regional human rights law International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) on a range of reproductive rights issues—freedom from discrimination, contraceptive Programme of Action. They explore a range of reproductive rights information and services, safe pregnancy and childbirth, abortion and post-abortion issues and conclude with a series of recommendations for states care, comprehensive sexuality education, freedom from violence against women, and as they enter the ICPD +20 review in 2014. HIV/AIDS. The tool also identifies key questions that human rights experts, monitoring bodies, and civil society can use to assess to what extent a state is in compliance with its Excluidas, Perseguidas, Encarceladas: El impacto obligations. de la criminalización absoluta del aborto en El Salvador [Excluded, Persecuted, Imprisioned: The impact of absolute criminalization of abortion in El Salvador] 2013 MID-YEAR REPORT In this report, we begin to assess the impact of the 2013 legislative session on access to This report documents the severe consequences of the absolute reproductive health care and offer an analysis of the major trends and the most onerous ban on abortion in El Salvador from 2001 to 2011by telling the laws enacted this season. stories of five women who were unfairly prosecuted for abortion, and analyzes the judicial processes and decisions under which their human rights violations occurred. The report is currently available in Spanish, and will be translated into English in late 2013.

Tanzania toolkit: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS A Technical Guide to Understanding the Legal and Policy Framework on Termination of Pregnancy in Mainland UNDER ATTACK: Reproductive Rights in the 112th Congress Tanzania In this inaugural report, the Center documents the many attacks on reproductive rights attempted during the two years of the 112th congressional session, as well as the work and of many members of Congress to counter those efforts. The report concludes by urging legislators and advocates to push back on these attacks in the 113th session by promoting policy proposals that improve access to the full range of reproductive health care, including abortion care.

58 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 59 Board of Directors OFFICE of the PRESIDENT Finance & Administration Latin America and the Caribbean Katrina Anderson, Human Rights Counsel Rebecca J. Cook, Chair Nancy Northup, President & CEO Michelle DeFossett, Chief Financial Purna Shrestha, Legal Adviser, Asia Kelly Baden, Policy and Advocacy Center Laura McQuade, Executive Vice Nancy Northup, President & CEO Officer Katrine Thomasen, Legal Adviser, Europe Adviser Hope B. Winthrop, Vice Chair President and Chief Operating Erin Davies, Director, Human Resources and Global Advocacy Esha Bhandari, Staff Attorney Laurie G. Campbell, Treasurer Officer and Administration Selome Argaw, Legal Fellow, Africa David Brown, Staff Attorney Board Luisa Cabal, Vice President, Programs Barkley Stuart, Secretary Marc Faletti, Director, Information Katherine Mayall, Legal Fellow, Global Autumn Katz, Staff Attorney Marlene Halpern, Director, Pro Bono Technology Advocacy Lara Rabiee, Staff Attorney Machelle H. Allen, M.D. Services Su H. Lim, Director, Budgeting and Rupali Sharma, Legal Fellow, Europe Natasha Lycia Ora Bannan, Legal Fellow and Staff Aimee Pelletier, Manager, Planning and José Alvarez Reporting Diana Vivas, Regional Fellow, Latin Jennifer Sokoler, Legal Fellow Aimee Boone Evaluation Ralford Goulbourne, Staff Accountant America and the Caribbean Kyle Marie Stock, Legislative Fellow Center Staff as of Nonnie S. Burnes Stephanie Cherkezian, Manager, Wanda Edwards, Human Resources Victoria Ojoo, Regional Office Manager, Tiseme Zegeye, Legal Fellow October 1, 2013 Julie Chaiken Scheduling Manager Africa Karla Torres, Human Rights Legal Fellow Phyllis Cohen Briony MacPhee, Program Manager, Heather Sumba, International Operations Mahendra Panta, Regional Office Margaux Hall, CRR-Columbia Law Roberta Goss Planning and Evaluation Manager Manager, Asia School Fellow Barbara N. Grossman Juliet Critsimilios, Administrative Paul Rudy, Network Administrator Morgan Stoffregen, Regional Office Rana Jaleel, CRR-Columbia Monica Harrington Associate Luis Castillo, Office Manager Manager, Latin America and the Law School Fellow Paula Johnson, M.D. Stephanie Thompson, Finance Associate Caribbean Nicole Tuszynski, Manager, Sylvia A. Law Communications Walter Zielkowski, Senior Budget Adrienne Atiles, Program Associate Law School Initiative Janet Levinger Chris Iseli, Director, Communications Assistant Stephen Allen, Legal Assistant, Africa Julie Bero, Manager, Advocacy Initiatives Jamie A. Levitt Dionne Scott, Director, Communications Linnette Veloso, Administrative Assistant and Institutional Projects Caroline Chiappetti, Legal Assistant Marshall M. Weinberg Operations for Finance and Administration Kathryn Bailey, Legal Assistant, Asia and Jamie Dakin, Legal Assistant Lois Whitman Kate Bernyk, Senior Press Officer Latin America and the Caribbean Christopher Pepe, Legal Assistant Natalia Garzon, International Press GLOBAL Legal Program Katherine Wright, Legal Assistant, Global Seth Weintraub, Legal Assistant Officer Lilian Sepúlveda, Director, Global Legal Advocacy and Europe General Counsel Patrick Egan, Senior Writer and Editor Program Yvonne Y.F. Chan (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Carveth Martin, Senior Creative and Mónica Arango Olaya, Regional Director, Government Relations Wharton & Garrison LLP) Designer Latin America and the Caribbean Julianna Gonen, Director, Government Jeanne McCabe, Senior Digital Producer Rebecca Brown, Director, Global Relations Honorary Trustees and Project Manager Advocacy Aram Schvey, Policy Counsel, Foreign Roberta B. Bialek Kylie Holmes, Graphic Designer Evelyne Opondo, Regional Director, Policy and Human Rights Anne Gilchrist Hall Jennifer Gurevich, Manager, Online Africa Megan Donovan, Federal Policy Counsel Maisie K. Houghton Advocacy and Engagement Melissa Upreti, Regional Director, Asia Amy Friedrich-Karnik, Federal Policy Betsy K. Karel Kristen Thompson, Communications Johanna Westeson, Regional Director, Adviser Marcie J. Musser Associate Europe Kristine Kippins, Federal Policy Counsel Roberta Schneiderman Johanna B. Fine, Legal Adviser and Jessica Moldovan, Government Relations Julie Taymor Development Manager for Projects and Operations Assistant Janet Benshoof, Founder and Anne Matsui, Director, Development Bojana Stoparic, Global Grant Writer and President Emerita Jill Aragones, Director, Institutional International Outreach Coordinator U.S. Legal Program Giving Judith Okal, Regional Manager, Africa Bebe Anderson, Director, U.S. Legal Amy Mugavero, Director, Individual Sonali Regmi, Regional Manager, Asia Program Giving Payal Shah, Senior Legal Adviser, Asia Julie Rikelman, Litigation Director Patrick Canavan, Manager, Donor Onyema Afulukwe, Legal Adviser, Africa Janet Crepps, Senior Counsel Research and Trends Alejandra Cárdenas, Legal Adviser, Latin Angela Hooton, State Policy and Saran Kaba, Manager, Annual Giving America and the Caribbean Advocacy Director Megan Moore, Manager, Foundation Stuart Halford, Advocacy Adviser Diana Hortsch, Senior Director, Law Relations Adriana Lamačková, Legal Adviser, School Initiative Stephanie Davis, Development Associate Europe Michelle Pallak Movahed, Senior Staff Corina Leu, Development Assistant Amanda McRae, Advocacy Adviser Attorney Maria Daniela Rivero, Legal Adviser, Stephanie Toti, Senior Staff Attorney

60 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 61 62 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 63 ReproductiveRights.org DrawTheLine.org

Center for Reproductive Rights 120 Wall Street, 14th Floor New York, New York 10005 Tel +1 917 637 3600 Fax +1 917 637 3666

64 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2012-2013 PB