CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 Claims under articles 2 (1), 3 and 26 3.9 The author suffered several violations of her rights to equality and nondiscrimination. Under the country’s highly restrictive abortion law, she was denied on the basis of her sex access to medical services that she needed in order to preserve her autonomy, dignity and physical and psychological integrity. In contrast, male patients and patients in other situations in Ireland are never expected to disregard their health needs and moral agency in relation to their reproductive functions, or to leave their family and country in order to receive health care. The rights to equality and non-discrimination require States to ensure that health services accommodate the fundamental biological differences between men and women in reproduction. 3.10 In addition, the author’s rights to equality and non-discrimination under articles 2 (1) and 3 read in conjunction with articles 7, 17 and 19 of the Covenant were violated because, due to her sex, she was not fully informed by Irish health providers of the options available to her, including the use of legal abortion services abroad. In contrast, male patients and patients in other situations are not denied critical health information and are not abandoned by the health care system in this regard. The author received discriminatory treatment from the Irish health-care providers, who treated her as if her pregnancy were progressing normally, without offering the support and care that her particular circumstances required. This treatment was not based on objective or reasonable grounds. 3.11 The author was also subjected to gender-based discrimination insofar as she was stereotyped as a reproductive instrument whose needs were subordinate to those of her unborn, non-viable fetus. Restrictive abortion laws constitute a form of discrimination against women. Because the author’s health was not endangered by the pregnancy, she was expected to sacrifice her own mental health and well-being for her dying fetus, and was not treated according to her particular medical needs. The rights to equality and nondiscrimination require States parties to take affirmative measures to eliminate gender stereotypes in reproductive health care. Remedies requested 3.12 The author requests that the State party: (a) provide her with appropriate compensation; (b) review relevant provisions of the Constitution, as necessary, to conform with articles 2, 3, 7, 17, 19 and 26 of the Covenant; (c) amend the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 to conform with articles 2, 3, 7, 19 and 26 of the Covenant; (d) take measures necessary to ensure effective, timely and accessible procedures for legal pregnancy termination in Ireland; and (e) amend the abortion information act to bring it into line with article 19 of the Covenant, and ensure its proper implementation. State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits 4.1 In its observations dated 19 January 2015 and 14 October 2015, the State party does not contest the admissibility of the communication. It explains in detail the country’s laws and regulations concerning termination of pregnancy. The Supreme Court has interpreted article 40.3.3 of the Constitution as permitting termination of the life of the unborn where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother. 9 The article reflects the profound moral choices of the people, as expressed through several popular referenda. Yet the Irish people have acknowledged that citizens are entitled to travel to other jurisdictions in order to terminate pregnancies, and Irish law guarantees the right to information on abortion services provided abroad. Thus, the constitutional and legislative framework reflects a nuanced and proportionate approach to the views of the Irish electorate on the highly politicized and divisive question of the extent to which the right to life of the fetus should be protected and balanced against the rights of the woman. The people’s choices, which are based on deeply held and considered views, should be respected. 4.2 The Committee’s jurisprudence permits limitations and allowances with respect to the right to privacy (where limitations are proportional) and the right to non-discrimination 9 6 The State party cites Attorney General v. X and Others. GE.17-10463