CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013 3.13 The restrictions on the author’s right to information were disproportionate because of their detrimental impact on her health and well-being. They caused her to feel extremely vulnerable, stigmatized and abandoned by the Irish health system at a time when she most needed support. 3.14 Moreover, the prohibition in the Abortion Information Act on publicly imparting information about abortion unless specifically requested was a disproportionate restriction on the author’s right to access sexual and reproductive health information. She did not ask for written information about legal termination services abroad, because she did not know what to ask. For instance, she did not know that the 24-week limit on legal abortion in the United Kingdom does not apply to pregnancies with fatal anomalies and feared that she would be denied care even if she ventured abroad and would be forced to continue the pregnancy, continuously tormented by the question of whether the fetus had died inside her. She failed to receive key information about the types of termination and the most appropriate service for her, given her advanced gestation. This process would not be acceptable or deemed to be good practice in other health systems. Claims under articles 2 (1), 3 and 26 of the Covenant 3.15 Laws criminalizing abortion violate the rights to non-discrimination and equal enjoyment of other rights on the grounds of sex and gender. The rights to equality and nondiscrimination compel States to ensure that health services accommodate the fundamental biological differences between men and women in reproduction. Such laws are discriminatory also because they deny women the moral agency that is closely related to their reproductive autonomy. There are no similar restrictions on health services that are needed only by men. 3.16 Criminalization of abortion on the grounds of fatal fetal impairment disproportionately affected the author, because she was a woman who needed that medical procedure in order to preserve her dignity, physical and psychological integrity and autonomy, in breach of articles 2 (1), 3 and 26 of the Covenant. The Irish abortion ban traumatizes and “punishes” women who need to terminate non-viable pregnancies. Male patients in Ireland are not subjected to such ordeals as the author when seeking necessary medical care. 3.17 The author felt judged by her providers. Her general practitioner told her that even if she continued the pregnancy, her child “might not suffer,” thus showing disrespect for her decision and autonomy and relegating her health needs to the provider’s own personal beliefs about the paramount importance of fetal suffering. There are no situations in which men in Ireland are similarly expected to put their health needs and moral agency aside in relation to their reproductive functions. 3.18 The author’s rights to equality and non-discrimination in the enjoyment of her rights under articles 7, 17 and 19 of the Covenant and her rights to be protected against discrimination under article 26 have been violated by the State party’s failure to provide her with information. Her right to access sexual and reproductive health information was violated because she was a woman in need of terminating her pregnancy. Male patients in Ireland are not similarly denied critical health information and are not pushed out and abandoned by the health-care system when requiring such information. 3.19 The State party’s criminalization of abortion reduced the author to her reproductive capacity by prioritizing the protection of the “unborn” over her health needs and her decision to terminate her pregnancy. She was subjected to a gender-based stereotype that women should continue their pregnancies regardless of the circumstances, their needs and wishes, because their primary role is to be mothers and caregivers. Stereotyping her as a reproductive instrument subjected her to discrimination, infringing her right to gender 6