Urgent need to counter anti-rights pushback
EVEN before 2026 began, we have never been on track to deliver on gender equality and human right to health and broader development justice. For example, there has been hardly any decline in gender-based violence perpetrated by intimate partners and others since 2000. For example, again, despite promises to end female genital mutilation/ cutting by 2030, rates have instead increased by 15% over the last 8 years. And to make matters worse, the year 2026 has opened with growing backlash against gender equality like the US withdrawal from 66 international organisations such as those working to advance gender equality including 31 UN entities (like UN Women). Few other countries are also towing the US line.
“We need to understand and acknowledge the sinister link between gender injustice and patriarchy, capitalism, militarisation, and religious fundamentalism. We owe a lot to countless feminist leaders who championed the cause of gender justice since decades. We were able to make some progress despite the pushbacks historically. Frontline defenders of health, safety and rights of girls, women and gender diverse peoples continue to protect the gains made and resist such pushbacks,” said Shobha Shukla, SHE & Rights (Sexual Health with Equity & Rights) Coordinator and Host.
Agrees Dr Mabel Bianco, noted feminist leader, physician activist and founding president of FEIM (foundation for studies and research on women), Argentina: “US withdrawal from UN organisations including World Health Organization (WHO) is of deep concern. It appears as if gender equality, right to health and human rights of women and girls and peoples in all their diversities, are of no interest to them. US withdrawal has also forced upon an economic crisis for several human development programmes as withdrawal also comes along with suspension of US funding. But other countries are stepping up their development financing which gives some hope.”
“In the past US has been involved in supporting several important initiatives to protect people in low- and middle-income countries such as in Africa, or Latin America and the Caribbean from malaria, HIV and TB. Sudden stoppage of funding is disruptive. There are a lot of countries that were forced to reduce their health activities especially around sexual and reproductive health. USA does not seem to believe in multilateralism,” said Dr Bianco, who delivered the SHE & Rights Opening Plenary for January 2026. SHE & Rights was together organised by Global Center for Health Diplomacy and Inclusion (CeHDI), Women Deliver Conference 2026, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW), Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR), Asia Pacific Media Alliance for Health, Gender and Development Justice (APCAT Media) and CNS.
“All countries which stand for gender equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights must unite and work together against this anti-rights push by a few rich nations which have economic, political and military might. We need to resist together and advance progress towards gender equality and human rights. In the 70th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW70) in March 2026, let us hope more regional and unified voices are included. We need to strengthen multilateralism among the global south nations to advance progress on gender equality and human rights despite pushbacks by some nations,” added Dr Mabel Bianco. “We also need to ensure that processes like UN80 about reforms of the UN are not harming the mandates of importance agencies like UN Women and UNFPA.”
Patriarchy never takes a vacation: hope lies in feminist movements
“Feminist movements have historically organised but unfortunately patriarchy never takes a vacation. Therefore, we the feminists, have never stopped organising. Whether it was around Beijing (Beijing Declaration and its Platform for Action 1995), Cairo (International Conference on Population and Development or ICPD and its Programme of Action 1994) – in the context of amplifying each other's agenda, feminist movements have always organised,” said Paola Salwan Daher, Senior Director for Collective Action, Women Deliver.
“Current political moment is a bit different from what we have been facing in the past. It is true that we are seeing a rise in kind of unapologetic, unabashed, hegemonic masculinity and harmful gender stereotypes that are being spread online and in person, and that are embodied by several governments. And so, with that, we are also seeing a rise in the far-right agenda and fascism or fascistic governments that are bringing this message of ‘women should not have the same rights as men’ because we are somehow less. And it's not just women; it's all marginalised communities,” added Paola of Women Deliver.
“As convener of a global gender equality conference (Women Deliver Conference 2026) and as Women Deliver, it is important that we continue to meet each other to strategise and mobilise together. We are organising to counter the conservative agenda that we are faced with and to push forward a more progressive agenda that really centres the autonomy, rights, and dignity of women and girls. We need to build our own global solidarity movement that centres feminist principles. This is what we are trying to emulate and centre during the conference (Women Deliver Conference 2026) that Women Deliver is convening in Melbourne at the end of April 2026,” said Paola of Women Deliver.
“Mabel has rightly said that we are facing a crisis of multilateralism. This crisis has been exacerbated by the postures of the US administration, but really it was brewing from before. It was brewing because of double standards in the application of international law. Genocide in Palestine has exposed the fault lines. It has been brewing because of the double standards in how we address different crisis. This is what PM of Canada had also referred to in Davos that multilateral system was steeped in colonialism. So, it was fragile and volatile since the start,” shared Paola Salwan Daher.
“We also do not want a world without multilateralism. We know what a world without multilateralism would look like and it's not a world that we want to live in. So now is the time to reimagine collectively what multilateralism can look like. How do we make it people-centred? How do we make accountability at the root of everything and every process in every global space? How do we ensure that states respect their legal obligations? And what does it mean in a time of erosion of multilateralism to still use multilateral spaces as a site of accountability?” she added.
“Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has historically been one of the most accessible and useful tools that human rights defenders have leveraged to hold their governments accountable. I think I would also like to use other mechanisms, for example, treaty bodies are other mechanisms which human rights defenders can use to hold their governments accountable. Special procedures as well have proven to be very strong allies and have proven to be a very useful mechanism for human rights defenders to hold States (governments) accountable via their country visit reports that they produce,” said Paola.
Regressive Geneva Consensus Declaration has no legal bearing, part of anti-gender anti-rights propoganda
“As Women Deliver, we are feeling the (negative) impact of the Geneva Consensus Declaration at every turn and at every negotiation that we attend. Just a reminder that Geneva Consensus Declaration is not a multilaterally negotiated document rather it is put together by anti-rights organisations which demand States to sign it. It has become further amplified by the Trump administration. Geneva Consensus Declaration is not a document that bears any kind of legal bearing. We are hoping that the feminist playbook that Women Deliver and partners are working on, acts as a counter like it provides a different narrative,” said Paola Salwan Daher.
Global anti-rights pushbacks have consequences at national and sub-national level too
“Possible implication of anti-rights pushbacks including US withdrawal from global organisations at country level such as in Nepal could be humongous because Nepal has made a notable progress in gender equality and health outcomes such as reduction in maternal mortality and increased women's political representations. Much of this progress has been supported by UN agencies including UN Women, UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO, and US withdrawal affecting these agencies can result in reduced technical and financial support for gender responsive health policies, slower progress on sexual and reproductive health services especially in remote areas and challenges in sustaining the gains in maternal adolescent and reproductive health,” said Tushar Niroula, gender justice advocate and former Executive Director, Marie Stopes International Nepal.
“When we look from the marginalised group perspective, women from marginalised communities like Dalit women, indigenous women or women with disabilities or migrant women are most at the risk when international support is withdrawn. For countries like Nepal, the challenges are to protect and deepen progress on gender equality and right to health even in uncertain global environment. This requires a stronger national commitment, resilient multilateralism and continued collective actions,” added Tushar Niroula.
Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is an accountability mechanism to hold governments accountable on their human rights obligations
“Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is one of the national accountability mechanisms to hold UN member States accountable for human rights obligations and commitments. All 193 countries (UN member states) are reviewed once every four years. So far, 3 such reporting cycles have taken place and 4th cycle is currently underway. First such review of all countries took place between 2008-2011, then 2012-2016, followed by a third one during 2017-2022, and now the fourth cycle is going on 2022-2027,” said Dr Virginia Kamowa, Regional and Country Engagement Manager, Global Center for Health Diplomacy and Inclusion (CeHDI).
“UPR matters for national accountability because UPR is the only UN mechanism that reviews every country on a regular cycle against human rights obligations of the governments. All the commitments that are in UPR are public, which means that the public have access to those recommendations. So that makes it easier to hold the governments accountable for the commitments that are there. UPR creates a clear accountability pathway because we know the commitments made along with the expectation of action on those commitments. Ater 4 years progress is reviewed. It also links to international obligations that are made by countries that are signatory to different human rights policies,” said Dr Virginia Kamowa of CeHDI.
“UPR links obligations at the global level to national policy and budgets, and to service delivery. UPR is timebound as these obligations are timebound in terms of implementation. Repeated UPR review cycles expose what progress has taken place on these recommendations. Governments can accept or reject the recommendations made, but it also gives a political clarity in terms of which recommendations governments are going to work upon – and all information is in public domain,” explained Dr Virginia of CeHDI.
“It is the governments who are accountable for implementation of these recommendations that are made and parliaments in governments have oversight responsibility in terms of registration and budgets to implement those recommendations. Public institutions must deliver services on the recommendations that are made and civil society and communities play a very critical role because they provide the monitoring, scrutiny and the follow-up that is required during the implementation period. Public oversight is essential in translating the UPR commitments into change because if there is no public oversight those commitments might just be stagnant without being followed up,” emphasised Dr Virginia of CeHDI.
“Let me share an example from the right to health. In terms of promotion of recommendations related to the right of health there has been an increase over time from the first cycle of the UPR to the current cycle. More recommendations have been on health, and there has also been an increase in acceptance rates of recommendations as governments can accept or reject a recommendation made. Overall, 76% of recommendations that were made have been accepted and for those that are related to health, acceptance rate is even higher at 82%. There is a progress made on UPR recommendations made on maternal health and those that have been accepted. Maternal mortality is largely preventable and is a co-indicator to right to health. High maternal mortality reflects systemic failures, limited access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, workforce shortages, lack of safe abortions and discrimination. Women who are poor, rural, young or marginalised are disproportionately affected,” said Dr Virginia of CeHDI.
“Due to UPR, States can routinely receive recommendations to reduce maternal mortality, improve access to quality of maternal healthcare services and expand information and services related to sexual and reproductive health and rights. They can also address gender inequality and some harmful practices. When accepted, these recommendations become like a formal commitment of a State. UPR enables us to monitor what are the commitments related to maternal health and other sexual and reproductive health and rights made and accepted by a government, what laws, policies or strategies have been adopted or strengthened, have maternal mortality rates declined and for which populations. In terms of turning commitments into accountability, the UPR provides authoritative language to connect local realities to international promises. It strengthens advocacy narratives too. So, UPR also helps to transform advocacy from moral appeals to evidence-based accountability which is very important,” summarised Dr Virginia Kamowa of CeHDI.
In January 2026, UPR review took place in some countries like Rwanda and St Lucia. Likewise, in May 2026, UPR review would take place in Namibia, Mozambique, Somalia, Seychelles, Eswatini among others.
Decriminalise abortion now, demands PINSAN
“In 2012 the Philippines had passed the landmark Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act. Passage of this law was not just a legislative victory for women’s rights movement but a culmination of gruelling struggle for decades to reframe reproductive health as human rights and social justice issue. However, despite these hard-won victories, sexual and reproductive health and rights remains under-prioritised in the national agenda and even within the broader movement. Abortion rights are often treated as a fringe and contentious topic. That is why in 2015 PINSAN (Philippine Safe Abortion Advocacy Network) was born out of confronting the uncomfortable truth that while Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act 2012 was a landmark, it had to eventually leave abortion rights issue at the negotiation table. We at PINSAN network see the imperative to keep that conversation going and to centre abortion rights issues on our right to bodily autonomy, right to compassionate and non-judgmental health care. No one should be punished for accessing care. Struggle is going on because Philippines abortion laws are among the most restrictive in the world,” said Pauline Fernandez, Coordinator, Philippine Safe Abortion Advocacy Network (PINSAN).
“The US withdrawal from international organisations for example is not just a diplomatic move. It's also a signal from a global superpower that ‘it's okay for governments to de-prioritise gender equality,’ so, governments may feel less pressured to comply with international treaty obligations. We saw this in action during the Philippines' recent Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council that despite receiving direct urgent recommendations to decriminalise abortion and pass the equality law, the Philippine government did not accept these recommendations, dismissing them as contrary to our so-called, national culture and religious values,” added Pauline of PINSAN.
“PINSAN’s campaign calls to decriminalise abortion in the Philippines. This means that abortion will no longer be treated as a crime. This is different from legalisation, which means that a law is passed that explicitly allows and defines abortion in certain times, lifetime periods or conditions. Sunshine, a film on Netflix had consulted PINSAN in initial stages. This film stars a Filippino actress and tells the story of a young girl who sought an abortion clandestinely. While emphasising power and choice, it opened the door on how to talk about abortion with a wider audience,” shared Pauline of PINSAN.
(Shobha Shukla is the founding Managing Editor at Citizen News Service (CNS), a citizen journalism initiative focused on health and science, and Coordinator of APCAT Media (Asia Pacific Media Network to end TB & tobacco and prevent NCDs).
January 29, 2026