Girls, Forced Pregnancy, and the Right to Non-Motherhood under International Human Rights Law

‘Gravity of Tenderness’ by The Fabler.

International human rights bodies and courts have progressively characterized forced pregnancy as a form of gender-based violence that violates adult women’s rights to autonomy, health, and personal integrity and may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. However, international law still lacks an explicit, child-specific recognition of the right not to be compelled into motherhood for girls and adolescents (aged 10 to 19) subjected to sexual violence and forced continuation of pregnancy.

When a child becomes pregnant, she is often treated as an adult and expected to assume the social and moral responsibilities associated with motherhood. Yet she is deemed incapable of exercising autonomous decision-making over her body and reproductive health. This contradiction reflects persistent age- and gender-based stereotypes that restrict the effective enjoyment of girls’ rights. The tension is particularly visible in Latin America, where cases brought before international human rights bodies have played a central role in shaping progressive reproductive rights standards, even as thousands of girls continue to be forced into motherhood each year, in contexts marked by sexual violence and restrictive abortion laws.

Against this backdrop, this article argues that international law must continue moving toward the explicit recognition of non-motherhood as a protected right for girls. It situates these violations within their broader social and legal context and examines the evolving jurisprudence on forced pregnancy and forced motherhood. It then analyzes the emerging ‘Girls, Not Mothers’ jurisprudence and argues that compelled maternity constitutes a distinct violation of girls’ rights.

Girls, Sexual Violence, and Forced Pregnancy

Adolescent and child pregnancy remains alarmingly common worldwide. According to data from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), nearly one-third of women worldwide begin childbearing before the age of 20, and approximately 45 percent of adolescent births occur among girls under 17.

In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), the situation is particularly acute. The region is also the only one showing an upward trend in pregnancies among girls under 15, and these rates are projected to continue increasing through 2030. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) reports that approximately 15 percent of pregnancies in LAC occur among adolescents under 20, resulting in nearly 2 million births each year to mothers aged 15 to 19. These rates are significantly higher than the global average.

A central factor underlying these trends is the persistence of sexual violence against girls, which remains widespread worldwide and constitutes one of the primary causes of early pregnancies. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNFPA have identified child sexual abuse as a significant risk factor for unwanted pregnancy. According to PAHO, nearly one in five women in the LAC region reports having experienced sexual violence before the age of 18.

In the region, pregnancies among girls are predominantly the result of sexual violence, including incestuous abuse and assaults perpetrated by family members, acquaintances, neighbors, or other known individuals. This differs from pregnancies among adolescents aged 15 to 19, which in some cases may occur in the context of early sexual initiation, although coercion and unequal power dynamics remain pervasive across age groups.

These harms are further exacerbated by restrictive abortion laws across the region, which criminalize, prohibit, or severely obstruct girls’ access to pregnancy termination. Five countries (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, and Suriname) maintain absolute bans on abortion. Countries, such as Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, and Brazil, among others, allow abortion in cases of rape. However, in practice, access is often not guaranteed, and girls and adolescents are frequently denied services (e.g., Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, Guyana).

The result is a legal and institutional framework that systematically prioritizes the protection of abstract notions of motherhood over the rights, health, and autonomy of girls themselves, even when the pregnancy is the direct result of violence and coercion.

Forced Pregnancy and Motherhood as a Distinct Human Rights Violation

Forced pregnancy is not a new concept under international law. The legal history of this field has long recognized sexual violence against women as an act against the law and, in some contexts, as a crime against humanity. Within this international criminal framework, the International Criminal Court’s judgment in the case of The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (paras. 3056-3062) marked a significant development. For the first time, the ICC introduced a conviction for the crime of forced pregnancy, characterising it as one of the gravest forms of suffering.

Human rights bodies have recognized that denying access to legal abortion may violate rights to privacy, dignity, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as reflected in K.L. v. Peru [Human Rights Committee (HRC), paras. 6.2-6.6] and L.C. v. Peru (U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, paras. 6.2-6.6). Later cases such as R.R. v. Poland [European Court for Human Rights (ECHR), paras. 188-191], P. and S. v. Poland (ECHR, paras. 2-6, 61, 75, 132), Mellet v. Ireland (HRC, paras. 7.4-7.5, 7.8-7.11), and Whelan v. Ireland (HRC, paras. 159, 213, 225) expanded this reasoning in different contexts (i.e., refusal of abortion following sexual violence, obstruction of access to prenatal diagnosis, and prohibitions on termination in cases of fatal fetal anomaly).

Furthermore, as the Inter-American Commission noted, the consequences of forced pregnancy and forced motherhood in underage persons go far beyond the physical. It is not only a matter of bodily changes. It is the burden of being compelled to continue a pregnancy against one’s will. It is the impact of being forced, sometimes without explanation or understanding, to undergo something deeply unwanted. Forced pregnancy produces stress, anxiety, and profound distress. Its effects do not end at childbirth. They remain, shaping lives long after the pregnancy ends (see para. 259).

Accordingly, state-imposed continuation of pregnancy and compelled motherhood are recognized in international law as serious human rights violations. In recent years, cases involving girls and adolescents have prompted a more precise articulation of the harm entailed by compelled motherhood.

They are Girls, Not Mothers

Between 2019 and 2025, the HRC and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) decided a series of cases collectively known as ‘Girls, Not Mothers’ (Niñas, No Madres). In Susana v. Nicaragua, Norma v. Ecuador, Lucía v. Nicaragua, Fatima v. Guatemala, and Camila v. Peru, these bodies addressed situations in which girls and adolescents subjected to sexual violence were denied access to abortion and compelled to carry pregnancies to term. The ‘Girls, Not Mothers’ decisions mark a significant development in international human rights law. They reaffirm a simple but often overlooked principle: a pregnant child remains a child. Pregnancy does not erase childhood, nor does it convert a girl into an adult rights-holder burdened with maternal responsibilities.

The facts of these cases reflect a broader pattern of sexual violence against girls and adolescents who become pregnant, are denied access to abortion care, and are consequently forced to carry their pregnancies to term. Fátima, from Guatemala, was twelve years old when she was subjected to sexual violence by a State agent. Months later, she learned that she was pregnant as a consequence of that violence. Lucía, from Nicaragua, was subjected to prolonged sexual abuse by the priest responsible for the church choir in which she sang. Her pregnancy was discovered only after an extended period of abuse. Norma, from Ecuador, was subjected to sexual violence by her biological father. Susana, also from Nicaragua, was subjected to sexual abuse by her grandfather over a period of more than six years. Camila, from Peru, was subjected to sexual violence by her father. None of them were offered reproductive health services, legal or psychological support, or information about their alternatives.

In Norma’s case, the HRC found that the State violated her rights by denying access to sexual and reproductive health services and exposing her to maternal mortality and pregnancy-related health risks (para. 11.5). It held that the lack of access to abortion and the absence of information about alternatives, including adoption, interfered with her right to dignity by effectively imposing forced motherhood (para. 11.9). The HRC reiterated that States must ensure safe and legal access to abortion, particularly in cases of rape or where the life or health of the pregnant girl is at risk, and must guarantee access to accurate, evidence-based reproductive health information (Norma, para. 11.6).

The HRC established that criminalizing abortion is associated with poorer health outcomes (Lucía, para. 8.4 and Susana, para. 8.4), and that denying access to abortion constituted an unreasonable interference with the girl’s rights, particularly in light of their age and status as sexual violence survivors (Susana, paras. 8.4, 8.8). It also found that the failure to guarantee effective access to procedures for requesting an abortion may amount to a breach of the right to privacy (Norma, paras. 11.15-11.18, Lucía, para. 8.14, Susana, para. 8.14, and Fátima, para. 15.13).

In addition, the HRC affirmed that the lack of protection against sexual violence, forced pregnancy, and forced motherhood constitutes a form of gender-based violence and discrimination (Norma, para. 11.22, Lucía, para. 8.19, Susana, para. 8.19, and Fátima, para. 15.20). It further held that the refusal to provide reproductive health services guaranteed under domestic law amounted to gender stereotyping that reinforces women’s reproductive role (Fátima, para. 15.20, and Norma, para. 11.22). In Fátima, the HRC also affirmed that denial of abortion amounts to an arbitrary interference with the right to privacy and reproductive autonomy, especially when considered alongside the State’s duties of protection and effective remedy (para. 15.13).

As a result, the HRC ordered legislative reforms to ensure that women and, in particular, girls who are victims of sexual violence and rape (Fátima, para. 17, Norma, para. 13, Lucía, para. 10, and Susana, para. 10), as well as girls whose lives are at risk (Lucía, para. 10), have effective access to abortion services. It also required the adoption of comprehensive policies to prevent and combat sexual violence, including capacity-building measures for health-care providers to ensure appropriate responses in cases involving sexual violence and pregnancy (Susana, para. 10, Norma, para. 13, Lucía, para. 10, and Fátima, para. 17). In the case of Fátima, the HRC likewise ordered Guatemala to establish a system for registering cases of sexual violence, pregnancy, and forced motherhood among girls (para. 17).

The CRC, in Camila, emphasized that girls have the right to the highest attainable standard of health, including the right to control their own health and bodies, and to sexual and reproductive freedom to make responsible decisions (para. 8.4). It further called for the review of domestic legislation to guarantee that the best interests of pregnant adolescents are upheld and that their views are heard and respected in decisions related to abortion (para. 8.4). In its decision, the CRC ordered the decriminalization of abortion in all cases of child and adolescent pregnancy and required States to ensure access to safe abortion services, post-abortion care, and comprehensive sexuality education, among other measures (para. 9).

Girls’ Reproductive Autonomy and Evolving Capacities

The ‘Girls, Not Mothers’ decisions situate children and adolescents within a body of jurisprudence that had largely developed in cases involving adult women. They highlight that girls subjected to sexual violence retain decision-making authority over their bodies and futures and that their evolving capacities must shape how law responds to pregnancy in childhood. The CRC’s decision in Camila makes this explicit. It affirms that girls are entitled to participate meaningfully in decisions concerning their reproductive autonomy, including the decision not to become mothers (see para. 8.4).

Although not always stated in explicit terms, these decisions also open the door for States to move toward the decriminalization of abortion, not only in cases of rape but more broadly in situations where girls seek to terminate a pregnancy to safeguard their health, dignity, and life plans. Recognizing non-motherhood as a rights-based claim, therefore, requires protection from sexual violence and the removal of legal and practical barriers that prevent girls from exercising meaningful reproductive autonomy. International law has developed legal standards to ensure that children’s views are heard and given due weight in medical decision-making, reflecting the recognition that they possess agency appropriate to their age and maturity.

The CRC has emphasized that evolving capacities should be understood as a positive and enabling concept, not as a justification for restricting children’s autonomy under the guise of immaturity. It has further recommended a presumption of competence for adolescents to access sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion and post-abortion care. Similarly, the Inter-American human rights system has developed the principle of progressive autonomy, recognizing that children exercise their rights more fully as they gain greater independence and personal maturity.

Compelling a girl to carry a pregnancy to term while denying her meaningful decision-making authority represents a direct inversion of these principles: it treats her as sufficiently mature to assume motherhood, yet insufficiently mature to decide whether to undertake it.

Concluding Remarks

The decisions of international human rights bodies offer important guidance on the direction international law should follow. Yet the distance between legal standards and public policy remains wide. Forced pregnancy and forced motherhood do more than disrupt a life project. They interrupt education, deepen fear of stigma, and reinforce silence among those who have experienced sexual violence. Pregnancy should not become a source of fear. Nor should girls be silenced by the consequences of speaking out. Closing the doors to the right to decide over one’s own body on the grounds of ‘lack of capacity’, while simultaneously imposing motherhood, should not be normal either. What remains lacking is the willingness to acknowledge a simple truth: girls have the right not to become mothers.