Policies around sexual and reproductive health and rights in Peru: conflict, biases and silence.
Policies around sexual and reproductive health and rights in Peru: conflict, biases and silence.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/17441690801981159
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Palomino, N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Caceres, C;Cueto, M;Palomino, N
本研究旨在审查自1990年以来，秘鲁历届政府如何处理生殖权利、艾滋病毒/艾滋病预防和治疗、性多样性权利，以及政策的急剧变化和许多矛盾。堕胎和避孕一直是公众争议和辩论的焦点，使生殖权利难以取得进展。艾滋病毒/艾滋病往往被描述为有可能影响到每个人，这使得倡导者和活动家在推进与艾滋病毒/艾滋病有关的权利方面取得了一些成功。性多样性权利被视为“他人”提出的要求，通常被政治家、官员和普通民众轻视和忽视。只要这一问题在政治和体制上不受重视，就会发生积极的变化。对这三个领域的决策和方案执行情况的分析表明：（1）国家生殖健康体制框架的弱点使各国政府有可能采取两种截然不同的办法，（甚至是相互矛盾的）在过去15年中对这一问题的处理方法;（2）政策被说成是以权利为基础的，以获得政治合法性，而事实上，这些政策显然无视公民个人的权利;（3）通过支持低调的“公共卫生”论述，并在与性有关的官方政策中将“性”边缘化，倡导团体有时为法律的变革创造机会，但未能挑战反对承认性和生殖权利以及妇女和性少数群体的充分公民权的保守势力。
This study is aimed at examining how subsequent Peruvian governments, since 1990, have addressed reproductive rights, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and sexual diversity rights, as well as the drastic policy shifts and its many contradictions. Abortion and contraception consistently generated the deepest public controversies and debates, which made progress in reproductive rights difficult. HIV/AIDS was often portrayed as having the potential to affect everyone, which allowed advocates and activists to achieve some success in advancing HIV/AIDS-related rights. Sexual diversity rights, perceived as a demand made by "others", were generally trivialised and disdained by politicians, officials, and the general population. Positive changes occurred as long as the issue was given a low political and institutional profile. The analysis of policy-making and programme implementation in these three areas reveals that: (1) Weaknesses in national institutional frameworks concerning reproductive health made it possible for governments to adopt two very different (even contradictory) approaches to the issue within the past 15 years; (2) Policies were presented as rights-based in order to garner political legitimacy when, in fact, they evidenced a clear disregard for the rights of individual citizens; and (3) By favouring low-profile "public health" discourses, and marginalising "the sexual" in official policies related to sexuality, advocacy groups sometimes created opportunities for legal changes but failed to challenge conservative powers opposing the recognition of sexual and reproductive rights and the full citizenship of women and sexual minorities.