Advancing Safe Abortion Access in Asia

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/16

Nandini Mazumder, Assistant Coordinator at the Asia Safe Abortion Partnership (ASAP), works to advance safe, legal, and accessible abortion services across Asia. Through initiatives like the Youth Advocacy Institute and the ASAP Academy, she focuses on building rights-based education, youth leadership, and intersectional advocacy. Mazumder highlights the critical role of medical abortion pills, such as mifepristone and misoprostol, in ensuring safe procedures even where abortion is restricted. She addresses global funding inequalities, the need for grassroots initiatives, and the importance of multilingual resources. Her work emphasizes collective, community-based action to strengthen reproductive rights and ensure equitable healthcare for marginalized groups.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Nandini Mazumder, Assistant Coordinator at the Asia Safe Abortion Partnership (ASAP). ASAP is a regional network committed to advancing safe, legal, and accessible abortion services across Asia. With over 16 years of experience in the development sector focusing on gender and reproductive rights, Mazumder is pivotal in coordinating advocacy efforts, capacity-building programs, and youth engagement initiatives. She is also a lead trainer at the ASAP Youth Advocacy Institute, where she empowers young advocates and professionals through rights-based education. Her work emphasizes the importance of inclusive healthcare, addressing systemic barriers, and ensuring that marginalized communities, including queer and transgender individuals, have equitable access to reproductive services. Mazumder actively critiques global anti-abortion movements, highlighting their impact on countries like India, and is dedicated to fostering healthcare systems that respect the dignity and autonomy of all individuals. Thank you for joining me today. To begin, what are some crucial points to understand about abortion access in the current context?

Nandini Mazumder: Even in countries where abortion is legally restricted, safe abortion is still possible because today, medical technologies — particularly medical abortion pills — are highly effective and widely available.

Medical abortion pills, specifically mifepristone and misoprostol, were developed in the 1980s. Mifepristone (also known as RU-486) was first approved in France in 1988 for use in abortion. Misoprostol was initially designed and marketed in the late 1970s by a U.S. company to treat gastric ulcers. In countries like Brazil, where abortion was highly restricted, women discovered that misoprostol could safely induce abortion. The increased access to misoprostol contributed to a notable decrease in maternal mortality due to unsafe abortions.

This historical experience demonstrates that legality does not necessarily determine Safety. Safety depends on access to the proper methods and information. Even where abortion is illegal, people will seek abortions — but without safe methods, the risks are higher. Therefore, we advocate for recognizing that abortion can be completely safe when done correctly, following World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.

Today, no one should have to risk their life due to lack of access to safe abortion methods, even if abortion remains legally restricted in their country. However, restrictive laws make it harder to access medications like mifepristone and misoprostol or to find safe clinical services. In this sense, legality is a barrier to access, but Safety is achievable from a medical standpoint.

In my role at ASAP, I work with a small core team of about four to five people. We operate regionally across Asia and engage globally through our country networks. We have 8  Country Advocacy Networks in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam, and partnerships in various other countries. As a network we focus on building movements for safe abortion rights and strengthening youth leadership across the region and globally.

We work with a lot of different communities, organizations, and movements. Our movements need to be intersectional and inclusive. Therefore, we strongly support the rights of allied movements such as the sex workers’ rights movement, the rights of women who use drugs, the rights of people with disabilities and particularly with the deaf and hard of hearing community, and, of course, the LGBTQI community — they are a vital ally for us. We work with a range of people, aiming to understand the issues they face while also exploring the intersections with safe abortion rights.

My role as Assistant Coordinator involves working very closely with our Coordinator, Dr. Suchitra Dalvie. She is a gynecologist by profession and has been working in the field of safe abortion rights for over twenty-five years. She co-founded ASAP (Asia Safe Abortion Partnership) in March 2008. I have been working with ASAP since November 2019.

We are a small core team but deeply committed, dedicated, and passionate team striving to make the safe abortion movement stronger, more intersectional, and geographically more widespread. All of us take turns training. Dr. Suchitra Dalvie is one of the lead trainers. We also have another lead trainer, Dr. Manisha Gupta, who joins us for different institutes and Academy activities from time to time. I am one of the trainers as well. My colleague Ayesha Bashir is also one of the lead trainers for the Academy and institutes. Additionally, my colleague Mahak manages the online Academy platform and supports the work to strengthen safe abortion rights advocacy and movement building. 

Let me share a little more about ASAP’s work. We work extensively with young people, hosting many institutes across the region. We run programs called Youth Advocacy Institutes (YAI) and Youth Advocacy Refreshers (YAR).

In February 2024, we also hosted the only dedicated global safe abortion rights conference, called the Abortion Rights and Reproductive Justice Conference (ARJC). It was the fourth edition of ARJC. The conference was initially created through a partnership between academia and activism, and we continued in that spirit. We hosted it at Mahidol University, a significant public health university in Bangkok, Thailand, in partnership with Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health.

At ARJC 2024, we welcomed around 350 participants from 65 to 70 countries. We recognized that, as there has been an organized attack against safe abortion rights, sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) more broadly, and civil society spaces in general, opportunities for solidarity-building, networking, learning, and sharing have been shrinking. ARJC thus served as a significant space for us.

Moreover, in 2024, we also launched the ASAP Academy, an initiative designed to create more spaces for safe abortion rights advocates to meet, learn from one another, and continue growing stronger as a movement — even amid today’s challenging political climate and the ongoing attacks on our rights.

The ASAP Academy is an online course that is quite intensive—almost like a semester-long college or university-level program. Over three months, participants go through a series of modules. Each module takes about three to four hours to engage with, and participants must complete assignments and join live calls.

The goal is to help people understand the politics of safe abortion rights. It is rooted in feminist politics but also covers technical aspects, aiming to unpack why safe abortion rights remain such a contentious issue today.

We are currently running our third cohort. In 2024, we had two batches, and in 2025, the first batch just started. We have had participants from all over the world, including the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and more remote places like Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and the Cook Islands. Many participants from Asian countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal also join us. We are creating a global community of people who can learn and grow together.

The academy’s online nature allows us to reach a wider audience without needing heavy resource investment, which we do not have. We hope that the Academy will become self-sustaining and continue to thrive over time.

My work involves ensuring this happens smoothly and supporting my team in successfully organizing, coordinating, and delivering the Academy. I do a little bit of everything, working closely with our Coordinator.

Jacobsen: What part of that work gives you the most meaning? Also, if different, what part of that work do you find, even if difficult, is, in objective terms, the most impactful?

Mazumder: I think the Academy and Institute spaces — the learning and knowledge-sharing spaces — give me the most meaning.

Let me share a bit of my background. I studied sociology at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi, and before that, I studied sociology in Calcutta, where I am currently based.

When I entered the workforce, I realized there were many things I did not know and I had to learn on the job. Although my interests were in gender and sexuality, we did not dive deeply into those subjects during my sociology studies. There was virtually no engagement with issues like sex work, and safe abortion rights were not covered at all.

I received one of the best sociology educations available in India, yet there were significant gaps in my knowledge. I learned a lot through my work—learning while doing and filling in those gaps through experience and practice.

As I progressed to a more mid-level position, and even now, when I engage more with younger people, my peers, or even people older than me, I often realize that they know even less—because not everyone has had the sociology training that I did. I realized that knowledge is a very big gap. It is missing from many of our civil society spaces.

There is a fascinating article by Arundhati Roy — the author and political activist — where she discusses how NGOization has become a problem. She describes how what were once traditional movements, protests, and uprisings have been turned into more palatable, depoliticized entities by transforming them into NGOs. Once something becomes a paid profession, you attract all sorts of people. The question becomes: do you hire them for their skills, or do you hire them for their ideological commitment? Ideally, it should be a combination of both in civil society spaces. However, we see that this balance is often missing.

I believe knowledge-building is a crucial area that civil society must address. Safe abortion rights are not something we can discuss in a vacuum. We have learned so much from the reproductive justice (RJ) framework, thanks to Black feminists, mainly in the United States. The RJ framework highlights how access to abortion is linked to broader issues like race, class, citizenship, incarceration, and immigration status.

Access to abortion is a human rights issue — it impacts everyone, whether you are a refugee, an immigrant, a citizen, incarcerated, or free. Why should the state or your personal circumstances determine your ability to access abortion and, consequently, control the rest of your life?

Safe abortion rights should be guaranteed and accessible to everyone — yet they remain heavily controlled and debated. I think that often when we advocate for expanding access, we forget the politics underlying it. Our language can only be as sharp as our political understanding.

Therefore, the Academy and Institute spaces are vital because they build knowledge that sharpens political awareness. They help people understand what we are fighting for and what forces we are fighting against. From that clarity, we can develop more strategic and practical advocacy language.

For me, the most challenging — and the most satisfying — work is the knowledge-building and capacity-building work we do through the Institutes and the ASAP Academy.

Jacobsen: What are the main challenges coming your way internationally regarding feedback and reports? We have touched on many of these points just by considering interpretations of statistics from various countries, but I think a more explicit statement would be essential.

Mazumder: Well, you know, having been at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), one of the most interesting things — and I want to begin with this — is the funding challenge. As you know, funding has historically been decided by the Global North. They have access to a larger share and a larger pool of resources, and then they decide how those resources are distributed to countries in the Global South or the political South.

They also decide the reporting formats because they control how funds are streamed down. They determine what we should report on and what is considered worthy of reporting. So, a big challenge is that imbalance.

While we increasingly have conversations about decolonialism and post-colonial reforms, the NGO sector remains a deeply colonial space — in many layers. I am talking about the dynamic between the Global North and South and inequalities within our own countries. Often, the most privileged sections of a country head major organizations and decide how the work happens, while the wisdom, knowledge, and good practices from less privileged or indigenous sections of society are not recognized or tapped into as much as they should be.

More can be done — by all of us — to address these imbalances. I am not just talking about the Western world needing to improve; the same applies within our countries as well.

The current frameworks are not designed to accommodate a diversity of people. They tend to be exclusionary. You need a certain level of technical skill even to apply for funding. Reporting requirements and bureaucratic hurdles come afterward. So, the way we structure funding and accountability needs a rethink.

In many countries we work with, formalizing groups and networks are impossible because of restrictive legal environments. Explaining this reality to funders or policymakers in the political North is very difficult.

Of course, there is corruption — there is no denying that. Corruption exists everywhere, from the highest levels of government to the grassroots. But does that mean we should eliminate all flexibility when working in restrictive environments? That would be unfair and harmful. Without flexibility, we will never be able to form safe abortion rights advocacy networks in countries where the law remains highly restrictive.

Take Sri Lanka, for example, where abortion is only legal under minimal circumstances, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, where increasing religious extremism makes advocating for abortion rights extremely difficult. In such environments, how can we operate? Can we find ways to work more flexibly?

Honestly, a lot of the work we try to do in civil society is constrained by donor regulations that do not allow the flexibility needed on the ground. Still, we try. Sometimes, we get lucky and find donors who understand the realities we face. But most of the time, it is very, very difficult.

Another significant issue is that donors are pulling back—and Asia, in particular, is falling out of favour. I do not know if you noticed this at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), but it was stark: representation from Asia was very, very low. Asia is one of the largest regions in the world, with many countries and almost half the world’s population concentrated here.

It is alarming to see such low representation. When I joined, I was told that Southeast Asia was not a significant priority for many donors. We used to have some flexible funding to direct toward Southeast Asia, supporting work in countries like Vietnam and Indonesia.

But places like the Philippines and Indonesia have very restricted environments — particularly around abortion rights. Now, some of our funders have told us they are pulling out of Asia entirely and pulling out of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) altogether. So, we are facing a double setback: Asia and SRHR are losing donor support.

When we asked if there was any backup plan or anyone else we could contact through them, they could not help. It is concerning because the work becomes purely transactional: you do your job, fulfill your contract, and then leave. What happens to the movement afterward is no longer your concern.

But that is not how I see it. I love my work — not just because it pays my bills, but because it is something I feel deeply connected to. The sector can only remain meaningful if the people within it genuinely believe in its importance.

If we treat civil society spaces like any other professional sector — purely transactional — then I do not think we will be able to withstand the political backlash we are now facing. These are critical issues that we need to reexamine.

Another interesting thing is how people perceive our work based on our location. Because we are based in India, many people assume we only work on issues related to India or only with Indian groups. Some think our expertise is limited to this country or, at best, to the region.

But with the ASAP Academy, we are creating a truly global space. I often have to explain to people that we work globally — and that we provide leadership at the international level as well.

I find it interesting because I do not think someone based in the political North would have to do nearly as much explaining. In the global discourse, the default assumption about who a “global expert” is tends to favour people based in the North.

And who is seen as the “local expert”? Someone based here, in the Global South. That default assumption still exists. So when will that perspective shift? I find that very interesting and frustrating.

But yes, overall, we need to improve how civil society spaces function today. When it comes to medical education, there is a significant issue in delivering accurate information so that people can make informed decisions about their reproductive lives. A lot of the world does not have access to this.

There is a lot of hype right now, but there are also some reasonable conversations around artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential role in education. For example, there are discussions about whether AI could be used to deliver accurate, expert-informed education more quickly and accessibly, particularly to better inform people about issues like reproductive rights.

Jacobsen: Is it possible to use AI, with expert knowledge encoded into it, to make education about these issues more rapidly accessible?

Mazumder: We often discuss this within our group. This is more my perspective, not necessarily an official ASAP position.

I think we need to engage with AI cautiously. I have seen colleagues use AI tools, and I have also seen how the language AI generates can sometimes be factually incorrect or politically insensitive. To leave education entirely to machines without human intervention would, in my view, be catastrophic—especially for marginalized communities.

We must also recognize that the context in Asia is very different. In many Asian countries, most families share a single phone. Smartphones are not as common as we assume. Only certain sections of society or certain parts of the world see smartphones as the default.

There is only one device in many households, and the men in the family often control it. There is a real gender gap in access to digital media and resources. You and I may not face that directly, but most people in many Asian countries do.

Without addressing these fundamental inequalities — without ensuring equitable access to technology first — rushing into AI-based education will not solve the problem. It could exacerbate it. Those who already have privilege and access will benefit more, while marginalized groups will be left even further behind.

So, how do we address the gap? We address it by tackling the root causes of inequity and inequality — that is fundamental.

Secondly, as I said earlier, AI interventions alone will not help. In fact, they might make things even more problematic. Maybe a combination—using AI to aid human intervention rather than replace it—could be effective.

Having a teacher, a mentor, or someone you can interact with—someone whose face you can see or whose voice you can hear—has a more profound impact on the learning process. Learning is not just about what you read. It is about your full range of experiences and interactions while engaging with the material.

It would be unfortunate if we took that away. Instead of saying, “Let us fund public universities, public schools, and public colleges,” if the solution becomes, “Let us just give everybody AI,” that would be very problematic.

Jacobsen: What about setting minimum bars? Even if someone does not have full access to formal education or opportunities, they have access to minimal online educational resources — what, in your view, is the most basic piece of information or knowledge that people should have to make informed decisions about reproductive health?

Mazumder: Correct. Funding more grassroots initiatives and supporting local action is key. For example, at Asia Safe Abortion Partnership, we support eight country-level advocacy networks working very locally in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nepal, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka.

We provide them with small grants, training opportunities, and invitations to attend our Institutes so they can engage deeply with safe abortion rights politics. They then return that knowledge to their home countries and use it for local advocacy and initiatives.

It has worked well. For instance, we work with a cohort of medical students in India. These students are future service providers — or at the very least, they will play a key role in gatekeeping access to safe abortions.

Now, the medical curriculum in India is still incredibly outdated — resembling what was taught in Britain in the 1800s. It is very patriarchal and problematic. Even today, the forensic medicine chapters still mention concepts like “virginity,” which have no scientific basis.

We try to educate these students on accurate, rights-based information. They, in turn, have gone on to create their own educational toolkit—the Abortion Toolkit—to train their peers.

We train a core group within the medical students’ network called ISAY — India Safe Abortion Youth Advocates. These ISAY members then go on to train others. So far, they have trained around 500 of their classmates using what they have learned from ASAP, supplemented by the curriculum they created.

It is inspiring work and ties back directly to your earlier question about ensuring at least a minimum level of accurate, accessible information for people.

What are the challenges we face? Advocacy, as we understand it, is not always about changing the law. In fact, we have increasingly seen that changing the law often changes very little on the ground.

We need to reimagine advocacy. It should be focused on changing people’s minds, creating greater awareness, and building long-term shifts in understanding. And that is a relentless job — it will never be fully completed.

How do we do this? We must work with collectives and communities and fund grassroots initiatives. That is the only way.

To ensure people have even the basic minimum information needed to make better choices about their sexual and reproductive health and rights, we need to work at the community level — with local people by forming collectives, reaching out, and offering training.

This must happen not only online but also in person. The power of in-person meetings and training cannot be replaced. Even in the digital era, in-person engagement will remain crucial.

Perhaps that will be a form of resistance. The digital era increasingly promotes the idea that we are each isolated individuals, accessing information independently through our phones. But there is no guarantee that the information we find is accurate.

That is why human interaction—the opportunity to verify information, discuss, and connect—is essential. We need more funding to support this traditional kind of work, which has sustained social movements for decades and will continue to be necessary for as long as we exist as a species.

At ASAP, we conduct Institutes, run the Academy, and create other initiatives. However, I also do a lot of volunteer work with local NGOs. Wherever they call me—if anyone invites me—I am happy to deliver sessions on these issues.

These sessions make a real difference. Relying solely on online information has significant issues: How do you fact-check it? Second, much of the information is only available in English, making it inaccessible to most of the world’s population.

Offering digital platforms will not solve these problems. We still need very traditional, community-based, human-to-human interactions.

Jacobsen: Just one last thing — did you mention one more initiative ASAP about creating multilingual resources?

Mazumder: Yes, exactly. At ASAP, we are trying to create more resources in multiple languages. For example, we adapted the WHO protocol on medical abortion into a Medical Abortion Fact Sheet. It is available on our website, and we have translated it into several languages, including Mongolian, Mandarin, Arabic, and several others. I can share the link with you.

We are also ensuring that knowledge is accessible and inclusive of communities and in that light we worked with the deaf and hard of hearing communities across Asia and developed SRHR primer videos in sign languages. These videos are pioneering resources that address the critical gap where many basic SRHR terms do not have adequate or equivalent signs. Therefore, we developed these primer videos in sign language to explain basic SRHR terms such as, patriarchy, menstrual health, safe abortions in a simple and fun way, and you can find the videos here – https://asap-asia.org/sign-language/ 

Jacobsen: Well, Nandini, it was lovely meeting you. 

Mazumder: This will be plenty for now.

Jacobsen: Thank you again. I appreciate your time and expertise. It was wonderful to meet you.

Mazumder: Nice to meet you, too, Scott. Thank you so much.

Jacobsen: Take care!

Mazumder: Take care! Bye.

–

Sign Language Videos – https://asap-asia.org/sign-language/

MA Factsheets – https://asap-asia.org/information-booklets/

ASAP Academy – https://asap-asia-academy.org/

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

#medicalAbortion #multilingualResources #reproductiveJustice #safeAbortion #youthAdvocacy

Youth Advocacy and Gender Justice at CSW69

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/24

Mareyba Fawad, a federal health policy and data consultant at Acumen LLC, joined Scott Douglas Jacobsen to reflect on her experience as head delegate to CSW69 with the Young Diplomats of Canada. Fawad, with degrees from the University of Oklahoma and Columbia University, emphasized youth advocacy, gender justice, and public health. She discussed global backsliding in women’s rights, the importance of grassroots education on the Beijing Declaration, and the evolving role of Canada in international gender equity. Balancing federal consulting with activism, she highlighted mentorship, intergenerational responsibility, and hope in the next generations leadership as key to sustained progress.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Mareyba Fawad. She is a health policy and data consultant at Acumen LLC. She supports various offices at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. She earned her B.S. in Psychology and B.A. in History of Science from the University of Oklahoma in 2020, where she founded the Minority Health Sciences Conference to empower high school students interested in health sciences. She received her Master of Public Health from Columbia University in 2022, where she was awarded the Bernard Challenor Prize and worked on writing behavioral health policies for UN Women. She also directed Oklahoma’s annual public health conference and was honoured by the University of Oklahoma as the 2024 Young Distinguished Alumni for her early-career success and contributions to public health.

Additionally, she serves on the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health Alumni Board. Thank you for joining me. I appreciate it.

Mareyba Fawad: Thank you for having me.

Jacobsen: Today, we will focus on a post-CSW synopsis. What inspired you to attend CSW this year? Who did you go with, and what were you hoping to gain from the experience?

Fawad: Absolutely. I chose to attend because of my ongoing commitment to developing myself as a public health professional, advocating for women’s health, and exploring ways I can contribute meaningfully in those spaces. I always acknowledge the shoulders I stand on — the many women who have uplifted and supported me throughout my journey.

In public health, it becomes clear that the backbone of healthcare systems and social communities — especially the impact of social determinants on health — is deeply rooted in families and local communities. Women are often the driving force behind the changes happening in these spaces, constantly working to improve the well-being of others.

During graduate school, I also gained significant experience in international affairs. I conducted global health systems research with Chelsea Clinton and participated in a prestigious international affairs fellowship at Columbia University, housed within the School of International and Public Affairs.

About 25 of us were selected from various schools across Columbia, and through that fellowship, I was exposed to how different disciplines influence global systems and structures.

After graduating and moving into federal health policy and consulting, I felt called to return to my roots and advocate for Canadian voices. I grew up in Mississauga, Ontario, and much of my family still lives in Canada. I saw this opportunity as a way to represent those voices and use my platform to support others. I attended CSW with the Young Diplomats of Canada.

We are a national non-profit organization. We are also non-partisan. And so, with that, we advocate for the different voices of youth across Canada. So yes, I serve as the head delegate for our delegation of four outstanding individuals. We were chosen through quite a rigorous process, and I’m honoured to have had the chance to be a part of this experience. 

Jacobsen: What went against your expectations after you went, what matched them, and what was something surprising?

Fawad: Yes, what pleasantly surprised me, in some senses, was the access to rooms. I went into it expecting that we would not necessarily be allowed to enter certain spaces, have high-level discussions, or meet with certain people within the Canadian Mission or higher-up global leaders, even at the UN. We’re youth, so we’re inherently cognizant of that in the spaces we’re allowed to occupy.

The welcoming nature of so many individuals and their desire to talk with us, to bring us into spaces, and welcome us to different dinners, events, and other settings was eye-opening and humbling. There were instances where we would walk into a room, and people would say, “Oh, you’re with the Young Diplomats of Canada,” our reputation preceded us before we even had a chance to speak. They would have questions for us and wanted to seek out our perspective — to get our insights on how the issues discussed at CSW impact young women and girls, especially from a grassroots advocacy standpoint.

I’d say that pleasantly surprised me. Something that matched my expectations was understanding that many UN structures, and even international law more broadly, are horatory in nature—they do not necessarily have the teeth for change in the way we might hope.

As youth engaged in advocacy, we know how to build momentum, but understanding that many of these systems are deeply entrenched and often feel more conversation-heavy than action-oriented was expected. Many countries are making progress, but much of it depends on shifts in political will. When political conditions align, it seems there is prioritization of women’s rights and gender justice.

However, when those issues are not of political interest, they are often pushed to the back burner by certain governments. That matched my expectations, especially when revisiting the Beijing+30 agenda and reflecting on the Platform for Action. It’s an incredible framework, and there has been movement toward its goals.

However, we’ve also seen a dangerous backslide in many countries — a regression in gender justice initiatives. So, while we talked about progress, I also went into this aware and wary that there are still significant gaps. Many countries have seen setbacks rather than gains in this initiative.

Also, generally speaking, outside these UN spaces, many youths do not know about the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. It seems idealistic—it exists in these higher-level spaces. Trying to bring that down to the grassroots level, educate peers about it, and make it a topic more commonly discussed in the media and among people our age is definitely needed.

Outside of these formal settings, I thought, “Okay, we know this is a bit of an ideal — but how do we actually apply it and move forward?” That matched my expectations regarding realizing that we should not just pat ourselves on the back but also focus on making tangible progress. But yes.

Jacobsen: What was your favourite session?

Fawad: So hard.

Jacobsen: It can be more than one. Also, who was in it?

Fawad: It was the session titled “National Women’s Machineries: Accelerating BPfA Implementation Beyond Three Decades” the ambassador to the UN from the Philippines was in attendance. I believe the Minister for Women from New Zealand was  there. 

There was also the UN Women Director of Policy Programme and Intergovernmental Division and someone from the EU Commission who specialized in gender equity. There was a lot of great representation—New Zealand, Egypt, the Philippines, an EU Commissioner, and then a policy director from UN Women.

That panel was incredible. It focused on becoming advocates and agents of change within the larger global framework. The panellists shared successes from programs in their countries—what worked and what did not. I found that incredibly insightful because they were honest about the wins and the gaps.

I especially respected the ambassador from the Philippines. His statements were so heartfelt that you could tell that he truly understood the issues. Sometimes, when male allies speak, it can feel like they are just repeating talking points. But with him, it was different. He seemed to genuinely get it.

Jacobsen: I was just talking to a family member today about that — the political, and I use this term advisedly, manship, of that type of advocacy, versus truly integrating it and having a realistic view of people as people advocating for change. Because there are men and women, younger and older, and people from many backgrounds who do not agree with the aspirations of the Beijing Declaration, UN Women, or even the UN.

So, gender pay equity and similar efforts have to be integrated. It is not just about saying the right things but about embodying a real sentiment and sensibility.

Fawad: Yes, it felt like he truly got it. The ambassador also brought the Chairperson for the Philippines Commission on Women .

It spoke to his priorities and demonstrated that by having someone sit beside him and say, “This is how we show up in the Philippines. This is how we do the work.” She was candid. When your boss is sitting to your right, and you’re being honest about what is going well, what is not, and how to move the needle forward, it hits differently.

I loved that session and just seeing everyone come together. A representative from Egypt also talked about their national action plan and the new one they’re releasing this year. Then, New Zealand joined in, talking about the importance of civil society and how they are working to weave it in much more moving forward. Overall, it was an incredible session. 

Jacobsen: What do you think Canada’s role is in advancing gender equity globally?

Fawad: Yes, good question. In terms of what I see as Canada’s role, it continues to serve as a role model in many senses. Of course, gender equity gaps persist in Canada, as they do in every country.

However, Canada’s initiatives and missions show that these issues are a clear priority. For example, the GBA Plus model—Gender-Based Analysis Plus—provides a framework for applying six elements within organizations and thinking critically about whether we are centering these conversations in work being done across Canada.

Canada’s role is also to amplify and support the work of other countries. As a nation that seeks to be a leader in this space, it is important to hold ourselves internally accountable and use our tools and resources to support countries seeking guidance and insights. The question becomes: “What has worked for you, and how can we apply some of those strategies in our setting?”

Canada must be candid about areas that need improvement. Human psychology often leads us to focus on the positives and amplify success stories, but it would be more realistic and helpful to acknowledge the gaps and challenges as well.

We need to address the missing and murdered Indigenous women crisis. We need to talk about the fact that 75% of Canada’s healthcare workforce is women — many of whom are burnt out and underpaid.

Being honest and upfront about those realities allows other countries to look at Canada and say, “They are not getting it right in every area either, and neither are we — but we are all committed to progress.” Together, we can move toward a deeper understanding of how to improve. And yes, I’d say that is our role in a nutshell. There is more to say, of course.

Jacobsen: What made CSW69 particularly important or emotionally resonant in the current geopolitical context?

Fawad: Yes. As a Canadian living abroad in the U.S., it felt incredibly timely and important to me. When you live in the West—or just observe globally—you see the backsliding of democracies and many rights that were previously enshrined in law.

These rights were agreed upon, with extensive legal precedent behind them, and yet we are now seeing various countries renege on long-standing commitments.

This reconvening of everyone at CSW and the opportunity to talk about what is happening in our countries and how youth are feeling was powerful. It also raised the question: Where do we go from here?

Unfortunately, many individuals in positions of power seem detached from the perspectives of young women or youth more broadly. So it was valuable to have space for youth dialogue — both with peers and in wider discussions.

Many people expressed concern about what CSW will look like next year, especially given what is currently happening.Will it still be held in New York? 

There is real uncertainty about CSW’s future. How are things changing? Some people even asked whether we might be meeting in Geneva in the future—maybe even in Canada or another country.

The community that has been so strongly built in New York — including many foundational NGOs that show up and offer support — is deeply rooted there. There was this sense of, “Will it look the same in the future as it does this year?”

So yes, that stood out — this question of continuity and change.

Jacobsen: It was a sense of uncertainty and foreboding.

Fawad: Exactly.

Jacobsen: How do you balance federal policy consulting with your public service and leadership commitments?

Fawad: Yes, good question. In my day job, the root of it is ensuring people have access to healthcare — and that whatever the country says in terms of, “These are the social supports and services available to you,” those supports show up for them.

Logistically, it is about ensuring that what is promised is delivered. It is not just performative. When someone tries to access healthcare within their network or region, they should not be faced with the “Oh wait, I do not have providers who will see me” or similar obstacles.

The core of my work is rooted in social justice and in supporting individuals from historically marginalized backgrounds. When I think about the work I do outside of that—youth advocacy and gender justice—there is so much overlap.

Public health is inherently political, as is gender justice and youth advocacy. Everything is political. Every single thing impacts health — whether we are talking about the MMIWG crisis and gender-based violence or housing insecurity and its impact on the mental health of women and girls. It is all cyclical and interconnected.

In that sense, it feels relatively easy to balance because it all flows. It is a single train of thought connected between everything I do and am a part of.

We are all busy with our day jobs and have a lot going on, but when I feel passionate about something, I take time to support it through my volunteer work. Using the tools, wisdom, and resources I have is important.

As I mentioned, so many people have poured into me. I have had incredible mentors. I have had access to rooms that no one in my lineage could have imagined. Being a first-generation professional — someone who can work and live independently — is something no other woman in my family has been able to do.

I do not take that lightly. I carry that weight and want to pay it forward by advocating and showing up in spaces like CSW with mindfulness and thoughtfulness. So yes, that balance comes because I understand the weight and gravity of these situations — and the privilege I have been given. I want to pass it forward.

Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts before we close down for today?

Fawad: I am excited to see the next generation of youth. I am Gen Z, and I am looking toward Gen Alpha — seeing how they are already watching what we are doing, already knowing so much, and starting ahead of where we even began.

That gives me much hope and excitement for the future because they look up to us. It is beautiful to know we need to show up in these spaces and advocate for them, and it is also exciting to think about where they will take all of the efforts we have begun and move them forward.

I am looking forward to that and am excited to mentor those who come after us as well. As a lot of people mentored me, so we have to pass that on.

There’s a concept called Sankofa—an Akan word often referenced in Swahili, too. It means reaching back into your own community and giving back. So, I hope to do that, and I hope they will do that, too.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you for your time today. 

Fawad: Thanks, Scott.

Jacobsen: You’re welcome. Take care. Bye.

Fawad: Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

#BeijingDeclaration #CanadianLeadership #genderJustice #publicHealth #youthAdvocacy