A/HRC/43/48 42. Moreover, according to some sources, the rising number of hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity worldwide correlates with a steep rise in faith-based groups using interpretations of religious teachings that promote gender-based violence and discrimination to violate the human rights of LGBT+ persons, including, inter alia, their right to life and freedom from torture (A/73/152, paras. 47–48). The Special Rapporteur confirms that these accounts are emblematic of allegations he has received and that have been raised by United Nations human rights experts with the Governments of States including Egypt, 26 Georgia,27 Indonesia,28 the Philippines29 and the Republic of Korea.30 2. Accommodations on the basis of religious belief 43. One area of particular concern regarding accommodations to national law for religious beliefs is the use of conscientious objection by health-care providers and institutions unwilling to perform abortions or provide access to contraception on religious grounds. In Uruguay, for example, women can elect to have an abortion, but in certain regions up to 87 per cent of medical providers refuse to perform abortions. Participants in the Special Rapporteur’s consultations from countries such as Kenya, Poland and the United States noted that the invocation of “conscience clauses” provided in law had made access to legal abortion effectively unavailable to women in significant parts of the country. The Special Rapporteur notes that the Human Rights Committee has expressed concern about this phenomenon, in addition to the absence of effective referral mechanisms for accessing legal abortion medical services as a result of the exercise of conscientious objection. 31 The Special Rapporteur recalls that the Human Rights Committee has called upon States to ensure that women have access to legal abortion notwithstanding conscientious objection by medical practitioners, which it has referred to as a “barrier” to access (CCPR/C/POL/CO/7, paras. 23–24; and CCPR/C/COL/CO/7, paras. 20–21), and has suggested that conscientious objection should only be permitted, if at all, for individual medical providers. 32 The Special Rapporteur was presented with additional information about gender-based discrimination by private persons refusing to provide medical or other services to women, girls and LGBT+ persons and who cited religious objections for doing so. At the consultations in the United States, for example, it was noted that individuals had refused to provide services to LGBT+ persons, including in the areas of family planning and prenatal care, infertility treatment, adoption, housing, 33 lodging, employment and commercial services. South Africa has seen a significant increase in State-sanctioned “conscience-based refusals” to provide women with legal abortion services or to recognize the right of LGBT+ persons to non-discrimination in civil marriage.34 44. Moreover, participants in all of the consultations reported that legal exemptions to anti-discrimination measures on the grounds of religious commitments were being increasingly accommodated. Participants in the consultations on the Americas noted, for example, that those outcomes had resulted in the termination of pregnant employees for being unmarried; the denial of insurance coverage for legal reproductive health services; refusals to discharge prescriptions for contraception and the impeding of the ability to obtain legal abortion services, and the denial of health services and treatment to LGBT+ persons. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 10 See communication EGY 17/2017. See communication GEO 1/2019. See communication IDN 2/2019. See communication PHL 6/2019. See communication KOR 1/2018. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 22 (2016), paras. 14, 43 and 60; Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 15, para. 69; and A/HRC/32/44. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2019) on the right to life, para. 8. On the human rights obligations of private businesses that provide services traditionally provided by the public sector, see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities, para. 21. See www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/evangelicals-south-africa-broadcasting-hate-masked-asmorality/.