Okay.
Thank you for that question. I'll speak not just as IPPF but also as having spent 10 years as part of the humanitarian system and for the last five as the health director of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
I would argue that the main reason this happens is that our feminist foreign policy and approach do not cover humanitarian assistance and our humanitarian response. The humanitarian response remains, probably after the oil industry, the most macho industry that I've ever worked in. People come back from missions in Yemen or in Afghanistan or in Iran or wherever and say that women didn't come to them to talk about their reproductive health needs. I always say, “No, women didn't come to you, full stop, and certainly, if they did come, they wouldn't have talked to you about their reproductive health needs.”
I think it has something do to with how the system works. I think we saw in Ukraine very clearly, for everybody who wanted to see it, the massive impact of the conflict on women's rights and their bodily autonomy. It wasn't just about the use of rape as a form of war, which of course is there. It was also about women who were pregnant, whose husbands were going to war, and who now didn't want to continue with their pregnancies. It was also about many other things. People continue to have sex during wars as well.
There is no doubt in our minds, and there shouldn't be doubt in anybody's mind, that sexual and reproductive health services are life-saving services that need to be provided in conflict situations.
I say this also, in responding to another question, as an organization that has 40,000 clinics and service delivery points, including on the Sudan-Ethiopia border. I was there in the refugee camps just a week before the peace settlement was signed. You saw an incredible amount of sexual and reproductive health violence there. You saw it there, and at the same time—