CHAPTER 2: REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN THE WORK OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS: KEY FINDINGS The relevant results are presented below at Figure 2. In summary, they show that there are relatively high levels of agreement about NHRI engagement in relation to certain issues/areas, and lower levels of agreement in relation to others. For example, almost all respondents agree or strongly agree that universal access to reproductive health services including family planning is an appropriate area of engagement for their institution. Importantly, no NHRI recorded a ‘strongly disagree’ response in relation to any of the listed components of reproductive rights. Members’ views on whether they have a role in promoting and protecting specific reproductive rights Figure 2 While all except one respondent agreed or strongly agreed that they saw some role for their institution in relation to reproductive and sexuality education, either currently or in the future, in their answers to the written questionnaire, the feedback received during follow-up discussions revealed much more ambivalence on this issue. In fact, only a few respondents agreed, during discussions, that their institution had a role to play in relation to the provision of sexuality education, information and services to children and adolescents. As one respondent noted “other agencies are more appropriate to provide [this information]”. In follow-up discussions, respondents generally indicated that they were most ‘comfortable’ engaging with issues that had a clear human rights dimension. For example, most institutions strongly agreed that they should be involved in working to prevent sexual violence and discrimination related to reproductive rights. 2.2.2 On controversial or contentious issues, there are significant differences of opinion Respondents were asked to indicate whether their institution agreed or disagreed with a set of four statements that expressed a view on unsettled/contentious areas of reproductive rights 13