Addressing the Fragile Limits of Female Autonomy

READ MORE

As written, the law allows private individuals to pursue legal action against anyone suspected of assisting an abortion past when a is detectable, which is generally agreed to be around the sixth week of pregnancy. According to the , prior to the enforcement of Texas’ new anti-abortion law, while there were barriers to dissuade or prevent women from having abortions, no state directly forbade the procedure before the 20-week mark.

However, the lack of judicial deterrence against the new Texas law indicated trends moving forward that will severely curtail women’s bodily autonomy and ability to make personal health decisions.

Six Weeks

Globally, 36% of countries allow abortions upon request, including the United States. The most common across these countries is 12 weeks — far less than US national regulations and the typical viability of a pregnancy but twice the allowance for women under the new Texas law.

In Texas, it is estimated that between who obtain abortions are at least six weeks into their pregnancies, meaning that the new law will effectively nullify the vast majority of abortions in the state. As Texas is the second-largest US state after California, its more than making up approximately 8.8% of the total US population as of 2020, around 7 million Texans are directly affected by the new legislation.

Additionally, due to the implementation of S.B. 8, the distance for a woman who is over six weeks pregnant to find abortion services has increased from . While clinics that provide abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, remain open, they are preemptively turning away patients that are over the six-week mark in order to protect themselves from lawsuits.

One bright spot amid Texas’ new “sue thy neighbor” law was the temporary issued by a local Texas District Court that prevents the organization Texas Right to Life and its associates from suing abortion providers and health care workers.

While S.B. 8 doesn’t criminalize abortion, upcoming laws, including that is due to take effect on November 1, will. As currently written, the Oklahoma law would make any person who performs or induces an abortion on a pregnant woman without first testing for embryotic cardiac activity guilty of homicide.

This bears a passing resemblance to the strict anti-abortion of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which allow for the imprisonment of women and anyone who would assist them in conducting an abortion. These laws have lead a World Health Organization study to declare the reduction of safe abortion options as one of three key challenges for women’s health, accounting for up to 20% of

If legal abortion in the US is further restricted, Americans should expect to see upticks in death rates of women and people who can become pregnant, particularly among the most vulnerable and poor populations in areas that severely restrict abortion.

In comparison to a wave of anti-abortion laws in the United States and , other nations have been working to decriminalize abortion. After a decades-long struggle, abortion was decriminalized in on January 1 this year. Most recently, on September 7, has ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish abortion as a crime, which will provide a path for the legalization of the procedure across the country.

However, in both countries laws to facilitate abortion procedural processes remain nebulous, and Mexico is likely to face future internal resistance as only three states and Mexico City previously allowed abortions on request.

Long-Term Impacts

By failing to halt the implementation of S.B. 8, the Texas government and the Supreme Court have paved the way for further restrictions on abortions and the oppression of women. While the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, it would protect women who seek abortions under the new Texan law and the state on September 9, the immediate increase in fear, repression and the inevitable long-term negative impacts among both patients and health care providers cannot be understated.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear several other anti-abortion laws in the upcoming year, most critically the of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Mississippi, which is attempting to ban all abortions beyond 15 weeks. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the law, as it is expected to, experts like believe it will lead to the overturn of Roe v. Wade and the dissolution of the right to abortion in the United States.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51łÔąĎ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

In turn, this could dismantle the national right to abortion, and activists fear there will be no protection against further disenfranchisement of the rights and bodily autonomy of all pregnant individuals.

In opposing this, abortion rights advocates like Kathryn Kolbert of the Center for Reproductive Rights emphasize the need to turn to the legislative process, win elections and develop long-term strategies. However, the polarized nature of the American state and the parallel advance of restrictive voting laws means that the future of women’s rights and bodily autonomy in the US remains dim.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Why Texas’ Abortion Law Matters appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

What Happens When We Ban Abortion?

READ MORE

This corresponds to more than and health services provided by the US to women’s health advocacy groups, impacting issues as far-ranging as HIV, malaria and water sanitation. While the Biden administration has promised to reverse American support of this declaration, the impact from funding allocations to organizations as well as women’s health during the time it’s enforced will leave long-term effects.

Limited Access

The Trump administration has also made gains nationally to limit women’s access to reproductive health care not only by nominating Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, but also by chipping away at women’s access to birth control. In what became the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s despite the reported difficulties in accessing birth control, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to uphold companies’ right to deny insurance coverage of birth control to employees. These cases highlight the increasing barriers to reproductive health care enacted by the United States and how urgent it is for the incoming administration to prioritize access to birth control and abortion, especially amidst the ongoing pandemic.

The World Health Organization that the average rate of unsafe abortion is “four times higher in countries with more restrictive laws than in countries with less restrictive laws.” With the advent of COVID-19, have become less accessible even in places where birth control should be easily available, culminating in a rise in pregnancies and, hence, the need for abortions. Due to social distancing restrictions, previously accessible clinics have shut down many services, which can make time-sensitive appointments and access to medical care nearly impossible. In one egregious case, no abortion procedures were available in for seven months due to COVID-19, and they continue to be offered only once a month.

Further complicating the issue, women have also been more heavily impacted by job losses than men, with more than considering reducing hours or quitting their jobs in the next year. In places like the United States, health care is largely tied to employment, meaning women have fewer affordable ways to obtain birth control, further increasing the rate of unwanted pregnancies.

While there have been efforts to bring doctors to restricted areas to perform abortions, such as flying in practitioners to the one clinic available for abortions in South Dakota or the advocacy group providing offshore medical assistance to women living in countries without the right to abortion, this is not a sustainable long-term option. The United States is considered a country where women have access to abortion, but in practice, access varies heavily by state.

Since 2019, when multiple were passed, five states have only one clinic offering abortions. Before that, 38 states by law that teenagers inform their parents 24 to 48 hours prior to receiving an abortion. While many states continue to one’s right to abortion, the Trump administration’s harsh criticism of abortion has further constrained the legal access to both the procedure itself and to information about reproductive health care at a national level, with the impacts of COVID-19 serving to further restrict access.

Alternative Approaches

Restrictions on reproductive care are certainly not unique to the United States. Poland has been in the news recently with the introduction of legislation to ban abortion in cases of fetal defects, which would nearly 98% of abortions. The new law has inspired the largest in the country since the 1980s pro-democracy movement. Because of the momentous backlash against the heightened restrictions, the legislation has not yet been implemented. However, the fact that increasingly severe restrictions are being introduced in countries with populist leaders reveals the fragile limits of female autonomy.

Even with the new Biden administration, restrictions on access to reproductive care and laws enacted will not automatically go away. Just like women in Poland, women in the United States are less likely to seek out safe measures conducted by medical practitioners with less information and greater restrictions.

The Biden administration remains limited in its options to pursue judicial or legislative success for abortions due to conservative majorities on the Supreme Court and in the Senate. However, there are several that the administration can pursue, even within the first 100 days. As president, Biden can reinstate Planned Parenthood and other organizations back into Title X’s family-planning program. In addition, he could reduce the current restrictions on the early pregnancy termination drug mifepristone. Both of these approaches could expand access to abortion without directly interfering in states’ laws and maintain some security for women if Roe v. Wade were to be partially overturned.

Access to abortion remains limited in the United States, and the strength of anti-abortion movements remains a serious concern in the US and elsewhere. Existing restrictions on abortion will not instantly disappear with the swearing-in of a new administration, nor will the additional long-term consequences caused by the coronavirus pandemic simply go away. In light of the situation, the public needs to continue being adamant in its refusal to allow governments to restrict the bodily autonomy of pregnant people lest we continue moving away from the needs and rights of those giving birth. To secure the reproductive rights of Americans and those affected by American foreign aid, the Biden administration must take action.

*[51łÔąĎ is a  partner of .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Addressing the Fragile Limits of Female Autonomy appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

As defined by the , femicide is the “intentional murder of women because they are women.” According to the UN, die at the hands of intimate partners and family members, mainly through domestic abuse or “honor killings.” Unfortunately, as with many forms of domestic violence, COVID-19 — and the subsequent isolation and economic pressures — has increased rates of femicide across the globe. Many countries including , and the have seen increases in femicide rates.

How to Fight Domestic Violence During a Global Pandemic

READ MORE

Even before the pandemic, there was an upward global trend in terms of femicide rates over the last several years. Approximately 87,000 women died by femicide in 2017, and the UN has recorded an average in reporting of domestic violence in 2020 due to the pandemic. In total, the of violence against women and girls is estimated to be around $1.5 trillion, or 2% of the global GDP on a yearly basis. Femicide has damaging effects on all levels of society, but, first and foremost, action needs to be taken against femicide to prevent further victimization of women and girls.

Mitigating Femicide

In order to effectively mitigate femicide, three main policies have been endorsed by international organizations. These include laws and legal frameworks that specifically forbid femicide and allocate resources toward domestic violence prevention; education and community outreach that is inclusive of women but also engages men and boys; and support, including law enforcement and other social service agencies, that women can safely report violence to in order to prevent further aggression.

However, the problem remains that while many countries do have legislation on the books and are signatories of agreements that call for an end to violence against women, these laws are simply not enforced. Thus, the reality is that women are vulnerable to violence with few protections, and those they have are at risk of being eroded. Because of the public outrage over Pinar Gültekin’s death, Turkey is one of the most notable examples of femicide in 2020.

Turkey was the first country to ratify the in 2012. The convention is intended to promote gender equality and reduction of violence against women through a series of prevention, protection and persecution strategies aimed at both victims and perpetrators. However, despite the fact that many elements of the convention now exist in national legislation, Ankara announced that it would from the convention, citing “harm to the family institution and promotion of homosexuality.”

Many feminist advocates see the problem as emerging long before this potential withdrawal because, contrary to the laws in place, the government admitted to not keeping records of women killed by femicide. The feminist platform began record-keeping after this announcement, and reported that 474 women were killed in Turkey in 2019, the highest in a decade during which murder rates of women have increased year on year.

In light of this disparity between law and practice, community action is one of the most visible methods to force public recognition of women’s issues that can lead to further policy implementation. A pivotal moment in second wave feminism was Iceland’s 1975 “,” where women forwent work and household labor to join in mass protests against unequal pay. This widespread movement ultimately led to the restructuring of many gendered laws in Iceland and offered other women’s rights activists an effective example on which to draw.

More recently, many activists have organized mass protests against femicide. Many of these occur on International Women’s Day, March 8. One particularly active region of anti-violence protest is Latin America, which is home to some of the highest femicide rates in the world. In response to President Sebastian Pinera’s nonchalant reaction to over reporting sexual abuse per year in Chile, feminist activists staged protests that led to global popularization of the , “A Rapist in Your Path.”

Similarly, women across Mexico participated in a 24-hour strike to protest the increasingly graphic murders of women around the country. While Mexican authorities reported in 2019, feminist advocacy groups say that the number of women killed is underrepresented.

Social Activism Alongside Policy

Social movements are critical for garnering attention and support but can be easily co-opted without meaningful change. The hashtag was originally used by Turkish women as a way to honor Pinar Gültekin and prevent future femicides, but after its adaptation by Western celebrities, the original intention dissolved into one of female friendships and “sisterhood.” Similar to the media campaign, when the #BlackLivesMatter feed was overrun with black squares that quashed the voices of those it was intended to uplift, the degeneration of #ChallengedAccepted undermined its ability to promote meaningful change and address femicide.

Therefore, social activism needs to occur alongside policy reform. When the voices of the people are included in legislation, the framework to implement anti-violence campaigns becomes more tangible and effective. In addressing femicide at government level, the short, mid and long-term expectations must be defined.

In the short term, countries must ensure that women and children have adequate support to report and escape abuse, especially in the midst of an ongoing pandemic. The effects of the pandemic will only continue to increase that include unemployment, problematic alcohol use, mental health problems and reductions in government social spending in areas such as health and education. Having more responders available and ensuring more temporary safe spaces are accessible is key to reducing violence and femicide in the immediate future.

Within the next six months, countries should have drafted updated long-term anti-violence plans that incorporate the effects of COVID-19 into existing legislation and propose methods to fully implement it. If the country has gaps in existing protections, it would be beneficial to work in tandem with local women’s organizations as well as with the chapters of international organizations that can report back on the state of women’s affairs and offer improvements to legal protections. In the case of Turkey, it is vital that existing protections and legislation for women are not removed. The removal of protective legislation can create immediate backlash and unrest among women and perpetrators.

In the long-term, women should have access to regular, streamlined services to turn to in cases of abuse, with particular support provided to vulnerable groups including transgender women and women in low-income brackets. Governments should maintain standardized records on violence against women. Additionally, there should be educational campaigns to inform women about access to resources, as well as initiatives to encourage gender equality, particularly those aimed at boys and men.

For perpetrators with low-level offenses, rehabilitation programs should be put in place to prevent repeat or more serious offenses. Most critically, perpetrators of femicide should be prosecuted in ways that stop the spread of violence. Removing repeat and high-level sexual violence perpetrators from the public sphere will diminish incentives for others to commit honor killings and sexual assault.  

The rise of femicide is a public health hazard like any other and affects not only victims’ families but their communities, countries and the wellbeing of women across the world. At a time when preventative measures to combat femicide are obscured and governments remain passive in the face of mounting crimes against women, it is necessary for the public to speak out in unison against gendered violence and hold governments accountable for their actions.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Around the World, Femicide Is on the Rise appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Many countries have seen higher levels of domestic violence reports since mass worldwide outbreaks began. The World Health Organization noted a 60% spike in calls to European domestic violence hotlines in April, and the US is no exception. States including New York and California declared up to 20%-30% in hotline calls about domestic violence cases. Even in places where reporting rates had not increased, such as , activists feared this was due to a lack of victims’ ability to report violence rather than no increased rates of violence.

In response to these trends, the United States dedicated $45 million for emergency shelter and $2 million to the National Domestic Violence Hotline from the $2-trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. However, it lacked targeted measures to provide resources for sexual assault. proposed this past March would have provided an additional $350 million in funding for domestic violence survivors, but was not passed by the House. While a second stimulus package has not been put forward yet, more support must go toward legislation that specifically addresses increased levels of domestic violence through additional funding and support.

In spite of the knowledge that increased funding does not ensure best practices because the current situation is so fluid, it is critical to take all immediate avenues available to address the major upticks in domestic abuse.

Even as stay-at-home orders are removed, shelters and organizations need greater support in assisting victims. Many victims will no longer be in an economic position to leave abusers, and the long-term impacts of trauma will not disappear overnight. Within the US, centers and support hotlines need more staff and training, vulnerable communities like immigrants and those in poverty need increased protections, and greater enforcement of gun ownership by known abusers must be regulated given the ever recorded in the US.

Another measure that needs to be accounted for in any future stimulus package is the accessibility of counseling services. Even with insurance, copays can be prohibitively expensive, and up to are unaware of their access to services. Shelters will likely be in greater demand as more people feel secure enough to leave toxic situations and makeshift shelters (like hotels) become unavailable. Organizations will need long-term support in helping those affected by domestic violence regain stability, including rehabilitation programs for offenders. Particularly critical is if there are multiple waves of shelter-in-place orders, which will endanger victims, survivors and the organizations that work to serve them.

A new House proposition, , would require the attorney general to issue guidance to law enforcement agencies as they respond to increased levels of domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. It would also better inform agencies of how to address domestic violence crises. This is critical, as many victims are wary of law enforcement. It would be advantageous to allow for court hearings to be held virtually nationwide as well as automatically extending restraining orders, as have done. Programs being shifted online could expedite processes to help victims, not just for the short-term, but also provide alternative options long term for survivors of domestic abuse.

There is no one easy fix to deal with the ramifications of increased domestic violence amidst this pandemic. However, efficient government responses help mitigate the negative impact on current victims and protect others from future violence. Managing the impacts of domestic violence is critical as it affects people at all levels, but particularly those already vulnerable to society’s hardships, including, but not exclusive, to those living in poverty, LGBTQ-identifying individuals, immigrants and communities of color.

Domestic abuse is not an issue America can afford to sideline. It is an ongoing systematic problem with long-term, traumatic consequences that affects the entire nation. The United States needs to respond accordingly in the face of dire circumstances.

*[In the US, you can contact  on 1-800-799-7233 to report domestic abuse.] 

*[Young Professionals in Foreign Policy is a of 51łÔąĎ.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post America Can’t Afford to Sideline Domestic Abuse appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.