In U.S. Elections, Global Women's Rights at Stake

Suffragettes, 1921 (via Wikipedia)

Two very different visions for the future of women around the world are on the ballot today as Americans head for the polls to decide between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. The U.S. media has provided ample coverage of the so-called ‘War on Women,’ that is, the Republican initiatives that give fetuses and embryos more human rights than the pregnant mothers who carry them (Romney supports the “personhood” of a fertilized egg, which could, by law, charge pregnant women with murder if they have an abortion; or worse, demand that a woman carry a child to term even if her life is at risk). But little has been said about what a Mitt Romney administration means to women on a global scale. Romney’s website states:

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade… Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood.

Never mind that Planned Parenthood also offers birth control consultations, funding for breast and cervical cancer screenings, and free STD testing among other crucial services for those who cannot afford it. 

Candidate Romney’s agenda for reversing a woman’s right to choose is not confined to U.S. borders. If elected, he will reinstate the global gag rule, or Mexico City Policy, which will disavow any U.S. aid to family planning services that offer abortions. The gag rule also demands that family planning practitioners receiving U.S. aid remain silenced on abortion, no matter what the circumstances, thereby hindering free speech on an international scale. The European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development petitioned the U.S. Congress condemning the gag rule, stating that it “undermines internationally agreed consensus and goals."

Romney also believes in cutting off money for the United Nations Population Fund. Nicholas Kristof, author of Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, says that he has witnessed the United Nations Population Fund’s valuable work in “supporting contraception, repairing obstetric fistulas, and fighting to save the lives of women dying in childbirth.”

According to Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics, voter turnout in presidential elections among women has been proportionately larger than that of men since 1980. Here’s to hoping that this trend continues, and that American women realize how powerful their vote could be for the future of other women, children, and families around the world.

Family Planning: Whose Business?

This is a story of a family who live on less than $5 a day.  Mama and Papa have six children.  Mama would have seven but she lost the first one. She’s not sure why he died but she has never had enough food in the house, and with close pregnancy spacing she was not able to breastfeed the child that died for very long.  Even now, there is not much food to go around and so many mouths to feed.  Mama is exhausted. She needs an operation, because of the fistula she developed when having her third baby. Mama and Papa do not have the money for this operation; it would leave them without food to eat and they are already hungry. Their oldest child Mala has to help care for the other children.  Mama would like her to get some education but it is also expensive plus who will help her with the household chores? Papa is too busy in the fields.  Mama wishes she could have less children but doesn’t know how that is possible.  

This narrative is typical for women in developing countries all over the world. Already burdened with the tribulations of being poor and struggling day-to-day, they face further struggles through lack of education, higher risk of death due to childbirth, problems related to under-nutrition, and a vicious cycle that entraps their children into the same ring of poverty. This is not a specific cultural issue; this is an issue of universal female empowerment. It is well-documented that more educated women have less pregnancies and most women with large unplanned families want less children.

Female empowerment is not difficult to achieve. Despite the current negative rhetoric in the United States and United Kingdom around family planning, some developing countries have shown that politicians need not dictate to women about family planning, and that family planning does not equal abortion. Less children mean there are less mouths to feed, so the mother can focus on fully satisfying the nutritional needs of her smaller family as well as herself. It also means she has more time to focus on her economic needs, by working on the side she can supplement the household income and better lift herself and her family out of poverty. This begins to break the vicious circle, as it often enables her daughters to have a chance at achieving an education, which further empowers them to be agents of their own body and life.

This is the side of the story that the U.S. Presidential election rarely touches upon. The right-wing conservatives that make family planning an issue only about abortion directly feed into rhetoric that disables the empowerment of women. This also contradicts policy and evidence-based initiatives that have proved time and time again that family planning increases the quality of life of a woman. The Global Gag Rule, enacted by George Bush Senior and then reinstated by his son, was aimed at abortion but also ended up restricting contraception access. As a result, unintended pregnancies in areas that receive US aid actually increased. How can a policy that contributes to the vicious cycle of women in poverty possibly be empowering for women?

Despite these challenges, we have seen some tremendous gains in women’s empowerment in the last thirty years, even within family planning programs. In the mid 1970’s, Bangladesh had one of the highest fertility rates in the world with the average woman bearing seven children. By 2004, using a coordinated effort of making contraceptives readily available and implementing a peer-to-peer support program that visited women at home to provide follow up, fertility per woman had reduced from an average of seven children to an average of three.  Further success has been seen through NGO’s such as BRAC. By using grassroots measures to influence policy, we can empower women and lift them out of poverty, but family planning is an integral part of the solution. We can’t let the argument about abortion mask gains for universal female empowerment.  

The Abortion Debate: How It Infringes Upon Women's Health and Rights

A few weeks ago, The Lancet, a well respected medical journal, published a study reporting the trends of worldwide abortion from 1995 to 2008. The outcome was disheartening: Rates of unsafe abortion had increased from 1995 to 2008. Amidst sustained campaigning against abortion from religious organizations, the pro-choice study focused on the religious right and how deeply they are infringing upon a woman’s choice and negatively affecting women's health.

According to the study, banning abortion does nothing to reduce the number of women who attempt it. In fact, banning abortion actually increases the abortion rate, while it simultaneously makes the procedure much less safe for the woman. This results in an increase of women dying from unsafe abortions.

The fact is, there are many nonreligious reasons why women choose to have an abortion. There are multiple realities surrounding every woman's choice, all of which religious institutions rarely take into account. Any women facing an unplanned pregnancy takes into strong consideration her own health and having enough financial means to give birth to then raise a healthy child. (The United States, for example, has one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world.) She thinks about the timing and spacing as well as number of pregnancies she wants to have. Length of pregnancy leave versus cost of childcare. Government support. Social programs. How much familial support is possible. Cost of education. The factors of how to assess quality of life and care are beyond extensive. Yet, strong themes also emerge when looking at abortion access and safety in the realm of religious argument.