Bromo Selzer douches, pregnancy protection amulets, pennyroyal teas, birch bark tampons, slippery elm sticks — these are but a few of the myriad methods women in different parts of the world have used in their efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Meanwhile, the obstacles they have had to confront have included religious proscriptions, punitive law codes, persecution of midwives, and the devaluing of folk knowledge.
Sex and Herbs and Birth Control is a lively, provocative account of women’s attempts to provide themselves with as wide a range of reproductive options as possible. A more detailed description of the book and ordering information can be found here.
For many months, ever since far-right jurists became the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, it has been expected that the Court would soon either drastically curtail or entirely overturn the historic 1973 decision Roe v. Wade that recognized women’s abortion rights. On May 2 the most dire predictions were confirmed. A 90-page draft copy of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority ruling completely overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked to the press. That the draft document made its way into the media prematurely is an unprecedented scandal in and of itself. But the contents of the document are far more shocking than the circumstances in which it became known. In the most dramatic rejection of women’s rights in recent U.S. history, the Court majority will reverse Roe v. Wade and the past fifty years of Federal court decisions reaffirming reproductive rights. The U.S. will join Poland, Nicaragua and El Salvador as one of only four countries that have rolled back access to abortion during the last three decades. Meanwhile, since 1994 fully fifty-nine countries have expanded the conditions under which abortion is legal.
This blog has quite a number of readers from outside of the U.S., so it bears repeating that the Supreme Court decision will not criminalize abortion in the entire U.S. The woman-friendly “blue” states, including most states in the northeast and coastal west of the country, will keep abortion legal and accessible. But their resources are likely to be strained by having to accommodate women fleeing the draconian restrictions in the misogynist “red” states. The hospital system of my state of Washington, for example, has been greatly taxed by an influx of seriously ill Covid-19 patients who contracted the virus in the neighboring state of Idaho, where the anti-mask and anti-vaccine movement is strong, and is generally supported by Republican political authorities. Now, with the Supreme Court opening the door to anti-abortion legislation in Republican-controlled states, clinics in Washington are anticipating an increase of Idaho women fleeing to our state to escape Idaho’s abortion ban.
As many commentators have noted, the woman-friendly states generally protect access to a full range of reproductive health options. In addition to abortion, often with state-assured financing for poor women, such states also provide access to low cost or free contraceptives, prenatal and postnatal care, and other services for infants and children. Meanwhile, the misogynist states such as, for example, the anti-abortion stronghold of Mississippi (whose recent legislation restricting abortion Alito cites favorably), have some of the worst statistics in the country on women’s and children’s health and welfare.
In the ruling Justice Alito blames his predecessors’ decision in Roe v. Wade for inflaming divisiveness in the U.S. over the abortion issue. The truth of the matter is that it is the extremist anti-abortion decision by Alito and his confederates that will lead to disputes and conflicts among the states. By throwing decisions on abortion legality exclusively back into the hands of the individual states, the U.S. Supreme Court is exacerbating the already immense divide between the roughly half of the country whose policies and laws provide for reproductive health rights, and those deeply misogynist regions with blatant disregard for the health and welfare of women.
There is widespread agreement among historians that the worst decision ever made by the U.S. Supreme Court was the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which held that a Black person could not have the rights and protections of a citizen, even in a free state where slavery was not permitted, and, moreover, could be taken to a slave state and re-enslaved. According to the Wikipedia article on the Dred Scott decision, “Although Taney and several other justices hoped the decision would permanently settle the slavery controversy, which was increasingly dividing the American public, the decision’s effect was the complete opposite. Taney’s majority opinion suited the slaveholding states, but was intensely decried in all the other states. The decision inflamed the national debate over slavery and deepened the divide that led ultimately to the Civil War.” Apparently Alito and his fellow rightists on the Court would rather disregard the lessons of history.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, the year 2021 saw the passing of the largest quantity of anti-abortion legislation since 1973, when a woman’s Constitutional right to have an abortion was established in the U.S. And the U.S. Supreme Court still seems on track to either drastically weaken or overturn Roe v. Wade this summer. Amid all the depressing news, however, there are some bright spots. Most of the positive developments are outside of the U.S.—the vocal and successful women’s reproductive rights campaigns in various countries of Latin America, for example. But a few recent actions in the U.S., including several by companies in the state of Texas, have pushed back against the vicious misogyny of many state legislators and their supporters.
Citigroup, a major financial enterprise with over 8,000 employees in Texas, has announced that it will pay travel costs for any of them who are affected by SB-8. This is the Texas law that not only bans abortion after six weeks, but also threatens lawsuits against anyone involved in assisting someone to circumvent the law (for example, by facilitating travel of a Texas resident to a more woman-friendly state).
The transportation companies Lyft and Uber have also announced policies in defiance of SB-8. They have offered to pay expenses for any of their Texas-based drivers who might get sued for taking a woman to an abortion clinic.
Yelp, the online search and review company, has said that their over 200 employees in Texas will be reimbursed for expenses if they need to travel out of state for abortion care. Moreover, representatives of Yelp have stated that the reproductive health guarantees offered to their Texas workforce will be extended to their employees in any state who might face “current or future action that restricts access to covered reproductive health care.” Employees will be able to submit their requests for reimbursement of abortion-related medical expenses directly to Yelp’s health insurance provider, so neither fellow Yelp workers nor officious misogynists trying to enforce SB-8 or similar legislation will be able to track the persons involved. This latest action builds upon several years of Yelp’s efforts in support of abortion rights. The company does not allow anti-abortion entities of the “crisis pregnancy center” type to portray themselves neutrally or masquerade as abortion clinics. And in the months leading up to the passage of SB-8 Yelp offered to double-match employees’ donations to reproductive health rights organizations opposing the legislation.
Meanwhile, back in the state of Maryland legislators are the latest to take a stand in defense of reproductive health rights. A bill scheduled to take effect July 1 of this year allows nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and trained physicians’ assistants to perform abortions, requires insurance providers to cover abortion costs, and apportions $3.5 million per year for abortion training. Maryland’s Republican governor Larry Hogan vetoed the bill, but under the leadership of the Speaker of Maryland’s House of Delegates, Democrat Adrienne A. Jones, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 90 to 46; and the state Senate concurred with a 29 to 15 override. Maryland joins California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia in permitting abortion to be performed by medical professionals other than physicians, and it is one of sixteen states that provide at least some state funds for abortions.
Sources for this piece include the Guttmacher Institute website and April 10 and April 12 articles in the New York Times.
Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri has a world-renowned medical school and affiliated teaching hospital. In the early 20th century, one of its most distinguished professors was the obstetrician and gynecologist Frederick J. Taussig.
Taussig wrote extensively on abortion, and his work was frequently cited by other experts; I read both of his major treatises when I was writing Sex and Herbs and Birth Control and purchased my own copies on E-Bay. Taussig was a careful observer, and unlike most physicians of his era he was willing to acknowledge the superior skill of midwives in providing safe abortions. Taussig also believed that more married men should take responsibility for contraception by having a vasectomy, since it was an outpatient procedure and “perfectly harmless.” He lamented that “it is as yet difficult to persuade many men to undergo this slight sacrifice for the sake of their wives.”
In 1910, when Taussig published his first major treatise, like most of his professional colleagues he was vehemently opposed to the legalization of abortion. But over the course of his career (and under the influence of his wife Florence Gottschalk, who was a prominent Suffragette) Taussig began to advocate wide-ranging reform of the law codes. He put his support for legalization firmly in a feminist context. In his 1936 volume on the subject, Dr. Taussig noted: “With the spread of the Woman’s Suffrage Movement throughout the world and the newer independence of women, the revolt of womankind against the age-long domination of man has finally materialized. There can be no question that more consideration must be given to the right of women to control their own bodies…. Thus far all laws and social regulations on abortion have been man-made, and women, who are the chief sufferers, have had no chance to express their views in any referendum.”
Dr. Taussig’s 1936 book was extremely influential among physicians and others with an interest in maternal health. His comprehensive scientific treatment of both spontaneous and induced abortion along with his sensitivity to social context made his work the standard reference on the subject for decades, as both supporters and opponents of abortion law reform have acknowledged.
Dr. Taussig insisted on viewing abortion as a necessary component of gynecological training, and under his tutelage medical students gained the expertise they needed to safely perform abortions and tend to complications of pregnancy.
It is a terrible irony that the Washington University School of Medicine, after so many years of being a national leader in women’s reproductive health, is now increasingly under attack by the Missouri State Legislature for its efforts to provide the next generation of physicians with the training they need.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends standardized education on abortion in all residency programs (in which U.S. physicians-in-training work in a teaching hospital for three years to gain practical experience in their specialty after they finish medical school). But it is a sad fact that fully half of U.S. medical schools do not offer training in abortion care, or at most offer one lecture on abortion and contraception combined. In order to keep their accreditation, hospitals with residency programs in obstetrics and gynecology are required to either provide abortion training themselves or allow their residents to go out of state to obtain it. As it stands now, Washington University students need to go to Illinois for their abortion training. Yet state legislators want to tax the university’s endowment on the grounds that, as Republican Mike Moon put it: “Washington University is a premier institution which trains students to perform abortions… These students are then hired to murder developing human babies across our nation. They won’t stop on their own. This [bill] will place a financial hardship on their ability to train these students.”
States such as Missouri, Texas and Idaho are not only greatly restricting the conditions under which abortion can be legally obtained. They are also threatening to prosecute anyone who teaches abortion techniques, seeks an abortion outside of the state, or performs an abortion on a state citizen regardless of where the procedure is done. Whether or not such laws will withstand court challenges, and whether or not the laws could be enforced in practice, they have an intimidating effect on medical professionals as well as on women seeking a full range of reproductive health options.
The competition to obtain a place in a residency program in a woman-friendly state in which training in abortion is not under attack has become more severe. As medical reporter Sarah Varney put it: “Increasingly, aspiring obstetricians and gynecologists who want training in abortion procedures are seeking out teaching hospitals and universities that champion that training as a vital skill in women’s health care, creating a crush of qualified applicants for prized spots in Seattle, San Francisco, and New York…”
The medical school of the University of Washington (UW) in Seattle is offering Zoom classes on contraception and abortion to medical students in Idaho, one of the many states that are drastically restricting abortion and access to abortion training. As of two years ago UW stopped reserving a few spots in their program for residents choosing not to learn abortion care. “If we live in a state where abortion care is legal, we need to recruit medical students into our program that want to provide abortion care,” said Dr. Alyssa Stephenson-Famy, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine in the department. “We should not waste our spots on people not willing to provide abortion.”
It bears stressing that state legislators are delusional if they think that obstetricians and gynecologists can be properly trained without understanding abortion care techniques. ACOG requires abortion training for medical residents because adequate care of pregnant women is impossible without knowledge of the basic procedures. Obstetricians must be capable of expertly cleaning out a woman’s uterus in the event of a miscarriage or if fetal heartbeat ceases. As Dr. Eve Espey, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, has observed: “Any obstetrician who says there is never need for abortion care is not telling the truth about obstetrics.”
Sources: Sarah Varney, “Fewer medical students trained for abortion procedures,” NBC News online, March 22, 2022; Frederick J. Taussig, The Prevention and Treatment of Abortion (1910) and Abortion: Spontaneous and Induced (1936).
Latin American reproductive health rights activists have logged another victory. Last week the Constitutional Court of Colombia (the highest court in the country) voted five to four to decriminalize abortion in the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy. Colombia thus joins Mexico and Argentina in decriminalization, which means that three of the four most populous countries of the region have taken a major step toward making abortion legal and accessible. (Brazil’s vocal feminist movement is pushing for legalization, but so far has had no success.)
Colombian reproductive health rights activists are quick to point out that their victory owes a lot to their relationships with activists in other parts of Latin America. The Colombians consulted with movement lawyers from Mexico, adopted street theatre performances originating in Chile, and wear the distinctive green kerchiefs first used by women activists in Argentina.
Latin American feminists know that the constant sharing of strategies and tactics across the region has made all of their movements stronger and more vibrant. They contrast their recent successes with the string of TRAP laws in many U.S. states and the ominous probability that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse Roe v. Wade this summer. Catalina Martínez Coral, a lawyer and member of Causa Justa, the coalition of abortion rights groups that brought the relevant case to the Colombian Constitutional Court, noted that the waves of feminist activism are “now an inspiration going south to north… We are going to inspire people in the United States to defend the rights set out in Roe v. Wade.” Serra Sipel, the chief global advocacy officer at Fòs Feminista, an international alliance of reproductive rights groups, agrees, saying “We in the U.S. can really learn a lot” from Latin American feminist organizations.
Some of the roots of Colombia’s reproductive rights movement can be traced back to a visit to the U.S. by the eminent Colombian obstetrician/gynecologist Dr. Jorge Villareal Mejía. Dr. Villareal toured some of the first legal abortion clinics that opened after the Roe v. Wade decision and decided to find a way to offer similar services in his homeland. In 1977, he opened the first of his Oriéntame clinics in Bogotá. The clinics offered a full range of reproductive health services, including abortion. They charged on a sliding scale, and their promotional materials delicately urged their more affluent clients to contribute to the costs of procedures for poorer women.
I have known about Oriéntame since the early 1990s. Before full legalization of abortion in Colombia I referred to it by a pseudonym in my writing, in particular in my book Sex and Herbs and Birth Control.
Under Dr. Villareal’s direction the clinics pursued a remarkable two-pronged strategy. On the one hand, Oriéntame skirted the question of illegality of abortion by labeling its services as “walk-in patient treatment of incomplete abortion.” As a medical director of the organization once explained to me, a sympathetic Jesuit priest reconciled his support for Oriéntame with the Catholic view of abortion as a sin by reasoning that once a woman decided in her mind to have an abortion, she had begun the process. Oriéntame personnel were merely aiding her to complete her abortion safely. And indeed, in the forty-five years of their existence the clinics have performed close to a million abortions with a vanishingly small number of serious complications.
The second aspect of Dr. Villareal’s vision involved a brilliant outreach program. To quote from Sex and Herbs and Birth Control (in which I referred to Oriéntame as CRH, or Centers for Reproductive Health): “CRH offers scholarships to midwives and doctors from other areas of Central and South America who might want to set up similar clinics. They have trained over 600 physicians, nurses, physicians’ assistants, and traditional as well as licensed midwives in vacuum aspiration abortion techniques; their students perform abortions in clinics in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, and elsewhere…. In Peru I met a director of the country’s society of women obstetricians who had attended the program and was an enthusiastic advocate of the idea; I’ve run into CRH graduates in Nicaragua and Chile as well.”
Oriéntame personnel have not only trained numerous reproductive health specialists from all over the region in the latest abortion techniques. They have also shared their expertise in how to make use of the legal exceptions in various law codes to increase women’s options. As Giselle Carino, an Argentinian activist in Fòs Feminista, noted: “Without a doubt, we learned from the Colombians.”
Although for large portions of its history Oriéntame managed to steer clear of police harassment, a spate of incidents in 1994 encouraged Dr. Villareal’s daughter Cristina, who was taking over directorship of the organization from her father, to reach out to feminist groups in order to unite with medical practitioners to try to change Colombia’s laws. Cristina Villareal joined with others to form the coalition La Mesa por la Vida y la Salud de las Mujeres. In 2006 the group’s efforts caused a broadening of legal exceptions in which abortion was permitted in Colombia, and full decriminalization through twenty-four weeks was achieved in late February of this year.
Oriéntame and its international training program continue to offer reproductive health services in Colombia, train physicians, midwives, and healers, and advise affiliates on the best ways to navigate legal pitfalls. But, as feminist activists in Latin America know and their counterparts in the U.S. are finding out, it does not pay to be too complacent. As Cristina Villareal warns, “This is a battle that is never completely won… You can’t let your guard down.”
January 23, 2022 marked the forty-ninth anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, given the current right-wing composition of the Court, Roe v. Wade is unlikely to make it to the fiftieth anniversary. The Court is expected to uphold a Mississippi law prohibiting abortion after fifteen weeks from a woman’s last menstrual period, which is at approximately thirteen weeks of fetal gestation. Mississippi’s governor has repeatedly boasted that the state will continue its efforts to make Mississippi “abortion-free,” and he and his supporters have drafted a number of anti-abortion laws that will go into effect as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned. Conspicuously absent from any of this bluster is any attempt to improve the lot of pregnant women, including those who wish to bring their pregnancies to term. Mississippi does a horrendous job of protecting pregnant women, mothers, and newborns.
Mississippi is not the only state whose legislators are eagerly awaiting the demise of Roe v. Wade. It is also not the only state whose politicians style themselves as “protectors” of pregnant women and their fetuses. As in other states in this category, the sanctimonious pronouncements hide a sordid reality of neglect and unconcern for those the grandstanders claim to value. Mississippi is woefully inadequate in providing prenatal care to its large population of uninsured pregnant women, ranks worst in the nation in health care access and quality, and has the second-highest rate of teen pregnancies in the U.S. (after Arkansas). It also has high rates of infant mortality, premature births, and low-birth-weight infants.
As it turns out, the same coercive circumstances that make abortion access difficult or impossible in many parts of the U.S. also contribute to bad outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. It’s well known that the U.S. has the highest rates of maternal and infant mortality in the industrialized world. The rates vary widely by region of the country and economic circumstances, with anti-women states like Mississippi leading the way and with the greatest negative impacts on women of color and the poor. Despite pious platitudes about protecting women and “the unborn,” these states stand out for their callous treatment of women seeking to carry their pregnancies to term.
Recently, I reviewed a book by Louise Marie Roth titled The Business of Birth: Malpractice and Maternity Care in the United States (New York University Press, 2021). I confess, I wasn’t super-enthused at first. The subtitle seemed to suggest a rather narrow focus on the intricacies of U.S. tort law and the details of malpractice suits stemming from unfortunate outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. However, in reality the book has a much broader scope. The author paints a fascinating, albeit often distressing, picture of the complex interactions of medical practitioners, hospital administrators, insurance providers, malpractice attorneys, and state legislators. Often the result is a toxic mix of circumstances leading to huge numbers of unnecessary Caesarian sections and chemically induced deliveries, coercion of pregnant women (especially poor, rural, and minority women), outrageously expensive pregnancy care, and, as noted above, the highest rates of maternal and infant mortality in the developed world. Roth supplements her analyses of changes in law codes and standards of care with interviews with obstetricians, nurse-midwives, lawyers, and insurance adjusters. The upshot is that less affluent and less educated women can be pressured into episiotomies and repeated Caesarian sections, rendered virtually immobile during labor by the exigencies of constant electronic fetal monitoring, and have their deliveries artificially induced on a Friday so obstetrical staff don’t need to come in on the weekend (resulting in the weekend birth decline notable in many U.S. hospitals).
Roth describes the misleading and often false information medical personnel cite to compel women to consent to procedures that in many cases are unnecessary, expensive, and possibly harmful. Repeated Caesarian sections, for example, present increasing risks of future pregnancies ending in miscarriage or stillbirth, yet hospital administrators urge or even force them on women ostensibly because of overblown fears of malpractice suits. But nervousness about legal liability is only part of the story. In the period 1995 to 2015 the odds of a Black woman with low risk of delivery complications being given a first-birth C-section were 35% higher than for non-Hispanic white women. The odds of being coerced into repeated C-sections were also higher for Black women.
There are obvious parallels to the plethora of misinformation pushed on women seeking abortion in many states. In fact, Roth makes it abundantly clear that the same forces that constrain women’s access to abortion work to prevent many pregnant women’s access to the best care for themselves and their newborns.
Reproductive health regime
Infant mortality (per 1000 live births)
Maternal mortality (per 100,000 live births)
Roth distinguishes between fetus-centered and woman-centered reproductive health regimes and persuasively argues that pregnant women and their offspring are better served in states that protect abortion rights “and prioritize women’s rights over fetal life” (p. 10). She gives numerous examples of both types of reproductive health regimes. Particularly striking is her comparison of Oregon and Mississippi. Oregon has no TRAP laws, requires comprehensive health insurance to cover prescription contraceptives and abortion, permits nurse practitioners to provide both medical and surgical abortions, and covers abortion services for the poor with state funds. The state, emphatically a woman-centered reproductive health regime, has below-average rates of teen pregnancy and infant mortality, good state-supported prenatal care, and above-average maternity care outcomes. By contrast Mississippi, the epitome of a fetus-centered reproductive health regime, has a large number of TRAP laws, long mandatory waiting periods, and extreme anti-abortion measures that are set to become law as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned (which will probably happen this summer). And, Roth would argue, not coincidentally, Mississippi has some of the worst maternal and infant mortality statistics in the country.
As anyone knows who follows the status of women’s reproductive rights in the U.S., access to safe, legal abortion is becoming more and more difficult. Onerous laws are increasingly widespread, especially in Republican-dominated states. The worst of them is the recently passed Texas SB-8, which prohibits all abortion after fetal heartbeat can be detected (approximately six weeks gestation)—a time at which most women are not even aware that they are pregnant. Moreover, SB-8 deputizes private citizens to sue not only anyone who performs an abortion, but also anyone who “aids and abets” the procedure, be they clinic staff, counselors, nonprofit employees who arrange financing, even Uber drivers taking women to appointments. The law has been described as a “bounty hunter system.” Plaintiffs, who do not have to show any connection to the abortion recipient nor do they even have to live in Texas, are awarded $10,000 plus legal fees if they win their case; successful defendants get nothing.
Health rights activists fear that the Supreme Court, whose three Trump appointees are extremely reactionary, will overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision affirming women’s constitutional right to abortion. In response to appeals to block the Texas law pending judicial review, the Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 to let the law go into effect. The dissenting justices included the normally quite conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who called SB-8 “not only unusual, but unprecedented,” and said that the law should have been blocked while appeals were underway. Justice Sonia Sotomayor labeled SB-8 “a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights.” Justice Elena Kagan called her five colleagues’ refusal to block the Texas law “unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.”
On September 9 Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the U.S. Department of Justice was filing a challenge to SB-8, which he called “clearly unconstitutional” in part because it allows individuals to infringe upon the constitutional rights of others. Meanwhile, however, abortion services in Texas are in complete disarray. Dr. Bhavik Kumar (a Planned Parenthood physician who is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against SB-8) has had to turn away numerous panicked women whose pregnancies are past the SB-8 cut-off, and he worries that they will have to resort to unsafe means to end their pregnancies. Dr. Kumar stresses that it’s plain to all who know anything about women’s reproductive decision making that “banning abortion does not change the need for abortion.” The women Dr. Kumar’s clinic usually helps will have to go elsewhere.
A Great Step Forward in Mexico
Ironically, for many Texas women, the closest accessible, safe, and reasonable abortion possibility might be across the border in Mexico. At the same time that five U.S. Supreme Court justices are callously displaying their disregard for the safety and constitutional rights of women, on September 7 the Mexican Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that making abortion a crime is against the constitution. Mexican Chief Justice Arturo Zaldivar noted that the decision “is a watershed in the history of the rights of all women, especially the most vulnerable.” The decision opens the way for challenges to the laws in most Mexican states that criminalize abortion, and also allows activists to petition for the release of women jailed for the procedure. Mexican feminist organizations are hopeful that the twenty-eight states that ban abortion under most circumstances will soon be compelled to join Oaxaca, Hidalgo, Veracruz and Mexico City in allowing first trimester abortion. Mexico will become the fifth Latin American country (joining Argentina, Cuba, Guyana and Uruguay) to decriminalize the procedure.
Some feminists are fully aware that the unanimous decision of Mexico’s Supreme Court stands in stark contrast to what Justice Sotomayor called the “stunning” irresponsibility of her Supreme Court colleagues in the U.S. Paula Avila-Guillen, executive director of the Women’s Equality Center, said that the Mexican decision is a bright spot in the fight to protect women’s reproductive rights worldwide. Avila-Guillen saw reason for optimism in Latin America “even as we see the U.S. Supreme Court and Texas walk women back into darkness.” She also pointed out that the Mexican court’s decision specifically struck down the state of Coahuila’s anti-abortion law. Coahuila borders Texas, so it could very well be that Texas women will be among those to benefit from Mexico’s ruling favoring women’s reproductive rights. Avila-Guillen mused: “Could the safest way for Texan women to have access to a safe, legal abortion soon be to make their way to Mexico?”
(Sources consulted include pieces in The New York Times, Axios, CNN and NPR.)
Anyone who has read my Sex and Herbs and Birth Control or browsed in previous blog posts knows that I am not always negative about the Catholic Church. I have fond memories of the openmindedness of my secondary school teachers (Sisters of Notre Dame) fifty years ago. In addition, I have acknowledged numerous saints, theologians, and even a Pope for their compassionate understanding of the reasons why women might need to terminate a pregnancy. The 16th-century Jesuit cleric Thomas Sanchez was able to conceive of several situations in which ending a pregnancy in its early stages (approximately first trimester) might be necessary, and he condoned abortion in the later stages of pregnancy if there was no other way to save the life of the woman. Elizabeth of Hungary, Hildegard of Bingen, St. Bridget of Ireland, and many other nuns, clerics, and saints who popularized and added to the folk pharmacopoeia of post-coital fertility regulation do not seem to have seen any contradiction with their religious beliefs. Peter of Spain, who became Pope John XXI in 1276, wrote a book which featured a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.
Indeed, it is well known among historians (though often disputed by dogmatic Church theologians) that only in 1869 did the Catholic Church take an official stand against abortion at all stages of pregnancy (but even then without actively opposing so-called “therapeutic abortions”). It was only in 1930 that Pope Pius XI categorically forbade all therapeutic abortions even in cases in which the woman would die if the pregnancy continued.
The latest example of anti-abortion hysteria by the Catholic hierarchy (but in this case not the Vatican) is the 73% vote of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in favor of drafting guidelines that would deny the sacrament of the Eucharist (commonly known as communion) to prominent Catholics, such as President Biden, who publicly support abortion rights. This stance puts the USCCB at odds with Pope Francis and many Catholic prelates worldwide, who are increasingly uneasy about using denial of communion as a political weapon in the so-called “culture wars.” The Vatican fears that USCCB’s politicization of the rite of communion is more likely to cause a further decline in the number of observant U.S. Catholics than it is to dissuade President Biden and others from supporting women’s reproductive rights. After all, opinion polls in the U.S. consistently show that the majority of those who identify as Catholic disagree with the Church’s stance on abortion. Even those who identify as extremely observant believe that abortion should be allowed under at least some circumstances (such as rape or to save the life/health of the woman). The extreme position of the USCCB is dangerously divisive among U.S. Catholics.
There is a marked difference between the extremism of the majority of U.S. bishops and the more moderate stance of the Vatican and many leading prelates worldwide. Outside of the U.S., most prelates would consider it unthinkable to deny communion to Catholic politicians for their advocacy of legal abortion. In a famous example, Pope John Paul II publicly offered the Eucharist to Francesco Ratelli, a former mayor of Rome and candidate for prime minister who supported abortion rights.
This past January, Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the USCCB (whom Pope Francis has repeatedly refused to promote to cardinal), publicly castigated incoming President Biden for his advocacy of “policies that would advance moral evils.” By contrast, on the same day the Vatican sent Biden a congratulatory telegram encouraging him to pursue policies “marked by authentic justice and freedom.”
In a sense, the vituperative posturing of Bishop Gomez and the 73% of U.S. bishops who support him are sound and fury signifying nothing. Ultimately, the decision on whether to offer communion to pro-abortion rights politicians remains with individual bishops. And Cardinal Wilton Gregory, archbishop of Washington, D.C. and the nation’s first African-American cardinal, has vocally opposed the denial of communion to Biden and other politicians.
(Sources consulted include New York Times articles by Elizabeth Diaz and Jason Horowitz, and a Vox piece by Cameron Peters.)
This is an excerpt from New York Times editorial board member Lauren Kelly’s thoughtful “Opinion Today” on 15 Jan 2021:
“Reflecting on some of the movements and people who presaged much of what’s happening in America right now could help us prevent this nightmare from repeating itself.
“For starters, there were the many, many people of color who early on sounded the alarm about President Trump’s racism and its terrible implications. And there were the disinformation experts who warned that electing a serial liar president could be a major problem for our democracy.
“There was also the reproductive justice movement, which I’ve come to know well over the past decade while covering the erosion of abortion rights in America. It was no surprise that a number of prominent anti-abortion activists turned up in the throng at the Capitol last week.
“That’s not just because these folks see Trump as the most anti-abortion leader this nation has ever had. It’s also because a subset of the movement is practiced in taking radical, and occasionally violent, action against their perceived enemies — and those enemies’ places of business. Abortion clinics are routinely vandalized and looted. Patients are harassed and demeaned. Several doctors and numerous other bystanders have even been murdered.
“The people engaging in these terrible acts have almost always been fed a steady diet of lies. They’ve become convinced that they’re stopping an atrocity, rather than committing one.”
According to vice.com, John Brockhoeft, a convicted abortion-clinic bomber, “live-streamed himself at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.”
In the final days of 2020, Argentinian lawmakers resisted pressure by Catholic and evangelical Protestant abortion opponents, ignored a last-minute intervention by Pope Francis, and approved a bill legalizing abortion for any reason up to fourteen weeks of pregnancy. After that time, abortion will be prohibited except in cases of rape or danger to the woman’s health. The abortion bill, versions of which had been rejected by previous legislatures for several years, was, according to The New York Times, passed by a “wider-than-expected” margin of 38 to 29. Some senators attributed their change of heart to the efforts of feminist activists to paint an accurate picture of the experiences of Argentinian women. Reproductive rights organizations stressed that hundreds of thousands of clandestine abortions are performed in the country every year. In 2016, approximately 40,000 women were hospitalized with abortion complications.
Reproductive rights activists have been pushing for abortion legalization for decades, but since 2015 the campaign has been fortified by the feminist organization Ni Una Menos, which has combined campaigns for abortion law reform with increasing protests against rape, domestic violence, and sexual discrimination in all areas of Argentinian life. The green scarves and handkerchiefs favored by Ni Una Menos have been adopted as a symbol by feminists in many countries of Latin America.
Argentina is the largest country in the region to enact an abortion-on-demand policy in the first trimester of pregnancy; Cuba, Uruguay and Guyana are the only other countries with similarly progressive laws. There are, however, other places that in practice afford women reproductive rights even if the law codes do not give the same blanket permissions as Argentina’s or Cuba’s. In Colombia, for example, a measure passed in 2006 was hailed by physicians and reproductive rights organizations as a great victory, because it allows abortion in the first trimester under broadly defined mental and physical indications. It should also be noted that even before the Colombian legislature liberalized abortion restrictions, hundreds of thousands of women received safe abortions administered by qualified personnel. The authorities for the most part looked the other way.
Another example concerns Mexico. Feminist activists are engaged in ongoing struggles to legalize abortion at the national level. But meanwhile Mexico City and the state of Oaxaca have abortion on demand to twelve weeks. Mexico City offers safe and affordable abortion access (covered by state medical insurance) to well over twenty million people.
As I have stressed on numerous occasions, legality of abortion by no means guarantees that the procedure will be readily available, safe, and affordable for the vast majority of women. The depressing situation in most areas of the U.S. certainly bears witness to that fact. Nor does illegality always mean that abortions are necessarily performed under unsafe conditions, as we see from the example of Colombia in the decades before liberalization in 2006. What is abundantly clear is that women of all countries, economic circumstances, races, religions and ethnicities will sometimes find themselves in unfortunate situations and see abortion as their only reasonable alternative.
(Sources: Chandelis Duster, “US joins countries with poor human rights records to denounce `right’ to abortion,” CNN online, 10/23/2020; Monika Pronczuk, “Why a New Abortion Ban in Poland is Tearing the Country Apart,” The New York Timesonline, 10/27/2020; Marc Santora, Monika Pronczuk, Anatol Magdziarz, “Polish Women Lead Strike Over Abortion Ruling Amid Threats of Crackdown,” The New York Times online, 10/29/2020.)
It sometimes seems as if the world has slipped into an alternate universe, where facts are no longer recognized as facts, and politicians can blithely and sanctimoniously mouth blatant lies while they cavalierly subvert the democratic processes which purportedly underlie their country’s way of life. A recent case in point is last week’s Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD). This declaration, signed by fewer than thirty-five of the 200 states of the world (thus revealing the word “consensus” in the title to be a falsehood), claims to affirm the “strength of the family and of a successful and flourishing society.” How do they expect to accomplish this? They repudiate international reproductive health guidelines, rejecting abortion as a necessary aspect of women’s human rights, and instead insisting on the “essential priority” of what they call “protecting the right to life.”
Signatories of the GCD include some of the world’s most repressive governments, such as Poland (which has one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in Europe), Cameroon (accused of massive human rights violations), Uganda (aggressively attempting to criminalize homosexuality), Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Hungary, and Iraq. The U.S. is a proud signatory of the declaration. The Trump administration has consistently opposed mention of reproductive health and rights in UN documents and refuses funding to international organizations that offer abortion. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar has called the declaration “an historic document stating clearly where we as nations stand on women’s health” and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has praised the GCD and boasted that under Trump’s leadership the U.S. has “defended the dignity of human life everywhere and always.”
These statements demonstrate the extent to which Trump’s sycophants have fallen into the alternate universe of lies and obfuscation. Far from defending the dignity of human life, the Trump administration’s incompetence and politicization of the COVID pandemic has resulted in well over 220,000 excess deaths of Americans, and the end is nowhere in sight. Moreover, the push by Republicans to confirm the ultraconservative Catholic jurist Amy Coney Barrett means that the right wing now has a clear majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court is likely to overturn Roe v. Wade as well as the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), thereby endangering millions of unemployed and impoverished Americans, many of whom have pre-existing conditions that will make them unable to afford private health insurance.
U.S. public opinion polls have shown that most Americans disagree with Trump and his right-wing base on abortion, health care, gun control, and other key issues. That is why Trump needs to rely on ultraconservative judicial appointees to push his agenda.
Of course, it should be remembered that overturning Roe v. Wade will not criminalize abortion in the U.S. as a whole. Rather, decisions on legality will be left up to the individual states. Now more than ever a woman’s reproductive rights will depend on where she lives. The so-called “blue” states will continue to offer safe and accessible abortion and contraception as part of their comprehensive reproductive health services, while the laws of the “red” states will force women to flee to more enlightened constituencies, risk abortion under unsafe conditions, or carry their pregnancies to term and hope for the best.
Polish women lead protests against abortion ban.
It is worth noting that the Trump strategy of subverting the democratic process by appointing ultraconservative judges to do his bidding is not unique to him. Demagogic politicians in Poland, for example, have circumvented the wishes of the majority of Poles who, like the majority of U.S. citizens, believe that abortion must remain legal under at least some circumstances. Using what Polish women activists and international human rights organizations have called a subservient and right-wing judiciary, the ruling Law and Justice Party has achieved the almost total ban on abortion that it repeatedly failed to obtain through the Polish legislature. For the last six days the Polish nation has been wracked by massive protests and strikes led by women. Catholic Churches have been focal points for many of the women’s protests nationwide, since the Church is a key supporter of the increasingly authoritarian and anti-women measures of the government. The largely female demonstrations have been joined by (male) taxi drivers, farmers, coal miners, and others, all of whom are dissatisfied with their government’s flouting of democratic processes as well as its incompetent response to the corona virus pandemic. (Poland is one of the hardest-hit countries in the world.)