Below is a detailed background of family planning policies in the countries of Iraq, China, France, and the USA. This is simply an informative post, giving readers an objective scope of family planning policies versus practices in these countries.
INTRODUCTION:
According to the United Nations Statistic Division’s data collected in June 2011, of every 100 men there are in Iraq there are 99 women. In United States of every 100 men there are 103 women, France 105, and China 93 (United Nations, 2011). When discussing female reproductive rights, one must also be informed that reproductive rights expand beyond abortion, especially in the context of the country under examination. In addition to abortion, reproductive rights include maternal and infant mortality, gender based violence, family planning, and access to health facilities as well as medical personnel. Following a detailed description of practice versus policy in how Iraq, United States, France, and China comparatively and differently handle women’s reproductive rights, will be the author’s own opinion in how to address women and their bodies. Ultimately however, as long as patriarchy is the driving force behind persons’ convictions, regardless of the country, women will forever remain in a battle for reproductive rights.
IRAQ
Iraq has endured political and military strife for decades, and Iraqi women similar to other international women, have slowly gained rights: the right to education, employment, and the unveiling of their faces. Yet, as Social Institutions and Gender Index has found, the Iraqi government disregards cases of violence, honor killings, ownership and marriage rights, and freedom of movement, against women (SIGI, 2007). War as well as rights and lack their of, have engendered the boiling point of Iraqi women’s reproductive rights.
POLICY
Since 2005, Iraq has two polarized legal systems working within its borders. The first is the Common legal system established after United States invaded. Subsequently, as Social Institutions and Gender Index (2007) asserts, Iraq adopted a new Constitution stating women and men are equal therefore will not discriminate based on sex. Nevertheless, Iraq firmly holds onto the Islamic legal system. And, the life of women in Iraq is wholly determined on how the Islamic legal system explicitly depict females i.e. women are half of a person.
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat assert that before the Gulf War, Iraq underwent a rapid population growth therefore requested married women to limit their families to 4 offspring. However, after the Gulf War, Iraq insisted on maintaining a high population because of the total deaths caused by conflict and sanctions. Thus since 1993, Iraq has had a national policy on assuring access to family planning and contraceptives. Where contraceptives were distributed both freely and by way of self-financing operation (UNFPA, 2003).And, in 1994 the Iraqi Family Planning Association extended its family planning services from medical indications to all Iraqi women.
However, even so family planning in terms of abortion is under harsh restrictions. Under article 63 of Iraq’s Penal Code, Iraqi women may have abortions if and only if to save her life and/or because of fetal impairment. An Iraqi woman may not have an abortion: to preserve physical or mental health, rape or incest, economic or social reasons, and/or availability on request. Furthermore, an Iraqi woman is required to have approval from two physicians as well as written consent from her husband, in order to have a legal abortion (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat).
PRACTICE
However in practice, the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat declare the Iraqi government intervenes very little concerning fertility issues. The Iraqi government has expressed little concern over morbidity and mortality rates amongst women caused by abortions as well as complications from childbearing and childbirth. Yet, Iraq’s maternal mortality rate should be of great concern, it was reported to be 84% between 2005 and 2009 (UNICEF, 2010).
Moreover, women’s reproductive health concerning Iraqi women expands beyond abortion in fact it is quite the contrary. United Nations Population Fund declares that in 2002 due to Iraq’s constant state of conflict and sanction, 370 women out of every 100,000 die during birth. An Iraqi woman has 1 in 45 chance of dying during childbirth (UNFPA, 2003). Furthermore 108 out of 100,000 infants perish because of malnutrition, lack of access to water and electricity as well as unsanitary medical equipment. Maternity and infant mortality both have more than doubled since 1989 (UNFPA, 2002). In Iraq, medical facilities are not well protected therefore looting and vandalism readily occurs, consequentially dampening the health status of all Iraqi citizens (UNFPA, 2003). Therefore, women are forced to give birth at home because of the lack of sanitary and safe medical facilities as well as physical danger outside their homes.
Nevertheless, though the Iraqi government fails to provide reproductive justice, the people of Iraq have sought the aid of international organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, and other non-governmental agencies to procure the reproductive crises occurring amongst Iraqi women. Iraq aligned with United Nations Population Fund in 1972. And, subsequently in 2001 UNPFA built 146 reproductive health facilities compared to 37 in 1995. Yet, the United Nations’ Children Fund (2010) states that through 2005 and 2009, contraceptive use was at 50%. This is because a majority of Iraqi women are unaware of Iraq’s national policy and how to access health facilities and obtain contraceptives.
CHINA
Contrary to most Western notions, China is polarized in its conceptualization of women’s reproductive rights. The Chinese government is profoundly involved in its reproductive circumstances, where it directly and explicitly supports contraceptive use. And with that said, illegal or unauthorized pregnancies are most associated to one and only one country alone, China. Therefore, in order for a pregnancy to be legal the family must obtain permission from the state. And, although the use of equipment for gender selection is proscribed, the patriarchal driving force lures families to desire and birth a male child to 1) carry on the family name and 2) to legally have another child.
POLICY
Hemminiki and Wu, et al. (2005) state in 1953 after four years of strict family planning legislations, Communist China gave access to contraceptives and abortions under distinct circumstances. And, in 1957 access to legal abortions became less challenging. However in 1979, after experimenting in other provinces to procure its exponential population growth, China limited all women to having only one child, otherwise known as the One-Child Policy. The limitation is different depending on which areas of China women live, especially in the context of urban versus rural areas.
Subsequently in 1981, the National Population and Family Planning Commission were established to coordinate family planning and the one-child policy. And in 1982, the Constitution of China adopted the one-child policy, officially. The regulation has undergone several modifications for reasons such as impeding young marriages, abortions, and young childbirths (Hemminiki and Wu, et al. 2005). Yet, China stresses the use of contraceptives amongst women of all ages. The United Nations’ Children Fund (2010) declares between 2005 and 2009, 85% of Chinese women used contraceptives. Consequentially however, World Health Organization state China’s family planning regulations have led to significant declined rates of maternal mortality between 1996 and 2004.
Moreover not surprisingly, Chinese women may have a legal abortion under any circumstance (e.g. to save the life of the woman, safeguard mental and physical health, rape or incest, fetal injury, economic or social concerns, and accessibility on request). Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat declare the Chinese government provides abortion services as public service, and a woman is granted 14 days of leave with pay for ‘a first-trimester abortion or 30 days if the pregnancy is terminated after the first trimester.’ Furthermore, the Chinese government permits abortions up to 6 months of gestation.
PRACTICE
With the statistical realities in which the Chinese live in, one can observe the One-Child Policy is fully enacted and implemented in China. The concept of an ‘illegal child’ does not exist in China if a child is indeed born illegally. However, China explicitly incorporated legislation that such a child is not an equal member of society (such as given medical or education attention) until his or her parents pay their legal fines which are issued as punishment (Hemminiki and Wu et al., 2005). Yet, other forms of punishments are given to the parents and child throughout their lives (e.g. loss of school and housing benefits and an additional tax).
Chan and Yip, et al. (2002) state consequentially because of the one-child policy, China is facing an ever-widening gender gap as well as vast socio-economic and political inequality. 116 males are born for every 100 females, and when girls are born, most are abandoned and placed into orphanages. Presently, the number of girls wholly outnumbers the number of boys in orphanages, and the rate of male-female suicide in is less than 1, unique to only China (Chan and Yip, et al., 2002). As well, the fertility rate amongst women has significantly decreased, and more families are opting out of having children because of the callous policies concerning family planning.
Contrary to its fertility statistics and challenges, the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat report that the Chinese government believes the fertility levels in China are ‘satisfactory.’ Unfortunately therefore, will maintain their direct involvement in reproductive affairs concerning family planning and women.
FRANCE
On the other side of the spectrum of reproductive rights for women compared to Iraq and China, lays France. Although comparatively France is amongst the stricter European countries concerning reproductive rights for women, it appears most progressive and liberal when situated beside China, Iraq, and the United States. However, France’s socio-economic and political status has enormous influence on the reproductive laws placed on French women.
POLICY
In examining a developed Western country such as France and United States, these countries have their reproductive debates wholly on the subject of abortion. Therefore, as for abortion in France, the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat report that in January 1975 France ‘liberalized’ its abortion law, later to be formally adopted by Parliament in December 1979. Before 1975, abortions were prohibited unless the woman’s life was at risk.
As well, prior to the December 1979 regulation, France’s section 317 of its Penal Code stated a person who performed an illegal abortion is subject to imprisonment up to 5 years as well as a heavy fine. Furthermore, in April 1980 France required health centers to have abortion facilities as well as provide reproductive information. In January 1988, public hospitals were required to have such services as well. And, in December 1982 France expanded its social security coverage to 70% of costs of health services related to legal abortions. Nevertheless, because of the present ‘liberalize’ abortion laws, France became stricter on its punishment towards offenders. Presently, if a person performs an illegal abortion the person faces up to 10 years of imprisonment and increasingly greater fine (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat).
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat detail that the French government in 1988 approved and continues to closely regulate the use of RU-486, otherwise known as the ‘abortion pill.’ However, the French government places heavy restrictions on when a woman can consume the pill. The pill can be consumed no later than 49th day of her amenorrhea and a physician must be present.
The French constitution upholds that the state respects all humans from commencement of life. Yet, women may legally have an abortion under all circumstances unlike its Iraq counterpart (e.g. to save the life of the woman, safeguard mental and physical health, rape or incest, fetal injury, economic or social concerns, and accessibility on request). Furthermore, Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat state women in France may legally have abortions up until the end of the tenth week of pregnancy by a physician in a hospital, if the woman is distressed. However, if further than the tenth week, the woman must obtain approval by two physicians if the woman faces the risk of losing her life and/or the child will endure an incurable or severe illness.
Conversely, there are requirements all parties must abide by in order to have a legal abortion. The physician must inform the woman of all the risks involved during and after an abortion as well as alternatives to abortion. Moreover, Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat asserts under French law the woman must confer with a social worker if she still wishes to have an abortion. In addition, if the woman is underage she must have the approval of a paternal authority or legal guardian.
Nevertheless, unique to France is its unwavering support for women’s reproductive rights by combating against anti-abortion protestors. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat report persons who are obstacles in limiting safe access to reproductive health facilities are subject to heavy fines and imprisonment. As well, the French government does not further penalize women who resort to self-abortions.
PRACTICE
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat declare the French government to believe the fertility level in France is too low (1.7), and although the French government has not intervened to procure this issue, it indirectly supports the use of contraceptives. As well, from 2005 to 2009 France was at 71% contraceptive prevalence and maternal mortality rate was at 10%, percentages parallel to China (UNICEF, 2010). Furthermore, due to improved and accessible health facilities as well as a supportive government, the French government is not concerned with morbidity and mortality or complications with childbearing and childbirth rates of women, unlike its Iraq counterpart.
Therefore from the above statistical inferences, one may conclude minus the socio-economic circumstances, having a more ‘liberal’ approach to reproductive rights for women as France does, in fact save lives of women. The French government emphasizes more so on guaranteeing a higher quality life for actual humans’ life women than on fetuses. This is illustrated in the November 2003 European Court of Human Rights trial Vo. Versus France. Center for Reproductive Rights (2008) details the court case in that a doctor mistakenly ‘ruptured a pregnant woman’s amniotic sac’ for he thought she was another patient of his, who was not pregnant. The debacle was over how the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms did not protect the unborn fetus. Yet, the ECHR came back in July 2004 stating it does not recognize an unborn fetus as a person under European law. Therefore, Europe as well as France’s priority first and foremost, is to save the woman’s life (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2008).
UNITED STATES
Although the United States permits a woman to have an abortion under any and all circumstances (e.g. to save the life of the woman, safeguard mental and physical health, rape or incest, fetal injury, economic or social concerns, and accessibility on request), the point of contention surrounds at what time is the self an actual human being. Is it at the moment of conception, or when a person can visibly see toes? Or, is it not until a child is born and out of the mother’s womb? The United States has direct support of contraceptives, yet the religious Conservative right consistently comes in the way of this support. As the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat reports, the United States government’s view fertility levels in the United States as satisfactory. Therefore subsequently, it has no direct intervention in altering fertility levels. Yet, in having the United States’ fail to intervene while simultaneously having excessive political quarrels over abortion, does not add up.
POLICY
The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat reports that in the 1960s, 41 sates allowed women to have an abortion if her life was in jeopardy. This was followed by numerous appeals and re-appeals throughout various states concerning abortion. Thus, these circumstances led up to Roe versus Wade and Doe versus Bolton in 1973. In these cases, the Supreme Court declared abortions to be legal in all states for all reasons. The Supreme Court declared a fetus is not a living human, therefore is not entitled to protection under the Constitution. For viability is defined as gestation between the 24th and 28th weeks.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court announced that if a woman is considering an abortion in the first trimester then that decision is between her and her physician, exclusively. However, in the second trimester, the state in which the woman resides in has some authority over what decision is best for the woman’s health. Lastly, in the third trimester, the state has ultimate regulation in either prohibiting or allowing abortions to occur (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat).
Roe versus Wade gave women nationwide safe, affordable, and legal access to abortions, unheard of prior to 1973. However, coinciding with the ‘Pro-Choice’ movement was the ‘Right to Life’ movement, which garnered much opposition to the new regulation. After over a decade of ideological warfare between the two groups, in July 1989 Supreme Court heard the Missouri case of Webster versus Reproductive Health Services. The case ended with the Court prohibiting public funds to be used towards abortions as well as forcing physicians to test women at the 20th week viability date (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat).
After Webster versus RHS, Roe versus Wade began losing its legal grip over reproductive rights for women, where consequentially the Supreme Court was pressured to allow states to decide such rights for themselves individually. This is seen in the 5 months afterward Webster vs. RHS; Pennsylvania, Kansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Ohio all mandated that women must inform their husband, obtain a state-prepared information sheet discussing alternatives to abortion as well as requiring delays of the abortion procedure for at least 24 hours, before obtaining an abortion (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat). Furthermore, the new regulation provoked some states such as Louisiana and Utah rushed to conservative side of the spectrum whereas Connecticut was on the liberal side, engendering a modern day Civil War.
As the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat notes, these affairs led up to the June 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania versus Casey, which the United States abides by to this day. The Supreme Court still ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion prior to fetal viability, however the Court officially ruled that individual states could prohibit an abortion thereafter. Furthermore, Casey issued that a state may intervene in a woman’s reproductive affairs as long as the state does not ‘unduly burden’ a woman’s final decision. Casey also upheld the 24 hour mandated delay before a woman may have a legal abortion. Presently however, abortion laws vary state to state where 40 states prohibit a minor to have an abortion unless she has parental approval. However, 36 of these states provide alternatives to parental consent. Other states require the minor to have counseling before having an abortion, whereas other more conservative states require the patient to obtain anti-abortion materials (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat).
At the moment, 32 states will not use state funding to pay for abortions induced by rape or incest, for those on Medicaid. Furthermore, Mississippi and South Dakota are in violation of the federal law because the states decline to fund abortions when the mother’s life is jeopardy (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat). Furthermore, since January 1993, each presidential administration has either chipped away or attempted to put back together Casey, in either furthering protecting a woman’s reproductive rights or withdraw such rights. One instance includes the 1984 Mexico City Policy which declared the US would no longer support foreign abortion programs. As well, the Department of Health and Human Services was mandated to ban the French RU-486, ‘abortion pill’ noted earlier (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat).
Conversely, the most involvement the US government did have was with its ‘efforts to restrict the performance of the dilation and extraction procedure for the performance of late-term abortions’ (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat). The circular debate included proponents who sought to care for the fetus whereas the opponents sought to protect the woman’s health. Yet, after multiple back and forth of the regulation, the Executive Branch vetoed its passing. And, in October 1999, 39 states banned the procedure because it had no clear medical purpose, the procedures are vague, and go against ‘unduly burden.’ However similar to France, the United States in 1994 enacted Freedom Access to Clinics Act to protect patients and medical personnel from protests outside abortion facilities. Protestors face imprisonment and fines if cause a perilous environment (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat).
PRACTICE
Although access to abortion is in United States’ policy, the political agendas of different groups have prompted the access to: access to some and unsafe access to all. The percentages of medical personnel who perform abortions have declined steadily because of unsafe working environments caused by opposing forces. Doctors and nurses in certain areas of the United States are confronted with threats and violent acts on daily occasions. Therefore, the number of abortion clinics has also declined in rural and poorer areas where clinics are most needed. Furthermore, with the decline in access to abortions as well as states prohibiting public funds for abortions, lower-income women have never had true access to abortions.
The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 1997 there was a 3% decrease of abortions compared to 1996. In 1997, 20% of women obtaining abortions were aged 19 or under, whereas 32% were between the ages 20 and 24. 73% of women between 2005 and 2009 used some form of contraceptive (UNICEF, 2010). Furthermore, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reported that in 2010, 88% of abortions were given before the 8 and 12 weeks, and 49% of pregnancies were unintended therefore half end in abortion. African-American women are 3x as likely than white women to have an abortion, whereas Hispanic women are 2x more likely. Approximately 14,000 abortions are given each year because of rape or incest (USCDCP).
Furthermore, the debate over women’s reproductive rights has not been resolved in the least. In November 2011, Mississippi attempted a legislative initiative to define the word person is at the moment of conception. The endeavored initiative called the Mississippi Personhood Act stated all abortions, contraceptives, and morning after pills, must be banned. However, the legislation was turned down. Yet, Americans questioned what if the legislation was to pass. Would the mother then be able to have welfare and healthcare immediately? Furthermore, as InternationalCupCakeBandit wondered, under this Act- would miscarriages then be involuntary manslaughter or gross negligence? If a Mississippi resident has an abortion elsewhere, would the woman be arrested for murder on her return?
NOW, FOR A LITTLE SUBJECTIVITY…
To end, abortions will occur regardless if legal or not. And, if abortions are conducted in unsanitary environments with ill-equipped medical personnel, more and more women will perish. This being said, countries should remove all restrictions which prohibit women from obtaining abortions. For the way most countries are handling abortion procedures, in the end, these governments are not caring for the woman or the child.
As for accessible and sanitary health facilities, developing countries should rely on international organizations to provide maternal and child medical attention until the country can sustain itself. Therefore, it is of dire need for developed countries to lend a financial and social hand of support to developing countries undergoing health crises. For the world must understand, ultimately health knows no boundaries.
WORKS CITED
Cecilia L. W. Chan, Paul S. F. Yip, Ernest H. Y. Ng, P. C. Ho, Celia H. Y. Chan,
and Jade S. K. Au. 2002. “Gender Selection in China: Its Meanings and Implications.” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Vol. 19, No. 9.
Center for Reproductive Rights December. 2008. “Vo. Versus France.” Accessed November 27,
2011: http://reproductiverights.org/en/case/vo-v-france-european-court-of-human-rights
Elina Hemminki, Zhuochun Wu, Guiying Cao, and Kirsi Viisainen. 2005. “Illegal births and
legal abortions – the case of China.” Reproductive Health.
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations
Secretariat. 2010. “Iraq Abortion Policy.” Accessed November 26, 2011:
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/iraq.doc
United Nations Statistic Division. 2011. “Statistics and indicators on women and men.”
Accessed November 26, 2011:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/tab1a.htm
United Nations Population Fund. 2011. “UNFPA Aid to Iraqi Women.” Accessed November 26,
2011: http://www.unfpa.org/emergencies/iraq/
United Nations Population Fund. 2003. “Iraq Reproductive Health Assessment” Accessed
November 26, 2011: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/ww2005/tab2b.htm
United Nations Children Fund. 2011. “Iraq Statistics.” Accessed November 26, 2011:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html#80
United Nations. 2010. “France Abortion Policy.” Accessed November 27, 2011:
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/france1.doc
United Nations. 2010. “United States Abortion Policy.” Accessed November 27, 2011: www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/…/unitedstates.doc
United Nations Children Fund. 2010. “USA Statistics.” Accessed November 27, 2011: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.html
World Health Organization. 2010. “China Statistics.” Accessed November 26, 2011:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/china_statistics.html
World Health Organization. 2010. China Country Profile. Accessed November 26, 2011:
ShoutOut! James Madison University 