A Step Backward for Puerto Rican Women

@PRDailysun

When it comes to ending violence against women, Puerto Rico has taken a giant step backward.  To be sure, the islands have had a comprehensive law to protect women and girls against domestic violence since 1989. But the Puerto Rican Supreme Court has blocked a lot of women from its protection.  

In a decision handed down in March, the Court upheld a lower court's ruling that a victim of intimate partner violence was not protected by Puerto Rico’s domestic violence law because she was not married to the man who attacked her.  The woman, who was separated but not yet divorced from her husband, was battered by her new partner.

The Supreme Court held that the historical background of the law indicated that the Puerto Rican legislature’s intent was to protect the integrity of the family and its members. So, it held, the law did not apply to extramarital affairs. The court did make clear that the assault violated other criminal law provisions.

The ruling has, understandably, outraged many people, as far away as New York, where city and state elected officials voiced their objections. For starters, Puerto Rico’s domestic violence law explicitly applies broadly to interpersonal relationships. It covers violence by someone with whom the victim lives or has lived or has had a consensual relationship and does not require a marital bond between the victim and the abuser.   In other words, the ruling imposes a perverse interpretation on a commonsense and literal reading of the law, based on far reaching assumptions about the intent of the legislature.

But more important, through this ruling the Puerto Rican Supreme Court is sending the message that some women may not deserve equal protection from the state.  This is the wrong message to put forward in a society where interpersonal violence is a serious problem.   

According to official sources, on average, 20,000 domestic violence incidents are reported every year in Puerto Rico, along with about 3,000 incidents of sexual violence.  Official sources estimate that, in the case of sexual violence, only about 15 percent of rapes are reported.   If the proportion is the same for domestic violence, approximately 130,000 women and girls are subjected to domestic violence every year, and 18,000 are raped, in a place with only 4 million people. Whatever the actual figures, violence at the hands of their partners and families is a serious problem for Puerto Rican women and girls.

Paradoxically, Puerto Rican women are far from disempowered. Women on the islands achieved the right to vote in 1935, before almost any nation in Latin America and the Caribbean (outdone only by Ecuador, where women have been able to vote since 1929). And Puerto Rico’s women and girls have long outdone their male counterparts when it comes to education: a century ago, nearly three quarter of the graduates from the University of Puerto Rico were women.  Today approximately 160 women are graduating from Puerto Rico’s higher education programs for every 100 men. 

So the reason for the high rate of interpersonal violence has to be found elsewhere.  Emerging evidence from across the world suggests that it’s not enough for women to be financially independent and educated for the incidence of domestic violence to drop—though those are  necessary conditions.  

 But because violence against women often is fuelled by deeply held notions of male dominance and entitlement, it doesn’t stop just because women, objectively, are as educated and employable as men.  Rather, successful anti-violence initiatives must engage men and boys as well as women and girls to do away with prejudices about what families “must” look like, and what women and men “should” do. 

The Puerto Rican Supreme Court’s ruling is particularly problematic because it does just the opposite. By suggesting that “integrity of the family and its members” trumps the right of certain women in certain relationships to equal protection against violence, the court undermines the many valid initiatives to stop violence against women in Puerto Rico.  And that’s indeed something to be outraged about. 

Argentina's Slow Tango With Women's Lives

(Originally posted on the Huffington Post)

In five days I will be addressing Argentina's House of Representatives about abortion. The occasion is as deliberately momentous as it is intentionally inconsequential. On the one hand, this is the first time Argentina's national congress has debated the legalization of abortion, and the hearing has been advertised in the national media for weeks. At the same time, the opening of this landmark debate has been scheduled in the last hours of the last legislative session this year, on a day of the week usually reserved for internal meetings.

This "schizophrenic" attitude reflects the way Argentina's government and congress have dealt with sexual and reproductive rights for decades.

On the face of it, Argentina has an impressive array of relatively well-defined and balanced laws and policies on the topic. Comprehensive sex education is mandatory in all schools. Laws stipulate that a spectrum of modern contraceptive methods must be available free through the public health system. The law also says that older adolescents must be allowed access to the medical care they need without parental authorization. And in July, President Christina Fernández de Kirchner took on the Catholic church to make Argentina the first country in Latin America to recognize same-sex marriage. Notably, abortion has been legal for more than a century for women and girls whose lives or health is threatened by their pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

But the law is one thing. Real access to information, services, and rights is quite a different matter. In 2005 and 2010, Human Rights Watch analyzed women's and girls' effective enjoyment of their human rights as they relate to sex and reproduction. Our conclusions were unfavorable. We found that multiple barriers keep Argentina's women from making independent decisions about their health and lives in the area of reproduction -- lack of information, inaccurate and incomplete information, domestic and sexual violence, and economic restraints the government has not addressed adequately.

We also found that the failure to remove these barriers comes at a real cost. Even today, an estimated 40 percent of pregnancies end in abortions, most of them illegal and unsafe. This in turn contributes to entirely preventable maternal deaths. In fact, unsafe abortion has been a leading cause of maternal mortality in the country for decades. In 2008, according to Argentina's national health ministry, over 20 percent of recorded deaths due to obstetric emergencies were caused by unsafe abortions.

Part of the problem is the politicization of issues related to motherhood, population growth, and, at the most basic level, sex. Argentina was one of the last countries in the Latin America region to abandon a top-down population policy approach that subjected individual decision-making to a nationalist interest in population growth. Until 1985 the sale and use of contraception was entirely prohibited, and even medical service providers still justify actions that curtail women's human rights by referring to a century-old maxim, "to populate is to govern." As recently as 1999, the government declared an annual national "Day of the Unborn Child," which some people still celebrate.

It is also true that any law that labels abortion a crime, even if it allows for exceptions, in practice makes it complicated -- if not impossible -- to get access to life- and health-preserving abortions. This is the situation in Argentina. Often, women are unaware of the circumstances in which they could legally get an abortion. Women who do seek them may be stonewalled by complicated procedures and hostile service providers in the health and justice systems. Many women with crisis pregnancies go directly to underground service providers, though some end up in the courts arguing for their right to health care, with varying success.

Much will be at stake when Argentina's parliament starts debating the legalization of abortion: women's lives, health and rights, as well as Argentina's reputation as a modern democracy respectful of human rights. I am honored to have been invited to take part in this debate. I hope the scheduling of the hearing is an indication of a busy congress rather than a symptom of the same erratic and selectively dismissive attitude that has plagued Argentina's engagement with this topic for years.

Regulating Abortion May Be OK But Not To Avoid Sex-Selection

(Originally posted on the Huffington Post)

Sex-selective abortion raises a multitude of overlapping ethical concerns regarding eugenics, population control, and provider privilege or knowledge. It was also, until recently, an issue we linked mostly to China, Korea, and India. Not anymore. Recent news coverage indicates that the son-preference that has led to sex-selective abortions abroad is alive and well in some ethnic communities within the United States.

This has generated a new discussion about what to do -- indeed, what to think -- about the practice here.

This week, one commentator -- William Saletan -- raised an essential issue in that regard: "Absolutists on both sides need to think carefully. If you're pro-life, how far are you willing to go in regulating abortion? If you're pro-choice, how far are you willing to go in leaving it unregulated?"

Full disclosure: I am a pro-choice European transplant to the United States. I am also a human rights advocate and researcher, and have spoken to dozens of resource-poor women about their reproductive choices. My answer to Mr. Saletan's question is invariably colored by this background and experience. And it falls in two parts.

1. The effect of abortion regulations depends on the context and motivation.

Regulation on abortion, or any other medical procedure for that matter, isn't bad per se. From a human rights perspective, the regulation of medical procedures and interventions is legitimate and indeed often necessary so long as they are based on full respect for the full range of human rights.

In the context of abortion, this, in some cases, has more to do with the context of the regulation than with the regulation itself. Many pro-choice commentators in United States have traditionally criticized the trimester-based regulation on abortion that is the norm in most of Western Europe. Generally, the criticisms are based on the fact that restrictions imposed on access to abortion after the first trimester in those European countries subject female decision-making to medical authority.

I have never had a problem with the European model as such. For one thing, it is, most often, implemented in the context of universal health care, comprehensive sex education, and parental benefits such as leave and childcare support. As a result, women seem to have more control over their parental choices to start with. For another, the social workers and doctors who make up the panels to whom women must apply if they want an abortion in the second or third trimester are generally directed to base their decision on the best interest -- health, life, broadly speaking -- of the woman involved. While there surely is much to criticize about the European model, it is not the fact that regulation exists.

By the same token, the relative lack of blanket bans or federal regulation on abortion in the United States does not mean that abortion access is easy, or, indeed, that woman can decide on their fertility without interference. In fact, studies indicate that the United States rate of unintended pregnancies is higher than the world average, and much higher than that in other industrialized nations.

Moreover, despite the apparent illusion that abortion is unregulated in the United States, it is actually already pretty heavily regulated. Many women and girls face serious legal or financial obstacles to accessing safe abortion services because of burdensome regulations, lack of providers, insufficient funding, or political opposition. Also, US restrictions on abortion, whether at the state or federal level, are not motivated by concern for women, and are often implemented in a context in which lack of access to health care generally and to contraceptives specifically make it even harder for women to control their fertility prior to a crisis pregnancy.

2. Regulating sex-selective abortion by banning it would not eliminate the practice.

In the face of news that the gender balance of certain ethnic groups in the United States is starting to tilt, it is perhaps tempting to hope that banning sex-selective abortions would safeguard the gender balance of future generations. However, the criminalization of abortion for whatever reason has in the past led only to underground and unsafe practices. In fact, the criminalization of sex-selective abortion would put the full burden of righting a fundamental wrong--the devaluing of women's lives--on women.

The fact is that many women who choose to abort a fetus because it is female believe they will face violence, exclusion, or stigma if they don't produce a boy. Some--rightly or wrongly--see the financial burden of raising a girl as detrimental to the survival of the rest of the family, a sentiment that can outlast generations even after an ethnic community has been transplanted to the United States.

The solution to the prevalence of sex-selective abortion is to remove the motivation (emotional or real) behind the procedure by advancing women's human rights and their economic and social equality. Choosing the blunt instrument of criminal law over promoting the value of women's lives and rights will only place further burdens on individual women for something that essentially is a social wrong.

So, in short, I support regulation that serves the purpose of furthering the human rights of women to health, physical integrity, equality, as well as the right to decide when and if to become a mother. I also support regulation that brings down the need for (and number of) abortions.

My experience tells me a blanket prohibition of abortion of any kind -- even if to limit a practice as ethically questionable as sex-selective abortion -- would accomplish neither.