Violence Against Women: Not Going Away Until You Do Something About It

@RHRealityCheck

This article contains absolutely nothing new about violence against women. That’s because we already know everything we need to know about it. Everyone knows it exists. Most people would say it’s a pretty bad idea. And yet it doesn’t go away. To say it’s annoying would be a serious understatement.

In the many years I have worked on women’s rights, violence against women has been a constant. Violence as an obstacle to health care. Violence as a barrier to education. Violence as an inevitable fact of life.

I am tired of it: violence against women may be a current fact—every 3 minutes a woman is beaten up -- but it is not inevitable. So here are my top three key recommendations for how you (yes: you) can make it stop before it even starts:

1. Value women’s work

Women earn 20 percent less than men in the United States. This pay inequality contributes to make women financially dependent on men and therefore stay in violent relationships. The United States needs federal legislation to guarantee women equal pay for equal work.

Basic labor protections in the United States exclude some professions that are dominated by women, such as domestic work. Part time workers in any profession are entitled to less labor market protections than those working full time, prompting some to leave the work pace all together when they have kids. This does not make them less vulnerable to abuse. In fact, rather the opposite. So, until women are valued at work it’s unlikely they’ll be properly valued at home.

2. Stop stereotyping women.

We all do it: stereotyping. We stereotype children (erratic), grandparents (indulging), and fathers (aloof). We also stereotype women, and politicians base policies and laws on these stereotypes. For example, when states obligate a woman to wait 24 hours before she can have the abortion she already decided she needs, it is based on a stereotype of women as irrational and changeable.

Some stereotypes contribute to justifying domestic violence, because they set out expectations for female behavior that, if breached, serve as an excuse for abuse. “My man doesn’t beat me,” one young woman told me proudly on the playground the other day when I disclosed I work on women’s rights. “Because I don’t give him reason to: I have dinner ready when he comes home.”

Maybe this example is extreme, but the next time you make assumptions about what men and women “should” do, ask yourself where the notions come from and if they could be used to justify abuse.

3. Make some noise.

It’s been said before: in countries where the elimination of domestic violence is seen as a political priority, supported by policies, discourse, and money, the prevalence of violence does go down over time. And at the local level, we see time after time that in those societies or communities where intimate violence is stigmatized and reviled, it abates. Making noise works.

But at an even more local level, you should start making noise among your friends. If a woman is beaten up every 3 minutes, chances are someone you know has either faced violence or meted out abuse. They need to know where you stand: talk about violence as unacceptable and question policies that stereotype women.

They might find you annoying. But not as annoying as another decade of domestic violence and abuse.

UN Special Rapporteur: Abortion Restrictions Don't Work

@RHRealityCheck

Restrictions on abortions just don’t work in that they don’t result in the desired outcome.  This is the predictable, yet bold, conclusion of a report to be presented at the United Nations on Monday, October 24th by Anand Grover, a UN-appointed independent expert on health.  The report, which is part of an annual report-back from various human rights experts to the United Nations’ General Assembly, consolidates years of legal analysis and empirical evidence from other experts and concludes that abortion restrictions are unworkable and damaging to women’s health. Instead, the report advocates access to full, accurate, and complete sex education and information about contraception, as well as to all forms of modern contraception, because these services and state support for women’s equality actually do work to reduce the need for abortions.

Abortion restrictions are generally justified by reference to a desire to lower the number of terminations, be it by limiting access to abortion for all women, as in Chile, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, or just for the “undeserving,” as in most of the rest of the Americas including the United States. Some explicitly prefer pregnant women to die rather than having access to a life-saving abortion, but most refer to some sort of makeshift hierarchy of morals. 

“Most people, of course, should have access free of charge,” a high school friend from Denmark told me the other day. “But women who just keep having abortions: there really should be some sort of punishment for them.”

I have heard this sentiment echoed so many times.  “Seriously, I believe in access to abortion,” a young Mexican friend told me. “But really women need to show a minimum of responsibility.” This friend had, in the course of the same conversation, told me he recently had a condom break during intercourse.  When asked if he believed the woman in that case, if she were to become pregnant, had shown the requisite minimum of responsibility he was confused and horrified.  Of course she should have access to an abortion.  At least they had tried. 

These considerations about who, if anyone, deserves access to abortion are often at the core of public debate on the issue.  All but the most radical anti-choice activists would say that pregnant rape victims should have access, as well as those whose lives or health are threatened by the pregnancy.  This distinction between the vulnerable madonnas and the physically healthy sluts is, in fact, the bright line in determining public funding for abortion services in the United States today.

The truth of the matter is that abortion restrictions in law and policy have little if anything to do with how women and girls deal with their pregnancies.  Of the hundreds of women I have spoken to about their abortions, none mentioned the law as a deciding factor in whether or not to continue an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy. Sure, the criminalization of abortion might be an impediment to getting a safe and timely abortion, but never a real barrier to getting one at all.

In fact, the only two questions policy-makers can helpfully ask themselves about their approach to abortion are 1) is it workable; and 2) does it actually work.

Most policies that allow only partial access to abortion for the “deserving” women are not all that workable. You need a process for determining the validity of rape claims, for example, and a solid definition of just how unhealthy a pregnancy needs to be to be unhealthy enough for the woman to be entitled to care.  In Ireland, where abortion is only theoretically legal for women who will die as a result of their pregnancy, a doctor asked me in visible distress: “How terminal does she have to be?  Can I help her if she has a 51 percent chance of dying, or does it have to be more?”

The notion proposed by my Danish friend—that irresponsible women who just have one abortion after another need to be punished—is equally unworkable.  How do you determine responsibility? And how many abortions are too many?  And what would be an appropriate punishment?  Carrying the pregnancy to term?  For many, the key moral question in the abortion debate is whether women who want their pregnancies terminated actually care.  But any policy based on a value-judgement on that count raises more ethical questions than it solves.  It is not workable.

Spread the word: abortion restrictions just don’t work.

Why the Use of Steve Jobs As An Anti-Choice Political Stunt Is Flawed

@RHRealitycheck

Steve Jobs' premature death has generated much online activity, some seeking to exploit his demise for political gain. In this category are articles suggesting that Jobs' status as an adoptee is a reason to restrict abortion access in general. The arguments put forward in this regard are flawed on two levels.

First, no individual circumstances can change the overarching reality that women and girls have abortions when they need them, regardless of the legal context. Restricting abortion access does not make the practice scarce, it merely makes it unsafe.

More than 30 percent of women in the United States will have at least one abortion before they are 45 years old, even though many live in states with few or no abortion providers. Most women who have abortions already have one child or more, and many refer to their desire to have time to parent as a key reason for needing an abortion. 

In fact, in my experience interviewing women around the world about pregnancy and child-bearing, abortion is the end rather than the beginning of their decision-making processes. Women talk to me about food for their children, time to play and concern with paying for their children's education. They talk about expensive birth control and child care and about limited health care options. They talk about how difficult it is to decide when and if to become a mother. And they talk about abortion as an option where other options have failed. 

They rarely, if ever, refer to the legality or availability of abortion services as a decision-making factor.  If a woman or girl feels she needs to terminate her pregnancy, she will find a way. I once spoke to a girl who had fired a gun into her abdomen because she felt too young to be a mother and abortion was illegal in her country.

It is also noticeable that abortion, in the United States, is more and more the recourse of women without financial resources.  In 2008, more than 40 percent of those having abortions in the United States were living under the poverty level, and this proportion is growing.  There is a reason for that: children are expensive and the United States provides few legal protections for parents. There is no federal law to protect paid parental leave or sick days, and there are no allowances for time off to breast feed. Federal law guarantees 3 months of unpaid extended sick leave to be used as parental leave, and only for those who are eligible, which excludes about 40 percent of American workers. There are no general provisions for health care--not even, in most states, for children. In 2010, almost 10 percent of all children (15 percent of children living in poverty) in the United States had no health insurance.

In short, though access to abortion services is becoming more expensive in the United States mainly because service providers are farther away, some women and girls see abortion as the only viable choice available to them.  In cases where women or girls might initially be inclined to carry a pregnancy to term and give the infant up for adoption, many would not be able to pay for prenatal care and to give birth--or even get time off for visits to the doctor and for the birth itself.  This in addition to the many very valid--and private--reasons women and girls might have to not want to carry a pregnancy to term, even if adoption were an easier and less costly option than it currently is.

Secondly, Steve Jobs' life experience doesn't work as an argument for limited abortion access, even by its own logic.

It is a fact that Steve Jobs was born before the legalization of abortion in the United States.  It has been suggested that Jobs' biological mother, faced with an unwanted pregnancy, contemplated having an abortion before she decided to carry the pregnancy to term and give the infant up for adoption. Her decision to do so was based on personal, and private, considerations.  This is as it should be.

Had Steve Jobs' biological mother decided to terminate her pregnancy in 1954 when she discovered she was expecting, she would have had to have an illegal and therefore potentially unsafe abortion.  And she might have died as a result, as more than half a million women worldwide continue to do every year because abortion access is illegal or severely restricted in their countries. Let us not wish ourselves back.

Why women in politics matter

Following a five-month stalemate, Lebanon’s prime minister has finally announced his 30-member cabinet. News reports have concentrated on the representation of various religious factions. But there has been little attention to the fact that all 30 ministers are men. Recent Lebanese governments were dominated by men, but not to the total exclusion of women.

The gender imbalance in Lebanon's cabinet is of additional interest because of the hopes for change generated by the general upheaval in the region. The ousters of presidents Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Zine el Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia were both instigated by popular protests that featured discontented women as well as men. Inside and outside of these countries, the role of women in the protests has led to expectations of a type of democracy in which women have if not an equal voice, then at least a voice.

So far, these expectations have been largely disappointed.

In Egypt, only one woman was appointed to the new 27-member cabinet, and a quota system put in place in 2010 to ensure women’s participation in parliament has been canceled by the military council that serves as an interim government, with no alternative mechanisms provided to ensure participation.

In Tunisia, the experience has been better, in particular with a requirement to alternate men and women on party listings for elections, heightening the possibility that women will fill parliamentary seats for successful parties. Still, of 31 ministries, only two are headed by women, and the civil society transition council formed after the former president departed is also overwhelmingly dominated by men.

To be sure, many Western democracies are bad role models when it comes to women's political participation and leadership. In the United States, only 89 of the 535 members of Congress the House -- 16.6 percent -- are women, and fewer than a quarter of the members of the French and Canadian parliaments are women. This situation is appalling and needs to change.

The real question, however, is not who is already doing this right, but rather why it matters. The answer doesn't lie with abstract notions of fairness or unsubstantiated claims that women are a kinder and more altruistic breed than men. It matters because women's political participation and leadership are necessary for democracy to function most effectively.

There are at least two reasons for this.

First, the more closely government represents the composition of society as a whole, the more stable its policies are likely to be. This means that it is not just important to include women, but also to ensure broad representation. For example, Rwanda tops the charts for the percentage of women in parliament, with 56 percent, but most are from the same ethnic group, which some commentators warn could lead to instability.

Second, a mixed-gender cabinet or parliament should, all other things being equal, tend to address more of the concerns that apply exclusively or disproportionately to women. Of course, female politicians don’t always bring up issues that are important to women, and male politicians don't always exclude these concerns. But research has shown that non-feminist women are more likely than non-feminist male colleagues to work on policies that affect women.

Of course, women's political participation and leadership are not the only necessary factors for general peace and prosperity. But they are necessary factors. Supporters of democracy everywhere, whether in Lebanon, France, or the United States, would do well to remember that.

@Salon

Common Sense Abortion Policy

@TheHill

Abortion should not be a hard, divisive issue – at least not politically.

This week, Gallup released its annual survey on how the US public feels about it.  For the past 10 years, the figures have hovered around the same lines, with about 50 percent saying they believe abortion is morally wrong, and around 40 percent said they believe it to be morally acceptable. Older people and Republicans score higher than others on being “pro-life” and seeing abortion as “morally wrong.”

The survey also tracks how the American public feels about abortion policy. Between 50 and 60 percent say abortion should be legal in some circumstances.  Another 20 to 30 percent believe it should always be legal, and 15 to 20 percent say it should always be banned. 

Considering that discussions about abortion during the annual budget season in Congress this year threatened to shut down the federal government, some politicians might be tempted to scrutinize the Gallup survey for hints on the most politically expedient position to take on this issue.

That would be a bad idea.

Surveys on morals generally make for poor policy-making tools, not least because they can be read selectively. One Catholic blog celebrated the fact that 72 percent of those surveyed this year want abortion illegal, at least in some circumstances.  But if you read the figures from the opposite side of the debate, they show that a higher percentage of those surveyed (77 percent) believe abortion should be legal, at least in some circumstances.  Neither reading would be particularly helpful in crafting a policy response to abortion that allows for real, informed, and healthy choices.

Instead, politicians should be looking at studies on contraception use, current abortion practices, and pregnancy.

Because, if they do that, they’ll find that 1 in 5 women in the United States feel they need to terminate a pregnancy at some point in their lives.  Study after study has shown that women and girls have abortions when they need them, regardless of the legal or political context.  Knowing this, politicians should realize that the only two things a government can affect through legislation and policies are 1) to what extent abortions are needed; and 2) to what extent abortions are safe.  That makes the job of forming abortion policy a lot easier and less divisive. Few would contend that they wouldn’t want to reduce the need for abortion. And few would want abortions to be unsafe.

Abortion is obviously scarcer in situations in which women get pregnant when they want to be, and when they are in a position to expand their families.  This requires not only access to contraception and scientifically based sex education, but also paid family leave and support for child care.

Or look at it from another perspective. In countries where abortion is illegal, it is rarely scarce.  In Argentina, where abortion is criminalized for most women, an estimated 40 percent of all pregnancies terminate in abortions.  In Peru, with a similar legal framework, that proportion is 37 percent, and in Chile, where all abortion is illegal, the proportion is 35 percent. In Mexico and the United States, where the legality and access to abortion varies widely from state to state, the proportion is 20 percent. (All percentages calculated by using public figures on abortions and annual live births.)  

So in fact, where abortion is illegal, it is equally if not more prevalent than in jurisdictions where it is legal. And where abortion is illegal, it is much more likely to be unsafe.  

So, policy-wise, abortion is easy.

Of course, this does not mean that abortion doesn’t generate strong feelings.  Most everywhere, the issues related to abortion are framed as a “battle,” either for women’s lives, rights, and health, or for the life of the unborn child.  Positions are presented and regarded as immovable and based on fundamental rights. 

And it also does not mean that terminating a pregnancy doesn’t present complex questions about the worth of human life, and about when a human being begins to exist.

And it definitely does not mean that the emotions that come with facing an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy are uncomplicated or straightforward or always lead to the conclusion we expect.  I have spoken with ardent supporters of abortion rights who have chosen to carry unplanned pregnancies to term because they felt a child grow inside them.  And I have spoken with equally ardent supporters of abortion bans who have chosen to terminate pregnancies because they just could not face having a child.

But it does mean that surveys on morals are not useful in shaping effective policies on abortion. Instead, if policymakers want to make policy that has some impact on how frequently abortion is used, they should look to research on the social, economic, and health factors that affect a woman’s ability to plan her pregnancy in the first place.  That is what makes the difference.