- for educational purposes only*
- For educational purposes only*
LACK OF POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION: A HINDRANCE TO THE LEGALIZATION OF ABORTION[edit source]
INTRODUCTION
Abortion, as simply defined by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) is the procedure of preventing birth through the extraction of a developing embryo from a woman's womb. However, this is not certainly the whole point as the definite meaning of the word “Abortion” may be distinguishable from one source compared to the other. Major factors address into this matter, as written by Kulczycki (2017) the language used to define the word often reflects a certain political or societal perspective, not being limited to existing scientific information. This citation certainly affects a vast amount of arguments amongst people on their perspective about abortion together with a massive impact in politics and generated the debate whether if it is appropriate for abortion to be legalized or if it should not be legalized; as the innumerable definitions of the word given by various sources will definitely generate a tremendous amount of dishevelment of different, confusing, often biased political and societal views overlapping and contradicting each other contrary to if the word had an already fixated, non-biased definition, as Hale (1994) wrote for the USA Today paper, "Definitions slow debate on abortions". Adding to this, with a vast majority of the planet permitting the access to abortion, there is still a daunting obstacle that has yet to be solved, this is the fact that with the variation of prohibitions and legalizations of certain circumstances when it comes to accessibility of abortion, various countries suffer consequences and some form of violation of their human rights, constituting ill-treatment and torture. ". With the lack of a definite meaning being sought through political socialization, this serves as a major catalyst in slowing down the progress of the legalization of abortion. One such representation is the definition written in the Encyclopedia Britannica (2011) which defines abortion as an expulsion of the fetus from the uterus before it reaches the stage of viability which in most humans, occurs during the 20th week of gestation. The definition given by Encyclopedia Britannica however, contradicts the given definition for the word in The Columbia Encyclopedia (2008) which articulates that abortion is defined as any act of interruption of human pregnancy prior to the 28th week of gestation. Not having a definite meaning for all societal, political, and sometimes religious stances, a seemingly endless labyrinth lies ahead of the legalization of abortion, impacting the economy to great lengths through overpopulation, unwanted birth rates being higher than adoption rates, increased child mortality and/or morbidity, as well as a lack of choice for women to not bear the unwanted.
Abortion throughout the globe
According to the United Nations Publication World Abortion Policies of 2013 (2016), 97% of countries worldwide have legalized abortion purposely to save or preserve a woman’s health due to medical complications. As stated by Levi (2012) there are certain cases in which terminating the pregnancy is the sole option in order to save the mother’s life from complications, this include severe infections, heart failure, and fatal cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressures and is under the risk of having a stroke. Although most of the world has already legalized the conducting of abortions, the biggest hindrance here is that the conditions under these countries will vary. This results in a case in which several countries, compared to others, have a smaller range of benefits and choices due to the vast variation of laws in each country that has legalized abortion. Among the 97% of the globe, 68% have legitimated the procedure while also ensuring the benefit of preserving the mother’s physical or mental health (65%) With half of the countries worldwide permitting the decriminalization of abortion in the circumstance of fetal impairment. However, only 51% of the countries worldwide permit the access of abortion for pregnancies relating to cases of rape incest. Taking this into account, The UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies (TMBs) has urged the remaining 49% of countries to decriminalize abortion in cases of rape and incest. This call for decriminalization is evident when the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) called on Peru to legalize abortion access under the circumstances of rape and sexual abuse. Adding to this, the Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 36 on The Right to Life adamantly necessitates the access to abortion in the case of the aforementioned conditions. With the Committee against Torture (CAT) condemning abortion illegality without exceptions for rape and incest, it is also prevalent that the criminalization of abortion under these conditions are a direct violation of a woman's human rights. As according to The Committee of Experts on Violence (CEVI) annotateing the Follow-up Mechanism of the Belém do Pará Convention (MESECVI) that the imposition for a woman to refrain from terminating her pregnancy, which results with the woman being forced to bear a child that was the result of a rape incident strongly "constitutes a form of institutional violence and may constitute a form of torture, in violation of Article 4 of the [Belém do Pará] Convention." (2014) This statement is also reinforced by The African Commission on Human and People's Rights in its General Comment No. 2 on Article 14.1 and 14.2 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, paragraph 37 (2014) which attests that the criminalization of abortions under the condition of rape, sexual abuse, and/or incest, aggregates additional trauma, prohibiting the woman from obtaining a freedom in which she is able to choose to bear or abort an unwanted child resulted by traumatic events.
With other countries, women are only permitted to get an abortion under certain circumstances and additional procedures that must be followed prior to the request of operation, even if the basic grounds for it are already met. Taking this into account, in Finland, according to the Abortion Act of 1967, it is stated that an abortion can only be carried out once the requestor has obtained both the approval of two certified doctors, sometimes only one if there are exceptions. Howbeit, TMBs have also recognized that abortions under the cases of rape shouldn't require further evidentiary burdens, judicial authorization, or a guilty verdict. A good example is when the CAT has observed that the judicial authorization mandated before accessing an abortion poses as an obstacle that hinders the woman's access to abortion, and with such denial of judicial authorization especially in the case of rape victims, this may constitute torture or ill-treatment. The law however, according to the report provided by the United Kingdom Care Quality Commission (2012) is being eschewed by several National Health Service (NHS) clinics through using forms pre-signed by one doctor, hence creating a loophole, allowing the access to abortions to patients who only consulted one doctor.
According to Ostergen (2011) in his book, "The Europeans: A Geography of People, Culture, and Environment" that with the exception of the mini-state of Malta, and the micro-states known within The Vatican City, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and Andorra where accessibility to abortion is strictly prohibited, most European countries legalize the access to abortion. The other states with existent but less restrictive laws are Poland and Monaco. All the other remaining states legalize the access to abortion under the circumstance of economic and social reasons stringently during the first trimester of pregnancy. However, when it comes to later-term abortions, the number of laws that permit these conditions are as liberal as of the United States. It is also important to note the fact that the vast majority of countries that strictly illegalize or limit the access to abortion are usually zealous, and strong believers of the Catholic religion.
POPULATION BOOM
According to Thomas M. Hart in his article “Legalized Abortion in Japan”, stated that “The enactment of the Eugenic Protection Act in Japan was followed by many changes. The population explosion was stemmed, the birth rate was halved, and while the marriage rate remained steady the divorce rate declined”. This statement cites the existing proof that if abortion is legalized to a country, a myriad of positive consequences will emerge. At the end of World War Two, there are numerous reasons which caused the legalization of abortion in Japan, one of which is they are still densely populated even after the war, birth and marriage rates were also high, and the war left them in high demand for health and welfare departments. However religious oppositions in Japan was weak considering that less than 40 percent of the population in Japan were followers of the Shinto and Buddhist church leaving the Catholic Church to only less than 1 percent of the total population. On July 13, 1948 the Eugenic Protection law was passed, making abortion accessible to anyone legally. However, in urban areas the licenses were limited to a number of obstetrics and/or gynecology. But by 1951 special licenses has been issued to 8,000 physicians in Japan.
According to the statistics in the article, “In the first eight years, the birth rate per 1,000 population fell from 34.3 to 17 and has remained at this low level up to the present” indicating the major impact of the legalization of the law which in turn controlling the population rate. This rate is higher than the death rate which exceeded it by two and a half times The population is about 100 million and is expected to peak at 113 million by 1995 and slowly decrease. By 1955 the number of reported abortion peaked at 1,200,000 and slowly decline to 985,000 by 1962. This is due to the fact that contraceptives were already used and it is estimated that for every birth. However, the number of reported abortion in women younger than 20 years of age increase during the implementation of the law. Although the number of neonaticides does not seem to increase, but the increase in teenage abortion still remained a serious problem in Japan.
According to BBC news “It sought to prevent people with physical and cognitive disabilities from being able to have children, as well as those with mental illnesses.” Initially the law was meant to prevent birth to a child with a genetic disorder, cognitive impairment, or physical disability across the country. Yet, originally this was actually a measure to control the population during a postwar food shortage in Japan. This is one of the major reasons why the abortion rates dropped from 1960 onwards.
Considering the fact that this is also one of the major causes why fertility rates decreased. The law forces people with intellectual disabilities, mental disorders, or hereditary illnesses to undergo sterilization even without their consent. Under the law, about 25,000 people with disabilities were sterilized, including some 16,500 who were operated on without their consent, according to the health ministry and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations.
According to Thomas Hart, Illegal abortions are still considered under the period of the law. Apparently many abortions were performed in physicians’ offices under fairly good conditions. One of which is the physician avoiding taxation and second is the patient’s desire for secrecy in order to avoid the expense of a mortification. Complications are still in to play here, in about 21,963 of abortions in 1951, there are 184 cited complications, 143 of them were serious complicated problems, under this are 10 deaths, 15 bougies were used, in 16 the Abural method, and 10 in hydrostatic bags. Only 130 of these said cases were performed by a licensed physician. Thus it appeared that unqualified personnel and advance pregnancy were significant factors in the complicated cases according to Thomas Hart.
According to Thomas Hart’s article, “the total number of reported induced abortions continued to decline in 1963 and 1964. The figures respectively, 955,092 and 878,748. As of March 1967, the Japanese government had not yet approved the use of oral contraceptives” does proves that the law really came into effect and positive consequences are present. However, backlashes emerged up until the present, according to Mr. Abe in his statement in BBC news, "During the period the law was in effect, many people were subjected to operations that made them unable to have children based on their having a disability or another chronic illness, causing them great suffering," not only they suffer from infertility, it is also like taking their right to have child or to create or give life. And finally sterilizations peaked in the 1960s and 1970s, and continued until the final operation in 1993. By 1996, the Japanese government considered to finally revoke the law according to BBC news. However, even though the law has been revoke, abortion is still available to women in limited circumstances. According to Wikipedia these circumstances “including endangerment of their health or economic hardship. Chapter XXIX of the Penal Code of Japan makes abortion de jure illegal in the country, but exceptions to the law are broad enough that it is widely accepted and practiced.
Meanwhile, the Maternal Health Protection Law allows approved doctors to practice abortion with the consent of the mother and her spouse, if the pregnancy has resulted from rape, or if the continuation of the pregnancy may severely endanger the maternal health because of physical reasons or economic reasons.” Considering that only qualified physicians are allowed to execute the imported abortifacient under the terms mentioned above.
RIGHT OF CHOICE
According to Harriet Pilapel's "The Right of Abortion" article, "almost all the major religious groups in the United States except the Roman Catholic Church were on record in favor of abortion-law reform or repeal." So basically, that is one of the reasons why abortion laws stay on the books. Because the main point here is the right of women is being disobliged. Why? Let us give some instances. How about the rape cases? Of course, those women involved in rape cases didn't choose that kind of pathway. Obviously, it's against their will. Who among of us want that? No one. So because they are raped, the chance of being pregnant is much higher. And they do not want that. So in order for them to eschew the fact of being pregnant, they choose to have abortion. We cannot blame them for having this kind of decision or mindset, because if we are in their situation, we will also choose to have abortion. Second, they are not yet ready for the responsibilities it takes of being a parent. They may still have many agendas to do in their lives, and consider it having no significant value anymore because of their unwanted situation. Do you think that it will be fair for them? That's why the point here is the failure of passing the said law about the legality of abortion somehow rebel against the right of some women.
With the myriad of law variations and conditions for the legality of abortion accessibility, the freedom of women to choose is seriously given a massive dent. This also compromises the maternal and general safety of women as the illegality of abortion constitutes women seeking unlicensed and untrained practitioners to perform the abortion as a desperate means to terminate a pregnancy. According to the World Health Organization (2019) abortions are only deemed safe if they are carried out via a method recommended by the organization, various methods are to be carried out in relation to the duration of the pregnancy and if the person or medical worker assigned to perform is properly trained or educated to ensure the safety of the procedure, the method of medication used, or a simple outpatient procedure.
Abortions are deemed unsafe once the said performance is done in an unfitting and unsafe environment, or by an untrained person, an untrained person of which has not met the necessary requirements or even the basic training or/and knowledge to perform such operations, as stated by the WHO (2019) The people, skills, and procedures that are deemed and considered safe under the premise of induced abortions which is commonly performed through the use of tablets and drugs alone, as well as surgical abortions, of which are done through the means of a manual or electric aspirator. As stated in the aforementioned citation, the skills and procedures needed to perform an abortion will vary on the pregnancy's duration and the continuous evolving of the world's scientific technology.
According to the World Health Organization (2019) abortions are unsafe when they are done through various techniques and/or procedures. One of which, is using outdated methods such as means of sharp curettage. This is still considered of a high risk even if the person performing the medical procedure is properly trained and hardened in the medical field. It is also important to take into account if the women using medications have access to proper information or an actually trained ad licensed person for if they require help. The organization also states that abortions are also dangerous or at the very least, not the safest and still pose various threats and a dent to the preservation of a woman's health and well-beig, if the method involved the ingestion of caustic substances or untrained, so called "medical workers" using unconventional and dangerous methods of termination of pregnancy, such as the insertion of foreign objects or tools, or use of traditional concoctions.
UNSAFE ABORTION
Unsafe abortions are an evident result of restrictive and varying laws regarding its legality, as according to the World Health Organization (2019) that women, including teenagers or adolescents, bearing an unwanted child often resort to such methods when they are posed with a great hindrance in terminating their pregnancy for a myriad of reasons and causes. These hindrances, as mentioned before in the previous sections, include restrictive laws. In which women are limited to the certain conditions and circumstances, requirements and additional procedures required to access an abortion as imposed by the law of their state.
This also involved the poor availability of services for such matter, the lack of licensed and trained medical professionals constitutes a disobligence of the woman's safety and well-being, as this forces them to seek out untrained persons and unsafe methods due to a desperate attempt in terminating an unwanted pregnancy; pregnancies of which are resulted by rape, inccest, and sexual abuse. The high costs for these operations also takes a major role in restricting women to access safe abortions, especially in the poorer areas of the globe, of which people are less capable of affording these services due to financial instability. Another major hindrance to take into account is the fact that medical workers conscientiously object the performing of the operation, this is prevalently due to moral or/and internal conflict and religious reasons. With the aforementioned restrictive laws posing a serious hindrance to the access of safe abortions, it is also important to note that unnecessary requirements and additional unneeded procedures that are to be taken prior to seeking an abortion, such as mandatory and necessitated waiting periods, "necessary" counselling, provision of misleading information, the authorization of a third-party, and the medically unnecessary tests and procedures that delay proper medical care for an abortion.
According to the World Health Organization (2019) based on data they have gathered from years 2010 - 2014, there are roughly, or approximately 25 million unsafe abortions worldwide that are being performed through the aforementioned factors; annually. One third of which or approximately million were carried out by unsafe persons and/or methods that are deemed medically dangerous and invasive.
Taking into account the developed regions, it is approximated that 30 women succumb for every 100,000 unsafe abortions that are carried out. The number continues to rise to 220 deaths per 100,000 unsafe abortions in developing regions, and 520 per 100,000 in sub-Saharan Africa.
Mortality due to unsafe abortions disproportionately affects the women of Africa. As of which the continent accounts for 29% of all unsafe abortions that are carried out globally, it sees 62% of deaths related to unsafe abortions.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, there are a myriad of proof and references about the possible positive effects if abortion is legalized throughout the world. Although there are also numerous amounts of evidences that tells us the negative effects of abortion to women’s health. But the whole point here is if all of the mass can provide or understand the specific definition of abortion, stances such as political, societal, and specifically the religious stance can be all set aside to pave way for the proper legalization of the said law. With the vast variety in the definitions of abortion, it remains to be fully legalized up to this day. With such definitions stemming certain political, social – sometimes religious stances, laws, regulations, conditions and procedures around the world regarding the legalization of the access to abortion are using these often biased views as the basis of legality. The absolute lack of a sole meaning posing a variety of problems and prejudice to a myriad of women around the globe, with laws that stemmed from a certain definition of abortion may not be as beneficial to the people living under a different country with the same abortion law – but conjured and established from a different societal or social view, therefore robbing women of benefits and the proper care other women from under countries with different laws benefit