Abortion: PRO and CONTRA

      Julia Kachalova, Elena Chernomazova

Every woman in Russia faces the unpleasant prospect of abortion once in her life. Or almost every woman. Many have gone through it more than once. According to government data, the number of abortions for every 100 live births in 1992 was 216; in 1993, 235; and in 1994, 217. The drop in the number of abortions recorded since 1994 probably testifies more to poorly reported "mini-abortions" and the total lack of statistics from the commercial sector, than to any decrease in the popularity of this method of regulating births.
There has been a great deal of discussion on the problem of abortion both in this country and abroad: legal, medical, moral/ethical and so on. In this country, these arguments either assume the character of an appeal to the interests of unborn children, or are held within the frameword of purely medical terminology. Recently, more and more politicians have been turning to this theme, campaigning basically on populist platforms and playing on the threat of the "extinction of the nation". The results of certain parties' legislation in the area of family planning sound like something from the pens of Ilf and Petrov. The National Bolshevik party has proposed legislation prohibiting abortions, calling for the publication of the names of doctors who do abortions and women who have had them, as well as for the docking of the latter's salaries.
There has been unprecedented growth in the Ministry of Health's legislation: in 1993 alone, more than four decrees were published concerning family planning. In 1994, the Ministry proposed legislation for changing the kinds of medical assistance included in the Russian Federation's national health care program. According to this legislation, the performing of abortions should be removed from the list of procedures offered as part of mandatory federal health insurance. (A.A. Popov. The De-monopolization of Family Planning Policy in Russia, 1995. Nos. 3 - 4.)
In many parts of the country, abortion has been turned into a procedure beyond the means of most women; this in a country where there was until recently a complete lack of sex education, contraceptives (except for the most primitive) were practically unavailable, and 70% of all pregnancies were ended in abortion; in a country where it was traditionally the woman's fault if she got pregnant, and women became more and more materially vulnerable every year. Such policies by the Ministry of Health will leave women with virtually no reproductive rights, and the first to suffer will be those who cannot afford to pay. One thing is clear: no matter in what context the problem of abortion is discussed and whatever decisions are made on it, they practically never are held nor adopted with concern for women's rights.
The Russian Association for Family Planning has done a special study called "Abortion Through the Eyes of Women", in which the social and psychological aspects of the problem were examined. It became clear as a result of this that 43% of the women surveyed consider abortion as an operation harmful to their health. Statistics show that these fears are not ungrounded: maternal mortality as a result of abortion runs around 25 - 27%. The most common complications following abortion are inflammation, interruption of menstrual patterns, infertility, endometrios, and sometimes the development of chronosepsis, myoma of the uterus and hypertekos of the ovaries.
For 15% of women, abortions are not only physically but psychologically traumatic. As Scarlett O'Hara of Gone With the Wind remarked, it's psychologically much more difficult for a woman not to have a baby than to have one; especially if it's done clumsily and carelessly, as a fifth of the women surveyed had experienced. Half the women did not receive the psychological support they needed, and 13% of those surveyed were given no anesthetic during the operation.
The consulting services available to women both before and after abortion remain beyond belief. For example, only half the women surveyed received any kind of special counselling, and only a quarter of the women had opportunity to discuss precautions available against unwanted pregnancy.
In October of last year, the third Russian conference on family planning, "The Right to Reproductive Choice: Safe Abortion and Contraception", was held in Moscow. The conference's resolution asserted "the need to develop legislation guaranteeing the right of women to reproductive choice, and the preservation of their reproductive health", and emphasized the extreme importance of making funds "permanently available for the financing of federal programs in the area of family planning and safe maternity. The foundation of any system of mandatory health insurance should include standardized abortion services, and the performing of various kinds of abortions. Women must be provided with full counselling on the subject of contraception, and informed of the methods available; a family planning service must also be developed, along with creating a program of sex education."
It's encouraging that the matters dealt with in the resolution are stated in such a fashion. This fact alone shows that this document reflects and takes into consideration the interests of Russian women. The document's only worrying features are its declaratory tone, and the absence of any hard figures for realizing concrete programs, which would indicate that the resolution's provisions will not really be carried out. Out of all the conference's materials, we were able to find only one figure: "In 1994-95, 36.9 million rubles were earmarked for the President's "Family Planning" program". This went on to explain: "The bulk of the funds went for the creation of a material and technical base of operations for implementing family planning on the federal and territorial levels; and also for the purchase of contraceptives and providing information to specialists and the general population". It is not clear just what Russians received, or in what amount, from the funds so generously supplied by the government for their needs. We therefore do not recommend that you especially count on the President's program, or expect nature to be kind in the belief that anyone can get pregnant except you. We advise you to look to the admirable example set by American women.
In 1969, a number of women got together, calling themselves a "group dissatisfied with their doctors". They were irritated by the humiliating attitude and unobjectivity of their physicians; and also, their own ignorance regarding their bodies. These women didn't limit themselves to empty complaints: they tore into a mountain of medical literature, consulted numerous doctors and medical students, and transformed their own personal experience and the experience of other women. At the end of four years' work, the first edition of the original Our Bodies, Our Selves came out, a wonderful encyclopedia for women. This book was written by women, and therefore does not simply describe in detail what happens to our bodies over the course of our lives; from one's earliest years into old age, it gives strong psychological support. We'd like to present several excerpts from this book on the problem of abortion: "To keep one's baby or have an abortion--this is a serious choice. You will have to decide depending on your needs, opportunities, responsibilities, hopes, and what is most important to you personally and those around you. We believe that accidental pregnancy and premature motherhood are morally untenable... When you think about having an abortion and decide where you want it done, you have the right to know which procedures are used in each stage of pregnancy, what the risks are, the possibility of complications and the cost... Sometimes, women feel guilty for the cutting short of a potential life, which is completely understandable in a society that condemns abortion. The feeling of guilt can turn into a fear of 'punishment'. Many women fear that in the future, they won't be able to have a baby. The movement to ban abortions knew how to use these fears... An abortion does not lower the chances of having a healthy baby in the future. It is believed that a large number of abortions somewhat increases the danger of miscarriages, but this question has not been studied adequately".
Abortion is far from the best method of birth control. It is an extreme measure. We call for the discussion on it from the position of women's interests, as they alone risk their health and lives in bearing the weight of the operation and its consequences. That abortions in Russia are so widespread is explained in our view not by such objective facts as the inavailability of contraceptives or the inadequacy of information on the means of preventing pregnancy. A no less significant role is played by the mentality and behaviour based on the traditional idea that all responsibility for birth control lies with the woman. This leads to the man "forgetting" to discuss with the woman the questions of preventing pregnancy, and the woman being embarrassed about making her partners "uncomfortable" by bringing up the subject. In families where the men share responsibility for birth control and there is no feeling of shame about sex between the partners, abortion is extremely rare. But since no method of contraception is 100% effective, abortion is one way out when prevention fails. It is a way out that allows women to decide for themselves whether they'll have children; and if so, how many and when.
We are used to the fact that we have the right to control our own lives; but this right is continually challenged by demographers, politicians, the clergy, etc. Sometimes this is done quietly and gradually; for example, Alexander Sinelnikov, the author of the article "Who is Interested in a Rise in the Birthrate--the State or the Family?" (The Family in Russia, 1995. Nos. 3 - 4.), calculates that if the present birthrate is maintained, the population of Russia will be halved in another two generations. Extrapolating his calculations 1,000 years, he comes to the conclusion that at the beginning of the fourth millenium, the citizens of Russia will number 150. No matter how sad it may be, we will have to open up the emptying Russian spaces to migrants from countries which have a higher birthrate. The author grudgingly concedes that this is not all that bad, from the viewpoint of "common human, and not national interests". But here he has another nightmarish thought: "How would it be if this decline in the birthrate touches the entire planet? This would lead to the inevitable extinction of the human race in approximately 1,000 years".
Such a prognosis perhaps would delight ecologists, who assert that our tormented planet has already been exhausted in satisfying the demands of the bourgeoning human race. But Sinalnikov is a demographer, not an ecologist; he is horrified. He howls to the government that "The idea that the interests of the individual or family are greater than those of society can be only a pretty slogan. If people must always be right in their disputes with the state, then they would stop paying taxes and serving in the army, which would lead any nation to collapse". But the state remains apathetic to the apocalypse threatening humanity in a thousand years. In conclusion, Sinelnikov grumbles that politicians generally prefer problems that can be solved before the next election. Since he can't rely on politicians for support, the author turns to the family and asks "Should the family be happy that the state, without understanding what it's doing, is sacrificing its own interests? This is exactly what's happening; it is sacrificing the interests of the family to those who wish to destroy the family as well". The demographer further laments that "the involvement of women in the work force...leads to a decline in the birthrate, and makes possible the dissolution of marriages on the initiative of women: economic dependence no longer keeps them from divorce...". One needs only to consider that Sinelnikov is outraged that according to sociological data, 43% of those surveyed consider the absence of love for their spouse sufficient reason for divorce!
True, he is wise enough to recognize that "the battling of the state, by means of prohibition and repression, with phenomena not condemned by the population, is almost always unsuccessful". However, he calls on the state to "influence popular opinion as to the ideal number of children in a family, and acceptable reasons for divorce". How? By using a clever psychological trick: "If we indicate in reports about accidents and murders (with which newspapers are now full) that the victim was an only child, many couples that have decided to limit the number of their children will understand that this is not in their interests". The thought that society might be ready to marshal its forces in the struggle against crime and war, but not against low birthrates, does not seem to occur to Sinelnikov.
We are not going to reveal our doubts about the infallibility of the author's calculations on the extinction of humanity, although it does strongly resemble the innkeeper's arithmetic in the fairy tale The Adventures of Buratino ("Five gold pieces times five gold pieces is one hundred gold pieces".) Quite frankly, we would not even mention them--just as we would not mention our doubts about Sinelnikov's list of priorities, or his numerous controversial ethnic recommendations--were it not for reports received not long ago from Croatian women. These graphically confirm that under certain political situations, priorities based upon such "scientific" and moral foundations can become the basis for government policy. And, as is easy to see, above all result in the deaths of women.

KEEP ABORTION IN CROATIA LEGAL!

Appeal for help REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN CROATIA: SHORT HISTORY OF THE CAMPAIGN

On 6th February 1996 Women's Human Rights group B.A.B.E. in Croatia launched an appeal to international community to help keep women's right to abortion and access to contraceptives legal. These are currently questioned by governmental Program for Demographic Development supported by extreme right-wing parties, Catholic church and government itself.

CURRENT SITUATION

According to existing law (dated from 1978) abortion in Croatia is available on request. However, women are exposed to heavy pressure from pro-life campaigns in media, pro-life posters are in most of state gynecological wards. Doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions on the ground of conscience objection. Women in such cases have to resort to private practice where the same operation costs them more than 300DM (this is an average monthly salary in Croatia). Some doctors now refuse to operate in hospitals on "conscientious grounds" but do the operations for high prices in private practice!
Attempt to criminalize abortion in Croatia was made in 1993. The protests of liberal press, women's groups, and, above all, international pressure succeeded in removing the threat. Women's groups from Croatia appeal to international women's community once again for support.
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT HELPED CROATIAN WOMEN TO KEEP ABORTION RIGHTS IN 1993. LET US DO IT AGAIN! YOU CAN HELP BY DOING ONE AR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
  • signing this petition
  • sending a letter of your own to institutions as quoted on the petition
  • collecting signatures among your circle of friends and acquaintances
  • SUPPORT TO CROATIAN WOMEN'S RIGHT TO LEGAL AND SAFE ABORTION

    Dear Sir/Madam we wish to express our deep concern over the latest infringements of women's human rights in Croatia. The news that in this century women's rights to safe and free abortion could be contested are indeed disturbing. The Platform for Action, adopted at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing as elementary document for women's advancement in countries around the world, states that each year 100,000 women die from unsafe abortions due to lack of access to contraceptives and legal, safe termination of pregnancy. The Program for Demographic Development which is currently discussed in Croatia offers nothing that the world has not seen before: often with catastrophic consequences. Whenever women have been denied the right to safe and legal abortion, the only demographic change that happened was an increase in women's mortality. NATIONAL BIRTH RATE HAS NEVER RAISED AS RESULT OF PROHIBITION OF ABORTION OR CONTRACEPTIVES. The example of Romania during Communist time tells it all. We feel that nothing can justify infringement of basic human rights. Interests of state or nation cannot be placed above lives and health of women. Croatian women have the same basic human rights as women of the world. We are willing to support them in their struggle to keep those rights.
    Therefore we urge:
    Mr Franjo Tudjman, President of Croatia;
    members of Croatian government;
    President of the Croatian Parliament;
    members of Human Rights Committee of Croatian Parliament;
    members of Social Democratic Party and members of Croatian Democratic Union to do all that is in their power to keep basic women's rights to safe abortion and access to contraceptives legal.
    Name
    Organisation/Profession
    Country
    Contact to B.A.B.E. Women's Human Rights Group: Cathrine Magelssen, Vesna Kesic, Vesna Radelic; e-mail:babe-zg@zamir-zg.ztn.apc.org tel/fax:+385 1 419 302

    BACK TO THE CONTENT

    BACK HOME