A bug that scares many, but not all. Evidently, that silent tide that gave the presidency to donald trump, also plays: Missouri declared itself the first state to ban abortion after the high court’s decision, followed immediately by Texas. And a dozen more states are expected to join in the coming weeks.
Probably the ‘republican wave’ is not so effusive, not always so virtuous when it comes to the complex analysis that the social sciences imply. But that puts forward the natural origin of things and individual responsibility as a shield against the advances of progressive youth. Or even the maintenance of the pre-existing order. That is why it is not surprising when the sentence maintains that “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion and such right is not implicitly protected in any constitutional provision.”
That’s right, gentlemen, it seems that history is not a dynamic movie, but a static photo that you have to hold on to. At least that’s how it is seen by three of the judges appointed by donald trump. And speaking of the recent former president, when asked about his influence on the ruling, he only managed to answer thate “God made the decision.”
It is important to highlight that the lack of rationality not only has its derivation in ecclesiastical logic, but also within ‘earthly rationality’. How will they be able to contrast the free mobility of productive factors – since neoliberal conservatism combines everything – with the right to free movement that would allow the inhabitants of one State to travel to another to have an abortion? Or even that abortion medications are ordered by mail from another State of the country? Will they ban it violating the right to privacy?
It is not very clear, but the right always has an exit discursive slope. Without going too far, in our country the candidate for libertarian president pointed out: “Without life, there is no freedom or property. Long live life, damn it.” The proposal would then be to accompany the vulnerable woman and for the State to ‘provide her with security’. Which State, the one that they want to minimize –not to say implode-?
In a similar tone, the Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaroharshly criticized from his social networks the abortion performed on an 11-year-old girl pregnant by rape – despite the fact that in the event of rape, abortion is guaranteed by law -: “We know that this is a delicate case, but taking the life of an innocent person, in addition to violating the fundamental right of every human being, does not heal wounds or do justice to anyone, on the contrary, abortion only exacerbates this tragedy! There will always be other ways!”
The question that could be asked of Bolsonaro would be: What would be the other ways? Condemn her to misery because it will be really difficult for her to study or work with a baby as a girl, especially in the hyper-competitive world we live in? Now, in Brazil around 100 girls are raped every day, and the number of deaths of women victims of clandestine abortions increased by 233% from 2020 to 2021. But for that there is no answer on Twitter.
Similarly, in the last month of March, the Guatemalan Congress approved the law that criminalizes abortion. The government itself promoted the law, since it maintains that currently they want “introduce manipulated concepts of gender ideology, turning sexual identity into a simple fluctuating cultural construction”. We return to the same thing: What social theme is not fluctuating and dynamic? Or does only natural biology dictate the ‘manifest destiny’ – as the gringos of the north like to say – of the human being? In reality, the only thing that is not a manipulable social construct is hard data. And they indicate that in Guatemala, during the year 2021, 72,077 births were registered among women between the ages of 10 and 19, of which 2,041 were under 14 years of age at the time of delivery.
What we have then is that the majority of poor and marginalized women in Guatemala, lacking education, will only continue unaware of their subordinate position, dispensing with the protest discourse, without questioning the system that legitimizes and imposes unwanted pregnancies on them; They only have to develop survival strategies ‘as they can’ applied to their invisibility, in a process of submission and formal acceptance of social norms as a screen that violates them under a halo of normalization as the axis of the oppression they suffer daily.
Of course, the combo on the right is usually complete. Because not only the ‘innovative’ Guatemalan law protects the “right to life”, but also added the protection of “the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, in addition to the right of parents to guide their children in their sexuality. This is complemented by the prohibition that public and private educational entities teach sexual behaviors other than heterosexuality as normal, or that are incompatible with the biological and genetic aspects of the human being.
legal-abortion-united-states.webp
However, it should be clear that the discussion is not exclusive in terms of the development of a country -where the axis is found in the accessibility of the most neglected-, but in who can intervene more in ethical terms. It is that, for a long time, abortion has not been treated as a real part of people’s lives, but rather as a moral dilemma to be debated or a problem to be solved. The reality is that abortion is not a political statement, but is an experience lived by many people, regardless of their religion or belief, education or political ideology.
And if we put it in socio-economic terms, the benefits of having a safe abortion are clear. Statistics in the United States indicate that after Roe v. Wade, fewer children grew up living in poverty, in single-parent households, and headed by welfare recipients. On the other hand, there is evidence that the economic situation for women was directly improved by the legalization of abortion, especially as a key pillar of income equality. Could it be that there is an implicit machismo at a global level where the income of men is higher than that of women, since the latter are mostly in charge of children and household chores? Although things are changing, it is certainly still the case. Of course, machismo is a prior cause, but that’s another story; You have to attack all the variables simultaneously, beyond which one hits first or which one is more damaging.
Another fear that the conservative right viralizes is that by legalizing abortion, births will end. Of course not. Eirin Molland, a renowned Norwegian academic, explains that in her country the availability of abortion delayed fertility, but did not reduce family size, while also resulting in higher educational attainment and better labor market status for affected women. At the same time, found that the good results extended to the children of mothers who had access to termination of pregnancy.
Could it be that the size of the family has more to do with the systemic structure, the world system created in the image and likeness of current capitalism, with the consequent decrease in generalized income that leads to the human being no longer wanting to have children? , mainly due to the demands of productivity and the inability to provide a decent quality of life to the heirs?
We can discuss it. What is undeniable is that hindering the right to legal abortion only succeeds in promoting its secrecy, remaining outside the control of the State and increasing the rates of maternal mortality associated with abortion, mainly in women and people with the capacity to gestate minors. income. Thus, the illegality of abortion makes it a business for those who profit from this practice, while care for its complications and its consequences disproportionately increase direct costs for the health care system, mostly public. As the huge once said Edward Galeano: “Why is the right to abortion not legalized? Is it because then it would no longer be the privilege of the women who can pay for it and the doctors who can collect it?
Ultimately, legalizing abortion is guaranteeing women’s health and their sovereign right to decide about their bodies. But the reactionary right puts it in religious, moral and ideological terms, which in turn combines it within a great political, economic, health and social ‘exchange’. On the contrary, it has been experienced in recent years that the solidarity, support and empathy offered through the law and in pragmatic terms (doctors, social workers, etc.) for those who try to access abortion services, It has served enormously to positively affect the future of those who decide to make the difficult decision to abort. A collective contrary to the misogynistic and ethereal individualism under which the messianic right clings, always far from any public policy that tries to improve the quality of life of the disadvantaged majorities.
Economist and Doctor in International Relations. Twitter: @KornblumPablo
Source: Ambito
