How Reproductive Rights Are Seen as an International Issue
No matter how much women throughout history have fought to obtain autonomy of their bodies and reproductive rights, as long as the ruling body of a nation does not wish for it, it will not be granted. Why? That is because ruling bodies and governments do not always see reproductive rights as a part of basic human rights, rather as a form of control. This control can take many forms which include the control of population control under the pretense of family planning and control under the basis of sex.
‘Protection of women’s reproductive health has not been a priority for governments, as reflected by the laws they have created’ [6].
— Rebecca J. Cook
Reproductive Rights as a Form of Population Control
In the subsection " Reproductive Rights in Other Countries: A Set of Two Case Studies” of this exhibit there is a case study of forced sterilization of women in Uzbekistan. This forced sterilization that has occurred for more than a decade in waves was implemented by the government of Uzbekistan. Even though the government continues to deny its existence, there have been thousands of reports both by victims and doctors that have performed these procedures [2]. The Uzbekistan government created this program as a form of population control since Uzbekistan is a heavily patriarchal country where big families are seen as a form of success, especially for women. This is a prime example of how governments do not see reproductive rights as human rights, but rather a form of population control and how they have been implemented through laws that prohibit reproductive rights or are lacking in protecting those rights.
Reproductive Rights as a Form of Control on the Basis of Sex
Protests against South Korea's abortion laws have become increasingly vocal in recent years.
‘Neglect of women's reproductive health, perpetuated by law, is part of a larger, systematic discrimination against women’ [6].
— Rebecca J. Cook
Throughout history, human societies have almost entirely been patriarchal in nature. In today’s society, this need for men to be the provider has diminished, but people’s ideas have not. While women in more developed countries do not need to depend on men anymore, the sexism and misogyny that stem from patriarchal societies still exist.
After a meeting between countries in 2019, Under Trump’s administration as part of the “war on women” unofficial efforts, a joint statement was presented to the United Nations where they rejected the implementation of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights (SRHR). SRHR is part of the Universal health coverage (UHC) which is part of global efforts for reaching the United Nations Agenda of 2030. The United States with other 18 countries (Bahrain, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen) informed the United Nations that they rejected the implementation of SRHR because of ‘ambiguous terms’:
“’We do not support references to ambiguous terms and expression, such as sexual and reproductive health and rights in UN documents, because they can undermine the critical role of the family and promote practices, like abortion, in circumstances that do not enjoy international consensus and which can be misinterpreted by UN agencies’” [7].
It did not matter if the UN terms were ambiguous or not, it was only used as a way to get rid of SRHR. By stating that it could ‘undermine the critical role of the family’ it reinforces the patriarchal ideals that still hold place today, and in essence, the control of women’s bodies. It was never about women’s reproductive rights because if it was then it would be the women’s decision on how they wanted to plan their families.
[2] Antelava, Natalia. “Report: Tens of Thousands of Women Forcibly Sterilized in Uzbekistan.” Open Society Foundations, December 2013. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/forced-sterilization-women-uzbekistan
[6] Cook, Rebecca J. “International Human Rights and Women’s Reproductive Health.” Studies in Family Planning 24, no. 2 (1993): 73–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939201.
[7] Gilby, Lynda, and Meri Koivusalo. “Universal Health Coverage: Another Political Space in Which to Expand the Elimination of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Reproductive Rights.” Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 28, no. 2 (2020): 22–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48617664.