WUNRN
Via Pro Feminism - Russia
RUSSIA - WOMEN OPPOSE RESTRICTION OF
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
ACTIVISM - FIGHT ABORTIONS, NOT
WOMEN
RUSSIA - CONTRACEPTION VS. ABORTION
RUSSIA - "MY BODY IS MY BUSINESS."
On June 18, 2011, a demonstration called
‘Fight abortions, not women!’ took place on Pushkin Square in Moscow, attended
by an alliance of Feminist groups (Pro-Feminism, the Moscow Radical Feminist
Group, and the Moscow Feminist Group), LGBT, and left-wing activist groups.
The demonstration was organized to oppose plans by the State Duma of the Russian Federation to restrict women’s reproductive rights and attempts to introduce in Russia a state policy of discrimination against women.
The draft bills ‘On the basics of healthcare for RF citizens’ and ‘On changes to the Federal law concerning the basic guarantees of the rights of children in the Russian Federation’ introduced to the specialized committee of the State Duma, respectively by the “Just Russia” party member Mizulina and the majority ‘United Russia’ party member Draganov contain the following restrictions on women’s reproductive rights:
·
· married
women would be permitted an abortion only with a husband’s written
permission (those underage would require their parents’ or guardians’
consent).
·
· sales
of morning after contraceptives would be prohibited.
·
· women
would be forced to look at a sonogram of the embryo, be consulted by
psychologists and priests in order to ‘recognize the reality of the
premeditated murder of an unborn child’.
·
· doctors
will be granted the right to refuse to carry out an abortion on the basis of
their beliefs or religious convictions.
·
· abortion
would be excluded from the system of obligatory medical insurance.
All of these measures contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Family Codex, in addition to a whole range of international documents ratified by Russia.
The introduced draft bills contradict several main paragraphs of the Constitution (19, 21, 23, 24, 28, 55), which guarantee equality under the law, the right to privacy, freedom of belief, protection from gender discrimination, torture, or any kind of coercion and violence.
The draft bills also contradict the Family Codex, and in particular the principle of the equality of spouses within the family, by granting a husband the right to make vitally important decisions concerning his wife (a legally adult and capable woman).
The proposed changes are an attempt to limit the human rights of women, which are guaranteed by the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993) and the Bejing Platform for action (1995): "96. The human rights of women include their right to have control over and make decisions freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including their sexual and reproductive health, free from coercion, discrimination and violence. Equal relationships between women and men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including full respect for the integrity of the person, require mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility for sexual behaviour and its consequences.."
The atmosphere of moral panic surrounding the public ‘discussion’ on these projects is a cause for deep concern. Apart from the failure of the state media to articulate dissenting opinions, the following abuses and manipulations are taking place:
Signification spiral - a mode of invoking social problems directed at increasing the perceived threat by means of equating a particular term with a social problem (e.g. artificial termination of pregnancy is called ‘murder’, and the decline in the fertility rate, ‘a national catastrophe’).
A conflagration of issues, whereby two types of activity are connected in order to exaggerate the size and effect of the danger, e.g. ‘the nation’s dying out’, wherein a complex issue of national health is reduced to the sole issue of abortions.
Constructing an ‘image of the Other’ in the person of a woman deciding to exercise her right to control her reproductive health. Representing opponents of the draft bills as ‘abortion defenders’. Substituting concepts like ‘embryo’ for ‘child’, ‘man’ for ’father’, ‘pregnant woman’ by ‘mother’ etc.
A rhetoric of catastrophe, employing the use of certain definitions which place a problematized condition-category within the moral universe of the discourse. This rhetoric of catastrophe is characterized by discourses and mental practices aimed at creating a feeling of impending catastrophe.
Direct mobilization, which means supporting and enabling pro-life groups.
The legitimization of many demands by calling upon ‘experts’ opinion’ and the elimination of contradictory interpretations which may cast doubt on the worldview being imposed.
This threat to women’s rights in the
Russian Federation is supported by the Russian Orthodox Church in an atmosphere
of growing religious fanaticism and constitutes a manifestation of violence
against women in the context of religious intolerance, as well as the Russian
government’s antisocial policy of curbing social support programs, primarily
those connected with education and healthcare.