A bill put foward by Tory MP Nadine Dorries which would have forced schools to promote ‘abstinence’ (not having sex), was ditched on Friday.
Whatever the political shenanigans which led to Dorries withdrawing her bill, one thing is certain: the Tories’ policies on women, sex and marriage, are as backwards, patriarchal and patronising as ever.
Needless to say, this ‘abstinence’ would have been taught exclusively to female students. At the same time, Tories are forcing newly-converted academies to emphasise the supposed superiority of marriage as a form of relationship.
The proposal and subsequent withdrawal of the bill comes against a backdrop of a global increase in the number of abortions carried out without proper supervision.
WHO (World Health Organisation) studies show that although global abortion rates are steady at 28 per 1,000 women a year; the proportion of these carried out without trained medical care has risen from 44% in 1995 to 49% in 2008.
Unsafe abortions in insanitary and makeshift conditions are the principal cause of mothers dying in childbirth.
Numbers show that while global abortion rates have only risen slightly, a general decrease in developed countries is compensated for by the spike in unsafe abortions carried out in illegal or unsafe conditions.
97% of abortions in Africa are described in this way; with 95% in Latin America, 40% in Asia and 9% inEurope. Countries with more restrictive laws on abortion have the highest rates of abortions carried out without adequate medical supervision.
The fact that abortion is rising in countries where it is most forcefully repressed shows that reducing abortions is not the ultimate purpose of passing laws outlawing the practice.
Since governments who punish women seeking abortions are not known for their progressive stance towards adoption and funding childcare services, we must find another reason for the violent suppression of woman’s right to control her own fertility.
Legal bans are combined with promoting the idea of abstinence, reinforcing the rights of men within in marriage and banning women from education.
The purpose of such measures is to strengthen the economic, social and cultural bonds which keep the vast majority of women subjugated under the patriarch’s heel.
Outlawing the right of women to control their own bodies is the harshest expression of a society in which women are expected to devote their entire lives to the thankless, unpaid tasks of raising children, maintaining homes and caring for the sick.
The debate over ‘pro-life’ is a sham designed to make women feel more maternal and reinforce social attitudes that all women should be dominated by their maternal instincts, and that women who don’t want children are in some way unnatural.
A society built on the economic and social primacy of men is inevitably a society terrified that women might rebel against the ‘natural role’ assigned to them by their sex, and institutionalised by patriarchal society.
The rise in illegal abortions shows that women living in poverty, unable to care adequately for their children, with no access to family planning facilities, will risk death to undergo an abortion.
Even in the UK abortions on the NHS are restricted to the first 24 weeks, and require the consent of two doctors. Presumably the idea that women need the consent of doctors for a personal decision reflects that fact that our society cannot accept the idea that women are as autonomous and rational as men.
Gaining control over their reproductive capability is a fundamental step for women struggling to win total control over their own lives; it allows them greater control over their career, the financial burden of childcare, and removes the fear of unplanned preganancy which clouds the horizons of millions of women.
Making abortion free and available to all at their own choice is a precondition of building a society where men and women can stand on an equal footing.
All women should have access to free contraception and free medical abortions without having to need the consent of two doctors.
Our bodies belong to us, and to us alone.
Read more
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Tory schools teach marriage right, choice wrong
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Tory dinosaurs attack the science in sex education
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Socialism and Women’s Liberation
.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Where does the money in a socialist society come from in order to pay for free contraception for everybody? I’m guessing people are forced to pay for other’s contraceptives under penalty of fine or imprisonment? What about those that disagree and think that consensual sexual intercourse is an individual’s responsibility and they should therefore provide the resources needed themselves? Can we opt out?
It’s worth noting that people can voluntarily fund free contraception and abortions through charity.
The money to pay for it would come from general taxation, ie everyone pays for it, and everyone has access to it. I am guessing you don’t live in a country with government provided healthcare? In the UK the government funds a National Health Service, whereby all healthcare (save a few things that are privatised) are free at the point of use. We all just pay with our taxes. Contraceptives are free and available from any doctors clinic or hospital for anyone who wants them. Works great, and the UK’s rates of teen pregnancy and STIs are much lower than in the US.
By providing free contraceptives you also make large savings because:
a) there are less unwanted children who get put into care, less women are forced to give up work/education because of unplanned pregnancies
b) less sexually transmitted diseases and generally healthier sexually active population, creates savings in healthcare costs, the more contraceptive you give away free, the less STIs you have to pay to treat
So why would you opt out when paying for other people benefits society as a whole, and therefor you? Are you that seflish? You really want to opt out of paying for contraception? Can we then opt out of paying for wars? Or roads? Or damaging nuclear power plants? Or bank bailouts? Those who argue for opt outs on moral/ethical grounds are rarely prepared to grant it when socialists ask for it in return
If you’ve got a really right-wing individualist viewpoint you might regard your taxes paying for someone else’s healthcare (which contraceptives are) as being “forced to pay”, but socialists take the view that society is better run collectively, everyone pays through their work and taxes, and everyone has the same access to services, inequality is eliminated and everyone benefits. If you fund it the capitalist way, then only those with money have access to services, and the poor and working-class suffer immeasurably.
You can fund SOME abortions and SOME contraception through charity, but you can never provide a comprehensive service for everyone, many will lose out and not have access. Charity relies overwhemlingly on the poor giving to the poor, while the rich get off donating next to nothing. Its a get out for the rich so they don’t have to pay their taxes, which is just the way we reclaim the wealth they have managed to steal from the working -class, which you call profit.