Archives

Out of focus by Nimanthi Perera-Rajasingham

Reproductive rights for women is an essential part of many development programs that wish to control population and above all enable women to make decisions regarding their sexual rights. Knowledge of reproductive health means our ability to decide when to have children and when not to. The work to make available such information for women often began even prior to feminist movements and has historically grown from strength to strength. Only conservative elements such as the Christian Right and other fundamental groups seem to challenge the necessity of reproductive rights for women.

In many countries today, it has been established that programs that develop women's and general population awareness can help attenuate numerous problems relating to health issues, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and population control. The ratification of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) by 179 countries at Cairo in 1994 helped to promote reproductive rights globally. Since this important moment in the history of reproductive health programs, women throughout the world have benefited from having more and more access to knowledge about their own reproductive rights. It is an accepted fact, however, that there is still much to do.

From the 11-17 December 2002, The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) organized the Fifth Asian and Pacific Population Conference in Bangkok. The program of action called for stabilizing the world's population at no more than 9.8 billion by 2050 and it urged countries to make healthcare widely accessible, reduce maternal mortality, provide universal access to primary education and stem the spread of HIV and AIDS. The program also suggested that where abortion is legal, it should be made safe.

This conference was attended by 35 countries of the region. Unfortunately, there was one country, the United States of America, that debunked efforts to further fund programs that accelerate the access women had to knowledge about reproductive rights. The Bush administration's contention was that terms such as 'reproductive services' and 'reproductive health care' implied a right to abortion.

U.S. aggressive attitudes in this manner have led to strong reactions from numerous sources. Dr. Nina Puri, Chairperson of the International Planned Parenthood Federation's South Asia Region, stated, "When repeated attempts are made to snuff out the voice of 3.8 billion people of the Asia Pacific Region by one super power, the United States, it imperils the lives of some of the poorest women and children and families in the world, endangering the health and welfare of not only this generation, but of generations to come."

Of the 35 countries that voted the US on this issue, a majority of 31 nations agreed to veto American objections and to reaffirm their commitment to women's rights to reproductive care. One of the two countries that abstained from voting was none other than Sri Lanka. The other country was Nepal. Why Sri Lanka chose through this abstention to support American policies that are harmful to women's rights is a major cause for concern. It definitely seems to signal our inability to take a morally correct decision if it means defying American policies. This has often been labelled the global gag rule, where funding and financial support from a certain country may mean, following the rules of the donor country regarding crucial decisions of the receiver country.

Anand Tamarang Director of the Centre for Research on Environment, Health and Population in Nepal points to problems of this nature. Tamarang states, "My organization made the difficult decision to not accept US funds because it would have meant signing onto the global gag rule. We feel that providing policy-relevant research and advocacy on the impact of our harsh abortion laws is crucial to saving women's lives and crucial to our democratic process. One out of every five women in prison in Nepal are there for having an abortion. All of them are from the villages and are poor, illiterate and 'voiceless'."

It is furthermore surprising to learn of such a vote on Sri Lanka's part considering the fact that Sri Lanka has always boasted low birth rates, high levels of health care and a good spread of information regarding contraceptives, and other forms of birth control. It must also be noted that the Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka was not invited by the Government to attend the conference in Bangkok, but rather that a UNF minister represented Sri Lanka at this session. The question is of who has the authority to speak on such matters? How is it that an association long related to reproductive health is not even invited by the Government to attend the meeting?

In the US itself, the Republicans are trying to introduce reforms which make abortion less and less accessible for American women. Conservative elements within the Bush administration are taking America away from its progressive attitudes in regards to issues relating to women's reproductive rights. For example, there have been numerous propaganda attempts where the use of contraceptives is shown as unsafe.

The advice that has replaced models of safe sex, has been a model that propagates abstinence instead. There have been no studies done, however, which suggest that the abstinence model has ever been successful.

American attitudes were made very clear when President Bush withdrew funding from America's $34 million 2002 contribution to the U.N. family-planning program last year. If the trend continues, then countries with more conservative attitudes will follow suit and funding will be withheld for important programs relating to women's health and reproductive rights.

This may mean that support for programs so far considered crucial will be withdrawn. If this happens then, more and more women will die at childbirth, will be forced to bear children against their will, will have no knowledge of how to plan pregnancies, and will generally face deteriorating health standards as a result Sri Lanka's inability to speak against the US aggression in these matters is deplorable. In future will this also mean that the Sri Lankan Government will withhold money and aid to women regarding their means to birth control and access to safe sex? We seem to be fast moving in the direction of a Banana Republic, unable to decide for ourselves what is important for the citizens of our own country.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager