Hundreds of thousands of American women are expected to converge on Washington today for a march the organizers claim will be the biggest in the history of women's rights -- the March For Women's Lives.
Banners will call for the protection in law of a woman's right to abortion, which US President George W. Bush and his chums on the Christian right have energetically been trying to erode. The right to abortion is an issue that attracts a large consensus across different groups of women, and Uma Thurman, Charlize Theron, Cindy Crawford and Jennifer Aniston are just some of its high-profile supporters. Heavyweight liberal groups such as the National Organization of Women and the American Civil Liberties Union will be marching alongside small local groups.
The battle between activists supporting and opposing abortion rights is well known, but another fight about the fetus has been less publicized: State prosecutors are telling American women exactly what they can and can't do when they are pregnant -- and those who disobey are ending up in jail.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
In the name of fetal rights, women across the US have been dragged bleeding from hospitals into prison cells hours after giving birth, charged with homicide following stillbirths, pinned to hospital beds and forced to have Caesareans against their will or had their babies removed at birth after a single positive test for alcohol or drugs. Since the mid-1970s around 300 women have been arrested for these transgressions, and 30 states now have fetal homicide laws.
Each new law that empowers the fetus correspondingly disempowers the mother. The new Unborn Victims of Violence Act that Bush signed into law earlier this month gives the fetus separate legal rights from its mother in the event of an attack on the mother that kills or injures the fetus.
Pro-choicers have described it as a threat to a woman's right to choose, but Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, argues that it will adversely affect pregnant women far more. "Under state Unborn Victims of Violence laws, the pregnant woman often becomes little more than collateral damage. This act will not increase funding for battered women's shelters nor launch a campaign to address the violence against women and girls which abounds in our country."
According to anti-abortionists, pregnancy is sacred and mustn't be tampered with, but many of their opponents have overlooked the wedge that this drives between a mother and her fetus. Paltrow, who will be marching today, says that it is not only women who don't want to be pregnant who are targeted by the "pregnancy police," but also those who do want to be, a disproportionate number of whom are poor and black.
The most recent case of criminalizing a mother for her conduct during pregnancy is that of 28-year-old Melissa Ann Rowland in Utah, who was charged with murder after one of the twins she was carrying was stillborn. She had a Caesarean section but prosecutors argued that her insistence on delaying the surgery had led to the stillbirth. Rowland, a drug user, was sent to prison the day after her Caesarean was carried out. She said from her cell: "I've never refused a C-section. I've already had two prior C-sections."
The first-degree murder charge was later reduced to two counts of child endangerment, to which she pleaded guilty.
Paltrow argues that the murder charge violated Rowland's constitutional and common law right to refuse medical advice.
"This is not only a clear misuse of the law, it is dangerous to children and fundamentally dehumanizing to pregnant women and their families," she says.
Angela Carder, 27, was seriously ill with cancer in 1987 when she was 25 weeks pregnant. Against her will and that of her family, a Caesarean was performed to protect the legal rights of the fetus, despite medical evidence to a court that surgery could kill her. In fact, it resulted in her death and that of the fetus.
Stacey Gilligan, 22, was prosecuted after her son tested positive for alcohol when he was born in Glens Falls, New York, last September. A few days after the birth she was arrested and charged with two counts of child endan-germent for "knowingly feeding her blood" containing alcohol to her fetus via the umbilical cord. Earlier this month her lawyers appealed successfully against her conviction.
There is no organization devoted to lobbying against mothers who "commit crimes" against their fetuses. The moves against these women all come from state prosecutors, often working hand in hand with medical staff who care for pregnant women. Because laws vary from state to state, women have dramatically different experiences depending on their zip code, the color of their skin and the size of their bank balances.
The National Right to Life Committee -- the main US opponent of legal abortion -- is against criminalizing pregnant women.
"Rather than putting more punishment into women's lives, we want to see dignity in both the mother and the child's life," spokeswoman Olivia Gans says.
"There are certain risks like drug abuse for some population groups when they are pregnant. We need to identify these women and work within communities, establishing better programs which find out what the difficulties are in these women's lives," Gans says.
The debate about the effects of cocaine on the fetus is inconclusive. In the late 1980s, after a spate of media stories about an epidemic of "crack babies," a policy was established to remove all babies from mothers who used crack during their pregnancies. When hospitals found themselves with nurseries full of healthy newborns, the policy was quietly shelved.
In South Carolina, where fetal rights enjoy an especially elevated status in law, Regina McKnight, 27, a homeless drug user who was addicted to crack during her pregnancy, was given a 12-year sentence for homicide after her third child was stillborn in May 1999. Despite the American Nurses Association, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs and the South Carolina Medical Association all filing briefs supporting McKnight in her court case and arguing that there was no medical proof that cocaine had caused the stillbirth, the conviction stands.
In 2001, 10 women from South Carolina won a case at the US Supreme Court claiming that their federal rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches. These women had been covertly tested for drugs while receiving antenatal care at the Medical University of South Carolina, a policy the hospital no longer practices.
Laverne Singleton, 47, one of the 10, tested positive for cocaine while in labor at the hospital in 1989. Hours after giving birth to a healthy baby, she was arrested by police in her hospital room and charged with unlawful neglect of a child. Handcuffed and wearing only a hospital gown, she was taken out of hospital in a wheelchair and detained for a week.
"By the time I got to the cell, my gown was covered in blood because I was hemorrhaging," she said.
"But the staff had no sympathy and no remorse for what they did to me. As soon as I gave birth they took my baby away. I never even got to look at his face. He was put into foster care and I had to fight through the courts to get him back," Singleton said.
What comes across is these women's passionate love for their children, often the only positive force in their lives.
Crystal Ferguson, who took part in the case and was arrested at the hospital after giving birth to a healthy baby, says: "People think this is the land of rights, but it isn't for people like me. I took this action for my children so that they will be able to make better choices than I ever had the opportunity to make."
"The South Carolina case was never about protecting children," Paltrow says. "It was all about punishing the women."
While US law increasingly treats fetuses as cherished royalty, it is a different story once they take their first breath.
"The US has a phenomenal disregard for the well-being of families. Almost every problem is seen as one of personal responsibility rather than social or community responsibility," Paltrow says.
"Eleven million children have no health insurance and 25 percent of them are living below the poverty line. Fetal rights are being used as weapons of maternal destruction. Women have achieved rights in the US but now these rights are hanging by a thread," she said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing