A number of the members of the Cabinet's Commission on Women's Rights Promotion (CWRP) who work for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) recently tendered their resignations after the Cabinet proposed a draft amendment to the Genetic Health Law (
We are writing this piece because we feel it's necessary for the public to gain a better understanding of the stance of the commission's NGO members.
Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) said at the 25th session of the CWRP that the Cabinet would not propose any controversial bills to the legislature. Following the session, the Department of Health convened a meeting to discuss the issue but did not reach a consensus or even approach anything close to an agreement. This only goes to show that certain details of the amendment remain highly controversial.
The CWRP has on numerous occasions tried to make the government understand that it should take a more cautious approach when discussing a controversial bill such as the Genetic Health Law. Unfortunately, on Oct. 18 the Cabinet still gave its approval to this controversial amendment.
We would like to express our regret over its action.We believe that the major problem of this amendment is found in Article 11, which requires women who intend to have an abortion to consult with doctors, mandates a three-day reflection period and forces them to sign a written agreement.
We believe that the compulsory consultation and reflection period denies the ability of women to think independently and make their own decisions.
From the moment a woman learns that she is pregnant, the issues surrounding her pregnancy take the highest priority in her thoughts. Pregnancy is such a serious issue that women are well aware of the pros and cons of a decision whether to give birth or terminate the pregnancy, so they certainly don't walk into a clinic in a fog.
The health department fears that women will make careless decisions because they are not fully informed or are not old enough to understand their situation. This is nonsense. If the reflection and consultation period were mandated, it would only delay the inevitable.
What women need most is helpful guidance from professional and responsible obstetric medical teams, as well as gender equality, sexual education and reproductive health support centers. They do not need more restrictions placed on their ability to have an abortion, as this would only lead to more women turning to unsafe, alternative methods of terminating their pregnancy.
The UN and its subsidiary organizations, such as the Population Reference Bureau and the WHO, have repeatedly emphasized the need to ensure that women's rights are upheld.
If Taiwan passes a law that conflicts with this effort, it would only hinder the nation's effort to become a member of the UN or a signatory member of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The law stipulates that minors must receive permission from their legal guardian to have an abortion. Since there is now no alternative legal procedure for these young women to get an abortion, they often turn to easily obtained illegal medications to terminate their pregnancy. This is the most troubling outcome of all.
While the intention behind adding a mandatory consultation and waiting period is good, it would only push women toward seeking illegal abortions. We believe that the recently passed amendment needlessly increases the difficulties for pregnant women and is a step backward for the Genetic Health Law.
The members of this commission who work for NGOs have long been concerned about revisions to the law because we care about women, but even more because we care for children.
We hope that all parents treasure their children, that every birth is a hoped for blessing and that every child can grow up healthily. We firmly believe that healthy, happy and confident mothers will have children with these traits.
Annie Lee and the other 15 authors are current or former members of the Commission on Women's Rights Promotion who work with non-governmental organizations. Translated by Daniel Cheng and Marc Langer
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS