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
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS