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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS