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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS