Recent reports indicate that the legislature has passed a second reading of a draft amendment to the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act (菸害防制法) that would bar women from smoking while pregnant. It is very possible that the ban will come with a penalty. However, whether this will have any effect remains doubtful.
Because the birth rate is declining, the government is passing various regulations in hopes of raising the birth rate or protecting the health of unborn children.
Last year, an amendment to the Genetic Health Law (
Beginning this year, pregnant women will be required to undergo an AIDS test and now a law may prohibit pregnant women from smoking. These measures are part of a trend: the government's plan is to put all the responsibility of the health of children on the mother through the imposition of penalties.
This is not a well-thought out plan. It attempts to fix problems by papering them over instead of addressing the root causes. The measures are based on the conclusion that fetuses cannot protect themselves and therefore the government must ensure their safety by punishing any mother who harms them.
The relationship between a pregnant woman and her child is not one of two independent people. Instead, it is a highly interdependent relationship between the provider and her charge. In other words, the fetus is unable to exist without its mother providing it with nutrition, removing toxins and receiving regular obstetric exams to uncover any problems. At the same time, the fetus can cause injury to the mother through a miscarriage or delivery complications.
Given that a fetus depends on its mother, threatening a mother with penalties could have negative consequences. Some women do behave irresponsibly while pregnant. In order to avoid being penalized, they might choose not to have obstetric examinations so that their smoking or drug use would not be discovered.
It is not easy to tell whether a pregnant woman has been smoking. In the past, officials at the Department of Health have encouraged people to photograph pregnant women smoking as evidence.
During the first trimester, it usually is not clear that a woman is pregnant. Once she is in the later stages of pregnancy, if a woman is standing by the side of the road smoking, what will taking a photograph accomplish? Without a system for compulsory pregnancy tests, how can we prove she was pregnant? Even with mandatory testing, what legal basis would there be to force photographed women to undergo a health examination?
Infertility and child deformities can also be caused by men who drink and smoke. If we follow the government's logic, smoking and drinking should be banned altogether.
Because the government is ignoriing these problems, the inability to enforce the ban on smoking for pregnant women means that the amendment would be nothing more than a symbolic written expression of opposition to smoking while pregnant. This is hardly an an effective use of tax money and time.
Protecting unborn children by threatening their mothers with penalties is nonsense. If we want to boost the declining birth rate, we should first work to improve the factors that discourage people from having children. Implementing policies with incentives to encourage people to get married and have children is the only effective method.
Carol Lin is an assistant professor at the Institute of Technology Law at National Chiao-Tung University.
Translated by 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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS