“It was a horrible time,” said a Romanian gynecologist, referring to the period from 1966 to 1990 when abortion and contraception were completely banned under the dictatorship of Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu.
“Women refused to have sexual lives, resulting in family fights and abandonment,” she added. “For a woman, any sexual contact meant only panic and pain.”
As another Romanian who lived through the period put it: “It was impossible to have a normal sexual life because of fear of getting pregnant.”
If the US Republican Party has its way, millions of US women could soon come to know the same fear. Republican lawmakers in Georgia, Alabama and other states have enacted or are proposing outright abortion bans, hoping to bring the issue back before a sympathetic US Supreme Court and overturn the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.
In the absence of Roe’s constitutional protection of a woman’s right to have an abortion, the US would become a different society because, as in Ceausescu-era Romania, the government would police its members’ most personal choices.
It was not only women who suffered from the Ceausescu regime’s attacks on their bodily integrity. Far from strengthening the family, Romania’s draconian “pro-life” policies poisoned heterosexual intimacy, strained marriages and weakened social trust.
Monthly gynecological exams brought the state inside women’s uteruses and, by extension, into the bedroom. State surveillance of sexual activity resembled that of a farmer breeding livestock.
With provisions prohibiting women from going out of state for an abortion, or from using certain contraceptive methods (such as intrauterine devices), much of the new US legislation, if upheld by the Supreme Court, would expose women to a similar enforcement regime.
After the Ceausescu regime fell in December 1989, one of the interim Romanian government’s first moves was to decriminalize abortion. While debates about many aspects of the communist legacy soon erupted, few Romanians had any doubt that forcing women to have babies that they did not want had been disastrous for the country.
Even after three decades under the ban, Romania’s birth rate had not increased. Instead, Romanian women had undergone nearly 7.3 million back-alley abortions — an average of three apiece — from 1967 to 1989. At least 15,000 women died as a result of complications and untreated side effects. Romania’s infant mortality rate during this period was the highest in Europe, and anywhere from two to 59 times higher than that of other countries.
Although most Eastern bloc countries expanded women’s reproductive freedoms after Stalin’s death in 1953, by the late 1960s, communist leaders began to worry that declining birth rates would lead to future labor shortages.
However, while other East European countries addressed the issue through longer paid maternity leaves and higher childcare benefits, the Romanian government took a different path.
Prior to 1966, Romania had one of the most liberal abortion policies in the world, but desperate for population growth, Ceausescu issued Decree 770, essentially nationalizing Romanian women’s wombs.
Both abortion and contraception were criminalized for all women younger than 45 who had not given birth to at least four children (later increased to five). The only exceptions were for rape and incest, high-risk pregnancies and cases in which the fetus could contract a hereditary disease from either parent.
The law was strictly enforced. The Romanian secret police, the Securitate, registered suspected pregnancies and kept tabs on women until the birth of the child. It was the kind of natalist authoritarianism that US “pro-life” advocates have long dreamed of.
With challenges to Roe looming on the horizon, and with many US states having already denied access to abortion facilities and reproductive health services through other means, Romania’s experience shows what happens when women suddenly lose the right to control their own bodies. Without reproductive freedom, heterosexual sex turns into a game of “Russian roulette” for women, because they quite literally bear the consequences of any liaison. Alabama’s new law goes further than Ceausescu’s Romania, by eliminating even the exception for rape or incest.
Abortion opponents claim that banning it would promote marriage, strengthen families and restore traditional gender roles, but the Romanian case shows that a more likely scenario is a rapid increase in maternal mortality, an explosion of unwanted children and orphans, and a “sex recession,” as wives choose to avoid intimacy with their husbands altogether.
As in Romania, the state’s violent intrusion into the private sphere will upset the lives of men and women alike. The US can look forward to a future of bad sex and wrecked relationships.
It is time to face facts. A century of evidence from around the world shows that coercive reproduction policies correlate weakly with actual fertility rates. Women’s decisions about family size are based on material realities.
When basic food supplies are scarce — as in Romania in the 1980s — women are likely to risk their lives having back-alley abortions, for fear of lacking the means to care for a child. Where paid parental leave and childcare are absent or prohibitively expensive, as they are in the US, women are likely to make similar economic choices, regardless of the laws on the books.
After communism, Romania’s people recognized that democratic societies have a responsibility to guarantee women’s bodily autonomy, and to respect the right of all citizens to make their own decisions about whether and when to start or add to a family. It is odd that in the “land of the free,” one of the major parties would emulate a communist dictator.
Maria Bucur is professor of history and gender studies at Indiana University. Kristen R. Ghodsee is professor of Russian and East European studies at the University of Pennsylvania.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did