“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
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
RSS