“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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS