Gender rights in Taiwan are taking another step forward by potentially removing the need for married women to obtain permission from their spouse before having an abortion.
This clause, which has been in place since the Genetic Health Act (優生保健法) was passed in 1984, has been subject to much debate over the past decade.
In 2012, the Executive Yuan ordered the Health Promotion Administration (HPA) to change the clause and after a petition launched last month on the National Development Council’s Public Policy Network Participation Platform met the required threshold, the HPA announced that it needed to have a draft amendment by March.
A woman’s right to “bodily autonomy” should not be affected by her marital status, the petition says, adding that the risks and consequences of abortion are the woman’s to bear, and therefore should not be decided by anyone else.
This is a basic right that women should have and the change has been a long time coming.
Besides the expected objections from those who firmly oppose abortion unless under extenuating circumstances, supporters of the law also said that marriage is a partnership, so the decision to have a child should be decided by both spouses.
Ideally, in a healthy marriage, that should be the case — but a law to enforce consent would be unnecessary if all couples had a good relationship, were proficient communicators and could arrive at an amicable decision.
A marriage that needs the clause is likely one that is already headed in the wrong direction. The law should protect women in unfavorable circumstances, ranging from domestic abuse, where a woman might be in danger if she brings up the issue, to a soured relationship, where the husband might be unwilling to agree to anything, whether it be signing divorce papers or consenting to an abortion for whatever reason.
The issue could be as simple as the wife simply not wanting children, while the husband insists — abortions are time-sensitive and all he has to do is stall.
Protecting this women’s right is especially important in a patriarchal society, where women can still be looked down on for not having children and where it is often seen as the wife’s duty to her husband’s family.
If a pregnant wife does not want the child, the husband and their families might try all manner of ways to stop her from getting an abortion. In a society where in-laws still wield considerable power in a marriage, the woman can lose her bodily autonomy as she is reduced to just being a tool for fulfilling an outdated societal expectation.
Yes, the man plays an equal part in the pregnancy, but what about the aftermath? The husband could withhold his consent and walk away, but there is no law that requires him to support her throughout the pregnancy and help her to raise the child.
Another consequence of the clause is that, faced with no other option, women might seek out unlicensed abortion clinics, which are both illegal and unsafe.
Finally, the argument that the clause’s removal would cause the number of abortions to skyrocket is just ridiculous — and as tired as the argument that teaching children about LGBTQ issues will turn all of them into homosexuals.
Surely nobody really wants to have an abortion and surely they would discuss it with their spouse if they could, but if a woman’s circumstances make it so that she needs to do so without telling anyone, it should be completely her decision and nobody else’s.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS