Women's Views on News |
| Threats to abortion rights in the EU Posted: 10 Apr 2015 01:15 AM PDT
On 3 April, a very symbolic date for an event discussing abortion rights – 25 years exactly after the adoption of the Belgian law decriminalising the right to abortion – the Equality Law Clinic (ULB) gathered experts and researchers from Belgian, France, Italy, Croatia and the USA, to discuss the current situation with regards to this key human right. A very inspiring discussion ensued, with in-depth analysis of recent law cases, political context, conservative attacks and NGO successes. Aziza Ahmed, from the Northeastern University, USA, highlighted the increasing trend in her country to consider medical evidence and expertise in litigation cases, based on conservative views on the consequences of abortion on women's mental health. In a context of individualism, a so-called 'right to know' for pregnant women has emerged, supporting the strategies of anti-abortion activists and institutions to call for medical acts and selected information to be given to women before they make a decision about their pregnancy. This kind of biased counselling is already a reality in some EU member states. Lin-li Pan Van de Meulebroeke, from the Equality Law Clinic, presented the situation in Belgium, where abortion has been de-criminalised and as such, is still inscribed in the Belgian penal code. The issue of information is at stake when it comes to abortion, she poitned out: half of the practitioners in Belgium are over 55, and only one module in one university (ULB) provides training on abortion. And the European Women’s Lobby’s Policy Officer Pierrette Pape gave a comprehensive overview of the challenges for sexual rights in Europe, including for the right to abortion. She recalled the international backlash on human rights, visible in UN discussion on women's rights, seen for example, in the recent Commission on the Status of Women. Because of the myth of 'equality being already there' in Europe, ensuring sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) is not considered a political priority: as a consequence, health services are not provided, there is no strategy to make them accessible to all women, especially women in vulnerable situations – such as migrant women or women with disabilities – women have access to a limited number of contraceptive methods, and public financial support is lacking to ensure equality in access to reproductive and sexual health care. Austerity measures are having a detrimental impact on women's and men's enjoyment of their sexual and reproductive health and rights: EU member states have slashed their public spending on healthcare over the last years, leading to the closing down of medical centres and hospitals. At the same time, the expanding commodification of health is visible in many health areas: in Cyprus for example, where abortion is illegal, abortion has become a private business; in other countries, pain killers or caesareans become 'financial options' for pregnant women. And ultra-conservative and religious groups are developing strategies to influence public opinion and policies, and attack women's rights, LGBTI rights, and sexuality education. The growing use of or calls for conscientious objection clauses is another very telling example of the vulnerability of reproductive and sexual health in Europe. Irene Donadio, from IPPF-EN, presented the successful strategic litigation case led by IPPF-EN against Italy about conscientious objection, whereby the Council of Europe Committee of Social Rights recognised the violation of the rights to health and non-discrimination by Italy. Lisa Kelly, from the Center for Reproductive Rights, analysed several cases of abortion rights litigation, and presented very interesting findings about the framing used by the courts and the subsequent risks to see differentiated treatments depending on the context. By using the concept of the "innocent foetus" when there is a need for abortion after a rape, or by stressing the need to protect girlhood in cases where mothers call for support for their daughters, the courts send messages that abortion can be supported in specific cases, but not as a universal right for all women. Amir Hodzic, from the CESI centre in Croatia, presented their report on neo-conservative groups in Europe and the strategies those groups use, selecting some human rights as their core battles: the right to life (from conception), the right to a family (only heterosexual, with a man/father dominant), and the right to religious freedom. He called on progressive movements to reclaim both values and terminology. Pierre-Arnaud Perrouty, from the European Humanist Federation, gave complementary thoughts about the extremist religious groups acting in Europe, and how they use the same strategies and framings as the human rights NGOs to get public support, in a context of crisis and the lack of any inspiring vision for the future. The 2014 mobilisation in Spain, which gathered thousands of persons from all ages including men, as well as the recent strengthening of the abortion law in France, are inspiring examples of society actions to consider abortion right as part of the fundamental human rights of our collective community. In the final discussion with the audience, the importance of language, messages and values was highlighted. For example, it is striking to see that anti-choice actors pretend to be 'pro-life', and to see how they value dignity, which is a core human right enshrined in the UN treaties and any national constitution. The right to abortion needs to be understood as a society issue, which concerns everyone as a matter of equality, dignity and respect, beyond an individual choice. All aspects of society have an impact on abortion rights, and the lack of abortion rights prevents women from enjoying their other rights: economic independence, freedom from violence, access to education and in decision-making, and suchlike.  |
| What women want: structural change Posted: 10 Apr 2015 01:09 AM PDT
An organisational behaviour expert from London Business School has challenged the assumption that working women need flexibility to be happy. In an interview with The Guardian, published last month, Dr Celia Moore, Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour, London Business School, said the assumption was a form of "benevolent sexism". "Understanding that women who are parents face different challenges is incredibly important," she said. "However, organisations can sometimes misunderstand what really drives women in their careers." Research was done by one of the big accounting firms in the nineties, Moore said, and they had assumed that the reason they lost women was because those women had made the choice to stay home. But when finally the leader of the organisation contacted women who had left in the last six months, she continued, "80 per cent of them were still in full employment." So they wanted to work, just not there. Moore's challenge is borne out by the views of professional women who were polled at the School's annual Women in Business Conference held in March and organised by London Business School's Women in Business Club. Just 14 per cent felt that a benchmark of success would be a better work-life balance; 44 per cent wanted job satisfaction, and 34 per cent wanted to be able to define their company's direction and leadership. In a report published last year, Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Melinda Marshall found that in order for women to succeed at work they needed five things: to feel in control of their career path, to have their work recognised, to find meaning and purpose in their work, to be able to empower others and to have financial security. An interesting point made by Hewlett and Marshall, the Guardian points out, is that women themselves opt out when they believe their current circumstances aren’t going to change. When they find themselves in a role that doesn't challenge them or present them with the opportunity to empower themselves or others they grow disillusioned, and rather than trying to attain more power, which would give them the autonomy they want, they choose to leave and try their luck elsewhere. It seems women don't need work-life balance in order to be happy, everyone has just assumed they do. Dr Moore is calling for structural change – to allow men and women to share responsibilities at work and at home. "When parental leave consists of two weeks for men and a year for women, we're saying 'women are going to take care of the kids'. It becomes a societal law," she said. "We need more structural changes that facilitate equal participation of men and women in the workplace and in the home." So don't make assumptions about what women want. We are right in front of you, as Moore points out: just ask us.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |