Visit to Mexico

I spent the last week in Mexico City. The country of Mexico is now far ahead of the United States in terms of reproductive rights for women.

In addition to the fact that they now have a female president, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, who calls herself a feminist and has announced the creation of a Ministry of Women, the National Supreme Court beginning in 2021 has issued rulings that abortion can no longer be considered a crime and eliminated federal criminal penalties for abortion. Hence all federal health facilities in the country are obligated to provide abortion care. Like the United States, Mexico has states, 32 of them, and half have formally decriminalized abortion in their territory. We are working hard with our partner organizations in the remaining states.

The regulatory authority In Mexico, similar to the FDA, recently reduced restrictions for obtaining mifepristone in pharmacies and expanded the indications for misoprostol, two essential medications for self-managed abortions. They are available without prescription. On my visit, I went into three small neighborhood pharmacies in Mexico City asking for mifepristone, but none had it in stock but offered to order it. All had misoprostol in stock. I was assured by our partner organizations that Mifepristone is widely available in pharmacies throughout Mexico. Approximately 80% of abortions are done with medication. Our partners are working on access for the underserved and to de-stigmatize abortion in this deeply religious and patriarchal country.

Women from the US are coming to Mexico for abortion medication. 

Health care in Mexico is fragmented, much like the US, and spotty. There is a proposal to move low-risk pregnancies out of hospitals to midwives. There is a very high rate of unnecessary Caesarians. Teen births are too high but declining. 

The Mexican partners that we met with were: GIRE (Grupo de Información er Reproductión Elegida), Catholics for the Right to Decide (CDD) and the Association of Professional Midwives. 

We had long discussions on the vote of Mexican immigrants to the US. The general feeling from our Mexican colleagues was that Mexican immigrants, while religious, voted on the economy and on personal security. They looked askance on recent illegal immigrants from their home country, fearing for their jobs and personal safety. The Mexican immigrants have achieved a piece of the American Dream and don’t want competition. The Democratic message didn’t hit on Mexican immigrant needs. Trump seemed a leader who related to their issues and beliefs. He represented America more than Harris.

L to R: Maria Consuelo Mejía, Rebeca Ramos (Executive Director of GIRE, the Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida), ACS, Marta Lamas (a leading feminist academic, activist, and thought leader in Mexico), and Giselle Carino, CEO of Fos Feminista. Marta and María Consuelo helped found GIRE more than 30 years ago, and María Consuelo also founded CDD, Catholics for the Right to Decide, in 1994.

ACS and Giselle Carino before a wall of green wave scarves. 

family friendly

The US Presidential election is fight for various so-called interest groups, and that includes suburban woman and mothers of small children, and want-to-be-mothers of small children. The proposals from the candidates (which evolve daily) concentrate around child care policies, though their stances on abortion rights figure prominently in the calculus of women, or should. In the background, as always in this campaign, are the issues of race and class and ethnicity and country of origin, and who is going to rule this melting pot. And lingering not-so-in-the-shadows, is the Republican Great Replacement Theory where immigrants and their progeny are feared to take over the government. (I wrote on this on July 31).

The Wall Street Journal on October 15, 2024 published an article titled, “Countries Fail to Reverse the Baby Bust.” The article detailed the efforts of two countries and Norway and Hungary to reverse their declining birth rates. The two countries have fertility rates of 1.4 and 1.5 respectively and have been stubborn to change even with programs for parental leave, childcare credits, tax benefits, exemption from income tax and extra vacation days. These programs have made no change in the fertility rates. This is not surprising given other studies showing the same result in other countries. Policies seem to affect, at most, the timing of births and not the number of births.

There is a clear tension between individual reproductive strategies, which tend to parents investing in fewer children since childrearing is so expensive, and government strategies, as one woman said, “to keep the nation alive”, which tend to larger families and less investment in each. Moral issues intrude for some parents who wonder if it is right to have a child in order to get extra vacation time.

In the US, Trump and Harris have leapt into the fray with proposals to help US families raise their children, and in some cases have more. Harris proposed capping child care costs at 7% of income and a $6,000 Child Tax Credit for parents of newborns, with other tax credits for other families with children, including raising the current $2,000 credit per child to $3,600. J. D. Vance has proposed a $5,000 Child Tax Credit per child. How to get well-paid child care workers is another matter, with Republicans seeming to rely on family members to do the job. Paid family leave is another plank that needs attention. Trump’s first term saw the enactment of this policy. It has not been mentioned much so far in the campaign by either side. How to pay for tax credits is left vague, with Trump saying his tariffs on imports would.

These proposals are less drastic than the European models, which have shown virtually no results. It is reasonable to assume they won’t make any difference here either, which shows that the candidates, no surprise, are after votes and not real change to help families.

Reproductive freedom and rights should encompass the ability to have children as well as not to, to have healthy and safe pregnancy as well as to terminate a pregnancy when the woman decides to, to have a healthy child born and thriving with the care the child needs in an environment which makes it all possible. There are massive global forces at work affecting US families – the world economy, prices, environment and pollution, health and pandemics, immigration and migration, education and child care costs. The world’s women in developed and less developed countries have voted with their wombs, saying one or two children is enough. Advances in child and maternal health, as well as contraception and access to safe abortion, have made that possible. Advances in prosperity have been two edged sword, making chances for economic advancement for one’s children more possible and more expensive. Through it all, biology marches on, with parents doing their best, as they see it, for their progeny. Scandinavia generally does a better job supporting parents and children. Our country can do better.

See:

https://www.wsj.com/world/birthrate-children-fertility-europe-perks-family-04aa13a0

Make America/Russia Procreate Again

Amid the din about childless cat ladies, you may have missed the NY Times and Washington Post’s articles this week on the movements in Russia and the US to increase the birthrate, or rather the birthrates of some segments of their populations.

There have long been calls in America, starting in the mid 19th Century, for white America to increase its birthrate. The Know-Nothing Party rose in response to Irish-Catholic immigration of 1848 and the fears of white Protestants that they would lose power. Hence the criminalization of birth control and abortion because white men didn’t want their white wives using them (the fact that women of color would be banned also didn’t initially matter in their cradle competition).  The white Protestants went all in on their eugenics when they later targeted poor or immigrant women with hysterectomies, and legislation requiring sterilization for unfit women. 

The Great Replacement Theory that many US conservatives tout is old whine in a new bottle. It is immigration again that is the political lever that these conservatives are using to raise white fears of being replaced. Since they have already succeeded in criminalizing abortion in much of the country, birth control is next. Count on it.

In Russia, the Washington Post reported that Putin said the following: “Many of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers had seven or eight children, and maybe even more,” Putin declared to an audience of ultraconservative religious and political figures who had convened in the State Kremlin Palace in November. “We should preserve and revive these wonderful traditions.”

Russia has a TFR of 1.4. The US is 1.6 (the rate for white women is slightly less than that of African-American and Hispanic women).  Russia is fighting a war, and men are leaving the country. Russia is kidnapping Ukrainian children to replenish the youth of the country. Putin, like US conservatives, seeks a country based on Orthodox Christianity and nationalism. Putin said, “Making sure Russians have as many children as possible is the underlying goal of our state policy.”

Women are a means to this end for both US and Russian nationalists. Women’s rights are disposable. 

See:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/07/30/russia-putin-antifeminism-women-children-society/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_todayworld&utm_campaign=wp_todays_worldview&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3e88816%2F66a9b812b115535658dc2a42%2F60a4ff32ae7e8a50b536ca00%2F36%2F61%2F66a9b812b115535658dc2a42

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/why-jd-vance-worries-about-childlessness-00bb96cb

The Race and Referenda

The stakes in the upcoming presidential race have never been higher for women and reproductive freedom and justice.

A report recently issued by 16 United States Senators, entitled Two Years Post-Dobbs: The Nationwide Impacts of Abortion Bans, sets forth the challenges and issues facing American women post-Dobbs. The report concluded that two years after Dobbs women are denied emergency care and life-saving treatments, hardship has been placed on women and families traveling long distances for care and the healthcare system is being strained. More than 23 million American women of childbearing age live in states with abortion bans. There is an unprecedented flow of pregnant patients across state borders risking at times their lives and financial security. It is stressing America’s reproductive healthcare system, like never before, including by impacting care in states that maintain access to abortion. It is driving healthcare providers out of states with abortion bans, creating a healthcare gap that would be difficult to fill since some medical residents are avoiding these states.

Women are being denied care in medical emergencies and doctors have to watch patients go into sepsis and watch their vital signs deteriorate because they are afraid the patient is not sick enough to qualify for a medical exemption, should there be one. For example, there were just 34 legal abortions recorded in Texas during a six-month period in 2023, but researchers estimate the number of women needing abortions in Texas is at least 400 a year for emergencies and 2,400 per year for physical health risks.

Miscarriage care and other emergency care for ectopic pregnancies for instance is the same procedure as an abortion, and this care is routinely being denied in states with abortion bans. Women with fetal anomalies are forced to seek care in states that permit abortion, as are rape and incest survivors.

Just some examples of the impact in states with legal abortion: there are three-week wait times at Kansas and Illinois clinics, wait time at clinics in Ohio forces patients to other states for care, and Wisconsin patients can get quicker care traveling to other states. The expense and difficulties of travel operate as a special hardship on low income patients.

When OB/GYN’s leave abortion ban states they lead to a lack of doctors trained to provide obstetric and gynecological care, including deliveries. A study has found that in Texas the infant death rate increased along the number of babies who died of birth defects. Between 2021 and 2022 there was a 12.9% increase in the deaths of children before their first birthday. Another study found that Texas had approximately 10,000 additional births between April and December 2022 which proportionally included pregnancies with increased risk of infant mortality.

In response to abortion bans, women are switching to long-acting methods of birth control, including IUDs and implants. Anecdotally, women are stocking up on the abortion pill just in case.

In the voting booth, women in at least six states, and probably more, will be able to vote on referenda to legalize abortion, including Florida and Colorado. No abortion rights referendum has lost since 2022. 

Interestingly, when South Carolina ‘s legislature considered an abortion ban in 2023, three Republican female Senators bucked their party and voted against it. The party turned around and primaried them out of office. 

In Poland last week, three members of the ruling coalition voted against a bill to slightly liberalize the strict Polish abortion ban. The bill lost by three votes. The Prime Minister retaliated and stripped two of the three members of their party coalition membership and stripped the third of his leadership position. Poland is hopefully moving towards decriminalizing abortion.

South Carolina doesn’t permit referenda. Poland does. Perhaps they should have a referendum.

Dr Ruth

Dr Ruth Westheimer once worked for PPNYC in our Harlem clinic researching our patients’ contraceptive and abortion histories. She used the material for her doctoral dissertation. Her job done, her position was eliminated. As she repeatedly said to me, “That Al Moran (my predecessor as President of PPNYC) he fired me!” The world is glad he did because she went on to become Dr Ruth. And she never held it against me and eloquently presented me an award at the Pill is 50 celebration. It seems to me that I should have been presenting her an award. Dr. Ruth brought sex into American homes with expertise, forthrightness and humor. Her life story as a Holocaust survivor and as a sniper in Israel seemed to inure her to the brickbracks of the Puritans who thought her some deviant corruptor of American women and youth. She stood firm, all 4’7″ of her, for truth and honesty and fun and pleasure. We are all in her debt.
Dr Ruth

teen pregnancy and premature death

A recent study out of Canada reports that women who were pregnant as a teenager were more likely to die before age 31 than their peers who did not get pregnant. The odds were similar for teens who had an ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. The risk increased the younger the teen was when pregnant and also if the teen was pregnant more than once. 

The researchers say that the link between teen pregnancy and early death is likely not causal. The greatest cause of death was injury, both self-inflicted and accidental. How accidental death or suicide relates to early pregnancy is a murky area, but they could result from low educational attainment, adverse childhood experiences and increased risk taking. 

Various experts opined that more needs to be done to prevent accidental pregnancy and unplanned pregnancy. I agree.

But I and others have felt that despite what teens may report about whether their pregnancy was “accidental”, many are in alignment with the shortened life expectancies that disadvantaged teens face whether or not they become a teen mother. This “weathering” hypothesis I have written about before.  The many environmental, social, racial, familial, and pre-existing health factors that a disadvantaged teen faces all point to a life expectancy below that of her better off peers. The same applies to the teen’s mother who might be expected to help care for the baby. Weathering would seem to point a teen, consciously or not, to early childbearing while a) she is still relatively healthy and b) her mother is still with her to help. Researcher Arline Geronimus found that a disadvantaged teen is healthiest at age 16.

Risks of pregnancy are well known, and pregnancy is riskier the poorer the health of the mother. It is no surprise that it can lead to premature death, though as I said above, the researchers did not find a direct causal link. 

But, and this is a big but, the teen has a baby. She has reproduced, and has done so when she is at her healthiest. Yes, there are risks to her and the baby, but perhaps less risks than if she had waited.  

In an ideal world, women would not have to make this trade off. But even in countries with national health systems and with income supports for the most disadvantaged, the health discrepancies are still there. The messages of: wait until you are older, wait until you finish your education, wait until you have a good job, or wait until you are married, don’t resonate with all too many girls. The biological message of: reproduce while you can, does. 

See:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2816198

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2816201

Arizona and 19th Century abortion laws

Arizona was not alone in criminalizing abortion in the 19th Century, though the legislative history described in the press was perhaps unique. Other recent articles describe the influence of organized medicine in the efforts to criminalize abortion.

Below is an excerpt from my book, Beyond Choice, which gives the background to the campaign of Anthony Comstock, Arizona and the other states to criminalize abortion. Note the quote from a physician promise ent in this effort about the racial effects of a world with no restrictions on birth control or abortion. The white male saw their hegemony threatened. How better to remedy this than to restrict white women’s access to preventative measures.

From beyond Choice, Chapter 1

The Demise of Reproductive Freedom in the 19th Century

The birth control movement which my grandmother, Margaret Sanger, started in the early 20th century was a reaction to the 19th century pro-life movement that succeeded in reversing American and British law, which had permitted birth control and abortion, and in criminalizing them both almost entirely. The campaign to restrict reproductive freedom was not solely based on a respect for unborn life at its earliest stages. Rather it was a campaign founded upon the institutional imperatives of organized medicine, the Protestant reaction to Irish Catholic immigration, and the feminist and fundamentalist drive for social purity in sexual matters.

During the 19th century physicians began to unravel the mysteries of reproductive biology and fetal development.  The ovum was discovered, as was the process of fertilization. The 19th century was also the time when university-trained physicians sought to control the practice of medicine. In our overly regulated society it is hard to imagine a time when there were few if any restrictions on who could “practice medicine”. In fact, until university-trained physicians appeared on the scene, midwives and other non-university trained doctors called “irregulars”, as well as outright quacks, were the main practitioners of medicine. They not only diagnosed medical conditions but also distributed all kinds of homemade drugs to their patients. Medical potions and patent medicines were concocted and sold with virtually no regulation or oversight. While official records are skimpy, it seems that the first legislative restrictions on the practice of abortion were enacted as a result of efforts by “regular” physicians to protect the safety of women to whom dangerous abortifacient potions were being given by “irregulars”. There is some evidence that America’s first law, in Connecticut in 1821, which banned the giving of a “potion” to cause an abortion in a woman “quick” with child, came out of an effort by physicians to ban all home-made herbal remedies, whether for abortion or not, as simply being too dangerous. When New York enacted its ban on abortion in 1828, it banned abortion before or after quickening unless two physicians determined the abortion was necessary to save the woman’s life (a vastly broader category of cases than in current times).

University-trained physicians also had a financial motive to put their competition, the irregulars, midwives and quacks, out of business. These irregulars made a healthy part of their income by providing contraception and abortion, as well as childbirth services. As a result, regular physicians began to pressure legislatures to put the control of pregnancy prevention and termination in the hands of physicians only. Thus the early statutes, like in New York, permitted abortions only when two physicians agreed and other later abortion statutes allowed physicians to exercise their medical judgment and perform abortions when they thought it necessary. 

            The formation of the American Medical Association in 1841 by the physician-regulars accelerated the legislative process of putting medicine in general and reproduction in particular into physician hands. The AMA made it one of its first items of business as the trade association for physicians to put the irregulars out of business. Over the course of the next century as their medical expertise grew physicians took control of childbirth and largely succeeded in removing it from the home under the supervision of a midwife to the hospital under the supervision of a physician. With contraception and abortion physicians took a more drastic route—they sought to criminalize them both either entirely or if not done under a physician’s supervision.  They didn’t bother to hide their financial motive. James C. Mohr, in his book “Abortion in America”, relates that the Southern Michigan Medical Society in 1875 was reminded by one of its members: “Regular physicians are still losing patients, even long time patients, to competitors willing ‘to prevent an increase in their (patient’s) families’ by performing abortions.”

            On abortion this strategy dovetailed with new biological discoveries that pregnancy was a continuum from conception to birth and that quickening had no medical significance. Physicians began to agree with some religious leaders that pre-born life deserved their total respect and protection and that abortion should not be permitted except for therapeutic reasons. This belief was an historical part of their professional obligations, since the traditional Hippocratic Oath written by the Greek physician Hippocrates in about 400 BCE said: “I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion”. 

The AMA alone was not able to bring about the criminalization of abortion. At the beginning of their campaign in the 1840’s and 1850’s they allied themselves with the Know-Nothings, a fledging political party of nativists, whose main platform consisted of opposing Irish-Catholic immigration into America, which had begun to increase exponentially. The Know-Nothings wanted to preserve their control over the then mostly Anglo-Saxon, Protestant society. Their platform was a mixture of nativism, temperance and religious bigotry. The platform called for limits on immigration, for political offices being restricted to native-born Americans, and for a 21-year waiting period before an immigrant could vote. They sought to limit the sale of liquor, to require that all public-school teachers be Protestants, and to have the Protestant version of the Bible read daily to all students in public school. The Know-Nothings feared that they, the native-born Protestants, would soon be outnumbered and outvoted by the new Catholic immigrants. Their goal was to preserve the primacy of the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant religion, culture and political power. 

            It did not escape Protestant notice that immigrant Catholic women had large numbers of children, while native Protestant women were having fewer. Since few new birth control methods had been introduced at this time— although there was the beginnings of condom and diaphragm manufacturing— the Know-Nothings suspected that Protestant women were using abortion as their method of birth control. Physicians studying who were having abortions confirmed this suspicion. Hence, the Know-Nothing men readily joined the AMA crusade to criminalize abortion. As contraceptive options increased in the course of the 19th century, those who favored the white Protestant hegemony also supported the criminalization of contraception. 

            Racial fears were thus a major part of the impetus to control women’s fertility. As one prominent physician said in 1874: “The annual destruction of fetuses has become so truly appalling among native American (Protestant) women that the Puritanic blood of ’76 will be but sparingly represented in the approaching centenary.” 

            Even though men took the lead in advancing the medical, political and racial arguments for the criminalization of birth control and abortion, some women were also in favor of this legislation, as they were in favor of other “social purity” campaigns after the Civil War that sought to enact laws to restrict various immoral pursuits such as gambling, drinking and prostitution. In these campaigns the political odd bedfellows, the Know-Nothings and the regular physicians, were joined by some women’s rights activists. As Ellen Chesler, my grandmother’s biographer, described it: the native white Americans seeking to preserve their hegemony “were joined by religious fundamentalists, physicians looking to secure their status, and self-proclaimed feminists who believed they were promoting their own autonomy by regulating sexual behavior and by attacking pornography, alcohol and vice.” Into the vice category fell any expression of human sexuality other than between married couples for purposes of reproduction. 

Nineteenth century feminists, an admittedly small and relatively powerless group, supported what they called “voluntary motherhood”. Voluntary motherhood was to be achieved not by promoting birth control and abortion but rather by controlling male sexuality. Some feminists believed that birth control and abortion did more than enabling voluntary motherhood; they enabled their husbands to consort more freely with “other women”. Feminists believed that their own voluntary motherhood could be achieved by periodic abstinence and self-control, their own and their husband’s. 

            So Anthony Comstock, an official of the YWCA who headed the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, found ready allies in some feminist circles for his social purity campaign to prevent the dissemination through the U.S. mails of obscene materials, which he defined to include any information on human sexuality, reproduction, birth control and abortion. Every publication or article “designed, adapted, or intended for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose” was banned. After Congress enacted the Comstock Laws in 1873 that banned sexuality, birth control and abortion information from the mails as contraband, individual states followed suit and criminalized the dissemination of contraceptive and abortion information and devices within their borders, though with some variations that permitted greater or lesser discretion to physicians. The result was that by the last quarter of the 19thcentury birth control and abortion had essentially been criminalized at both the state and federal levels. 

            The result was not that birth control and abortion were thereby eliminated from American society. Instead they largely went underground. Some forms of birth control methods remained available but were sold under euphemistic titles. Abortion potions were sold as a tonic for “female problems”, diaphragms were “womb supports”, and condoms were called “rubber goods”. Andrea Tone in “Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America” states: “…legal leniency, entrepreneurial savvy, and cross class consumer support enabled the black market in birth control to thrive.” It is difficult to estimate how widely contraception and abortion were used, whether the poor were able to afford them or how safe and effective they were. We can surmise that almost everyone in American society had access to either birth control or abortion because the birth rate continued its century long decline even after both were criminalized. 

Reproductive freedom was a threat to the power structure in 19th century America. It threatened physicians, who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine; it threatened Anglo-Saxon Protestants who wanted to maintain their control over American society, culture and politics; and it threatened those men and women who viewed any expression of sexuality outside the home as a threat to marriage and decency. The campaign to criminalize birth control and abortion found many allies, and it succeeded. Anthony Comstock became one of the most powerful men in America.