Birth rates, Fertility and What To Do

The CDC reported last week that births increased by just 1 percent in 2024 with the fertility rate (TFR) remaining level at about 1.6, well below the 2.1 level needed to maintain the population level through births alone (i.e. without immigration). 

At the same time, the Guttmacher Institute estimated that clinician-provided abortions in 2024 in states without a total abortion ban increased also by slightly less than 1 percent from 2023. There were additional abortions of an undetermined number that were not clinician provided. 

The Trump Administration is considering ideas to increase the birth rate, among them a $5,000 baby bonus, tax credits for children, increasing the availability of IVF, and awarding medals to mothers of a certain number of children. Worldwide incentives of this sort have been largely money wasted. My October 16, 2024 post talks about Norway and Hungary’s futile efforts to increase their birthrates. At most, incentives have speeded up childbearing but not increased the number of desired children. Russia awards an Order of Parental Glory to parents of large families. It hasn’t stopped the decline in the Russian TFR. A similar award in France has had no effect either.

The Administration’s cutting of Title X funding for family planning and threatened cuts to Medicaid program (as well as criminalizing abortion if they seek a nationwide ban) will perhaps serve to increase unintended childbearing, especially among teens. The decrease in the national TFR has come because of a reduction in teen pregnancy over the years largely due to better and longer-lasting contraception. Teens and young adults are also reporting having less sex. Criminalizing abortion further and reducing access to contraception may serve as further deterrents to sex and hence pregnancy, but I suspect the pregnancy and childbearing rates will rise among those without access to private family planning services, i.e. the poor and minorities, exactly the groups that the conservative White Replacement Theory folks don’t want to reproduce. 

The issues around infertility and IVF are tying the Administration in knots given the sway of absolutist anti-abortion people in policy circles. The imperatives of couples wanting a child by any means often outweigh their beliefs on abortion. 

The causes of infertility in males and females are debated, but one thing is sure: sexually transmitted infections can cause infertility. And the Administration by cutting reproductive health care programs will be increasing STIs and hence infertility. 

Who ever said politics makes sense. 

The Forest obscuring the Trees

In the midst of the tariff forest, or conflagration to switch the metaphor, we cannot lose sight of the trees – Administration’s devastating attack on reproductive, and general, health of people here and abroad. And the attacks are just beginning.

The Administration has suspended Title X funding for family planning clinics in this country but also USAID grants for reproductive and other health around the world. Title X supports the provision of reproductive healthcare, including family planning and the treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases in family planning clinics in this country. Many of those clinics are operated by Planned Parenthood. None of the funds can be used for abortion services. A total of $66 Million in Title X funding has been suspended, including $21M for Planned Parenthood clinics. These programs have been audited repeatedly to make sure that this does not happen, yet this administration under the guise of fiscal probity has suspended the funds to do yet another investigation. The effect of this suspension will be that clinics will be turning away low-income patients who will have nowhere else to go and will lead to increases in sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer and pregnancy rates, and therefore abortion rates.

The next shoe to drop is probably Medicaid funding going to Planned Parenthood and other reproductive healthcare clinics. Medicaid funding reimburses clinics for reproductive healthcare visits, including family planning and sexually transmitted disease provision for clients who are eligible for Medicaid. If and when these cuts are enacted, and there are sure to be challenges because these funds are budgetary provisions, enacted by Congress, and it will lead to the closure of many family planning clinics nationwide. Patients will have nowhere else to go. On top of this, the Supreme Court this week heard arguments about whether or not states can prohibit Medicaid recipients from using clinics which also provide abortion services, i.e Planned Parenthoods. Planned Parenthood receives about one-third of its revenue from Medicaid and Title X.

Planned Parenthoods nationwide are facing huge budgetary pressures, as are many healthcare providers, with rising costs, especially salaries for nurses, doctors and other trained personnel. My old affiliate, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York (PPGNY), recently announced that they were putting up for sale the building that houses its Manhattan clinic and would be closing the clinic. They said they hoped to open in Manhattan clinic at another site, but there are no definite plans. The affiliate, along with many other Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide, have been closing under-performing clinics because they cannot be subsidized in the current climate. PPGNY and PP Illinois have recently closed four clinics each. This has led to greater travel, and other costs, being imposed on rural patients, as well as delay and forgoing of health care.

Planned Parenthoods around the country that provide abortion services are inundated by patients from states where abortion has been criminalized. The resulting subsidy that patients need, including travel costs and accommodations, as well as the fees that they are unable to pay are devastating the finances of Planned Parenthood. This is a human and public health crisis, and states that keep abortion legal must do more to make abortion as safe and accessible as possible. Women are going to resort to do-it-yourself abortion and not under a doctor’s care which could lead to injury and death. Those doctors who are mailing abortion pills internationally and across state lines are not reaching every woman who needs an abortion. About half of women coming to Planned Parenthoods nationwide are using abortion pills, but many are opting for surgery because the procedure can be done in the same day and the woman can return home without delay or risk of needed a followup visit in a state where abortion is criminal.

There is a curious intersection, and disconnect I believe, with much of the conservative ideology about white supremacy. The attacks on Planned Parenthood will reduce reproductive healthcare as well as abortion services in areas with large white populations. If the conservatives hope as a result the white birth rates will go up, that might happen (preliminary data shows an increase in births in criminalized states – the abortion rate has also gone up!). But these attacks will also end up resulting in the closure of clinics serving minority populations, so those birth rates will also go up. In all cases, there will be an increase in sexually transmitted diseases (and illegal abortions), which in many cases cause infertility, thereby decreasing the nation’s ability to increase the birth rate. Talk about counterproductive.

The middle of all this chaos, families have to sort out whether and when to have children. One of the factors that men and women will take into account is how they view the future. Certainly the tariff chaos will give financial pause to many in every state and of every political persuasion. People are now poorer than they were a month ago, and one can question whether they see any light at the end of the Trump tunnel. Some conservatives are beginning to see that they should offer incentives for married couples to have children, though incentives offered in various countries around the world have done little or nothing to increase birth rates.

The intersection of the tariff policy with the anti-immigration policy gives political concern. Many areas of this country have seen population growth and economic vitality from immigration. If these areas are depopulated through deportations, the economies there will stagnate and decline. One US study called it, “Depopulation, Deaths, Diversity and Deprivation: the Four D’s of Rural Population Change.” This scenario played out in the former East Germany recently, an area where people of ability left for greater opportunity in the former West Germany, leaving behind people with fewer opportunities and social services, who were full of resentment, and therefore voted for far right political parties. This would naturally buoy the Trump party even though he was the cause of it all.

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. 

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.

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.

Buying Children, Jailing Mothers

Governments are at it again trying to increase birth rates. Recent stories out of Russia and China reveal that these government are doubling down on their policies to incentivize or force childbearing.  

Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader (the Chinese leadership is all male – not a single woman on the 24 member Politburo) – at a meeting of the  All-China Women’s Federation in November stated that “we should actively foster a new type of marriage and childbearing culture.” It is the role of party officials to influence young people’s views on “love and marriage, fertility and family.” China has over the past two generations gone beyond “influence” and had mandated family size through its One Child Policy.  Are we to see a two or three child policy mandated? Whatever might happen, gender equality is not part of this culture. Currently some Chinese provinces offer cash bonuses for couples having two or three children. 

Russian authorities are cracking down on abortion access, long a means of birth control in that nation, by cracking down on private clinics offering abortion. Russia reported about 500,000 abortions in 2022. The corresponding figure in the US for 2021 is over 600,000 (the CDC and Guttmacher differ in their estimates with Guttmacher reporting over 900,000). The US population is about 2.4 times larger than Russia, indicating a greater reliance on abortion in that country. Restricting legal abortion access puts women at risk when they resort to illegal ones – making them unable to have future children – a consequence it would seem the authorities would want to avoid.

At the same time, Russia is offering speedy citizenship to foreign fighters who immigrate to fight in the Ukraine, indicating the severity of their population decline and the attitude of the Russian males to being sent to certain death in a losing battle. It seems the authorities are desperate to preserve the Russian male to further and father their race.

Countries around the world have tried and mostly failed to influence birth rates with childcare incentives, cash bonuses, paid leave etc. These policies, at most, influence timing of births, not the number. Still, many couples say they are having fewer children than they want. Many social and economic factor come into play here, along with some basic biology. 

In the US, the support for legal abortion has risen since the Dobbs decision, with 55% saying they support abortion for any reason. This is about the percent that supported abortion rights in the recent Ohio voting. This is a healthy response to the conservative attack on women’s rights.

One wonders also the connection to a recent study in the US indicating that millennial women are losing ground in health and safety, including rates of maternal mortality, suicide and homicide. But Millennial women have also seen improvement in education and earnings, with 44% completing a bachelor’s degree, up from 28% of Gen X women. Women now earn 89.7 cents per dollar as men, compared to 82.4 cents for Gen X women. No surprise that women on their own, making it on their own, with increased risk of maternal mortality and violence in their communities, support unfettered access to abortion, and that their families do too. 

The US birthrate today has fallen to 1.6 (the white rate 1.6 and the African American is slightly higher at 1.67).  If there is anything to be done about this (and there is scant evidence anything can or should be done), then maternal and child safety should be at the top of the list for policy makers, including the racial disparities in these statistics and including providing family planning and safe abortion services so that children are born when the parents deem it best and those giving birth aren’t put at increased risk.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-give-birth-to-more-soldiers-hardline-russia-turns-on-abortions

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67495969

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/11/28/russia-limits-womens-access-to-abortion-citing-demographic-changes

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-population-births-decline-womens-rights-5af9937b

https://www.economist.com/china/2023/11/09/china-wants-women-to-stay-home-and-bear-children

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/support-for-abortion-access-is-near-record-wsj-norc-poll-finds-6021c712

https://www.vox.com/23971366/declining-birth-rate-fertility-babies-children

visit to dominican republic

Last week I spent five days in the Dominican Republic visiting the Fos Feminista partner Profamilia, which has 7 clinics and 2 mobile health units. 

The DR is poor. Baseball is the national sport. Each major league team has a baseball academy in the DR. Sugar cane employment is declining. Teen pregnancy is very high – about half of teens give birth. Girls do not see much of a future. 

The clinics were spotless, full of clients and well run. You could tell the dedication of the staff and their professionalism. Clients were treated with respect. 

Abortion is totally illegal in the DR, so it is not provided. The clinics do offer harm reduction, where they explain what to do in the event the client has an illegal abortion and has complications. The Profamilia clinics can and do manage any complications or tell the patients go to a hospital. They are working with the legislature to allow three exceptions to the ban on abortion – to save the life of the mother, fetal abnormality and rape. 

The clinics offer a full range of contraception and sterilization, male and female. The pill and injection are the most common methods. Some women have to disguise their pills as vitamins from their husbands. Many men in DR want many more children than the women want. Emergency contraception is becoming used as a method of contraception. It becomes less effective if used frequently.

Pills and other methods are sold without prescription in pharmacies. Profamilia does extensive community distribution of pills.

There is universal screening for domestic violence, which is common. The clinics offer legal services for victims. There is a shortage of safe houses – there are 12- and few relocation services. There is a national DV hotline.

Men constitute 20% of patients, mostly for urology. One clinic did 20 vasectomies a day.

The clinics do HIV counseling and treatment.

The clinics offer general health care and pediatrics but no deliveries.

The services are free if the client cannot pay. There is national health insurance.

Maternal mortality is high but declining. It is about 107 per 100,000 in 2020 and increased during Covid. Illegal abortion now constitutes 8% of maternal deaths – it was 20% during Covid.

We visited three mobile health unit sites in remote villages and batayas- these are Haitian immigrant villages where sugar cane workers and farmers live. Sugar cane has become largely mechanized and many Haitians are scratching out a living farming or manual labor. $6 a day is the average wage in the batayas. If a person needs to get to the nearest hospital it costs $12 for transport. The Hailtian migrants fear hospitals due to deportation threats.

The community promoters , or promotores as they are called, are villagers trained by Profamilia, who live and travel around the batayas bringing contraceptives and general health care. The mobile health units are on a circuit and come every 30 days or so. One promoter just got her law degree and another is running for the local legislature.