Russia restricting access to abortion

[civ_king]

In a speech last week Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that measures must be taken in the Russian Federation to boost the birth rate.

Putin said that 1.5 trillion roubles will be invested in “demography projects,” to improve the average life expectancy and to boost the birth rate by 25 to 30 percent over three years.

Following Putin’s speech, the Russian parliament, the Duma, introduced a bill to disqualify abortion as a medical service in the national health plan. It would also allow doctors to refuse to commit abortions.

“The bill aims to create the conditions for a pregnant woman to opt for giving birth,” Yelena Mizulina, head of the State Duma committee for family, women and children, said.

On Wednesday the Duma also introduced a bill to restrict advertising for abortion.

Anton Belyakov, author of the bill and deputy from the Just Russia Party faction, told journalists, “The bill also commits doctors to warn women who decided to have an abortion that it may cause infertility, death or negatively affect physical and mental health.”

Russia has the highest rate of abortion in the world at 53 abortions per 1000 women between 15 and 44, according to UN statistics. Abortion is a key issue in Russia’s plummeting population that has seen a drop from 148.5 million in 1995 to 143 million today.

Belyakov said Russia’s abortion rate is “unacceptable.” The country’s own statistics show that there are 1022 abortions committed for every 1000 births. Official numbers show between 1.6 and 1.7 million abortions per year, but unofficial estimates put it at closer to 6 million per year, 90 percent of which are done, as in most of the developed world, at the woman’s request for “social,” not medical reasons.

Commenting on Russia’s birth crisis, Larry Jacobs of the World Congress of Families NGO, said, “It’s not Russia alone that’s experiencing demographic winter.”

“Worldwide, birthrates have declined by more than 50 per cent since the late 1960s. By the year 2050, there will be 248 million fewer children under 5 years old in the world than there are today. This birth dearth will be one of the greatest challenges confronting humanity in the 21st. century.”

source

Looks like Russia is trying to prevent itself from going into a death spiral

What do you think?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think its a small step, given what abortion really is, but a small step is certainly better than no steps at all. Good luck to Russia with the new plan.

 

[Cheetah]

I think that if Russia doesn't also put resources into making sure that the non-aborted babies get a good upbringing, they will face a huge crime wave in about two decades.

I can see why the Russian politicians want more babies in Russia, but the vast, vast majority of women do not choose abortions for the fun of it.

 

[civ_king]

As per article "Official numbers show between 1.6 and 1.7 million abortions per year, but unofficial estimates put it at closer to 6 million per year, 90 percent of which are done, as in most of the developed world, at the woman’s request for “social,” not medical reasons."

Yes Russia needs to invest in these children's futures

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I think it would be better if they spent the money on incentives to have children and possibly social programs to support the kids. If parents can't pay for their potential children, they'll find other ways to get rid of them.

 

[Perfection]

Restricting abortions is not the right path. The right path is reduce mortality of the general population, and provide for a positive environment to have children. That's the path of freedom.

 

[LucyDuke]

“The bill aims to create the conditions for a pregnant woman to opt for giving birth,” Yelena Mizulina, head of the State Duma committee for family, women and children, said.

Providing good social services? I wholly support that idea.

 

[Elrohir]

I think it's actually a somewhat fascinating idea -- does the state have the right to violate what would normally be considered fundamental rights, in pursuit of a better society? We let the state do that sometimes (Bulldoze your house to build a highway, lock criminals up, confiscate goods and force citizen's to comply in emergencies, etc.) but not others (The state can't steal one of my kidneys to give to someone else.). So fundamentally, where do we draw the line? Obviously rights can't be violated willy-nilly, or they have no meaning. So how do we decide under what circumstances the government can act radically to shape society in order to save it?

Also, can doctors really not refuse to perform abortions in Russia, as it is? That seems like it'd be a hard thing to for doctors to do.

 

[Lillefix]

I am normally for abortion, but the old Russian practices were horrible. The abortions were carried out almost up to the moment of birth, so something needed to change.

 

[timtofly]

Restricting abortions is not the right path. The right path is reduce mortality of the general population, and provide for a positive environment to have children. That's the path of freedom.

The problem is that we now have a mentality that children are a burden and abortion is the less bothersome path. So I would say they will be "paying" people for their effort. The interesting part is: telling them the truth about the consequences of abortion as apposed to either lying about them, or misleading people about them like is practiced elsewhere?

 

[Smellincoffee]

There is little Russia can do about people not wanting to have a lot of children. I understand the settled population of Europeans is declining across the board. Making it difficult for people to control pregnancy is not equivalent to promoting larger, healthy families.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think it's actually a somewhat fascinating idea -- does the state have the right to violate what would normally be considered fundamental rights, in pursuit of a better society? We let the state do that sometimes (Bulldoze your house to build a highway, lock criminals up, confiscate goods and force citizen's to comply in emergencies, etc.) but not others (The state can't steal one of my kidneys to give to someone else.). So fundamentally, where do we draw the line? Obviously rights can't be violated willy-nilly, or they have no meaning. So how do we decide under what circumstances the government can act radically to shape society in order to save it?

Also, can doctors really not refuse to perform abortions in Russia, as it is? That seems like it'd be a hard thing to for doctors to do.

Easy, rights can't be taken except as punishment for violation of the law. Murder is a violation of the law. The right to life trumps the right to absolute right to bodily freedom. Thus, abortion should never be allowed.

 

[Ajidica]

Russia reducing their mortality rate and improving the economic climate would improve their birthrate more then restricting abortion. People don't want to have kids when they can't afford it. Poor people are less able to afford kids then wealthy and have less money to seek out a backroom abortion. I'm willing to bet the kids born because their parents would have otherwise aborted them would be born to mothers who cannot provide for them and do not want them. These kids will not be a very valuable asset to Putin/Medvedev and it may turn Ceaușescu on them. Perhaps we should link to the Freakonomics article on how liberal abortion laws cause a drop in crime?

Thus, abortion should never be allowed.

So to protect the 'right to life' of a non-viable fetus that will soon die you chose to take away another's right to life? Seems awfully Orwellian of you. "Death is Life" I suppose.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Perhaps we should link to the Freakonomics article on how liberal abortion laws cause a drop in crime?

Even if this is true, stopping murder is worth what it does to society, no matter the cost.

 

[JollyRoger]

Easy, rights can't be taken except as punishment for violation of the law. Murder is a violation of the law. The right to life trumps the right to absolute right to bodily freedom. Thus, abortion should never be allowed.

Murder is a violation of Sharia law, so in jurisdictions that forbid recognition of Sharia law, murder is not a violation of law.

 

[Lovebird]

As per article "Official numbers show between 1.6 and 1.7 million abortions per year, but unofficial estimates put it at closer to 6 million per year, 90 percent of which are done, as in most of the developed world, at the woman’s request for “social,” not medical reasons."

Yes Russia needs to invest in these children's futures

Though Catholics may not like to admit it, aborting a pregnancy when you cant afford to have a child is not a frivolous reason to have an abortion.

 

[Ajidica]

Even if this is true, stopping murder is worth what it does to society, no matter the cost.

So we stop 'murder' so increase the murder rate? Seems a bit counterproductive methinks.

 

[cardgame]

In this case (freakonomics) I believe the ends justify the means.

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah. I'm not agreeing that the 'Freakonomics Method' is the best way to go about reducing crime, but it could see use as part of a grander strategy.

 

[Maniacal]

Anyone else unable to find any other source for this news? Preferably from a reputable site not owned by a group known for its is homophobia.

I found this relevant BBC article on the lack of sex ed in Russia. Instead of restricting abortion (which isn't going to solve anything) they should focus on why so many abortions are happening and solve the actual problems, not the symptom. Not to mention the very high rate of alcohol abuse and related incidents in Russia.