I submitted my PhD thesis to the University of Oxford in 2011. At the time, I planned to turn it into a book. But life had other plans for me - campaigning for equal civil partnerships, a career switch from academia to policy, and two beautiful babies. I wish I'd uploaded a PDF years ago, but it seems there's no time like the (uncertain) present.
No doubt some of the later chapters are out of date, and the policy debates have shifted. And I'm sure I'd have framed and phrased things differently if I'd written it now or turned it into a book. But that hasn't happened yet, perfection is the enemy of the good, and there's some useful material in here -- about covert discrimination in child allowances to encourage Jewish fertility, and on the flip side, the lack of data to back up the claim that Palestinian citizens of Israel were the only population group given free contraceptives.
My goal in sharing this now is to prevent any future researchers similarly intrigued by these questions of reproductive politics in Israel having to start from scratch. Hope it helps someone, somewhere, sometime.
Here it is.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, 18 March 2020
Thursday, 25 May 2017
How different are female, male and intersex genital cutting? Brian Earp's and my article in last week's The Conversation
Last week, my bioethicist colleague Brian Earp and I published an article in The Conversation asking how different are female, male and intersex genital cutting.
We frame our article around the recent indictment of three members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Islam on charges of “female genital mutilation” (FGM) in the US state of Michigan, and the decision by one of Norway's major political parties to back a measure to ban childhood male circumcision.
In Western countries, popular attitudes towards these procedures differ sharply depending on the child’s sex. But in our article we ask whether the supposedly clear distinction between these different forms of genital cutting stand up to scrutiny.
Having concluded that they do not, we argue that moral considerations should instead centre around medical necessity, autonomy, and respect for the bodily integrity of all children – regardless of their sex or gender.
We outline three practical advantages to this approach:
1) It deflects accusations of sexism by recognising that boys and intersex children – just like girls – are vulnerable to genital alterations that they may later come to seriously resent.
2) It reduces the moral confusion that stems from Western-led efforts to eliminate only the female “half” of genital cutting rites in communities that practice both male and female forms in parallel.
3) It neutralises accusations of cultural imperialism and anti-Muslim bias by avoiding racially tinged double standards.
This is because the same moral concern would apply to medically unnecessary genital cutting practices that primarily affect white children in North America, Australasia and Europe, as to those affecting children of colour (and immigrants) from Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
As we explain in our article, adopting such an approach does not necessarily mean “banning” all pre-consensual forms of non-therapeutic genital alteration. History shows that attempting to pass strict legal prohibitions before cultural readiness can backfire, creating intense resistance among those who are dedicated to modifying children’s genitals for whatever reason, and often driving such practices further underground.
Rather, there are many levers that societies can pull to discourage unethical practices: the law is only one among them, and not necessarily the most desirable or effective. Some authors have proposed step-wise regulation of medically unnecessary childhood genital cutting, along with community engagement and education, as alternatives and/or supplements to formal prohibition.
As Brian and I conclude, whatever specific policies are implemented, it is clear that fundamentally different treatment of female, male and intersex children, in terms of their protection from non-therapeutic genital alteration, will become increasingly difficult to justify in the years to come.
To read our article in full, please click here. We welcome your comments.
We frame our article around the recent indictment of three members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Islam on charges of “female genital mutilation” (FGM) in the US state of Michigan, and the decision by one of Norway's major political parties to back a measure to ban childhood male circumcision.
In Western countries, popular attitudes towards these procedures differ sharply depending on the child’s sex. But in our article we ask whether the supposedly clear distinction between these different forms of genital cutting stand up to scrutiny.
Having concluded that they do not, we argue that moral considerations should instead centre around medical necessity, autonomy, and respect for the bodily integrity of all children – regardless of their sex or gender.
We outline three practical advantages to this approach:
1) It deflects accusations of sexism by recognising that boys and intersex children – just like girls – are vulnerable to genital alterations that they may later come to seriously resent.
2) It reduces the moral confusion that stems from Western-led efforts to eliminate only the female “half” of genital cutting rites in communities that practice both male and female forms in parallel.
3) It neutralises accusations of cultural imperialism and anti-Muslim bias by avoiding racially tinged double standards.
This is because the same moral concern would apply to medically unnecessary genital cutting practices that primarily affect white children in North America, Australasia and Europe, as to those affecting children of colour (and immigrants) from Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
As we explain in our article, adopting such an approach does not necessarily mean “banning” all pre-consensual forms of non-therapeutic genital alteration. History shows that attempting to pass strict legal prohibitions before cultural readiness can backfire, creating intense resistance among those who are dedicated to modifying children’s genitals for whatever reason, and often driving such practices further underground.
Rather, there are many levers that societies can pull to discourage unethical practices: the law is only one among them, and not necessarily the most desirable or effective. Some authors have proposed step-wise regulation of medically unnecessary childhood genital cutting, along with community engagement and education, as alternatives and/or supplements to formal prohibition.
As Brian and I conclude, whatever specific policies are implemented, it is clear that fundamentally different treatment of female, male and intersex children, in terms of their protection from non-therapeutic genital alteration, will become increasingly difficult to justify in the years to come.
To read our article in full, please click here. We welcome your comments.
Tuesday, 1 November 2016
Tomorrow is our BIG day
No, my partner Charlie and I are not getting married!!!
Instead, this time tomorrow, we’ll be at the Court of Appeal making the case for civil partnerships for all.
We could not have come this far without our wonderful supporters: over 70,000 people have signed our Change.org petition! Thanks to their commitment and personal stories of why they want a civil partnership, the press, policymakers and the public now appreciate the importance of this issue.
They understand that there are over 3 million cohabiting couples with 1.9 million dependent children. They realise that these families urgently need access to the legal and financial safety net that civil partnerships can offer. They recognise how simple it is for the Government to extend civil partnerships to all in order to protect those families.
We need to repeat that message until the law is changed. If you support our efforts, please help us by doing these things NOW:
1. Join us outside Court tomorrow. Details: 9am, Wednesday 2nd November, The Royal Courts of Justice on The Strand, London WC2A 2LL.
2. Please donate to our campaign fund so we can continue to push for #equalcivilpartnerships until this change is made: https://www.gofundme.com/ECPcampaigns
3. Tweet us and we’ll retweet you! Tweet your reasons for supporting #equalcivilpartnerships and/or wanting a civil partnership yourself to @EqualCPs. We’ll share your tweet with our followers.
4. Please ask your MP to add their name to an Early Day Motion that was tabled in Parliament yesterday. You can ask your MP to support civil partnerships with just a few clicks via this link: http://fast-plains-92257.herokuapp.com/campaigns/equal-civil-partnerships-edm
Thank you all so much,
Rebecca and Charles
Instead, this time tomorrow, we’ll be at the Court of Appeal making the case for civil partnerships for all.
We could not have come this far without our wonderful supporters: over 70,000 people have signed our Change.org petition! Thanks to their commitment and personal stories of why they want a civil partnership, the press, policymakers and the public now appreciate the importance of this issue.
They understand that there are over 3 million cohabiting couples with 1.9 million dependent children. They realise that these families urgently need access to the legal and financial safety net that civil partnerships can offer. They recognise how simple it is for the Government to extend civil partnerships to all in order to protect those families.
We need to repeat that message until the law is changed. If you support our efforts, please help us by doing these things NOW:
1. Join us outside Court tomorrow. Details: 9am, Wednesday 2nd November, The Royal Courts of Justice on The Strand, London WC2A 2LL.
2. Please donate to our campaign fund so we can continue to push for #equalcivilpartnerships until this change is made: https://www.gofundme.com/ECPcampaigns
3. Tweet us and we’ll retweet you! Tweet your reasons for supporting #equalcivilpartnerships and/or wanting a civil partnership yourself to @EqualCPs. We’ll share your tweet with our followers.
4. Please ask your MP to add their name to an Early Day Motion that was tabled in Parliament yesterday. You can ask your MP to support civil partnerships with just a few clicks via this link: http://fast-plains-92257.herokuapp.com/campaigns/equal-civil-partnerships-edm
Thank you all so much,
Rebecca and Charles
Monday, 22 August 2016
My talk on 'Genital Alteration: Towards More Empirical, Ethical and Effective Policies' at Keele University, 14 September
I am looking forward to sharing my research on policies towards female and male genital alteration at the 14th International Symposium on Genital Autonomy at Keele University on 14 September 2016.
As I explain in my abstract, global and Western states’ policies toward genital alteration tend to focus on eliminating female genital mutilation, or FGM, while tolerating or even encouraging male circumcision. On the surface, this seems unproblematic: Within global health and human rights circles, FGM is almost universally regarded as bad and barbaric – as a savage and severely harmful manifestation of the patriarchal drive to control female sexuality – whereas male circumcision is seen as benign or even beneficial. Yet mounting empirical evidence and ethical critique calls into question these contrasting perceptions, and, in turn, the divergent policies they underpin. In this paper, I argue that maintaining policies premised on sex-based distinctions seems unsustainable, as well as incompatible with gender equality. Instead, I suggest that meaningful age-based distinctions between those unable (children) and able (adults) to give informed consent could constitute more empirical, ethical and effective policies. I evaluate the merits and demerits of both permissive and restrictive approaches to female and male genital alteration, and assess the advantages and disadvantages of some specific alternative policies.
My talk stems from a wonderful collaborative partnership with my brilliant bioethicist friend and colleague, Brian Earp. Together, we have spent the summer conducting research at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva on a project entitled "The Science, Politics, and Ethics of Male Circumcision: An Interdisciplinary Take on an Emerging Global Controversy."
For more information about my talk, see here.
For more information about the symposium and its programme, see here.
For more information about Brian Earp's and my research together, see here.
As I explain in my abstract, global and Western states’ policies toward genital alteration tend to focus on eliminating female genital mutilation, or FGM, while tolerating or even encouraging male circumcision. On the surface, this seems unproblematic: Within global health and human rights circles, FGM is almost universally regarded as bad and barbaric – as a savage and severely harmful manifestation of the patriarchal drive to control female sexuality – whereas male circumcision is seen as benign or even beneficial. Yet mounting empirical evidence and ethical critique calls into question these contrasting perceptions, and, in turn, the divergent policies they underpin. In this paper, I argue that maintaining policies premised on sex-based distinctions seems unsustainable, as well as incompatible with gender equality. Instead, I suggest that meaningful age-based distinctions between those unable (children) and able (adults) to give informed consent could constitute more empirical, ethical and effective policies. I evaluate the merits and demerits of both permissive and restrictive approaches to female and male genital alteration, and assess the advantages and disadvantages of some specific alternative policies.
My talk stems from a wonderful collaborative partnership with my brilliant bioethicist friend and colleague, Brian Earp. Together, we have spent the summer conducting research at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva on a project entitled "The Science, Politics, and Ethics of Male Circumcision: An Interdisciplinary Take on an Emerging Global Controversy."
For more information about my talk, see here.
For more information about the symposium and its programme, see here.
For more information about Brian Earp's and my research together, see here.
Friday, 2 January 2015
Campaign and legal challenge for #equalcivilpartnerships
In December 2014, my partner, Charles Keidan, and I took the next step in our legal challenge to open civil partnerships to all, regardless of sexual orientation: We issued our judicial review claim at the High Court, and
then served these on the two defendants - the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea, and the Government.
The BBC's legal affairs correspondent, Clive Coleman, reported from outside the High Court. He said that our legal case was an outcome of the inevitable collision course between the exclusionary Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the inclusive Equality Act 2010.
During the day, we spoke to several BBC radio and TV stations, including:
1) Jane Garvey at BBC Radio 4's Woman’s Hour (from 01.10 to 10.28)
2) Mark Mardell at BBC Radio 4's The World at One (from 35.26 to 41.24)
3) Clive Coleman for BBC Radio 5 Live, who interviewed us outside the High Court (from 01.50.43 to 01.56.07)
4) We were also interviewed by BBC London News, and for an article on BBC News Online.
The human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, who has been a consistent and principled advocate of both same-sex marriage and full civil partnership equality, and who set up the Equal Love campaign to that end, joined us outside the court. In a statement, he said: "In a democracy, we should all be equal before the law. Denying opposite-sex couples the right to have a civil partnership is just as wrong as denying same-sex couples the right to marry. We now have a situation where gay couples have two options, civil marriage or civil partnership, whereas heterosexual couples have only one option, marriage. This anomaly is unfair discrimination and could be easily remedied by opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, as has happened in many other countries.”
We have put in place an outstanding legal team to challenge both the registrars at Chelsea Register Office, who refused to register our notice of intention to form a civil partnership on the basis of our genders and sexual orientation, and the Government, which continues to discriminate against long-term cohabiting opposite-sex couples. Our solicitor, Louise Whitfield from leading public law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, is working with a top equalities barrister, Karon Monaghan QC. Louise helped Caroline Criado-Perez successfully challenge the Bank of England to include a woman on UK bank notes. Karon wrote THE book on Equality Law, and was awarded Liberty’s Human Rights Lawyer of the Year Award in 2010.
To support our campaign, please sign our petition and consider contributing to our fundraising drive. Please also encourage others to support our efforts by signing and donating. We anticipate additional costs in the future and are appreciative of any help you may be able to give us.
Here’s to full relationship equality in 2015!
The BBC's legal affairs correspondent, Clive Coleman, reported from outside the High Court. He said that our legal case was an outcome of the inevitable collision course between the exclusionary Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the inclusive Equality Act 2010.
During the day, we spoke to several BBC radio and TV stations, including:
1) Jane Garvey at BBC Radio 4's Woman’s Hour (from 01.10 to 10.28)
2) Mark Mardell at BBC Radio 4's The World at One (from 35.26 to 41.24)
3) Clive Coleman for BBC Radio 5 Live, who interviewed us outside the High Court (from 01.50.43 to 01.56.07)
4) We were also interviewed by BBC London News, and for an article on BBC News Online.
The human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, who has been a consistent and principled advocate of both same-sex marriage and full civil partnership equality, and who set up the Equal Love campaign to that end, joined us outside the court. In a statement, he said: "In a democracy, we should all be equal before the law. Denying opposite-sex couples the right to have a civil partnership is just as wrong as denying same-sex couples the right to marry. We now have a situation where gay couples have two options, civil marriage or civil partnership, whereas heterosexual couples have only one option, marriage. This anomaly is unfair discrimination and could be easily remedied by opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, as has happened in many other countries.”
We have put in place an outstanding legal team to challenge both the registrars at Chelsea Register Office, who refused to register our notice of intention to form a civil partnership on the basis of our genders and sexual orientation, and the Government, which continues to discriminate against long-term cohabiting opposite-sex couples. Our solicitor, Louise Whitfield from leading public law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, is working with a top equalities barrister, Karon Monaghan QC. Louise helped Caroline Criado-Perez successfully challenge the Bank of England to include a woman on UK bank notes. Karon wrote THE book on Equality Law, and was awarded Liberty’s Human Rights Lawyer of the Year Award in 2010.
To support our campaign, please sign our petition and consider contributing to our fundraising drive. Please also encourage others to support our efforts by signing and donating. We anticipate additional costs in the future and are appreciative of any help you may be able to give us.
Here’s to full relationship equality in 2015!
Monday, 26 May 2014
Heterosexual Civil Partnerships on BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour
Earlier today, my partner, Charlie Keidan, and I contributed to a discussion on heterosexual civil partnerships on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour. In it, we explain why it's important for us to formalise our commitment to each other within a modern social institution that reflects our egalitarian values. We highlight the principle of equality that is at stake in opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, and explain that discrimination against heterosexual couples will continue in the absence of swift government action on this issue. We point out that the UK is behind the times in this regard, since other states - in particular France, the Netherlands and New Zealand - already have provisions for opposite-sex couples to form civil partnerships. We hope that the UK government will follow suit and commit itself to true civil partnership equality by immediately extending civil partnerships to all.
You can listen to our interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b044gmfd
You can listen to our interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b044gmfd
Tuesday, 6 May 2014
On Israel’s 66th Independence Day, an urgent question for liberal Jews
On Israel's 66th Independence Day, I want to share with you an article that I just published in Israel's Haaretz newspaper. In it, I point out the historical and conceptual contradictions of liberal Zionism, and encourage liberal Jews to recognise that assumptions about the possibility of a Jewish democracy have rested on sloppy or wishful thinking, with devastating consequences. I urge liberal Jews who are genuinely committed to equality to confront the logical impossibility of "liberal Zionism," demand civil rights for all, and "go left."
Below is the opening of my piece - I will publish the remainder here on my blog in 48 hours. I hope you find my argument compelling and my analysis informative. Please do share your thoughts via Twitter @beccasteinfeld - I would love to hear them. Also, please consider sharing my piece with your professional and social networks. I am hoping to further debate on these crucial issues at this critical moment. Many thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now is supposedly crunch time for liberal Zionists. The latest diplomatic attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears to have failed, and with it the two-state solution upon which liberal Zionism depends. As a result, political scientist Dov Waxman says liberal Zionists must confront a painful question: “if a two-state solution is now impossible, should they support, however reluctantly, a one-state solution?” If so, should they prioritize their Zionism in favour of a Jewish one-state, even if this means foregoing their liberalism? Or should they prioritize their liberalism in favour of a democratic one-state, even if this means forgoing their Zionism?
Whether to go right toward a Jewish one-state or go left toward a democratic one-state is a serious challenge for liberal Jews both inside and outside Israel, who are committed to liberal values such as equality and civil rights. It is also an important question for diplomats, as reflected in U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent remarks that Israel could become an apartheid state.
On Israel’s 66th Independence Day, in the 47th year since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war brought large numbers of Palestinians under Israeli control, there has never been a more urgent time to ask – and more importantly, to answer - these questions. Yet, I would argue that these questions are neither new nor confined to the area beyond the "Green Line."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was originally published by Haaretz. For the full article, click here.
Below is the opening of my piece - I will publish the remainder here on my blog in 48 hours. I hope you find my argument compelling and my analysis informative. Please do share your thoughts via Twitter @beccasteinfeld - I would love to hear them. Also, please consider sharing my piece with your professional and social networks. I am hoping to further debate on these crucial issues at this critical moment. Many thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now is supposedly crunch time for liberal Zionists. The latest diplomatic attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears to have failed, and with it the two-state solution upon which liberal Zionism depends. As a result, political scientist Dov Waxman says liberal Zionists must confront a painful question: “if a two-state solution is now impossible, should they support, however reluctantly, a one-state solution?” If so, should they prioritize their Zionism in favour of a Jewish one-state, even if this means foregoing their liberalism? Or should they prioritize their liberalism in favour of a democratic one-state, even if this means forgoing their Zionism?
Whether to go right toward a Jewish one-state or go left toward a democratic one-state is a serious challenge for liberal Jews both inside and outside Israel, who are committed to liberal values such as equality and civil rights. It is also an important question for diplomats, as reflected in U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent remarks that Israel could become an apartheid state.
On Israel’s 66th Independence Day, in the 47th year since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war brought large numbers of Palestinians under Israeli control, there has never been a more urgent time to ask – and more importantly, to answer - these questions. Yet, I would argue that these questions are neither new nor confined to the area beyond the "Green Line."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was originally published by Haaretz. For the full article, click here.
Monday, 24 February 2014
Abortions in Israel: Time to finally abort pregnancy-termination committees?
Last week, I published the second in my two-part miniseries for Israel's Haaretz newspaper on the politics of abortion in Israel. Below is the full article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortions in Israel: Time to finally abort pregnancy-termination committees?
How Israel’s abortion law compares to other countries, and why the current political environment may be ripe for reform. Part two of a two-part series.
By Rebecca Steinfeld / Jewish World blogger | Feb. 20, 2014 | 3:13 PM
As my previous blog on abortions in Israel showed, Israel's abortion law is not as liberal as some wishfully think. But the questions remain: how does Israel compare to other countries, and has the time come to change the status quo? As for whether Israel is more or less liberal, the answer, in short, is that Israel lies somewhere in the middle.
It is nowhere near as restrictive as the seven countries that ban abortion altogether, even when the life of the woman is at risk. Nor is it as restrictive as countries like Ireland that only allow abortion to save the woman’s life. Mara Klein Clarke, who directs the U.K.-based Abortion Support Network, told me Ireland is “pretty horrific, both North and South … women are seldom allowed to obtain abortions.” As a result, she says, “We’ve heard from women who have thrown themselves down flights of stairs, drunk bleach, chased packages of birth control pills down with bottles of vodka and gin. And this is in 2013/2014 in the supposedly developed world.”
Evidently the abortion situation in Israel could be much worse.
But, equally, it could be much better. In the United Kingdom (aside from Northern Ireland) abortion is free on the National Health Service and legal up to 24 weeks. Although there is a postcode lottery of provision and a paternalistic mandate that two doctors need to sign off on the abortion, this is largely a formality and certainly a far cry from Israel’s Orwellian three-person pregnancy-termination committee. Meanwhile, Canada has done away with restricting abortions altogether, and simply considers abortion a “medically necessary” service.
So Israel’s abortion provision sits between these two poles. “On the one hand, women really can’t make the choice for themselves here. They need to get approval from a committee. On the other hand, Israel is not one of those countries where there’s a complete ban on abortion,” explains Rivka Neumann of the Women's International Zionist Organization. Political scientist Yael Yishai categorizes Israel as an “intrusive” state that “limits individual discretion but is committed to implementing authorized (that is, legal), abortions.”
The question, then, is what accounts for Israel’s intrusion into women’s wombs?
My research (summarized here) suggests that Israel’s approach to abortion is the outcome of a complex interplay between various factors and actors. On the one hand there are those who have opposed abortion for either religio-moral or demographic reasons, while on the other hand have been those concerned about the implications for women’s health and welfare of restrictions on access to abortion, as well as feminists resisting attempts to render women’s wombs national vessels.
Historically, those opposed to abortion on demographic grounds feared that freer access would decrease the Jewish birth rate and in turn Israel’s Jewish majority. David Ben-Gurion was especially anxious about low Jewish fertility, and wrote in Haaretz in 1967, “The increase of the Jewish birthrate is not an imperialistic need, but rather an essential component of the survival of the [Jewish] people … Any woman who does not have four children as much as it depends on her is betraying the Jewish mission.” Linking abortion to the “demographic danger” became most vivid and vocal during the 1975 Knesset debate on abortion law reform. Feminist former MK Marcia Freedman recalls in her memoir that MKs opposing abortion shouted statements like, “tens of millions of Arabs, who are fruitful and multiply, surround our borders” and “Has Arafat given his consent to this law?”
Yet pro-natalist opposition to abortion has been resisted by those concerned with the negative repercussions for women of restrictions on access to abortion. Former MK Haviv Shimony, who submitted the successful abortion law reform bill in 1975, explained at the time that whilst the future of Israel depended on both immigration and natural increase, “these foundations are completed by the concern for the physical and emotional health of our people gathering in the country … Imposing the burden of a multitude of children on weak social groups from the financial, educational and mental points of view will only destroy the families and the society.” Others, like Freedman, went further, stressing the inalienable right of women to control their own bodies.
The outcome of these historic struggles – which I call a “war of the wombs” – is that abortion in Israel became widely available, yet legally restricted.
Has the time come to change the status quo? In order to answer that, we must first understand whether the power of the religious and nationalist forces opposed to liberalizing abortion has weakened enough to enable such a change.
Opinion on this is divided.
Some fear that religious and nationalist forces remain powerful within Israel, and worry that opening a new chapter in this war of the wombs could generate a counterproductive conservative backlash. The recent health-basket reform resulted in a funding victory, but before hastily moving onto the next stage of liberalizing abortion in Israel, they urge patience and caution. “We need to let things permeate,” Orly Hasson-Tsitsuashvilli, the Executive Director of Ladaat, a family planning education and counseling center in Jerusalem, told me. She says the health-basket reform “raised a storm and raised opposite opinions to the surface.” As such, she says ”We need a bit of time before we take the next big step.”
Others are more optimistic. Meretz chairwoman MK Zehava Gal-On has submitted a bill to the Knesset calling for the abolition of the termination committees. “The law should be changed and the committees should be stopped so that each woman can decide for herself if she would like to have an abortion or not … The bill that I have submitted will most definitely give the women control back over their lives and reproduction systems,” she told me. A recent editorial in Haaretz echoed Gal-On’s demands, stressing that “Lawmakers must act to change the abortion committees’ criteria and to ensure that Israeli policy matches that of most Western nations. Every woman must be given the freedom to choose.”
There are some indications that proposing such reforms could be successful. The health-basket committee unanimously supported expanding the funding of legal abortions, the Cabinet quickly approved their recommendation, and there are no ultra-Orthodox political parties in the current coalition to obstruct abortion reform. It is also doubtful that demographic fears linking access to abortion to the security of the Jewish majority are anywhere near as potent as in the past. Most encouragingly, during last week’s hearing on abolishing the termination committees, organized by the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women, consensus was reached that “until the 12th week, we don't need the committee,” according to Hasson-Tsistuashvilli, who attended the hearing. Even Dr Eli Schussheim, the Director of the anti-abortion organization Efrat, agrees, and has now argued in favor of abolishing the committees. Consequently, Gal-On told me that she is “very hopeful that we will be able to pass it (her bill) within the next parliamentary session.”
So perhaps this is an opportune moment to push for abortion law reform. After all, isn’t it high time to let women in Israel finally decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies?
In her last blog post, Dr. Rebecca Steinfeld explained that Israel’s recent health-basket reform may make abortions more affordable, but hardly more accessible. Steinfeld is a Visiting Scholar in the Department of History at Stanford University, and a BBC New Generation Thinker. She researches the history and politics of reproduction in Israel. She tweets @beccasteinfeld
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was originally published by Haaretz. For the full article, click here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortions in Israel: Time to finally abort pregnancy-termination committees?
How Israel’s abortion law compares to other countries, and why the current political environment may be ripe for reform. Part two of a two-part series.
By Rebecca Steinfeld / Jewish World blogger | Feb. 20, 2014 | 3:13 PM
As my previous blog on abortions in Israel showed, Israel's abortion law is not as liberal as some wishfully think. But the questions remain: how does Israel compare to other countries, and has the time come to change the status quo? As for whether Israel is more or less liberal, the answer, in short, is that Israel lies somewhere in the middle.
It is nowhere near as restrictive as the seven countries that ban abortion altogether, even when the life of the woman is at risk. Nor is it as restrictive as countries like Ireland that only allow abortion to save the woman’s life. Mara Klein Clarke, who directs the U.K.-based Abortion Support Network, told me Ireland is “pretty horrific, both North and South … women are seldom allowed to obtain abortions.” As a result, she says, “We’ve heard from women who have thrown themselves down flights of stairs, drunk bleach, chased packages of birth control pills down with bottles of vodka and gin. And this is in 2013/2014 in the supposedly developed world.”
Evidently the abortion situation in Israel could be much worse.
But, equally, it could be much better. In the United Kingdom (aside from Northern Ireland) abortion is free on the National Health Service and legal up to 24 weeks. Although there is a postcode lottery of provision and a paternalistic mandate that two doctors need to sign off on the abortion, this is largely a formality and certainly a far cry from Israel’s Orwellian three-person pregnancy-termination committee. Meanwhile, Canada has done away with restricting abortions altogether, and simply considers abortion a “medically necessary” service.
So Israel’s abortion provision sits between these two poles. “On the one hand, women really can’t make the choice for themselves here. They need to get approval from a committee. On the other hand, Israel is not one of those countries where there’s a complete ban on abortion,” explains Rivka Neumann of the Women's International Zionist Organization. Political scientist Yael Yishai categorizes Israel as an “intrusive” state that “limits individual discretion but is committed to implementing authorized (that is, legal), abortions.”
The question, then, is what accounts for Israel’s intrusion into women’s wombs?
My research (summarized here) suggests that Israel’s approach to abortion is the outcome of a complex interplay between various factors and actors. On the one hand there are those who have opposed abortion for either religio-moral or demographic reasons, while on the other hand have been those concerned about the implications for women’s health and welfare of restrictions on access to abortion, as well as feminists resisting attempts to render women’s wombs national vessels.
Historically, those opposed to abortion on demographic grounds feared that freer access would decrease the Jewish birth rate and in turn Israel’s Jewish majority. David Ben-Gurion was especially anxious about low Jewish fertility, and wrote in Haaretz in 1967, “The increase of the Jewish birthrate is not an imperialistic need, but rather an essential component of the survival of the [Jewish] people … Any woman who does not have four children as much as it depends on her is betraying the Jewish mission.” Linking abortion to the “demographic danger” became most vivid and vocal during the 1975 Knesset debate on abortion law reform. Feminist former MK Marcia Freedman recalls in her memoir that MKs opposing abortion shouted statements like, “tens of millions of Arabs, who are fruitful and multiply, surround our borders” and “Has Arafat given his consent to this law?”
Yet pro-natalist opposition to abortion has been resisted by those concerned with the negative repercussions for women of restrictions on access to abortion. Former MK Haviv Shimony, who submitted the successful abortion law reform bill in 1975, explained at the time that whilst the future of Israel depended on both immigration and natural increase, “these foundations are completed by the concern for the physical and emotional health of our people gathering in the country … Imposing the burden of a multitude of children on weak social groups from the financial, educational and mental points of view will only destroy the families and the society.” Others, like Freedman, went further, stressing the inalienable right of women to control their own bodies.
The outcome of these historic struggles – which I call a “war of the wombs” – is that abortion in Israel became widely available, yet legally restricted.
Has the time come to change the status quo? In order to answer that, we must first understand whether the power of the religious and nationalist forces opposed to liberalizing abortion has weakened enough to enable such a change.
Opinion on this is divided.
Some fear that religious and nationalist forces remain powerful within Israel, and worry that opening a new chapter in this war of the wombs could generate a counterproductive conservative backlash. The recent health-basket reform resulted in a funding victory, but before hastily moving onto the next stage of liberalizing abortion in Israel, they urge patience and caution. “We need to let things permeate,” Orly Hasson-Tsitsuashvilli, the Executive Director of Ladaat, a family planning education and counseling center in Jerusalem, told me. She says the health-basket reform “raised a storm and raised opposite opinions to the surface.” As such, she says ”We need a bit of time before we take the next big step.”
Others are more optimistic. Meretz chairwoman MK Zehava Gal-On has submitted a bill to the Knesset calling for the abolition of the termination committees. “The law should be changed and the committees should be stopped so that each woman can decide for herself if she would like to have an abortion or not … The bill that I have submitted will most definitely give the women control back over their lives and reproduction systems,” she told me. A recent editorial in Haaretz echoed Gal-On’s demands, stressing that “Lawmakers must act to change the abortion committees’ criteria and to ensure that Israeli policy matches that of most Western nations. Every woman must be given the freedom to choose.”
There are some indications that proposing such reforms could be successful. The health-basket committee unanimously supported expanding the funding of legal abortions, the Cabinet quickly approved their recommendation, and there are no ultra-Orthodox political parties in the current coalition to obstruct abortion reform. It is also doubtful that demographic fears linking access to abortion to the security of the Jewish majority are anywhere near as potent as in the past. Most encouragingly, during last week’s hearing on abolishing the termination committees, organized by the Knesset Committee on the Status of Women, consensus was reached that “until the 12th week, we don't need the committee,” according to Hasson-Tsistuashvilli, who attended the hearing. Even Dr Eli Schussheim, the Director of the anti-abortion organization Efrat, agrees, and has now argued in favor of abolishing the committees. Consequently, Gal-On told me that she is “very hopeful that we will be able to pass it (her bill) within the next parliamentary session.”
So perhaps this is an opportune moment to push for abortion law reform. After all, isn’t it high time to let women in Israel finally decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies?
In her last blog post, Dr. Rebecca Steinfeld explained that Israel’s recent health-basket reform may make abortions more affordable, but hardly more accessible. Steinfeld is a Visiting Scholar in the Department of History at Stanford University, and a BBC New Generation Thinker. She researches the history and politics of reproduction in Israel. She tweets @beccasteinfeld
This article was originally published by Haaretz. For the full article, click here.
Thursday, 20 February 2014
Abortions in Israel: Time to finally abort pregnancy-termination committees?
Today, I published the second in my two-part miniseries for Israel's Haaretz newspaper on the politics of abortion in Israel. Below are the first 150 words, and in 48 hours I'll re-post the whole article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortions in Israel: Time to finally abort pregnancy-termination committees?
How Israel’s abortion law compares to other countries, and why the current political environment may be ripe for reform. Part two of a two-part series.
By Rebecca Steinfeld / Jewish World blogger | Feb. 20, 2014 | 3:13 PM
As my previous blog on abortions in Israel showed, Israel's abortion law is not as liberal as some wishfully think. But the questions remain: how does Israel compare to other countries, and has the time come to change the status quo? As for whether Israel is more or less liberal, the answer, in short, is that Israel lies somewhere in the middle.
It is nowhere near as restrictive as the seven countries that ban abortion altogether, even when the life of the woman is at risk. Nor is it as restrictive as counties like Ireland that only allow abortion to save the woman’s life. Mara Klein Clarke, who directs the U.K.-based Abortion Support Network, told me Ireland is “pretty horrific, both North and South … women are seldom allowed to obtain abortions.” As a result, she says, “We’ve heard from women who have thrown themselves down flights of stairs, drunk bleach, chased packages of birth control pills down with bottles of vodka and gin. And this is in 2013/2014 in the supposedly developed world.”
Evidently the abortion situation in Israel could be much worse.
But, equally, it could be much better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was originally published by Haaretz. For the full article, click here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortions in Israel: Time to finally abort pregnancy-termination committees?
How Israel’s abortion law compares to other countries, and why the current political environment may be ripe for reform. Part two of a two-part series.
By Rebecca Steinfeld / Jewish World blogger | Feb. 20, 2014 | 3:13 PM
As my previous blog on abortions in Israel showed, Israel's abortion law is not as liberal as some wishfully think. But the questions remain: how does Israel compare to other countries, and has the time come to change the status quo? As for whether Israel is more or less liberal, the answer, in short, is that Israel lies somewhere in the middle.
It is nowhere near as restrictive as the seven countries that ban abortion altogether, even when the life of the woman is at risk. Nor is it as restrictive as counties like Ireland that only allow abortion to save the woman’s life. Mara Klein Clarke, who directs the U.K.-based Abortion Support Network, told me Ireland is “pretty horrific, both North and South … women are seldom allowed to obtain abortions.” As a result, she says, “We’ve heard from women who have thrown themselves down flights of stairs, drunk bleach, chased packages of birth control pills down with bottles of vodka and gin. And this is in 2013/2014 in the supposedly developed world.”
Evidently the abortion situation in Israel could be much worse.
But, equally, it could be much better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was originally published by Haaretz. For the full article, click here.
Tuesday, 22 October 2013
The Politics of Food at SOAS
Last week, I facilitated a discussion and dinner on the Politics of Food on behalf of the Israel Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London. We ate, we chatted, we ate some more, then we chatted some more...
Among other things, we discussed:
- Who “owns” hummus? And why might it matter?
- What is the role of cherished recipes in creating or sustaining national identity and cultural memory?
- Why do stereotypes of the female home cook and male chef persist?
- How does conflict affect food, diets and health?
The event was partly inspired by two fabulous and informative cookbooks, published in 2012:
Laila El-Haddad and Maggie Schmitt's The Gaza
Kitchen
Yotam Ottolenghi and Sami Tamimi's Jerusalem
Several of the questions we discussed arose out of the conversations between El-Haddad, Schmitt and Ottolenghi in Bon Appétit magazine:
The event was open, inclusive, critically engaged - and tasty!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)