Main Edition
US
FR
A Green Wave is sweeping Latin America. (ULISES RUIZ/AFP via Getty Images)
The streets of Latin America are awash with green, the colour of the handkerchiefs, T-shirts, and protest signs sported in support of the region’s triumphant reproductive rights movement. This “green wave” has recently appeared unstoppable. Last month, Mexican feminists celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling to decriminalise abortion — the latest in a series of victories in the region, which has also seen the relaxation of legislation in Argentina, Uruguay, Guyana and Colombia.
There is one big exception to this trend toward liberalisation in the Americas: the United States. Last summer, American women lost their constitutional right to end a pregnancy overnight. While abortion remains broadly legal in America’s more progressive, mostly coastal states, it is outlawed in 14 states, and restricted, at risk, or unprotected across most of the south and middle of the country. Today, three states will see quasi-referendums on the issue, which has come to define local elections across the country. As a result, American feminists are looking south of the border and asking: what can we learn from Latin America?
Years of organising precipitated the green wave. In 2006, Colombia loosened abortion restrictions; in 2007, Mexico City legalised the procedure. Those hard-fought successes gave the feminist movement the confidence to broaden its approach. Instead of focusing primarily on passing laws in legislatures, they took up a kind of kitchen-sink strategy: do it all, try everything, see what works. While some focused on using the justice system to effect change, others prioritised bringing young people into activism. Women spoke out about their own experiences in a push to destigmatise abortion — and feminist groups put pressure on politicians to highlight women’s rights. This combination accelerated the green wave.
In the United States, advocacy has long been focused on the courts, and for good reason: the legalisation of abortion came via Supreme Court decisions, and efforts to curtail access were most successful when implemented legislatively and upheld by the legal system. But groups working in the community here and building cross-movement relationships are routinely under-funded and under-resourced.
Another crucial tactic in Latin America has been to emphasise that outlawing abortion doesn’t end it; it just makes it less safe. Many nations where the procedure is illegal have high rates; indeed, while it remains restricted in much of Latin America, the region has a significantly higher rate than Europe, where abortion has long been legal in most nations. Those places where abortion is restricted also tend to see far higher unintended pregnancy rates. In these countries, women often turn to abortion-inducing pills which they source from feminist groups, or from pharmacies or hospitals where they’re sold under the counter or prescribed for other purposes. If they can’t access the pills, which are overwhelmingly safe, some women resort to far riskier methods — drinking poisons, inserting sticks, or going to untrained freelance providers who make promises they may not keep. There are also much higher rates of maternal death and injury due to unsafe procedures.
This is why feminists routinely state just how common abortion is — even where it is illegal. The difference between legalising abortion and banning it is a choice between making procedures that will inevitably take place safe or potentially deadly.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“voters, some Republicans argue, simply shouldn’t have a say. Pro-choice activists disagree.”
That’s funny. Pro-abortion activists didn’t believe voters should have a say when it was unelected judges deciding whether to legalise it or not over the past half a century. They spent decades avoiding any voter scrutiny on the issue at all. Now that the U.S states can vote on it, with the shoe on the other foot, activists are in favour of voters having their say? How convenient.
It’s different when we do it.
The feminist campaign for more abortion weakens the single greatest power women have to control the destiny of society: rearing the next generation.
In the UK the number of babies aborted is equal to immigration from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. This immigration is necessary we are told because we are facing an impending demographic collapse caused by having too few children. In fact, the UK population is now set to rise steadily to record highs well into the second half of this century thanks solely to immigration and the higher birth rate of those immigrants.
At the same time, surveys show (and recent protests exemplify) how a large majority of these new 1st generation immigrants have very conservative politics, and 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants are increasingly ultra conservative. Already in many communities in the North of England access to abortion is now only theoretical because religious “community leaders” hold sway and the result is vastly lower abortion rates in those communities. It isn’t left in women’s hands in these places, law or no law.
Our children carry a good proportion of the values we their parents instruct to them. Westerners are aborting their children at record rates even as Western conception rates also drop. The “modern” Western ideal of unfettered abortion will quite literally lead to the dilution if not extinction of Western liberal thinking. This is why we see liberals such as the author above leveraging their ideals not just into laws but into the very fabric of national and global institutions: it is a desperate attempt to embed these ideals beyond the reach of popular change because the next generation needed to perpetuate them by popular support has not been born. In the face of overwhelming demographic change utterly opposed to these ideals, it won’t work.
It is some irony that feminism is now defeating feminism in the Western world. No doubt the leading lights of feminism will redefine feminism to fit with the new cultural norms to avoid facing up to what has happened, as we have seen with recent feminist campaigns to justify religious modesty dress rules forced on young women.
Abortion is none of your business
…Correct Douglas, it’s actually everybody’s business.
The settled political reality in Britain is that it isnt anyone’s business but the woman who bears the conceptus. It’s likely to remain that way as well as anti abortionists have no traction in the UK
There are all sorts of ways in which the settled reality of the last 50 years has been a disaster: multiculturalism, sexual revelation, individualism, globalism, materialism, atheism. Settled realities, already settled until they are unsettled.
It could be the baby’s business
Its not a baby until it is born
Why not?
I suppose it’s none of your business, hence you’re prohibited from even thinking about it.
What a specious argument. British women must breed to counterbalance the immigrant influx. Why not just stop immigration. On your reckoning the sheer numbers would sink Britain. I wonder how keen you would be if you had to go through pregnancy, give birth, give up your life – in short be left holding the baby. Abortions are going to happen anyway, why put women at more risk?
…
Firstly, I never once suggested I was opposed to abortion. You’re reading arguments that are in your head. One can still be pro-abortion and acknowledge the negative consequences, we’re grown-ups so should be capable of handling shades of grey.
My comment was merely exploring the unintended effects of those promoting abortion for their own cause. Is it not permissible to ask if third wave feminism might actually be damaging women’s rights?
Abortions aren’t “just going to happen”. For the last year there is full data, 2021, a record 214,000 terminations were carried out in the UK. We have seen a rapid rise in abortions which means demand is in fact elastic – culture and public promotion clearly does influence the decision.
Lastly, I am left holding the baby. Two of them, in fact.
As the Author well knows, even Justice Ginsberg knew the rationale behind the Supreme Court decision to allow abortion was on shaky grounds with limited Constitutional basis. The only thing Dobbs said was it is a State issue not Federal unless The Congress and President decided to pass a law that allowed it. That was never done by any Democratic controlled Govt including Clinton, Obama and Biden when they controlled both houses of Congress. The result is that the question is decided in the State Capitols instead of Washington. Democracy still decides
You don’t really understand how the US constitution works, do you sport?
I think he got it exactly right.
He’s right. Dobbs leaves it up to the states, unless there’s a superseding federal law. Many states passed laws after Roe (just in case) and those laws are now effective. Dems never passed a federal law, though they could have at a number of points after Roe.
Thank you for the moral lecture Globalist CNN contributor. I wish you luck on your journey toward “destigmatizing abortion” and spreading South American emancipitory politics to people living to Red States.
If every state in the US held a single issue referendum on abortion, choosing between outlawing it completely or having it legal during the first trimester, how many do you think would make it illegal as a result? I’d wager not one personally, even in the red states I believe a majority would rather have it available instead of forcing women into dodgy backstreet clinics
By population, roughly 80% of the US does allow legal abortion now in the first trimester.
The issue is the remaining 20% are happy to see other states democratically choose a different path.
But, roughly 20-30% of the population lives in states that allow unlimited and third trimester abortion.
They are the ones complaining, because they want to force their views on all Americans – even though the support base for unlimited 3rs trimester abortions are even more of an outlier in real terms than those favouring complete abortion bans.
So your issue is “Democracy” huh? Are you interested in imposing Jacobin Style Direct Democracy everywhere or following the traditional path of letting localities elect their Representative leaders that speak on behalf of voters. Should everything be a ballot measure or just the things you find progressive and liberating?
People in Red States are trying to get away from Blue State mentality but Progressives want to live around Conservatives because they know it will be cheaper and safer. Nobody in Red States want a bunch of Progressive activists moving in and causing upheaval and implementing a bunch of excess social programs that raise our cost of living. Abortion is allowed virtually everywhere when the life of the mother is in doubt. Its also legal in the majority of States. Live there. Problem solved
I notice you didn’t answer my question
With that leading question; probably 46-48 States. If the question notes that the State already has a rape and health exception to cover extraordinary circumstances, it probably drops to 42-44 States If you add an additional clause that let’s voters know that abortion services will be covered by State Insurance Health Plans it drops even further. It’s one thing to allow it. Its another to he forced to pay for it.
Now my turn-
1) How many States would vote to ban abortion AFTER the first trimester?
2) How many States would vote to mandate government issued Voter ID rules and ban “no excuse” mail balloting if it was on a ballot iniative?
I just want to see how committed you are to “Democracy.”
1 depends on how long after the first trimester I suppose. If you’re saying legal up until birth then I’d say none. If you were to set it at around the 20 week mark then probably around half.
2. I’ve no idea how voter ID or mail votes work in the States so I can’t really answer it, personally I have no problem with either. I also don’t really know what that has to do with the abortion debate
Your question about letting States vote on Abortion was fundamentally about voting, IE Democracy…was it not?
So if we’re discussing Democracy and 80-85% of the polled population believes in the need for Voter ID, it means the overwhelming majority of the population agrees that the current method of voting is inherently unreliable. Every State would vote for Voter ID. Yet despite this, the Democratic Party wants to keep this unreliable method and vehemently opposes any ballot measure to require Voter ID.
My point…the “Pro Democracy” IE majority rule case you’re making for Abortion is antithetical to the way “The Party” operates. If you want to vote on Abortion this way you need to Vote on how you Vote before you have any “Democracy Cred.”
Fair enough then, if a majority think voter ID should be compulsory then in my opinion it should be.
If one side doesn’t want it and are trying to keep it off the ballot in the belief they’d lose that vote then that’s just as sly as the anti abortion crowd refusing to put their policies to the electorate in case the majority reject them
“would rather have it available instead of forcing women into dodgy backstreet clinics”
Because that is the choice, right?
For unwanted pregnancies, yes that pretty much is the choice. Legal and safe or dangerously unregulated
I’ve finally figured out what feminists, queerists, and Hamas supporters all have in common. They’re all death cults.
What about the real happy family that the woman went on to conceive with her new man. Of course that would not have been possible if she had stayed with the silver tongue one night stand that champagned her into sex and pregnancy. Life is more complicated than religious ideals.
Took you all this time and you still got it wrong.
No great surprise there…
Leaving the moral argument to others to debate, it’s interesting that for almost half a century, the legal right to abortion rested on a woman’s right to privacy under the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
So ensued 49 years of that can being kicked down the road by people who apparently were passionately invested in maintaining a right obtained by the most lateral means imaginable. One can only assume that folks were so afraid of sinking the boat that they didn’t dare rock it by pushing for firmer legal underpinnings.
Some people saw the 2022 overthrow of Roe vs. Wade as a tragedy, others as a victory, and of course the arguments continue. But what should be soberly considered is that, if you really care about something, it’s incumbent upon you to take steps yourself to protect it.
It was hubris and complacency, pure and simple. I have no skin in the game at all but the hypocrisy of it all disgusts me.
In all honesty it probably prevented the Americans going through the arguments and messy compromises that other first world countries went through when legislating around abortions, eventually settling on limits that were acceptable to the majority.
Now they’ve ended up with the conversation being dominated by lunatics at either end of the spectrum advocating for either total bans or termination up until birth, positions supported by tiny minorities
No one has the right to end another innocent human life. For a mother to do it to her child is especially appalling. And why does the father never get any say?
“why does the father never get any say?”
For the same reason why, for all the “equality” talk and complaints about “unpaid labour”, feminists in general aren’t keen on equality in family courts or child custody.
Because feminists don’t consider him to be a father, they see him as a wallet.
And they are too stupid to think about second order consequences .
The divorce must have been very hard on you for you to be this bitter.
Very sad.
Are you in favour of capital punishment?
And the father doesn’t get a say because it’s not him that risks his health carrying it
The other way round, a father risks having to pay for the child all his life if the child gets born.
So, by extension, if a man doesn’t agree to bear the costs, then the child MUST be aborted even if the mother wants to have it.
Deal?
If he’s that worried he should have wrapped his todger before diving in
Yes, but that’s NOT an innocent life. I’m also in favor of self-defense.
If you see human beings as one of the species on the planet, then the human beings of the western world are going to die out because there will be no children.
Instead, societies which see children as natural, or patriarchal societies, will take over.
It is not in the interest of these future societies to allow feminism. Therefore their women will remain downtrodden because to follow us will mean dying out. Therefore, feminism destroys feminism.
Too many commenters are far too quick to latch onto worst-case scenerios, which seldom come to pass. And assuming that the variables, which just recently changed, will now remain unchanged over many generations is just foolish. Variables change; that’s why they’re called variables.
White, Western humans are not going to die out, the seas are not going to overwhelm us, London is not going to become too hot to live in… Please relax.
This is hilarious! Do you clowns actually think like this?
Mind blowingly stupid!
You don’t help your “side” by publishing things that are not true. The Dobbs decision was nothing more than the reversal of a US Supreme Court error. Roe v. Wade was itself a constitutional and logical abortion, an attempt to bring in abortion as a constitutionally-sanctioned entity via “penumbra” and “emanations” and vague references to the right to privacy, none of which is mentioned in the Constitution. Dobbs did NOT end “their constitutional right to end a pregnancy overnight.” It returned the decision to the states. Period.
As for “feminism,” Western women are now reaping the wages of decades of Toxic Feminist misandry. Men are wising-up about marriage in the West and are refusing to submit themselves to a State contract that encourages Western women to divorce them, take their children, half their assets, and which mandates a pension for her, sometimes for a lifetime. David’s Bridal, the largest bridal shop in America, just filed for bankruptcy. Why? Because Western men are saying, “No, thank you, Ma’am” and if they marry at all, they are looking for wives in places like the Philippines.
Yep, the Toxic Feminists are, indeed, winning a few victories. Can you say, “pyrrhic?” Enjoy your cats, ladies; enjoy your cats.
You sound like a charming young man, James. I bet you are a huge Andrew Tate fan, aren’t you, you naughty little boy!
And please stick to the incel stuff, sonny – your legal opinions are nonsense.
But how many cats do you have?
Incel humour! Amazing!
Maybe you should tell the lads in your men’s rights group that I replied to you – you’ll be a hero!
The US Supreme Court did not rule against abortion. It decided that the Court should not be writing legislation, but judging the constitutionality of legislation written by elected lawmakers.
Dobbs threw the question to state legislatures and finally to state direct referenda, which have been doing a great job of correcting the Talibanic weirdness imposed by some of those legislatures. In the US system the states are laboratories of experiment which over time evolve better legislation than any imposed solution from the national level.
I can get this from the guardian
You wouldn’t be allowed to disagree with this in the comments section in the Guardian.
“How dare UnHerd publish a piece I disagree with! I didn’t come here to have my opinion challenged! Grumble grumble grumble!”
It is a bit of a simplistic piece, to be fair.
It was never a constitutional right
“Last summer, American women lost their constitutional right to end a pregnancy overnight” – Why are you lying, Jill?
Abortion is one of the few difficult philosophical political issues we face. You can believe women have a right to privacy, medical control of their own body etc but still believe abortion is ‘wrong’.
For a start abortion is not, in most cases, a health treatment as a result of something going wrong with a woman’s health. Quite the contrary it is a sign of her body working as nature ‘intended’.
Secondly if abortion should be up to the woman then why should there be any restrictions as to when? Surely abortion should either, logically, be banned or allowed up till birth.
Certainly in cases where the pregnancy is the result of consensual sex then abortion is just the woman (and, to varying degrees, her partner) not taking responsibility for her prior actions.
Abortion is the killing/cancelling of life and as someone who previously supported the right to abort (and had foetuses aborted) I now feel, at least, uneasy about my previous actions.
There’s nothing that will set off the UnHerd incels than a headline with the word feminist in it! And right on cue they pop up with their untethered madness!
I see from below that promotion of womens’ right to choose has trigerred few frothers. If they minded their own business they would be happier
I think you will find broad consensus on allowing first trimester abortion or freedom to choose in cases of health risks, rape, etc
The issue is the pro death view that abortion is just a minor “choice”, not a major decision to terminate a life, or that a woman can “choose” to get rid of the annoying clump of cells at any point.
For instance, practically speaking, there is little difference between a 30 week “foetus” and a one month baby.
Should women have the “choice” for the latter case?
“they minded their own business they would be happier”
I think the downside is that a lot of them would rather mind their own business when the woman does decide to give birth.
It’s not that simple is it. The article doesn’t give any detail of perameters. Most people support some provision for abortion in the first stages of pregnancy, but the reality of abortion after about 12 weeks is pretty grim.
Now you have some extreme factions trying to push for legal abortions up until birth, or maybe even beyond?