As mandatory vaccination policies take effect, predictably, there has been a lot of pushback from people. It has resulted in individual and large-scale resistance as people feel as if their individual liberties are under threat. Despite many being fierce anti-abortion advocates, this belief that vaccines impact their autonomy over their bodies, has resulted in many ironically adopting pro-choice rhetoric. The sentiments of “my body, my choice” are almost certain to be heard now whenever there is an argument against mandatory vaccines. The co-opting of pro-choice language is not only present in Guyana, but almost everywhere that mandatory policies are taking effect. It would be a minor point of contention if it weren’t for the fact that against this backdrop, there is a heightened push to curb accessible abortions.
Currently, in Texas, lawmakers have passed a law that prohibits abortions after the six-week period. This law is a particularly restrictive one as a majority of women do not even know that they are pregnant at six weeks. The menstrual period occurs every four weeks, leaving only a two-week window, and for those who have irregular periods, it might take them even longer than two weeks to realize that they are pregnant. At that point, under the context of the Texas law, it is way too late for anything to be done, unless persons are able to travel hundreds of miles out of their state to access abortion services. Of course, not many are able to afford this and as such are often forced to go through with the pregnancy or seek out dangerous home abortion strategies that often endanger their lives.
What makes this Texas law unique is that it does not only target those who seek out and provide abortions, but also anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.” Private citizens now have immense power over the bodies and lives of other persons as they are now able to individually enforce the law through legal challenges. The development of this is something to watch, as despite the progress made over the years towards more independent stances, Caribbean countries and others in the Global South still continue to take direction from the North. While there might be an internal perception that Guyanese in a Northern context would be democrats, the reality is that largely, we are a Republican state. The stances against abortion rights, the culture of victim blaming and the hate towards what they consider to be different gender and sexualities is a clear indicator of where they stand politically.
Thankfully, Guyana continues to have one of the most liberal abortion acts in the region through the 1995 Abortion Act. The passage of this Act was largely shaped and led by women’s right activists and female politicians. Their collaborative work resulted in an Act that comprehensively respects the autonomy of women and girls and their reproductive choices. It is great that our Act includes provisions that empower women and girls, regardless of age, marital status etc. to have an abortion without parental or spousal approval. It also allows for women to seek abortions for a wide variety of reasons. If they simply do not want to go through with the pregnancy or believe that it will contribute towards mental or financial strain for them, these can all be listed as reasons for seeking an abortion. Access to abortion services unfortunately however, still remains an issue, particularly for women in rural and Indigenous communities. A lot of this inaccessibility is due to the lack of political will to provide resources for abortion services across Guyana, resulting in only a handful of public and private hospitals offering the service.
Regardless of how restrictive politicians try to make abortion access however, the reality is that it will not stop persons from getting abortions. All that restrictive abortion policies do is endanger women’s lives as they make it difficult for them to access safe abortion services. We clearly know that anti-abortion advocates are not necessarily concerned with the “sanctity of life.” Largely, it is about controlling women’s bodies and restricting their freedom of choice. Anti-abortion advocates’ concern for foetuses’ lasts primarily up to the point of birth and no time after. So what we often end up with are overburdened orphanages and mothers who are mentally and financially strained under the burdens of motherhood.
All persons deserve the freedom to make decisions about their bodies and this right does not go away because of someone else’s belief about what they should do. Abortion is a fundamental healthcare service that saves millions of lives across the world every year. It is something that should be supported and not actively resisted, as all abortion resistance does is create harmful environments for those who do not want to go through with a pregnancy.
