Why withdrawing abortions from compulsory insurance is immoral
Text: Tatyana Nikonova, author of Sam Jones's Diary blog, former editor-in-chief of the portal takzdorovo.ru
Last week Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill delivered a speech in the State Duma with a proposal that could seriously hit the female population of Russia and the demographic situation in the country - although it is directed, as it seems to supporters of the church, to achieve exactly the opposite goal. Literally, the patriarch said the following: "I believe it is morally justifiable to remove the operation of artificially interrupting pregnancy from the compulsory health insurance system, which is supported by taxpayers, including those who absolutely do not accept abortions.
Here I would like to enter into a discussion with opponents. We are told that if this is done and abortion is withdrawn from the insurance system, the number of clandestine abortions will increase. Excuse me, are underground abortions free? Is there at least one “underground worker” who performs an abortion for free? He is fighting money and will take even more. It is just necessary that when a woman makes such a fatal decision, she naturally would turn to professional doctors, whose price of services should not be more than the price of services of “underground workers”, and the problem will be solved. And besides this argument, opponents of this proposal have no other. "
In fact, they exist, and the patriarch cannot be unaware of them. At the same time, statements by the head of the church about the need to completely ban abortions themselves should not surprise anyone - almost all common denominations adhere to the idea of controlling the female body and are extremely reluctant to adapt to current realities. To resent the patriarch’s call to ban abortions is like condemning believers for observing religious traditions. Such is their general line of the party, not a question. Questions arise when the church - any - interferes in the affairs of a secular state and the personal life of people who are not in it.
The fact that we are gradually moving away from the secular state towards the theocratic, and the church’s position on such issues can become regulative, says, in particular, the recognition of Irina Chirkova, a member of the State Duma Committee on the Family, Women and Children. According to her, the bill on the withdrawal of abortions from the CHI is one of the top five priorities and can be submitted for consideration in the spring, despite the fact that "medical centers are against, and all organizations associated with the church are in favor." Let me explain why this is a deadly initiative that does not solve problems, but on the contrary, they will only aggravate.
Russia is a unique country in many ways, not only in its size and quality of roads, but also in the number of abortions. We are the world leader in the number of abortions per capita. In a country where there are not 80 million women, including infants and old women, there are more than a million abortions per year. In fact, abortions are now a family planning method. This is connected both with total sexual illiteracy and with the habits of the USSR, when there was practically no alternative, and free medicine was fully functional. Our neighbors in the stairwell still seriously consider the interrupted act or the calculation of "safe" days as an acceptable method of protection. But if it did not work out, then for an abortion, the benefit can be done for free.
Society is kept from abortion either by tight control over the woman’s body and behavior from outside, or by awareness
It is easy to assume that the availability of the operation to terminate a pregnancy leads to such a disregard for your own body, and therefore, the removal of abortions from the medical insurance system will dramatically improve the situation. In fact, everything is exactly the opposite. This is proved by the fact that the least abortions in the country are performed in Moscow and in the North Caucasus - at the two poles of Russian culture.
In Moscow, where several million people are able to pay for a small operation for themselves or a partner, the cult of sexual levity is more common than in any other Russian city. But also people practically bathe in information and more often think about the consequences of their actions. Accordingly, they are more accurately and efficiently protected - simply because they know how to do it, and they have money for it. At the same time, honor killings are still happening in the Caucasus, and even Tina Kandelaki wears a headscarf around Ramzan Kadyrov and his instagram subscribers. Thus, society is kept from abortion either by tight control over the woman’s body and behavior from the outside, or by awareness and self-care of herself.
What will the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and the people prefer, I’m not afraid of this word, elects, of whom 86% are men? Interdiction or sexual education? Talking about moral or science wearing a condom? Education or punishment? And we are talking about punishment, because the meaning of the statement of the patriarch consists of two main ideas.
First, this initiative morally justifies the position not to take care of those who got into self-created misfortune (the idiots who smashed their heads in a drunken brawl are not considered - their hospitals will continue to receive for free). Secondly, a legal and relatively safe operation in a medical institution is equivalent to scraping on the kitchen table, and commercial medicine gives the green light to focus on the black market of medical services.
All of this is especially dangerous, given the state of the health care system and the cross-section of the population, most often seeking free services. A woman who has no other options now goes to the local clinic for abortion for free: she doesn’t have her own money, she doesn’t have enough money for a paid service, she is a schoolgirl or a student, she is a mother of many children, maybe she lives in a small village and in general can hardly imagine where to seek medical assistance, except in the regional hospital, to which it is still necessary to get there, and so on.
Therefore, the prohibition of free abortions is a blow to the most vulnerable women who simply cannot afford this child or abortion in a commercial clinic. And any of us can become this woman at any time, given the economic trends of recent months.
The patriarch expects a population explosion at a ban on free abortions, implicitly implying that they will not pay in this case. But if a woman has no money even for an abortion, she has nothing to raise a child with. If free abortions end, it will not fill women's wallets. If paid legal and criminal abortions begin to compete, the latter will always be cheaper at least due to the lack of qualified specialists, flowers in reception areas and the need to pay taxes to the state and pay bribes to the fire inspection. "Fighting" for clandestine abortions only where legal interruption of pregnancy is in principle unavailable.
However, if a woman has no money, she will not choose between a legal and underground abortion, but between an underground (cheap), independent (free) and rejection of an already born child. That is, between the complications of infection and infertility to death and the provision of a population explosion in our best orphanages in the world.
"Strictly not accepting abortions" taxpayers are not eager to adopt abandoned orphans
Where is the orphanage, you ask. Maybe women giving birth will often leave unplanned children to themselves? However, we remember that we are talking about women who have no extra money, and it is useless to count on the help of their fathers. In Russia, up to 70% of men, on whom things started, evade paying alimony. The rest, if possible, hide their real incomes - their payments are too low even for the national average salary. Childbearing and everything connected with it are traditionally an exclusively female headache, and taxpayers, “categorically not accepting abortions”, are not eager to adopt abandoned orphans.
Therefore, morality, as the church understands it, justifies pushing women toward suicidal acts and increasing the number of unfortunate children unfit for life, who grew up without parents and easily fall into criminal groups. This hypocrisy is the main horror of the speech supported by the State Duma. Instead of the whole performance, one could honestly say: "Let's punish all women - both believers and atheists - for sex, the joy of life and the desire to plan it independently."
By the way, about morality. Last week, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, there was a conference of teachers of the basics of Orthodox culture in public schools. Teachers complained that children prefer Batman, not Alexander Nevsky. Methodists suggested that teachers oppose the image of Christ to Batman. Although if you think about it, Batman as a role model would be great for sex education. He, like the Patriarch, has a bulletproof cockle, and also Batman is all rubber, so his women do not have to think about whether or not to have an abortion. But such heroes do not correspond to official ideas about morality and ethics, therefore save money, girls, we still have to pay for a lot.
Photo: 1, 2 via Shutterstock