COR Point 80
Abortion and Autonomy
In 2012, civil society organizations and the Executive Yuan Department of Gender Equality called on the government to carry out an impact assessment on proposed draft revisions to the Genetic Health Act, including proposed new important draft provisions regarding consent from the spouse, mandatory notification, mandatory consideration periods and consultations. Subsequently, numerous consultations and meetings were held but the gender impact assessment on women’s health and reproductive autonomy has yet to be completed, a result which displays the government’s laxity and shirking of responsibility.
The Executive Yuan submitted draft revisions to the Genetic Health Act to the Legislative Yuan in May 2012. The draft changes revise the framework for artificial abortions and, if approved, would have changed the current requirement for married women wanting abortions to obtain their “husband’s consent” to providing “advance notification to the husband.” However, in operational terms, there would be no substantive difference between “mandatory notification” and obtaining consent from the spouse. In healthy intimate relationships, there would be notification without the legal requirement for mandatory notification. Moreover, the special circumstances listed under which mandatory notification is not required are in practice stifling and difficult to implement since there would be difficulty in certifying and providing evidence and therefore may cause situations in which doctors are unwilling to carry out abortions or delay at the risk of affecting the health of the woman in question. Any explicit legal requirement for “spousal consent” or “mandatory notification” will place the power of decision-making in the head of men and override the autonomy of women over their own bodies and thereby create gender inequality.
The existing act does not explicitly contain a “period of consideration” as a precondition for women to have artificial abortions. However, Article 11 of the May 2012 set of draft revisions submitted by the Executive Yuan to the Legislative Yuan contained a provision that women wanting an abortion had to submit to a three-day period of reconsideration arranged by the hospital before the abortion could be carried out.
According to a survey conducted in 2006 by the Taiwan Association of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (TAOG) on the experiences of women undergoing abortions, most women from the time they realize they are pregnant to the time that they request a doctor to conduct an abortion already have a “consideration” period of at least eight days and have continuously discussed and debated the issue with family and friends and even medical professionals. There are very few women who will immediately decide to have an abortion upon realizing that they are pregnant. Therefore, the demand that women return home for another period of reconsideration constitutes a serious denigration of the capability of consideration and decision-making of women.
The requirements in Taiwan’s Genetic Health Act that married women must obtain the consent of their spouses for an abortion and that minor women must obtain the agreement of a legal guardian may force women to resort to unsafe methods of abortion, such as self-administration of RU486 or going to unlicensed physicians.
We again urge the State to respect the Recommendations of the Experts and immediately revise the law in a manner that allows pregnant women to decide whether to have an abortion based on their free will.
Revise the Artificial Reproduction Act
Article 1 of Taiwan’s Artificial Reproduction Act, enacted in March 2007, states: “This Act is enacted for the purpose of fostering the sound development of artificial reproduction, maintaining social ethics and health, and protecting the rights and interests of infertile couples, children conceived through artificial reproduction, and donors.” This phrasing, restricts the qualifications of persons eligible to use this act to “infertile couples,” according to the Ministry of Justice unofficial translation. A more precise translation of the term “fuqi” ( in the legally valid Chinese version) as husbands and wives” shows that this article transgresses the principle of gender equality149 as it uses the framework of heterosexual marriage to bind artificial reproduction technology, uses the blood doctrine to consolidate patriarchy, and, in tandem, reinforces the reproductive legitimacy of the heterosexual relationship between husband and wife. This act masks its exclusion of non-marriage relationships and refuses to acknowledge the right of a woman to be a mother outside of the institution of marriage. A woman in Taiwan, whether she is single or in a relationship with a homosexual or heterosexual partner, can use the power of her uterus to have normal reproduction, but she will be barred from access to artificial reproductive technology unless she has entered into a heterosexual marriage.
The Taiwan government has convened “citizen deliberative seminars to discuss whether a comprehensive review should be first undertaken as soon as possible of the Artificial Reproduction Act itself in order to amend features that are not in keeping with the concepts of gender equity before considering the insertion of a special chapter on “surrogate reproduction” into that act.
If the government genuinely was concerned with women’s reproductive autonomy, the use by single mothers of their own uterus for artificial reproduction should receive priority attention and discussion relative to the risky and controversial use of artificial reproduction technologies by surrogate mothers. The MOHW has truly put the cart ahead of the horse by remaining secretive and refusing to disclose its own draft set of revisions while calling on civic organizations to submit their recommendations on the details of complementary measures. The MOHW’s failure to correct the patriarchal framework of the Artificial Reproduction Act also continues to violate the principles of gender equity and reproductive autonomy mandated by CEDAW.
- The Ministry of Justice's English translation of the Artificial Reproduction Act can be found at http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=L0070024, while the legally valid Chinese version is at http://law.moj.gov.tw/Law/LawSearchResult.aspx?p=A&t=A1A2E1F1&k1=%E4%BA%BA%E5%B7%A5%E7%94%9F%E6%AE%96.