Interpretations of Islamic Law Deny Women Choice in Indonesia and Malaysia

Ramona Vijeyarasa

In most Muslim-majority countries, abortion is generally prohibited with exceptions made where the health of the mother is at risk, but doctors often aren't aware of the legal exceptions.

Last month
the Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW) published Surfacing, a compilation of the papers presented
at the 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Reproductive Sexual Health and
Rights (APCRSH) in Hyderabad last year. Surfacing discusses
the impact of Roman Catholic, Hindu and Islamic fundamentalism on sexual
and reproductive health and rights in a number of countries in the region.
In many respects, the publication attempts to address the challenges
of religious fundamentalism, whilst encouraging a more rights-based
and gendered approach to practicing religion.  

Of particular
interest is Zaitun Mohamed Kasim’s contribution on Islamic fundamentalism. His contribution raises many concerning examples of how the differing interpretations
of Islamic jurisprudence bear upon a range of reproductive health issues
in Malaysia and Indonesia, two Muslim-Dominant countries in Southeast
Asia, where 60.4 and 86.1 percent of the population respectively
are Islamic. With no central doctrinal authority, fatwahs (religious edicts) serve as the "bridge"
between Islamic principles and modern life. With thousands of fatwahs
issued every month in Islamic countries around the globe, even religious
and political leaders in the Muslim world admit that the number is excessive, causing confusion and potentially
reflecting ideology more than learning. 

This divergence
in Islamic thought is reflected in the varying levels of acknowledgment
and acceptance of abortion. In most Muslim-majority countries, abortion
is generally prohibited with exceptions usually made where the health
of the mother is at risk. Malaysia’s Abortion
Act 1967

makes termination of pregnancy illegal, with minor exceptions. A pregnancy
may be terminated if two registered medical practitioners are of the
opinion, formed in good faith, that continuation of the pregnancy will
endanger the mother’s life. Termination of pregnancy is also advised
to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical and mental health
of the mother. ARROW reports that many service providers
and members of the public in Malaysia do not know the legal exceptions
for abortion, partly due a lack of accurate information and partly because
of the low priority accorded by the government to promoting women’s
reproductive rights. Dr
Choong Sim Poey of the Reproductive Rights
Advocacy Alliance

in Malaysia similarly suggests that whilst abortion services are "widely
available" in the private sector, information about public
sector abortion services is "hush-hush," with the Ministry of Health refusing to provide abortion services in public
hospitals based on the interpretation of the penal code.   

The Indonesian
abortion law is based on a national health bill passed in 1992 that
has been criticized for its vagueness. The law is generally interpreted as allowing
abortion only if the woman provides confirmation from a doctor that
her pregnancy is life-threatening, a letter of consent from her husband
or a family member, a positive pregnancy test result and a statement
guaranteeing that she will practice contraception afterwards. Like in
Malaysia, Maria
Ufar Ansor
, head
of the women’s section of Indonesia’s biggest Islamic Organisation,
Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), has stated that dangerous abortion techniques
are not uncommon, with the Guttmacher
Institute
reporting
two million induced abortions in Indonesia every year.  

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

The study conducted
by the Guttmacher
Institute
is particularly
interesting for its survey of the attitude to abortion of 105 Muslim,
Catholic and other Christian religious leaders in Indonesia. This survey
revealed that 82% of the leaders surveyed agreed that abortion is acceptable
if a woman’s life is in danger, many reasoning that a woman’s life
should be prioritized over that of the fetus because a woman "is needed
to look after the children and family she already has." The survey
also concluded that Muslim leaders, though conservative, were more tolerant
of abortion than their Christian counterparts, with a higher proportion
of Muslim than Christian leaders supporting abortion if the pregnancy
would interfere with a woman’s schooling or impact her psychological
health. 

Importantly,
however, the Guttmacher report notes the differences in what is considered
an acceptable gestational period according to sect. Followers of Imam
Hanafi generally consider an abortion acceptable up to 120 days after
conception. However, followers of Syafi’i consider abortion acceptable
only within 40 days of conception. Indonesian Matters,
an Indonesian website on the theme of culture and Islamization, refers
to the head of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), Indonesia’s Clerics’
Council, Ma’ruf
Amin
, who espouses
that the book recalling the words and deeds of Muhammad "says that
at the fortieth day of pregnancy the unborn child receives its soul
or spirit, and hence abortion after this time is forbidden." For this
reason, back in 2004, when 13 Indonesian Muslim scholars
proposed that an exception should be created for pregnancy resulting
from rape or incest, the MUI rejected the proposal, responding that
such an exception would amount to the taking of a life, jinayah
or murder.

Interpretations
of what is haram (prohibited) or halal
(permitted) in Islam similarly impact contraceptive use, attitudes towards
family planning services for unmarried couples and people living with
HIV/AIDS, which I will discuss in a future posting. Yet, the impact
on abortion alone is sufficient to highlight the potential gravity of
restrictive interpretations of Islamic tenets, with the World Health Organization reporting that in 2000 unsafe abortion
accounted for 19 percent of maternal deaths in Southeast Asia. At the
same time, the differences in the abortion laws in the two countries
as well as the divergence of opinion within the Islamic religion itself,
remind us about the necessity to distinguish between religion and religious
fundamentalism. What we see here is the interpretation and application
of religious principles in a way that encroaches on reproductive freedoms
at the cost of women’s lives.

News Abortion

How Long Does It Take to Receive Abortion Care in the United States?

Nicole Knight

The national findings come amid state-level research in Texas indicating that its abortion restrictions forced patients to drive farther and spend more to end their pregnancies.

The first nationwide study exploring the average wait time between an abortion care appointment and the procedure found most patients are waiting one week.

Seventy-six percent of patients were able to access abortion care within 7.6 days of making an appointment, with 7 percent of patients reporting delays of more than two weeks between setting an appointment and having the procedure.

In cases where care was delayed more than 14 days, patients cited three main factors: personal challenges, such as losing a job or falling behind on rent; needing a second-trimester procedure, which is less available than earlier abortion services; or living in a state with a mandatory waiting period.

The study, “Time to Appointment and Delays in Accessing Care Among U.S. Abortion Patients,” was published online Thursday by the Guttmacher Institute.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

The national findings come amid state-level research in Texas indicating that its abortion restrictions forced patients to drive farther and spend more to end their pregnancies. A recent Rewire analysis found states bordering Texas had reported a surge in the number of out-of-state patients seeking abortion care.

“What we tend to hear about are the two-week or longer cases, or the women who can’t get in [for an appointment] because the wait is long and they’re beyond the gestational stage,” said Rachel K. Jones, lead author and principal research scientist with the Guttmacher Institute.

“So this is a little bit of a reality check,” she told Rewire in a phone interview. “For the women who do make it to a facility, providers are doing a good job of accommodating these women.”

Jones said the survey was the first asking patients about the time lapse between an appointment and procedure, so it’s impossible to gauge whether wait times have risen or fallen. The findings suggest that eliminating state-mandated waiting periods would permit patients to obtain abortion care sooner, Jones said.

Patients in 87 U.S. abortion facilities took the surveys between April 2014 and June 2015. Patients answered various questions, including how far they had traveled, why they chose the facility, and how long ago they’d called to make their appointment.

The study doesn’t capture those who might want abortion care, but didn’t make it to a clinic.

“If women [weren’t] able to get to a facility because there are too few of them or they’re too far way, then they’re not going to be in our study,” Jones said.

Fifty-four percent of respondents came from states without a forced abortion care waiting period. Twenty-two percent were from states with mandatory waits, and 24 percent lived in states with both a mandatory waiting period and forced counseling—common policies pushed by Republican-held state legislatures.

Most respondents lived at or below the poverty level, had experienced at least one personal challenge, such as a job loss in the past year, and had one or more children. Ninety percent were in the first trimester of pregnancy, and 46 percent paid cash for the procedure.

The findings echo research indicating that three quarters of abortion patients live below or around the poverty line, and 53 percent pay out of pocket for abortion care, likely causing further delays.

Jones noted that delays—such as needing to raise money—can push patients later into pregnancy, which further increases the cost and eliminates medication abortion, an early-stage option.

Recent research on Utah’s 72-hour forced waiting period showed the GOP-backed law didn’t dissuade the vast majority of patients, but made abortion care more costly and difficult to obtain.

News Politics

Anti-Choice Democrats: ‘Open the Big Tent’ for Us

Christine Grimaldi & Ally Boguhn

“Make room for pro-life Democrats and invite pro-life, progressive independents back to the party to focus on the right to parent and ways to help women in crisis or unplanned pregnancies have more choices than abortion,” the group said in a report unveiled to allies at the event, including Democratic National Convention (DNC) delegates and the press.

Read more of our coverage of the Democratic National Convention here.

Democrats for Life of America gathered Wednesday in Philadelphia during the party’s convention to honor Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) for his anti-choice viewpoints, and to strategize ways to incorporate their policies into the party.

The group attributed Democratic losses at the state and federal level to the party’s increasing embrace of pro-choice politics. The best way for Democrats to reclaim seats in state houses, governors’ offices, and the U.S. Congress, they charged, is to “open the big tent” to candidates who oppose legal abortion care.

“Make room for pro-life Democrats and invite pro-life, progressive independents back to the party to focus on the right to parent and ways to help women in crisis or unplanned pregnancies have more choices than abortion,” the group said in a report unveiled to allies at the event, including Democratic National Convention (DNC) delegates and the press.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Democrats for Life of America members repeatedly attempted to distance themselves from Republicans, reiterating their support for policies such as Medicaid expansion and paid maternity leave, which they believe could convince people to carry their pregnancies to term.

Their strategy, however, could have been lifted directly from conservatives’ anti-choice playbook.

The group relies, in part, on data from Marist, a group associated with anti-choice polling, to suggest that many in the party side with them on abortion rights. Executive Director Kristen Day could not explain to Rewire why the group supports a 20-week abortion ban, while Janet Robert, president of the group’s board of directors, trotted out scientifically false claims about fetal pain

Day told Rewire that she is working with pro-choice Democrats, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT), on paid maternity leave. Day said she met with DeLauro the day before the group’s event.

Day identifies with Democrats despite a platform that for the first time embraces the repeal of restrictions for federal funding of abortion care. 

“Those are my people,” she said.

Day claimed to have been “kicked out of the pro-life movement” for supporting the Affordable Care Act. She said Democrats for Life of America is “not opposed to contraception,” though the group filed an amicus brief in U.S. Supreme Court cases on contraception. 

Democrats for Life of America says it has important allies in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Sens. Joe Donnelly (IN), Joe Manchin (WV), and Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL), along with former Rep. Bart Stupak (MI), serve on the group’s board of advisors, according to literature distributed at the convention.

Another alleged ally, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), came up during Edwards’ speech. Edwards said he had discussed the award, named for Casey’s father, former Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, the defendant in the landmark Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which opened up a flood of state-level abortions restrictions as long as those anti-choice policies did not represent an “undue burden.”

“Last night I happened to have the opportunity to speak to Sen. Bob Casey, and I told him … I was in Philadelphia, receiving this award today named after his father,” Edwards said.

The Louisiana governor added that though it may not seem it, there are many more anti-choice Democrats like the two of them who aren’t comfortable coming forward about their views.

“I’m telling you there are many more people out there like us than you might imagine,” Edwards said. “But sometimes it’s easier for those folks who feel like we do on these issues to remain silent because they’re not going to  be questioned, and they’re not going to be receiving any criticism.”

During his speech, Edwards touted the way he has put his views as an anti-choice Democrat into practice in his home state. “I am a proud Democrat, and I am also very proudly pro-life,” Edwards told the small gathering.

Citing his support for Medicaid expansion in Louisiana—which went into effect July 1—Edwards claimed he had run on an otherwise “progressive” platform except for when it came to abortion rights, adding that his policies demonstrate that “there is a difference between being anti-abortion and being pro-life.”

Edwards later made clear that he was disappointed with news that Emily’s List President Stephanie Schriock, whose organization works to elect pro-choice women to office, was being considered to fill the position of party chair in light of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s resignation.

“It wouldn’t” help elect anti-choice politicians to office, said Edwards when asked about it by a reporter. “I don’t want to be overly critical, I don’t know the person, I just know that the signal that would send to the country—and to Democrats such as myself—would just be another step in the opposite direction of being a big tent party [on abortion].” 

Edwards made no secret of his anti-choice viewpoints during his run for governor in 2015. While on the campaign trail, he released a 30-second ad highlighting his wife’s decision not to terminate her pregnancy after a doctor told the couple their daughter would have spina bifida.

He received a 100 percent rating from anti-choice organization Louisiana Right to Life while running for governor, based off a scorecard asking him questions such as, “Do you support the reversal of Roe v. Wade?”

Though the Democratic Party platform and nominee have voiced the party’s support for abortion rights, Edwards has forged ahead with signing numerous pieces of anti-choice legislation into law, including a ban on the commonly used dilation and evacuation (D and E) procedure, and an extension of the state’s abortion care waiting period from 24 hours to 72 hours.

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!