“Freedom or death.

” That speech by suffragette icon Emmeline Pankhurst back in 1913

remains one of the best speeches in history about women’s rights and the right of women to
vote, just like men do. Feminists and historians of today continue to look back at Pankhurst’s
speech, as her words were not only true of the early 20th Century’s climate for women, but
also the climate for women in the very 21st Century, the present century mankind believes is
“modern”. Fair to be said, we have seen significant innovation in this digital age. On an
objective viewpoint, we have also seen progress in terms of the values that society holds. But
there is an undeniable deficit that makes women long for more autonomy and demand more
for what they are rightly entitled to. This is where the question on abortion enters the fore. For
too long, women, or at least most of them, have long clamoured for their right to choose about
decisions that concern their own body. They do present a valid argument. After all, men can
choose whether to be circumcised or not as no legislation or jurisprudence holds them to
account to. And it is a public health issue as much as abortion is. Yet throughout this “modern”
age, women still find themselves restricted by the stipulations of the 1987 Constitution and the
Revised Penal Code on abortion, making the practice thereof illegal. To concede, the practice
is not banned altogether, as the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
analysed that abortion in the country may be legally performed, however, only in case the
pregnancy is deemed a threat to the life of a woman. The policy itself, objectively, is neither
emancipating nor proactive. There is an immense need for a national reform on abortion
policy; its legalisation is long overdue. The legalisation of abortion paves the way for an
empowered and multidimensionally secure female citizenry.

By legalising abortion, women are politically empowered, as they are finally given the
autonomy to decide for their own body and tangentially become more equal to men, reaching
the full state of their bodily emancipation from patriarchy-created legislation and jurisprudence
directing them otherwise. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human
Rights concedes that denying women of their right to abortion is a human rights violation and
a form of gender discrimination and gender-based violence. Indeed, to deny women of their
natural right to decide about their own body within their reason is to amount to discrimination
among genders. Even natural law and human law do not provide for that men lord over women
nor reserve them to exercise the reason and power to exact policy and restrictions concerning
women’s bodily affairs. If, indeed, beyond the sphere of public health, abortion is also a familial
issue, then it is only rational and institutionally appropriate that the deliberation of the practice
of such act be left in the wisdom of couples, not in the hands of ideologue legislators who
justify public policy with assertions in holy scripture/s. To further support the argument, a 2017
research by Emma Budde and Stephan Heichel published in the Cambridge University Press
finds a correlation between access to abortion and gender empowerment; the research
suggests that progressive changes to abortion regulations from the 1960s to 2010s improved
women’s political empowerment and their participation in the labour force. Ergo, it is fair to put
too fine a point on the finding that legalising abortions do not only make women politically
empowered, it also makes them financially secure and consequently, independent.

Another case for making abortions legal is that it ensures security among women in
several dimensions. First, financial/economic. It was already established in the a priori
argument that abortion enables women to become more financially secure. To expand the
financial aspect of the argument, it is crucial to note that women who may otherwise become
pregnant will, at some degree if not always, find themselves with limited employment
opportunities due to latent employment discrimination. There is considerable merit in the
provisions of RA 11210, allowing already employed women in the country who have become
pregnant to enjoy a 105-day maternity leave, with extensions given but without pay. But
logically speaking, such number of days is not sufficient to enable female parents to effectively
attend to the critical stages of an infant’s and child’s development. More so, the bond between
female parents and their child/ren is compromised. If they so decide to extend further, they
risk losing their career, which perhaps has compelled many women to give up their careers to
become full-time mothers. This should not have been the case had they been given reliable
employment security in their tenure. But if maternity laws could not be reformed so as to give
this security, then women should be able to perform abortion legally if, within their reason,
they derive that they are still financially and personally unprepared to discharge the very
overwhelming task of being a parent. Indeed, to become a parent is overwhelming, if done
right. And it is perfectly rational for a woman or even a man not to have a child if they believe
they are still unprepared for such a role. On the other side of the coin, opposition to abortion
does not really mean being pro-life if a decent life cannot be provided to a child. To quote the
globally-acclaimed Benedictine nun Sister Joan Chittister, “I do not believe that just because
you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated,
not a child housed. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth.” There is great wisdom in what
Chittister asserts and not only supports, but also expands the argument beyond financial terms
to touch the ethical grounds of the parental responsibility to provide a decent life. To further
sustain this first point, in an amicus brief jointly filed at the US Supreme Court by over 150
economists, they concede that the decision Roe v. Wade (which made abortion legal in the
United States) helped in improving the social and economic condition of Americans, especially
on young and Black women. They note that with legalised abortion, the probability that women
finish college increased by 20 percent and their prospect of entering a professional career
increased by 40 percent. Now, while it may be particular to America’s case, it is important to
understand that abortion as an issue and right transcends borders, and what may be
empirically demonstrated in America could also be the case in the Philippines should the policy
direction indeed be pursued.

Second, health. Despite the legislative and judicial instrumentalities in place, the
government cannot stop women from having an abortion. They could go to other countries
where abortion is legal, which presents the case for a loss of income. But given that such an
option is not affordable for the common Filipino, many women resort to the conduct of unsafe
abortions and the consumption of substances that would trigger pregnancy loss, among
others. These methods come with great risks to the lives of women, even resulting deaths.
Based on an Inquirer.net article by Cristina Eloisa Baclig (citing the Philippine Safe Abortion
Advocacy Network), about 973,000 abortions take place annually in the country between 2015
and 2018. It increased in 2020 with over 1.26 million. Their 2012 record shows that 100,000
women were hospitalised following unsafe abortion complications, with 1,000 of them dying.
These demonstrate that unsafe abortions as a corollary to restrictive State policies result to
rising morbidity among women, which is not a good indicator of healthcare and human rights
in the country. In America’s case, based on Guttmacher Institute, hospitalisation of women
due to unsafe abortions significantly dropped following the Roe decision, as increased access
to legal abortion clinics ensured lesser complications and safer procedures for women.

Of course, abortion is bound to have opposition. First, critics deplore abortion because
it is “anti-life”, that it is essentially a murder. This is pure semantics, and undermines the right
of women to bodily autonomy and their right to decide what to do with their uterus. This
criticism often comes from right-wing conservatives who also support having a death penalty,
which only make their moral compass anything but consistent. Second, critics throw “What if”
counterarguments such as “What if the baby turns out to be the future president?” The
argument itself is a logical fallacy. The prospect is infinitesimal and to become the president,
one has to meet the requirements stipulated in the 1987 Constitution. There is no “absolute”
possibility, statistically speaking, that the foetus would grow to meet all the requirements. And
because the arguments as it stands poses a probability, it is fallacious and flawed.

It is now more apparent than ever that there is a need for the State to reassess its
policy on abortion and realise reform towards its legalisation. In doing so, women in the country
will be empowered of being emancipated from the outdated perception of the patriarchal
society and finally having their bodily autonomy. Women will become more financially secure,
safer from health risks, and more empowered to prove to society that they are perfectly
capable of excelling in professional careers and in other trades just like men. In promoting and
legalising abortion, the role of motherhood is not deplored nor discouraged; it encourages
responsible parenthood, family planning, and sustainable families who are doing the world
and “God” a favour by making sure that no more children are born to poverty and without home
and education, but to families where they will be able to enjoy the basic right to have a decent
life and upbringing. Lastly, it is to respect women and trust them to have command of their
affairs, for it is their right. Abortion rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human
rights.