Padaviya

At first glance, Provisional Measure 557 (PM 557) is not a bad law. It purports to address Brazil’s high maternal mortality ratio by ensuring better access to quality maternal health care, notably for pregnant women at a high risk for health complications. The problem is that it won’t reduce maternal mortality. Notwithstanding the fact that many of its provisions are legally and constitutionally questionable, its requirements are not based on sound public health policy.

So what is going on? Brazil, the most populous Catholic country in Latin America, finds its politics intrinsically tied to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Dilma, who won a last-minute reprieve from the church’s negative onslaught in the 2010 presidential elections once she disavowed any suggested support for abortion, is to a certain extent beholden to that base. Indeed, Dilma’s cabinet includes an unofficial church representative who was responsible for brokering an agreement between the Vatican and Brazil during President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s administration. For years Catholic and evangelical parliamentarians have been trying unsuccessfully to establish a registry for pregnant women, with Dilma’s support they’ve finally succeeded.

Passing such a controversial law during the height of the holiday season without congressional review or approval suggests some backroom negotiations were at play. A provisionary measure is a legislative tool available to Brazilian presidents to pass a law without congressional authorization and is intended for urgent matters. Congress can only debate and approve the law once it has been enacted. While maternal mortality is absolutely a pressing issue, PM 557 is a law that requires long-term implementation to address an endemic issue; therefore, it clearly does not fall into that category.

The biggest problem with maternal mortality in Brazil is not access to health care services, which PM 557 claims it will address, but rather the quality of public health services. The majority of preventable maternal deaths actually take place in public hospitals. PM 557 does not guarantee, for example, access to health exams, timely diagnosis, providers trained in obstetric emergency care, or immediate transfers to better facilities. It doesn’t even ensure a pregnant woman will find a vacant bed when she is ready to give birth.

What PM 557 does do is raise questions about preserving a woman’s human rights: her right to privacy, which would be violated by the compulsory government registration to control and monitor her reproductive life; her right to autonomy and dignity, which would be violated by denying her the freedom of choice; and her right to liberty, which would be completely void as she’d be legally obligated to have all the children she conceives (protecting the rights of the “unborn,” which is flagrantly unconstitutional) and will be monitored by the state for this purpose.

It’s unlikely that Congress will review the new law until it next meets in March. In the meantime, it’s unclear whether women will be lining up to register their pregnancies and if they do what will be the consequence of a pregnancy that ends in miscarriage or an abortion—the latter of which, under Brazilian law, is criminalized except for cases of rape or risk to the life of the pregnant woman. One thing we can be certain of is that maternal mortality rates will not be dropping any time soon, but the prosecution of women for harming a fetus or for getting an abortion could be on the rise.  

By Gillian Kane

I’m not even going to PRETEND this list is exhaustive, impartial or definitive, it’s just stories that either a)would obviously have an impact on women’s lives (and obviously made an impact in the world’s media) or simply caught my eye. But what do you think? Add your own in the comments!

1. UN Women, the United Nations ‘super agency’ to promote women’s equality and empowerment across the world, was finally approved and given its mandate in July 2010 (It formally launched on January 1 this year, but we’ll squeak it in). There was some controversy over the inclusion of Saudi Arabia as a member of the organisation’s board, nonetheless this is a huge step for women across the world.

2. Dilma Rousseff, the former Marxist guerrilla fighter tortured under Brazil’s dictatorship, becomes president of Brazil, and one of the most powerful people, let alone women, in the world. Rousseff has big shoes to fill, coming off the back of Lula’s enormous popularity and charisma, and people would be wrong to expect similar from her, but nonetheless it will be fascinating to see how she steers the Latin American powerhouse.

3. The stoning sentence against Iranian woman Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, which spawned widespread protests, anger and confusion as the Iranian authorities prevaricated, panicked and paraded her about in equal measures. Her story hit media (and social media) hard, more so when she was shown off on Iranian TV and when Iranian-backed Press TV did a bizarre re-enactment of her case including her as some bizarre actress in her own mortality drama.

4. Julia Gillard becomes Australia’s first female prime minister. Strewth, a Sheila in office in Oz matey! And all other stereotypes. With some Machiavellian moves to grasp power and facing down frankly disgraceful comments from opposition politicians, some of whom derided her as ‘barren’ for not having children, Welsh born Gillard nonetheless has taken the reins swiftly and firmly since her election last year, presiding over one of the world’s strongest (and there ain’t many right now) economies. The recent floods in Queensland will prove a test to her ability to galvanise the country at a time of need.

5. UK women had a generally crap year – barely featured or mentioned in the elections, bearing the brunt of the new coalition government’s swingeing cuts, jailed if retracting rape allegations under the murkiest of circumstances and so on. Bah humbug.

6. An Afghan woman’s face became THE face of why we are (apparently) fighting the war in Afghanistan. The decision to put Bibi Aisha’s face on the cover of TIME sparked considerable discussion about whether the issue of women’s rights in such a notoriously patriarchal country was being misapropriated by those keen to shore up support for the conflict. Either way, it looks like the war, and the troubles faced by women such as Bibi Aisha, are not going anywhere soon.

7. Aung San Suu Kyi is released from house arrest. A truly remarkable woman by all accounts, her release after 10 years sparked celebrations in Myanmar/Burma (where a heavily criticised recent election kept the country’s military junta in power) and abroad and much ruminating on what lay next for Burma’s rulers and their people. Aung San Suu Kyi, known in Myanmar as, enigmatically, ‘The Lady’, has said she wants to prepare the country for ‘democratisation’. It will not be an easy road.

8. Kathryn Bigelow wins the Oscar for best director – The Hurt Locker was released in 2009 but the awards were in 2010, so this counts, and damn well right. It is nigh on extraordinary that it took until 2010 for women to finally get their hands on one of the little gold statues, but when one looks at the miserable situation for women (and also diversity of any form) in film it makes sense. Unfortunately films made by, or for, women remain rare in Hollywood aside from anodyne chick flicks.

9. An impressive 40% of all US businesses are now owned or co-owned by women. Let’s get it up to 50%, eh? But many countries still lag in boardroom equality, such as the UK, where only 12.5% of its FTSE 100 companies are run by women.

10. To end on a medical breakthrough – Scientists uncovered important new genetic variants in ovarian cancer, which will greatly help in both the detection and the prevention of the disease.