March as women’s month is a good opportunity for us to take a look at the many different issues affecting women. And I guess one thing we cannot gloss over is the continuing debate over the Reproductive Health Law. It’s really interesting to note that just when everyone thought the law had been clinched, the temporary restraining order (TRO) descended on it.
Can anything good come from the TRO when it obviously means delayed delivery of perceived essential reproductive health services, which delay, it is believed, could translate into more maternal deaths, unwanted pregnancies, deeper entrenchment in poverty and a host of other ills?
I think the answer to the question is, yes, something good can come from the TRO: probably a chance to make sure that what we offer will not endanger women’s health further. Otherwise, this will turn out into something like the proverbial jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
These thoughts are not original, by the way. They were inspired by feminist author Germaine Greer who wrote: “Whether you feel that the creation and wastage of so many embryos is an important issue or not, you must see that (…) by selling abortifacients as if they were contraceptives is incompatible with the respect due to women as human
beings.” (“The Whole Woman”)
Maybe the TRO is worth respecting if only to see whether it stands or falls on its claims. However it may seem, in its own way the TRO is prowoman.
CHRISTINE E. GOMEZ, c_e_gomez@yahoo.com