What choices does the average Egyptian citizen actually have? To have children? To send those kids to a decent public school? To use decent public transport? To utilize the public health system? Information, accountability and governance aside, what choices are really on the table?
Yesterday, in a move hailed by many as a step toward women being given a choice when it comes to abortion, the People’s Assembly’s Health Committee approved an article that makes it legal for gynecologists to conduct abortions for married women who face "difficult living conditions," namely poverty, or in cases of fetal malformation.
At the same time the head of the government statistics organization, Gawdet el-Malat, told the People’s Assembly that poverty in Egypt is on the rise, public services are in a bad shape, almost 35 percent of Egyptians live without sanitation, there is no public education to speak of, and over seven million Egyptians have hepatitis C. All of which spell "difficult conditions."
Further, a report entitled Child Poverty and Disparities in Egypt, released last month by the UN Children’s Fund and the Egyptian government, showed that the number of children living in low-income households is on the rise. The report said 23 percent of children under 15 live on less than US$1 a day and that income poverty is highly correlated with homelessness.
It said also that more than a quarter of Egyptian children (seven million) are deprived of one or more of their basic rights under the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Egypt. Around five million children are deprived of appropriate housing, including shelter, water and sanitation standards. 1.6 million under five experience malnutrition and lack access to health services.
But these dire conditions, it now appears, are about to change. The new act before parliament gives the families of such deprived children the choice of not having them. What kind of choice is that? And this in a country that criminalizes abortion in all other cases, including rape!
The opponents of this limited access to abortion rights are already up in arms. They say it is anti-Islamic, it will result in increased pre-marital sex, and it defies the will of God.
While I am the last person to gang up with those who would deny women the right to control their bodies, I cannot help but feel that there is something twisted, indeed obscene, about making poverty the one legal justification for abortion. It seems like yet another instance of blaming the victim.
Overstating my argument? Consider this. On the same day, Minister of Social Solidarity Ali el-Moselhy announced that the third child in any family would be deprived of subsidies, including free schooling and "other benefits."
Population explosion is of course a concern, but the motivating logic behind such a decision is that people have more than two children in order to obtain subsidies and that by doing so they are taking the government and its hard-earned money for a ride.
The minister claimed that the rich confine themselves to two children, the middle class averages three to five, while the poor have between seven and nine. It does not seem to concern the Minster of Social Solidarity that the poor have more children as insurance against high infant mortality rates (due to lack of access to appropriate health services), and as a way of maximizing the income available to the family, by maximizing cheap manpower. The fact that they cannot count on social welfare or old-age benefits in any real sense also means that more children are an insurance against old age.
In all of this, no one seems to have considered the question: If poor families are being pushed to limit their family size via abortion, what pregnancy will many of them opt to keep, a boy or a girl?
Let’s sum up.
An impoverished Egyptian family cannot 1) expect decent and comprehensive basic services, such as health care, housing and education provided by the government; 2) expect the government to take action to bridge the gap in massive income disparities; or 3) hold corrupt, wasteful and inefficient public servants accountable, thereby freeing resources for the general good.
What choice do they have? To abort.
