By Kemo Cham and Mabinty Kamara
Those against the ‘Safe Abortion Act 2015’ have been the most vocal on the ongoing debate over the increasingly controversial piece of legislation. This is certainly not because there are not many people who support the enactment of the law; it may just be that they just aren’t being given the platform.
For instance, at the inter-faith summit convened by the Inter Religious Council (IRC) which has given a whole new dimension to the debate, all the voices were from those against the bill. Lawyers, medical doctors, gender activists. But since we are told that the position of the IRC was informed by the views of all Sierra Leoneans, it only makes sense that the debate becomes a little more open.
Politico spoke to two women who share interesting views on the issue. They are neither in support entirely of the law, nor do they believe it can just be discarded, as the religious establishment is suggesting.
Interestingly, almost everything about this debate is cantered on the lives of the women folks, which make them very relevant to the debate. Yet at the IRC summit their voices were very scarce. Out of over 300 participants only 78 were women. Only one woman was on the high table [even if she was against the bill] out of seven people.
Only one woman gender activist, apparently handpicked, as she turned out to be against the bill, was scheduled to speak. And the only time the debate at the summit held at the St. Anthony’s Church on Skye Street in Freetown had a semblance of openness was when it was time for contributions from the floor. But even then the views reflected the bias selection of the participants.
Voices came shouting in denunciation as soon as Christiana Davis-Cole, a young legal practitioner, stood up and began her contribution. She had suggested that going to parliament to ask that the law be thrown out would not be a wise idea.
The interfaith summit was convened so that the IRC would adopt resolutions which would later be submitted to parliament.
Davies-Cole thinks what should be done was to convene a more inclusive round table discussion bringing parliamentarians and the drafters of the bill together to identify possible amendment.
At the fringes of the summit she told Politico that while she wasn’t in favour of a law that allows indiscriminate abortion, she believed an abortion law was important for the country.
Like all those supporting the bill, Davies-Cole also believes it will be relevant to address the issue of high maternal mortality rate, the undeclared epidemic of teenage pregnancy, among other complications associated with unsafe abortion.
“Even with the 1861 [pre-colonial anti-abortion law] people are still doing abortion and how many are being brought to book,” the lawyer activist asked.
Davis Cole is the Project Coordinator for the Legal Access for Women Yearning for Equal Rights and Social Justice (LAWYERS), an organization comprising female lawyers and which is dedicated to providing justice for disadvantaged and oppressed women and girls. As part of her work she comes across every kind of stories, from estranged relationships to unsuspecting minors disadvantaged by their ignorance of the law.
Davies-Cole recounted the case of a 13-year old girl who lived in a boarding home and was raped by the son of the owner of the home. When the girl became pregnant, the host family resorted to quack medication for an abortion which nearly got her womb destroyed.
Had there been a safe abortion law, with the consent of the girl, she would have had a safe abortion and not one that endangered her life, she said.
“I am not crying down their [religious leaders] views but I think we should all sit on a round table where everybody will air out their fears as to why they think the bill should not be passed and also get the views of those who think it can be passed to law and why they think it should be a law.
“That way it will be a dialogue process, because as it is now everybody is attaching so much emotion to the issue…And as lawyers we are told not to attach emotions to law because if you do that you will have to overlook a good law,” she said.
Choice not chance
Those against the law have argued that the issue of maternal deaths and post-birth complications linked with unsafe abortion could be addressed by putting in place the right health care facilities. Others, the moderates in the anti-abortion camp, go further to say even before an “acceptable” version of the law can be passed it has to be preceded by these facilities. This category of people believes that abortion is only possible when the right instruments and equipment are in place.
But to Ms Davis-Cole, this point that the absence of the right health system in place should be a barrier to a safe abortion law is not justifiable. She argued that it is the duty of the government to provide for the people these facilities, with or without an abortion law.
“This is not a 100 year thing for the government to do. The government of Sierra Leone can do it. So it should not be that because we don’t have facilities in place we can’t have laws.”
She said the fact that Sierra Leone doesn’t have enough gynecologists, another of the points by those against the law, is an indication of a failed system.
Davis-Cole said child bearing should be a matter of choice and not by chance. This, she said, is because the woman will have to care for the baby from conception to birth, until the child grows up. She said because people give birth by chance that is why the streets are filled with street children.
As a member of LAWYERS, Davis-Cole deals with a number of issues relating to the relationship between disadvantaged women and their husbands, boyfriends and even rapists. This way they have come across cases wherein men refuse to take responsibility for their children because they were not ready for the pregnancy. And because some of the mothers were afraid to undergo abortion, either due to fears of safety or the legality of the act, they decide to give birth to an unwanted baby, making life difficult for both the mother and the child.
You can hardly seriously discuss anything concerning women in Sierra Lone without the involvement of the 5050 Group. The non-partisan campaign group seeks equal representation of women and men in politics and public life. Its members embody the soul of gender activism in this country. Dr Mrs Nemata Majeks-Walker, one of Sierra Leone’s foremost voices in terms of gender activism, is founding President of the organisation. She was never invited to the interfaith summit. But she went anyway and she told Politico that she was “very upset” about the low turnout of women; she had to practically forced her way to express her views because the moderators were reluctant to let her speak.
The 5050 Group as an organization is yet to take any position with regards the bill. But some of its leading members have insisted on one thing: let the voices of women, the most important people with regards the law, be heard.
“Personally I think that more consultations need to be done with the women because they are the people that are being raped and also carries the burden of child bearing. That is why they should not be left out on a decision like this. I believe the drafters of that bill had a point they were trying to make. So the bill needs to be revisited to make necessary corrections,” Dr Majek-Walker she said.
(C) Politico 02/02/16
