{"id":2291,"date":"2016-08-09T22:43:03","date_gmt":"2016-08-09T22:43:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/?p=2291"},"modified":"2019-03-28T02:59:59","modified_gmt":"2019-03-28T02:59:59","slug":"chinese-government-sources-admit-forced-abortion-continues-under-two-child-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/chinese-government-sources-admit-forced-abortion-continues-under-two-child-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Chinese government sources admit forced abortion continues under two-child policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cChina abandons the One-Child Policy.\u201d\u00a0 This is how the Chinese government announced its move to the Two-Child Policy, giving the misleading impression that all coercive population control had ceased.\u00a0 A close analysis of several reports coming out of China, however, demonstrates that Chinese government sources themselves inadvertently have admitted that forced abortion continues under the Two-Child Policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 BBC.<\/span><\/b>\u00a0 A May 4, 2016, BBC article entitled \u201cReinventing China\u2019s Abortion Police\u201d discusses a small collaborative project by Stanford University and Shaanxi Normal University to repurpose 69 Family Planning Officials — apparently on the assumption that they are no longer needed now that China has moved to a two-child policy. The article follows one Family Planning Official, Li Bo, who has been \u201creinvented\u201d from \u201chunt[ing] down families suspected of violating the country\u2019s draconian rules on how many children couples can have\u201d into a rubber duckie squeezing, nursery rhyme singing \u201cChinese Father Christmas,\u201d complete with \u201ca bag full of toys and picture books.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Has his job really been \u201creinvented,\u201d or is he really a member of the womb police, masquerading as \u201cChinese Father Christmas\u201d — the new face of China\u2019s Family Planning Police?\u00a0 Buried deep in the article is the following account of the dark side of Li Bo\u2019s job \u2013 an important piece of original reporting by the BBC:<\/span><\/p>\n

Since the start of 2016, all Chinese couples have been allowed two children.\u00a0 But they can have no more than that unless they are from ethnic minorities \u2013 so Li Bo still spends some of his time working as a birth-control enforcer.\u00a0 In the town\u2019s health clinic he is busy screening local women.\u00a0 All women of childbearing age have check-ups four times a year to ensure they\u2019re healthy . . . and to see if they are pregnant. . . But Li is also a loyal Communist party official who believes the state knows best and society\u2019s needs are greater than those of individuals.\u00a0 So he is matter-of-fact about the unpleasant task of telling women who couldn\u2019t afford the fine to terminate their pregnancies.\u00a0 \u201cPeople didn\u2019t swear at us but they probably did behind our backs,\u201d he says.\u00a0 \u201cIt\u2019s natural because we were carrying out the law and they were breaking it so it is just like the clash between a policeman and a thief.\u201d\u00a0 He adds that as long as restrictions are in place, such clashes will continue.<\/span><\/p>\n

From these words, uttered by a Chinese Communist Family Planning Official, we learn that:<\/p>\n

1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Coercive pregnancy screening continues.<\/span><\/b>\u00a0 Under the Two-Child Policy, Family Planning Police continue to screen women of child-bearing age for pregnancy four times a year.<\/p>\n

2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Forced abortion continues.<\/b>\u00a0 It is still illegal for single women to have babies in China, and for couples to have third children.\u00a0 It appears that some may be given an opportunity to pay a fine, but Li Bo tells \u201cthose who couldn\u2019t afford the fine to terminate their pregnancies.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, if a woman is illegally pregnant and cannot pay the fine \u2013 which can be as much as ten times her annual salary \u2013 she is forced to abort.\u00a0 Forced abortion, therefore, continues under the Two-Child Policy.<\/p>\n

3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Women pregnant without permission are considered criminals.<\/b>\u00a0 Li Bo\u2019s statement that women who are pregnant without permission \u201cwere breaking it [the law] so it is just like the clash between a policeman and a thief\u201d demonstrates that such pregnancies are still considered illegal; and illegally pregnant women are regarded lawbreakers deserving of punishment, just like thieves.<\/p>\n

4)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Forced abortion continues to cause unrest.<\/b>\u00a0 Li Bo is correct in adding that \u201cas long as restrictions are in place, such clashes will continue.\u201d\u00a0 This statement is an admission that these clashes \u2013 often resulting in forced abortion \u2013 continue to this day, due to the two-child restrictions.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Sixth Tone.\u00a0\u00a0<\/b>A July 22, 2016, Sixth Tone article entitled, \u201cGuangdong Families Told to Have Abortion or Lose Job,\u201d discussed two Guangdong families.\u00a0 Both families were remarried.\u00a0 Both families were pregnant with a third child, when counting children from previous marriages.\u00a0 One family was told to abort or both husband and wife would lose their government jobs.\u00a0 The other family was told they must pay a fine of 260,000 yuan, the equivalent of $39,000 U.S. \u2013 \u201ca huge amount of money\u201d for this family.\u00a0 Read more about these couples\u00a0here.<\/a><\/p>\n

The fact that Sixth Tone is a state-controlled media outlet implies an admission by the Chinese government that it is continuing to forcibly abort women who get pregnant without permission.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 China Women\u2019s Federation.<\/b>\u00a0On August 3, 2016, an article appeared on\u00a0womenofchina.cn<\/a>, the English language website of the Communist Party-affiliated China Women\u2019s Federation.\u00a0 The article, entitled, \u201cCouples Not Waiting for Two-Child Policy,\u201d stated: \u201cRemarried couples in Guangdong province who are pregnant with their second child will not be forced to have an abortion, even though they have not yet been granted permission for a second child.\u00a0\u00a0The provincial population and family planning commission will also not suggest that employers dismiss or punish those who are pregnant with a second child without permission, the [provincial] commission said on Tuesday.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is unclear whether the statement of the provincial commission would affect the families whose plight is discussed in Sixth Tone.\u00a0 For both families, three children were involved.\u00a0 Will they be allowed to maintain their pregnancies without losing their jobs or paying a \u201cterror fine\u201d?\u00a0 Only time will tell.<\/p>\n

Regardless, the Women\u2019s Federation article goes on to quote demographer Zhai Zhenwu, who states, \u201cthe provincial commission did not violate any regulations when they did not forced couples to have abortions.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Why would the Chinese government need to clarify that government officials \u201cdid not violate\u201d family planning regulations when they\u00a0did not force<\/i>\u00a0couples to have abortions, unless forced abortion is continuing and indeed standard for unapproved pregnancies under the Two-Child Policy?<\/b><\/p>\n

In addition, the Women\u2019s Federation article quotes a remarried woman from Guangdong as saying, \u201cSome wives who have been pregnant with their second child have had an abortion because they fear being dismissed by their employers.\u201d\u00a0 The decisions of these married women to abort their second children rather than lose their jobs underscores the ongoing human agony and tragedy caused by coercive population control in China.\u00a0 Forcing women to choose between having and abortion and losing their jobs is a form of coercion.\u00a0 Women can be forced to abort by physical or financial coercion.<\/p>\n

The Women\u2019s Federation article concludes by noting that \u201cthe birthrate in [Guangdong] \u2013 which lacks a sufficient workforce and relies on people migrating from other provinces \u2013 has remained low for decades . . .\u201d\u00a0 This is the real reason for the adjustment from a One-Child Policy to a Two-Child Policy.\u00a0 The Chinese government has not repented of its women\u2019s rights atrocities.\u00a0 Rather, it fears the inevitable economic consequences of its 35-year history of coercive population control.<\/p>\n

Forced abortion continues in China to this day, by admission of Chinese government sources, either through the words of its officials or its official publications.\u00a0 This atrocity must be eradicated from the face of the earth.\u00a0 With its population of 1.3 billion, one woman in five lives in China.\u00a0 The women of the world will not be free until the women of China are free.\u00a0 Women\u2019s Rights Without Frontiers demands the immediate cessation of all coercive birth control in China.<\/p>\n

Sign a petition against forced abortion in China:
\nhttp:\/\/www.womensrightswithout frontiers.org\/index.php?nav=si gn_our_petition<\/a><\/p>\n

Related Links<\/u><\/p>\n

Reinventing China\u2019s Abortion Police 5\/4\/16
\nhttp:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/magazi ne-36203572<\/a><\/p>\n

Guangdong Families Told to Have Abortion or Lose Job 7\/22\/16
\nhttp:\/\/www.sixthtone.com\/news\/ guangdong-families-told-have-a bortion-or-lose-job<\/a><\/p>\n

Couples Not Waiting for Two Child Policy\u00a0 8\/3\/16\u00a0http:\/\/www.womenofchina.cn\/wom enofchina\/html1\/features\/Spotl ight\/1608\/372-1.htm<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cChina abandons the One-Child Policy.\u201d\u00a0 This is how the Chinese government announced its move to the Two-Child Policy, giving the misleading impression that all coercive population control had ceased.\u00a0 A close analysis of several reports coming out of China, however, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[7,8,183,123,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-forced-abortion","category-one-child-policy","category-sixth-tone","category-two-child-policy","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2291","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2291"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2291\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2833,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2291\/revisions\/2833"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}