Climate and Conflict: How Climate Change Will Worsen the Crisis in Yemen

Photo courtesy of Flickr.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

The ongoing war in Yemen is considered one of the most complex conflicts and the worst humanitarian crises in world history. The war has raged for around six years and is driven by a myriad of political and religious conflicts. Despite its complex nature, one driving force behind the conflict is climate change. While it is not a cause of the war, climate change has acted as an additional stressor that has worsened the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

The Yemeni Civil War began in 2014 after the replacement of authoritarian leader Ali Abdullah Saleh during the Arab Spring uprising of 2011, which created political weakness and led to a growing number of disillusioned Yemenis. The newly fragile state presented an opportunity for anti-government groups to gain power and territory in support of their various interests. On one side is the Houthi movement, who oppose the Yemeni government in defense of the country’s Zaidi Shia Muslim minority, along with citizens who were disappointed with the new government. Many of these citizens now support the rebellion. On the other side is the Yemeni government, which is joined by Saudi Arabia, a majority Sunni Arab country alarmed by the rise of Houthis and their potential support from Iran. Following the start of the conflict, the Southern Transitional Council, a sepratist movement supported by the United Arab Emirates, also joined the war. The conflict between these groups ravaged Yemen from all sides starting in 2014, causing over 100,000 deaths since 2015, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project. 

The fighting in Yemen has recently slowed due to a ceasefire agreement known between the warring parties as the Stockholm Agreement, but the lack of a definitive end to the conflict has thrust Yemen into an indefinite humanitarian crisis. Yemeni citizens currently face extreme food and water scarcities, as well as vector-borne diseases that threaten their lives and health. The United States Agency for International Development estimates that 2 million people in Yemen are malnourished, 1.3 million of who are children and that the country’s water supply will be depleted in as little as 20 to 30 years. In addition to the existing stress on food and water, blockades on outside aid by both Saudi and Houthi forces have pushed the people of Yemen into a desolate state. 

Climate change will only worsen the current situation in Yemen. USAID’s 2016 Climate Change Risk Profile for Yemen states that the country will see an increased mean temperature, sea-level rise and extreme rain patterns as a result of climate change. Increased frequency and length of drought periods will prove detrimental to Yemen’s water supply, where key aquifers like the Arabian Aquifer System, which is already being overdrawn, will be replenished less frequently. Decreasing water availability and unpredictable droughts and floods due to climate change will also damage Yemen’s agricultural sector. Nearly 40 percent of available water resources are used for agriculture, which makes up 11.4 percent of the country’s GDP, according to USAID. Loss of such an important economic sector would add to current political instability and strife in Yemen. 

Sea level rise poses a threat to Yemen’s coastal regions; the country is one of the most vulnerable to coastal damage, according to USAID. Not only would the loss of coastal communities hurt Yemen’s economy, but it would also displace many of its citizens. This displacement would add to the 3.6 million people already internally displaced by conflict, and such a mass internal migration could cause added instability.

While there is a lack of clear evidence to support the idea, the Center for Climate and Security theorizes that water scarcity may have contributed to the rise of political unrest in Yemen, as the decline in the agricultural sector and conflicts over water may have increased recruitment opportunities for anti-government groups. Struggles over water sources will become increasingly likely in the future as water supplies diminish.

Not only does climate change worsen the situation in Yemen, but the war itself has stifled efforts to combat climate change. Plans to increase Yemen’s water supply include the development of desalination plants which convert ocean water into drinking water, but there were fears that these plants may become targets for groups looking to disrupt the country’s water supply. 

Climate change acts as a stressor and, in some ways, a driving force behind the conflict and humanitarian crisis in Yemen. As long as both war and climate change are present in the country, the two will result in a vicious cycle with no end in the foreseeable future. In order to alleviate the suffering in Yemen, increased international effort must be made to either remove the blockades on food and water, facilitate the safe relocation of citizens in areas most vulnerable to climate change or protect efforts to increase the water supply such as desalination plants. Before any change can be made, however, a widespread understanding of the links between climate change, war and human welfare must be reached.

International Biodiversity and Conservation Goals Face Significant Challenges in a Post-COVID-19 World

Photo courtesy of Pxhere.com

By Helen Gloege ’23 

Staff Writer

A recent leaked United Nations report showed that governments have failed to meet the internationally agreed-upon 2020 goals regarding biodiversity, along with more specific goals to prevent plant and wildlife loss.

In 2010, predating the Paris Accords, the Convention on Biological Diversity was held in Nagoya, Japan. This convention produced the Aichi Targets that consisted of 20 conservation goals to safeguard global biodiversity. Each nation involved was expected to meet the determined objectives by 2020. Another summit was planned for October of this year but pandemic restrictions and COVID-19-related complications forced the summit to be rescheduled for May 2021 in Kunming, China. 

Despite that, data currently indicates that the goals have not been fully met. Of 44 sub-targets assessed by the leaked U.N. report, 20 are ranked as poor, 19 as moderate and only five as good. The report is not final, and the full U.N. report will include suggestions on how to move forward with planned COVID-19 recovery packages expected to help meet targets. The next summit will also include a proposal to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land and seas by 2030. The proposal comes from a coalition led by Costa Rica and France and endorsed by the U.N. secretary-general, the E.U., the U.K. and Canada, among others.

Not meeting the Aichi Targets will have potentially devastating effects. If the 2020 goals are not met, it is highly unlikely that 2030 goals or any subsequent environmental goals will be met. It is also reported that nearly one-third of all emission cuts required to meet the Paris Agreement could come from nature-based solutions, meaning that not taking action in regard to biodiversity would be a significant barrier in hitting the Paris Agreement goals. 

Despite this outlook, several solutions could be implemented to boost maintenance of biodiversity efforts, including the encouragement of moderating meat consumption, the greening of urban areas and the protection of freshwater ecosystems.

The U.N. highlights a huge funding gap that would need to be fulfilled for significant action to be taken. It is estimated that the world needs to assemble an additional $600 to $824 billion a year. While this seems like a lot of money, in 2019, international actors such as governments, businesses and philanthropic organizations spent between $124 and $143 billion a year on activities that benefit the environment. The world currently spends less than $100 billion a year on nature conservation, which is equivalent to what people spend on pet food globally, according to the head of the U.N. Development Program, Achim Steiner. $700 billion, the amount in the middle of the two monetary targets, comprises less than 1 percent of the global GDP. In comparison, $5.2 trillion is spent on fossil fuel subsidies each year. A study by the Campaign for Nature discovered that only about $140 billion a year is needed to protect 30 percent of the planet.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has reported that governments spend over four times as much money on agricultural, forestry and fishery subsidies that play a role in the degradation of nature than they spend on protecting nature. It is estimated that $274-542 billion is spent on subsidies for these industries annually, and these would have to be cut by $273.9 billion annually to help close the biodiversity payment gap. The subsidies currently pay for incentives for production by companies and consumption by consumers which exacerbate biodiversity loss. 

Individual countries are also committing to biodiversity efforts. Germany’s Minister of Development Gerd Muller said the country is increasing its annual investment of 500 million euros to help protect biodiversity in developing countries. Norway is planning to create a coalition to end tropical deforestation. The U.K. is vowing to double its funding to fight climate change over the next five years and is working to remove subsidies and replace them with a system that rewards environmental progress. 

Part of the struggle to meet biodiversity goals is because many studies fail to listen to women’s voices and account for their experiences. For example, a study of 106 small-scale fisheries worldwide ignored women who harvested invertebrates. This means that data on the total catch and species that are targeted by fishers was incomplete, affecting the outcomes of studies and conservation goals constructed from that data. The role of women in conservation and biodiversity has been historically undervalued. Globally, women tend to play key roles in managing land and resources. 

In many countries, women are involved in small-scale agriculture and don’t have as much of a voice as large-scale agriculture in the decision-making process of land use and access to resources. Indigenous and rural women especially tend to be marginalized in decision-making processes. Biodiversity loss burdens women and girls because it increases time spent obtaining necessary resources, which equates to time lost in generating income or pursuing an education. Research has shown that women in fishery or forest management groups create better resource governance and conservation outcomes. 

There is also the issue of colonial conservation, which impacts who makes decisions and funds initiatives for preserving biodiversity. This refers to the racist misconception that Indigenous peoples cannot be trusted to look over their land. About 80 percent of all of Earth’s biodiversity is in tribal territories. Recently, in Asia and Africa, governments and non-governmental organizations have been taking land from tribal people and local communities claiming it is for conservation purposes. 

These global issues of environmental conservation will be discussed for years to come, and with more frequency as the next environmental conventions begin in 2021.

Weekly Climate News

November 5, 2020

• The Filipino government announced that proposals for coal power plants will no longer be accepted. The significant policy change is aimed to increase involvement in the renewable energy sector.

• The United Nations summit stated that $700 billion will be needed to reverse human-induced destruction of the natural world. 

• Gray wolves will no longer be included on the endangered species lists recognized by the United States government. Read this article on why. 

• Hurricane Eta made landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 4 hurricane. 

• A decline in air traffic as a result of the pandemic has directly affected the quality of weather forecasts, as the amount of atmospheric data collected by commercial airliners has decreased. 

• Check out these six climate-related art installations referred to as “Artivism.” 

• Two-thirds of Georgetown University’s electricity will now be through solar energy. 

• A new research study found that the United States produces nearly five times as much plastic pollution as previously thought.  

• The United States has been urged to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord by a coalition of international investors. 

• A wind farm in Berlevåg, Norway is being used to produce hydrogen and green ammonia (renewable and carbon-free ammonia) which holds massive potential for renewable energy development.

On the Ballot: Climate Change

Graphic by Anjali Rao-Herel ‘22

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

In the 2020 election, the issue of climate change often divides along party lines. Democrats tend to support policies that limit greenhouse gas emissions while Republicans generally take a more hands-off approach. Environmental policies also differ within the major political parties, specifically within the Democratic Party, as there are various moderate and left-leaning views. Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s responses to climate change have been split along party lines. 

Biden’s climate plan is regarded as one of the most progressive ever listed on the U.S. ticket. His proposal promises to make a $1.7 trillion federal investment in environmental justice and clean energy over the next 10 years. Biden has been seen as an opponent of the Green New Deal, the congressional resolution put forth by progressive members of the Democratic Party to fight climate change.  “I don’t support the Green New Deal,” Biden said during the first presidential debate. However, the plan that Biden’s campaign has released is similarly modeled after the Green New Deal in that it connects protection of the environment to the revitalization of the economy.

Biden’s plan has five key aspects. He promises the United States will use 100 percent green energy and have net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. He will invest in the nation’s infrastructure, which may improve climate resilience. The Biden campaign also pledges to rally the rest of the world to join in the United States’ efforts to combat climate change by urging other nations to abstain from actions that harm the environment, such as arctic drilling. By serving as a leader in the fight against climate change, Biden hopes to lead the world in creating green technologies and environmentally safe industry standards. Biden advocates for environmental justice and promises to stand up to the large polluters who, as the plan highlights, disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. According to his plan, Biden will secure benefits for and invest in workers in the coal and power plant industries as the economy shifts toward clean energy.

Many conservatives have rallied against the progressive Green New Deal since it was proposed in Congress by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey in February 2019. Trump has accused Biden of supporting the Green New Deal, and Biden in turn denounced the congressional resolution. While Biden says he endorses the framework of the Green New Deal seen in his own climate plan, their formats are fundamentally different.

 The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution. It’s a broad framework that outlines the goals of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 while providing improved infrastructure and secure jobs for all Americans. Biden’s climate plan offers specific details about how the climate and economic goals would be achieved.

On the other hand, Trump has yet to release a cohesive plan of what he would do if granted a second term in office, but rather has provided a list of individual steps that he has already taken to benefit the environment as well as the economy. For example, he created a Superfund task force to streamline the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, signed an executive order to protect and restore one trillion trees by 2030 and invested in clean water infrastructure. When it comes to burning fossil fuels, Trump has rescinded the Obama administration’s clean power plan — along with a number of other environmental regulations that would limit greenhouse gas emissions — and worked to improve infrastructure and resources needed to increase gas and oil production in the U.S.

From immense detail to a more laissez-faire approach, there are several partisan ways to address environmental issues, such as climate change. Both candidates have taken steps to address the environment in a way that will please their core bases.

What We Know and Don’t Know About Air Pollution’s Impact on Human Health

Photo courtesy of ECF.com

By Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer

At the start of this year’s pandemic-induced lockdown, a decline in air pollution produced photos demonstrating a clearer, lighter and completely unobstructed view of the India Gate War Memorial in New Delhi, India, and the clear, blue waves of the Grand Canal in Venice, Italy, known for its murky waters. These examples of the real-world impact of decreased air pollution reveal the dramatic effects of what the world would look like if air quality improved. While the amount of global air pollution has a clear connection to human activity, there is little known about the impact of air pollution on human health and what possible compounding effects it might hold for future generations. 

The World Health Organization estimates that over 90 percent of the world’s population breathes air containing harmful pollution levels. Polluted air often contains airborne particulate matter that is considered especially dangerous. Particulate matter refers to the mix of solid particles and liquid droplets. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye, such as dust, dirt or smoke, while others are microscopic and remain unseen. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, particles come in various sizes and shapes and can entail hundreds of different chemicals. Some particles are emitted directly from sources, such as fires, fields or construction sites. Most of the particles form in the atmosphere due to chemical reactions, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles. 

There is not much known about the impact or location of particulate matter. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is planning a satellite mission that will help determine connections between particulate matter, air pollution and human health. The Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols satellite will launch into orbit around the Earth in 2022. The data from the satellite will provide maps of particulate matter air pollution that will be used by epidemiologists to study different types of particulate matter and its impact on health. 

Currently, there is a belief that infections derived from air pollution-related health problems make people more susceptible to severe illnesses. Larger particulate matter is responsible for irritating airways, while smaller particles may go deeper into the lungs and cause inflammation that affects other organs. Particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller is associated with an increased risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. People who breathe more particulate matter are more likely to develop lung cancer, lower respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and health issues during pregnancy. 

A map produced by Physicians for Social Responsibility shows neighborhood-by-neighborhood pollution levels across Los Angeles overlaid by COVID-19 case counts. The maps show that heavily polluted areas tend to worsen COVID-19 outbreaks, while areas with less pollution have fewer COVID-19 cases. Researchers at Harvard University reported that individuals living in areas with higher smog levels were more likely to die from COVID-19. Other researchers from Emory University found a similar correlation that linked higher COVID-19 death rates with nitrogen dioxide exposure.
It is unlikely that air pollution is the full story. Redlining practices frequently exclude people of color from neighborhoods considered desirable, instead pushing them into housing near freeways, refineries and power plants. COVID-19 has disproportionately affected people of color. They are more likely to suffer from preexisting conditions, less likely to have access to health care and more likely to work jobs that are not remote. This information indicates that air pollution exposure isn’t the full story, and it is probable that there are other effects at play.

Scientists have used monitoring instruments on or in the ground to measure air pollution exposure. However, to gain an accurate sample, a dense array of monitors is needed. The Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols satellite will acquire data from space, preventing a need for monitors on the ground. Completed studies will examine the impact of long-term exposure to air pollution, focusing on particular locations. The target areas will be based on a set of criteria, including population, variability in the amount and type of particle matter, how well monitored the area is and access to public health records. The data will also apply to other research, including investigating aerosol and cloud interactions with climate. Aside from epidemiologists and other scientists who will use the raw data, policymakers and air quality regulators would also benefit from the information.

           This information will benefit a recent international health study called the Global Burden of Disease, which claimed that breathing in particulate matter resulted in over 4 million premature deaths globally. Another recent study specifically addressed the impact of air pollution on people in South Asia. It is expected that in New Delhi, going outside and simply breathing the air can shorten one’s life span by over nine years. 

There is currently a surge in air pollution in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Bangladesh currently leads with the lowest average life span, with air pollution cutting the average life expectancy by about 6.2 years. Air pollution will shorten the average Indian life expectancy by 5.2 years. There are certain areas with much worse average life expectancy reductions, such as Delhi’s 9.4 years and Uttar Pradesh’s 8.6 years. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the average life is shortened by 2.7 years. In Nepal, life expectancy is cut by 4.7 years. 

The traditional air quality index provides daily air quality assessments but does not include the health risks that may result from the air quality. The air quality life index converts particulate matter air pollution into its impact on life expectancy. This work has quantified the causal relationship between human exposure to air pollution and reduced life expectancy.

Particulate matter, as previously mentioned, has an impact on respiratory, immune and cardiovascular systems. Recent studies have pointed toward a link between long-term exposure to air pollution and global deaths from COVID-19. A study published in the Cardiovascular Research journal estimates that about 15 percent of global deaths from COVID-19 could be linked to particulate matter exposure. The study analyzed health and disease in the U.S. and China in connection with air pollution, including COVID-19 and SARS. The information gathered from the study was combined with data from satellites and ground monitoring on global exposure to particulate matter. That information was combined with satellite data and ground monitoring of global exposure to particulate matter. Particulate matter is known to increase the likelihood of COVID-19 risk factors such as asthma, lung and heart problems. Moreover, particulate matter appears to increase ACE-2 receptor activity, which is known to be involved in the way COVID-19 infects patients. The study says that this doesn’t mean pollution is responsible for killing people with COVID-19. Still, the pollution particles are likely factors that aggravate the disease.

Current information highlights how little we know about the effects of air pollution and particulate matter on human health. Governments are responsible for setting limits on hazardous air pollutants to protect the public. Still, it is hard to determine the line for acceptable risk without adequate information. We know that methods for monitoring and estimating air toxins aren’t sufficient enough to determine the risks to human health, and more research needs to be done on the long- and short-term impacts. Attention must be paid to the separation of causal factors, as the combinations of hazardous air pollutants could have cascading effects and cause different outcomes.

Antarctica Undergoes Warming Temperature of Deep Oceans and Melting Ice Shelves

Pictured above: Antartica. Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.

By Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

Recent studies have confirmed that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting at irreversible rates. Industrial emissions from thousands of miles away have caused the depths of the Antarctic Weddell Sea to heat up five times faster than the rest of the ocean. 

Warming trends in Antarctica have been mixed, with western parts of the continent steadily warming while the eastern region has remained relatively unscathed. Unlike the Arctic, which is known for having heated up exponentially within the past few decades, Antarctica’s behavior has proven to be more difficult to map out. Natural fluctuations of warm and cool ocean currents (which cause the El Nino and La Nina currents) over a long period have pushed warm winds over to the South Pole. This natural phenomenon is not the only driving force behind the Antarctic’s heating, as indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels has also been a significant factor in melting ice shelves.  

Oceans consume more than 90 percent of excess heat generated by greenhouse gas emissions. These oceans also absorb large amounts of atmospheric shock. As a result, southern oceans have absorbed over half the heat generated from 2005 through 2017. 

The mixing of warm southern oceanic currents, especially those enveloping Antarctica, means that deeper waters are heating faster than surface waters. The melting of Antarctic land ice into the sea also causes the ocean’s topmost layer to remain considerably cooler. This will eventually lead to what scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies call a “heat flux,” where increased warming rates would cause the accelerated melting of ice shelves and a greater rise in sea levels, causing unmitigated disasters. 

Climate scientists remain skeptical about the world’s ability to stop or decelerate the warming of the continent. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, formally exited from the Paris Climate Agreement on Nov. 4, 2020. Even if other countries fulfill the targets they set in this treaty, Antarctica’s fate remains sealed. Researchers believe that it will be difficult to counteract these changes if temperatures rise 2 C above pre-industrial levels. 

 Dr. Richard Jones and Dr. Ross Whitmore of the Monash University School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, are lead authors of the Oct. 21 study. They state that the study implies ice loss unfolding in Antarctica is “likely to continue unabated for a long time — even if climate change is brought under control.” 

This change holds significant implications for the icy continent. The native animal population is decreasing. While some species are adapting to the heat, other populations are declining. Krill, small shrimp-like crustaceans crucial to Antarctica’s ecosystem, have also declined around 80 percent since the 1970s because of excessive commercial fishing, depleting ice and the recovery of whales. 

Warming has also caused new kinds of algae to bloom, shading swathes of snow tints of green, red and pink. This alga is so vivid that it can be seen from space. Moreover, ocean warming exacerbates the thawing of sea ice. Darker sea ice has lower surface reflectivity. This causes more solar radiation absorption, furthering melt and creating a “feedback loop.” Land in Antarctica is also growing greener. Rising temperatures have led to the growth of plants, mosses and lichens, which might pave the way for a whole new ecosystem. 

Expansion of the oceans gives way to numerous coastal disasters like floods and ice melting, which can endanger 40 percent of the world’s population that lives on coastlines. Scientists are certain this phenomenon will affect people living inland as well. 

Antarctica is facing the consequences of human activity despite being secluded thousands of miles away from civilization. Just as the whole Earth has impacted Antarctica, the changes it sustains are felt globally. Researchers hope their findings ignite conversations and policy changes that can prevent any future major disasters. 

Election Stress Disorder and How To Deal With It

By Nancy Jiang ‘23

Staff Writer

If you are stressed or feeling anxious about the election results, you might be experiencing election stress disorder. (Yes, it’s a real thing.) 

According to the American Psychological Association, 68 percent of Americans claim that the 2020 U.S. presidential election is a major source of stress in their lives, more so than the 2016 election when only 52 percent of Americans reported feeling stressed. The stress level is especially high for specific groups such as African Americans, who saw an increase from 46 percent in 2016 to 71 percent in 2020, and adults experiencing chronic illnesses. Although the exact reason remains unknown, 25 percent of college students reported clinically significant stress symptoms related to the election in 2016, meaning these symptoms were so severe that they needed to see a doctor. 

Uncertainty is considered a major cause of election stress disorder. People worry not only about which candidate will win but also what the future of the nation will look like, especially in an election between two candidates who are extremely divisive. It’s hard to make predictions as the country would be moving in opposite directions based on either one’s administrative plans. 

“No matter who wins, people will protest,” Allison Benguiat ’22 said. “One thing is for sure: the unrest of the crowd.” 

Additionally, international students’ experiences in the U.S. will be hugely affected by the outcome of the election, as they must face additional unknown factors such as the future policies for student visas and U.S. work authorization. “I’m worried about my visa expiring. That will stop me from coming back to Mount Holyoke,” Susan Wang ’23, an international student from China, said. “I hope the pandemic gets more under control after the election. As much as I miss the campus and hope to return, the increasing number of positive cases makes me hesitate.”

Some students appear more comfortable with uncertainty. “We’ll have to figure out what to do based on the new policies,” said Kelly Li ’23, who is also from China, “But as for now, we can do nothing about it. We’ll have to take it as what it will be, so I’m not stressed now.” 

As of Nov. 4, Democratic nominee Joseph Biden had won 50.3 percent of votes while President Donald Trump had won 48.1 percent, according to the Associated Press. 

Li’s strategy of “taking it as it will be” is also suggested by the APA to help deal with election stress disorder. Distracting yourself from constant worrying might also help alleviate anxiety. Watch a few episodes of your favorite TV show, talk to family and friends or focus on schoolwork (although that might cause another type of stress). If that doesn’t work, you can also talk about your concerns with someone from Mount Holyoke’s Counseling Service online.

The Politics of Reproduction in Poland and the United States

Graphic by Trinity Kendrick ‘21

By Kesshini Bhasiin ’22

Health & Science Editor

Content warning: This article contains discussion of abortion. 

Tens of thousands of women braved the cold, possible arrest and a deadly virus as they marched across Poland to fight for their right to choose this October. Dressed as baby incubators from “The Handmaid’s Tale” in red hoods and carrying red lightning bolts, these women banded together in the country’s largest protests since the 1980s following an unappealable ruling to ban almost all abortions in the country. Per this new ruling, the procedure may be carried out only under strict exceptions — conception via criminal acts like rape or incest or when continued pregnancy poses a threat to the woman’s life. Prior exceptions granted for fetal abnormalities have been abrogated under this new law. A sense of despair and vehement anger toward the government and the Catholic Church appears to hang heavy across the European nation, with many visuals depicting smoke, shouts and tears. 

Given the United States’ confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett — the third conservative justice President Donald Trump has appointed to the bench — it is possible to wonder if the U.S. is headed down a similar path. This Supreme Court bench is set to receive cases that could open the doors to overturning Roe v. Wade, especially with the conservatives holding a 6-3 majority and numerous Senate Republicans keen to support such a move. In essence, there appears to be a very real possibility that women could stand to lose their reproductive freedoms. 

Assistant Professor of Politics and expert on reproductive rights in Latin America Cora Fernandez Anderson discussed the importance of these freedoms and the role of government, if any, in regulating reproductive rights. 

Fernandez Anderson said that historical facts and current trends may help anticipate the aftermath of more restrictive abortion laws. The new laws may lead to the birth of great “social injustice,” similar to that in the U.S. and the majority of Latin American countries before 1973, according to Fernandez Anderson. 

“Rich women will still be able to gain access to abortion — they will just travel elsewhere to do it — while women belonging to minority and poor communities will no longer be able to access safe abortions,” she said. 

This lack of access has not historically translated to a decrease in the number of abortions performed in these countries. Women of all communities and economic statuses have still found methods to carry out the procedure, either through self-injury or visiting illegal clinics with little to no protections in case something goes awry. Echoing the concerns of the feminist groups Fernandez Anderson worked with, she believes that such a ruling “would not end abortions, but end safe abortions.” 

However, looking to Latin American nations and certain states today shows that an existing drug may provide some relief. Misoprostol makes self-administered abortion procedures performed with the right information nearly as safe as surgical abortions. Networks have been developed by feminist activists across these regions, and if Roe v. Wade is overturned, they would possibly be “needed even more,” Fernandez Anderson said.

Historical precedent suggests that there are a few reasons why some governments support banning abortions despite the greater possibility of maternal injury or even mortality. One of the leading reasons is the involvement of the Catholic Church. In the case of Poland, a country with nearly 33 million practicing Catholics, the government’s decisions have been heavily influenced by rhetoric from the church on valuing the sanctity of all life. 

When such rhetoric came to a head after SCOTUS’ 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade and voters began to support the pro-life movement, politicians seemed to acknowledge that discussing women’s reproductive rights in a manner favored by their constituents could almost certainly guarantee them being voted into power. This is now such a pressing issue in some states that, in the documentary “Reversing Roe,” Texas Democrat Donna Howard commented that a candidate’s stance on abortion is deeply important even when voting for unrelated offices, such as agriculture. 

Fernandez Anderson further noted that in countries such as Poland, “a deep history of imperialism” has played a role in decisions to protect the unborn. This is being branded “Polish nationalism” by Jaroslaw Kaczyński, the incumbent leader of the right-wing Law and Justice party. Similarly, in Latin America, it is often believed that abortion came alongside increased involvement of the U.S. government in the region, thereby leading people to believe that such a practice was not a part of their own cultural identity. 

It appears that there is sometimes a choice to be made between standing for women’s reproductive freedoms or standing for one’s church and state. 

Interestingly, the church appears to be “more coherent than the state” on the issue, Fernandez Anderson said. The church has long advocated for welfare programs, increased support for child-rearing and a more holistic approach to childcare that does not simply end after the birth of the child. In the absence of globally subsidized health care, affordable daycare and paid paternity leaves, it appears that governments have a lot more work to do to provide adequate support for a child after its birth. 

Debates still remain about whether governments should truly have a role to play in determining reproductive rights. When considering this, Fernandez Anderson laughed, noting how she had spent a considerable amount of time debating this issue in her courses. “The only role governments should play is to guarantee these rights to all citizens,” she said. If there arises a situation of inaccessibility or harm to a minority, then governments should step in to “ensure equality,” she added. 

There does appear to be some indication that the nearly 50-year-old precedent set by Roe v. Wade will be too strong to overturn; however, a stricter exception policy, similar to the one enacted in Poland, may be fast approaching.