When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
Russia

New Anti-Abortion Movement Emerges In Russia

Rising religious objections to the practice come 93 years after the Soviet Union became the first country to legalize abortions. Today, they are still legal - and free.

Norilsk maternity hospital
Norilsk maternity hospital
Ekakterina Borisenkova and Ivan Tyazhlov

SAMARA — Legislators from the Samara region in southwestern Russia would like to end federal funding for abortions, saying that providing them under the national health care law forces those who oppose them for religious reasons to bankroll “baby killing.”

The Samara delegation has introduced legislation in the federal Duma assembly that would remove elective abortions from the list of procedures covered by federal health insurance. It would have no effect on cases of rape or in situations when abortion is medically necessary. And it wouldn’t limit access to elective abortions for women, but they would be required to pay for the procedures themselves.

Abortions are currently legal — and free — for any woman up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. And abortions are legal for pregnancies between 12 and 22 weeks of gestation in cases of rape, and at any time during pregnancy when an abortion is deemed medically necessary. Minors would also still have access to free abortions.

The Soviet Union was the first country to legalize abortion, in 1920. The Soviet government then re-criminalized abortion from 1936 to 1955 — at which point abortion was once again made legal. Russian abortion laws have become stricter in the past decade, with a 2012 law limiting abortions between 12 and 22 weeks to cases of rape or medical necessity. At the same time, the number of abortions in Russia has been steadily declining, with less than a quarter as many abortions performed in 2011 as in 1990.

"Black market" fears

The bill in question is sponsored by Dmitrii Sivirkin, a legislator from Samara. He said that the initiative would relieve religious believers from “participating in baby killing” simply by paying taxes. “It is a first step towards explaining to girls that our government does not want to be killing its citizens,” Sivirkin says. “If a woman wants to have an abortion, than let her go ahead with her moral failure, and pay for it herself.”

One Samara lawmaker who first voted against the initiative, before then supporting it, cites the need to reduce the number of abortions in Russia. But he also expresses concern that it would increase the number of “black market” abortions.

Predicatably, the Samara leader of the Orthodox church sent a letter to other lawmakers, urging them to support the initiative.

Those opposed to the proposal include Irina Skupova, local head of the Human Rights office, who says the proposal violates the human rights provisions of the Russian constitution. The regional Ministry for Family Policies has also spoken out against the proposal. “All proposed laws should above all be meant to solve a problem. In our opinion, a change in the federal law would lead to an increase in the number of abortions,” says Marina Sidukhina, the ministry’s spokeswoman. According to official statistics, abortions in the Samara region — like elsewhere in Russia — are steadily declining.

The current ruling centrist party United Russia so far has been silent about the proposed law, meaning that without a party line to toe, presumably each Duma representative will vote only from his or her convictions.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Economy

Lex Tusk? How Poland’s Controversial "Russian Influence" Law Will Subvert Democracy

The new “lex Tusk” includes language about companies and their management. But is this likely to be a fair investigation into breaking sanctions on Russia, or a political witch-hunt in the business sphere?

Photo of President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda

Polish President Andrzej Duda

Piotr Miaczynski, Leszek Kostrzewski

-Analysis-

WARSAW — Poland’s new Commission for investigating Russian influence, which President Andrzej Duda signed into law on Monday, will be able to summon representatives of any company for inquiry. It has sparked a major controversy in Polish politics, as political opponents of the government warn that the Commission has been given near absolute power to investigate and punish any citizen, business or organization.

And opposition politicians are expected to be high on the list of would-be suspects, starting with Donald Tusk, who is challenging the ruling PiS government to return to the presidency next fall. For that reason, it has been sardonically dubbed: Lex Tusk.

University of Warsaw law professor Michal Romanowski notes that the interests of any firm can be considered favorable to Russia. “These are instruments which the likes of Putin and Orban would not be ashamed of," Romanowski said.

The law on the Commission for examining Russian influences has "atomic" prerogatives sewn into it. Nine members of the Commission with the rank of secretary of state will be able to summon virtually anyone, with the powers of severe punishment.

Under the new law, these Commissioners will become arbiters of nearly absolute power, and will be able to use the resources of nearly any organ of the state, including the secret services, in order to demand access to every available document. They will be able to prosecute people for acts which were not prohibited at the time they were committed.

Their prerogatives are broader than that of the President or the Prime Minister, wider than those of any court. And there is virtually no oversight over their actions.

Nobody can feel safe. This includes companies, their management, lawyers, journalists, and trade unionists.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

The latest