Nepal’s Abortion Legalisation – Grant Miller, et al.

**Check on correct citation**

Miller, G., Valente, C., Miller, E. (2016). Insights from Nepal’s abortion legalisation. International Growth Centre.


This article included several useful facts/statistics regarding abortion world-wide, and in Nepal. The authors find that since the legalization of abortion in Nepal in 2002, abortion clinics in Nepal rose from 141 in 2006 to 291 in 2010. Further, the authors find that while the usage of  modern contraception rose steadily from the 1970s-the early 2000s, the years in which abortion was legal. However, after abortion legalization contraception usage plateaued. Using regional data indicating the number of abortion clinics per districts, Miller, et al. conjecture that the cause of plateauing contraception use is abortion. Women in regions where abortion-providing centers are plentiful, they argue, substitute abortion for contraception. “We do find evidence that abortion and modern contraception are substitutes for one another.”  The authors suggest that in order to reduce unsafe abortions, contraception should be more easily accessible (monetarily and without social stigma).

It does not seem as though the authors have dealt with their data critically enough. Sure, they find a correlation between the availability of abortion services and contraceptive usage. However, arguing that women in districts with more accessible abortion clinics substitute abortion for contraception lacks context. Other explanations for the relationship they find in the data could be that women in districts without many abortion clinics have more access to contraception through crisis pregnancy center-esque clinics or other health centers that do not provide abortion. There is likely a socioeconomic and/or socio-cultural influence that is being overlooked.  I find this article useful, but the major argument lacks context from other sources their data do not control for.



Trump, populism, global context – Zenem Aydin-Düzgit & E. Fuat Keyman

*Need to check how to cite this source properly, not a journal article.*

The Trump presidency and the rise of populism in the global context. Aydin Düzgit & E. Fuat Keyman. January 2017.

This article was extremely helpful for understanding the definition and characteristics of populism. Charting the election of Trump in the U.S. and the Brexit referendum as examples, the article argues that “populism today emerges as a part of a new broader global political economic reality that cuts across geographic, economic, and political boundaries” (p. 3).

Populism by definition considers society as being broken into two parts: the “elites” and the “people.” Populist leaders claim to be of and for the people, pushing back against the elites or the establishment. The defining characteristics of populism are 1) anti-establishment; 2) authoritarianism; 3) nativism. When reading these characteristics, I wondered, As defined in this article, is the effect of populism on reproductive healthcare policy? In what ways does this render the pro-life/anti-choice dichotomy particularly insufficient? How does an anti-authoritarian approach to activism around reproductive healthcare/abortion ameliorate this insufficiency? I was also thinking about the ways in which the three aforementioned characteristics of populism overlap and intersect to further marginalize people. Because of this, it is evermore important for reproductive healthcare access to be intersectional–if the activism cannot attend to each of these characteristics, it will be ineffective. This reminds me of the articles on coalition-building (Breton, et al.; Carastathis, 2013; Cole, 2008). The article also discusses popular theorizations in regards to the rise of global populism, particularly the “cultural backlash thesis” and the “economic fears” thesis.