Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compulsory Motherhood Challenged and Remade in the Name of Choice: Framing the Right to Choose Under Old and New Maternalism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Thoughts between the East and the West in the Multilevel Legal Order

Part of the book series: Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific ((ELIAP))

Abstract

The right to choose is a popular but contested framing of women’s reproductive autonomy. Through an investigation of the dynamic between population policy and maternalism in Taiwan, this chapter reveals how the choice rhetoric empowered challenges to compulsory motherhood under the authoritarian government’s antinatalist policy and how it has been used both to challenge and to enforce pronatalist policy under liberal democracy. It is argued that compulsory motherhood not only has been challenged but also remade and that a break from “choice” is needed to better respond to the rise of a new maternalism which reinforces women’s ideal role as mothers.

Part 1 and Part 3 adapt parts of the article “Choosing the Right to Choose: Roe v. Wade and the Feminist Movement to Legalize Abortion in Martial-Law Taiwan ,” which first appeared in Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 34, no. 3. Published with permission from the University of Nebraska Press. Copyright 2014.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See generally Greenhouse and Siegel (2010).

  2. 2.

    See, e.g., Saletan (2004); Ziegler (2012).

  3. 3.

    See, e.g., MacKinnon (1987), Siegel (1995, 2007).

  4. 4.

    See generally Raush (2012).

  5. 5.

    See generally West (2009).

  6. 6.

    Koven and Michel (1990), p. 1079. For discussions of maternalism, see Klein et al. eds. (2012).

  7. 7.

    See generally Spade (2013).

  8. 8.

    Dixon-Mueller (1993), p. 5.

  9. 9.

    Abrams (1996), p. 5.

  10. 10.

    For discussions of population policy and women’s reproductive rights from feminist perspectives, see, e.g., Correa (1994); Kabeer (1994); Hartmann (1995); and Eager (2004).

  11. 11.

    Eager (2004), pp. 51–52.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g., Jacobs (2011); Bock (1991); Roberts (1997).

  13. 13.

    Fineman (1995), p. 51.

  14. 14.

    See generally Mezey and Pillard (2013).

  15. 15.

    Mezey and Pillard have noted that their study does not address maternalism’s pronatalism (Mezey and Pillard (2013), fn.11 at p. 234).

  16. 16.

    See Thornton and Lin (1994), pp. 298–304; Kuo (2008), pp. 325–365; Tsai (2007).

  17. 17.

    See generally Rafter (1997); Tormbley (1988).

  18. 18.

    Art. 1 of the Act states, “the purpose of this law is to implement a eugenics and health policy, to improve the quality of the population, to protect the health of mother and child, and to facilitate the happiness of the family.”

  19. 19.

    See generally Lu (1974).

  20. 20.

    Lebell (1988), p. 8.

  21. 21.

    The most in-depth elaboration of the NF’s stance on abortion appeared in Lu (1977), pp. 102–116.

  22. 22.

    See Ziegler (2009) for an account and critique of how members of the population control movement played a significant role in pre-Roe abortion reform.

  23. 23.

    Funyu Sinjhih (1982a), pp. 9–11; Funyu Sinjhih (1982b), pp. 7–13.

  24. 24.

    See Ku (1997b), pp. 44–59.

  25. 25.

    Li fa Yuan Gongbao [立法院剬報] (The Legislative Yuan gazette) 73, no. 32 (December 1983), p. 28.

  26. 26.

    Li fa Yuan Gongbao [立法院剬報] (The Legislative Yuan gazette) 73, no. 33 (April 1984), p. 27.

  27. 27.

    The relationship between policy-based framing and right-based framing is rather different in the American debates on abortion . See generally Ziegler (2009).

  28. 28.

    A 1979 survey demonstrated women’s support for the legalization of abortion and their need for governmental action to provide access and information. See Phillips (1979), pp. 104–105.

  29. 29.

    Davis (2007), p. 206.

  30. 30.

    “Lowest-low fertility” is defined as a period total fertility rate at or below 1.3. See Kohler et al. (2002), p. 642.

  31. 31.

    The Ministry of Interior Affairs (2008), pp. 57–75.

  32. 32.

    Rhode (1989), p. 122.

  33. 33.

    Mezey and Pillard (2013), pp. 233–234.

  34. 34.

    To impose a ban on surrogate motherhood through an administrative order was considered a violation of the constitutional principle of statutory reservation (Prinzip des Gesetzesvorbehalt).

  35. 35.

    See generally Lin (1996).

  36. 36.

    See generally Su (1996).

  37. 37.

    See generally Ku (1997a). It should be noted that the issue of prostitution – to abolish it or to maintain the institution of licensed prostitution – was also in heated debate in the late 1990s.

  38. 38.

    See generally Chen C-T (1999a).

  39. 39.

    See generally Chen M-H (1999b).

  40. 40.

    For a discussion of this legislation from the perspective of lesbian parenting, see generally Lin (2013).

  41. 41.

    For a critique against surrogacy in India, see, e.g., DasGupta and Dasgupta (2010); Bailey (2011).

  42. 42.

    Roberts (1991), p. 1461.

  43. 43.

    For an examination and comparison of the arguments on the abortion debate in the Legislative Yuan in the 1980s and in the 2000s, see generally Kuan (2010).

  44. 44.

    Croll (2000), pp. 45–47; Miller (2001), pp. 1083–1095.

  45. 45.

    In the United States, it has been argued that the sex-selective abortion laws, while purporting to combat gender discrimination, are enacted on the basis of misinformation and harmful stereotypes regarding Asian Americans and intended to place restrictions on abortion services generally. See generally Citro et al. (2014).

References

  • Abrams P (1996) Reservation about women: population policy and reproductive rights. Cornell Int Law J 29(1):1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey A (2011) Reconceiving surrogacy: toward a reproductive justice account of Indian surrogacy. Hypatia 26(4):715–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock G (1991) Antinatalism, maternity, and paternity in national socialist racism. In: Bock G, Thane P (eds) Maternity and gender policies: women and the rise of the European welfare states, 1880s–1950s. Routledge, London, pp 233–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C-T (1999a) Ciaoshou cipan daili yunmu hefahua—dengdai shengming de jhuanliedian [翹首期盼代理孕母合法化─等待生命的轉捩點] (Looking forward to the legalization of abortion: waiting for the turning point of life). Taiwan Law Rev 52:29–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-H (1999b) Wuhua huo jiefang─Nyusing jhuyi jhe guanyu daili yunmu de jhenglun [物化或解放女性主義者關於代理孕母的爭論] (Reification or liberation: the feminist debate on surrogate motherhood). Taiwan Law Rev 52:18–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Citro B, Gilson J, Kalantry S, Stricker K (2014) Replacing myths with facts: Sex-selective abortion laws in the United States. Cornell L. Faculty Publications 1399:1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrêa S, Reichmann R (1994) Population and reproductive rights: feminist perspectives from the south. Zed Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Croll E (2000) Endangered daughters: discrimination and development in Asia. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • DasGupta S, Dasgupta SD (2010) Motherhood jeopardized: reproductive technologies in Indian communities. In: Chavkin W, Maher JM (eds) The globalization of motherhood: deconstructions and reconstructions of biology and care. Routledge, New York, pp 131–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis K (2007) The making of our bodies, ourselves: how feminism travels across borders. Duke University Press, Durham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Mueller R (1993) Population policy and women’s rights: transforming reproductive choice. Praeger, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eager PW (2004) Global population policy: from population control to reproductive rights. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman M (1995) The neutered mother, the sexual family, and other twentieth century tragedies. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Funyu Sinjhih [婦女新知] (the Awakening) (1982a) Weihun mama de wunti Huyu Lifayuan jhuyi [未婚媽媽的問題呼籲立法院注意] (The Legislative Yuan should pay attention to the problems of unwed mothers). Funyu Sinjhih [婦女新知] (the Awakening) 1:9–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Funyu Sinjhih [婦女新知] (The Awakening) (1982b) Yousheng baojian fa Caoan Zuotanhuei [優生保健法草案座談會] (The Legislative Yuan shall pay attention to the problems of unwed mothers). Funyu Sinjhih [婦女新知] (the Awakening) 6:7–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhouse L, Siegel RB (2010) Before Roe v. Wade: voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Supreme court’s ruling. Kaplan Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann B (1995) Reproductive rights and wrongs: the global politics of population control. South End Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs MD (2011) White mother to a dark race: settler colonialism, maternalism, and the removal of indigenous children in the American West and Australia, 1880–1940. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabeer N (1994) Reversed realities: gender hierarchies in development thoughts. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler H-P, Billari FC, Ortega JA (2002) The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Popul Dev Rev 28(4):641–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koven S, Michel S (1990) Womanly duties: maternalist politics and the origins of welfare states in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States, 1880–1920. Am Hist Rev 95(4):1076–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku Y (1997a) Chuzu shenti de sin jiou hangye─daili yunmu yu changji [出租身體的新舊行業──代理孕母與妓娼] (The new and old business of renting one’s body: surrogate motherhood and prostitution). Funyu Sinjhih [婦女新知] (Awakening) 184:16

    Google Scholar 

  • Ku Y (1997b) The interaction of women’s movement strategies and policy formation: analysis of movement strategies for abortion legalization and equal employment opportunity. Taiwan Studies J 1(4):44–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuan H-W (2010) Goutong singdong yu lifa yantan─Taiwan rengong liouchan fajhih jhih lifa ji sioufa licheng fensi [溝通行動與立法言談台灣人工流產法制之立法及修法歷程分析] (Communicative action and legislative discourse: the legislative analysis of abortion law in Taiwan). Jhongyanyuan fasyue cikan [中研院法學期刊] (Academia Sinica Law Journal) 6:61–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo W-H (2008) Mei-yuan sia de wei-sheng jhengce:1960 nian-dai Tai-wan jia-ting ji-hua de tan-tao [美援下的衛生政策:1960年代臺灣家庭計畫的探討] (Politicizing family planning and medicalizing reproductive bodies: US backed population control in 1960s Taiwan). In: Li S-J (ed) Di-guo yu sian-dai yi-liao [帝國與現代醫療] (Empire and modern medicine). Linking Books, Taipei, pp 325–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebell S (1988) Naming ourselves, naming our children: resolving the last name dilemma. Crossing Press, Freedom, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin F-M (1996) Sin keji shih jiou chuantong de bangsyong: Daili yunmu yu mucin shenfen de wunti hua [新科技是舊傳統的幫凶:代理孕母與母親身分的問題化] (New technology is an compliance saving the tradition: the problematization of surrogate motherhood and motherhood). Saodong [騷動] (Stir Quarterly) 2:48–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin Y-HD (2013) Lesbian parenting in Taiwan: legal issues and the latest developments. Asian-Pac Law Policy J 14(2):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu AH-L (1974) Sin nyusing jhuyi [新女性主義] (New feminism). Youshih Press, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu AH-L (1977) Sin nyusing he cyu he cong [新女性何去何從] (Where shall the new women go). Tuo huangjhe Press [拓荒者], Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon CA (1987) Feminism unmodified: discourses on life and law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezey N, Pillard C (2013) Against the new maternalism. Mich J Gend Law 18:229–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller BD (2001) Female-selective abortion in Asia: patterns, policies, and debates. Am Anthropol 103(4):1083–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips C, Trans: Chen S-J (1979) Taiwan funyu zenyang kan nyucyuan yundong [台灣婦女怎樣看女權運動] (How Taiwanese women assess the women’s rights movement). Funyu Zajhih [婦女雜誌] (The Woman) 128:100–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafter NH (1997) Creating born criminals. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Rausch RL (2012) Reframing Roe: property over privacy. Berkeley J Gender Law Just 27(1):28–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhode DL (1989) Justice and gender: sex discrimination and the law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DE (1991) Punishing drug addicts who have babies: women of color, equality, and the right of privacy. Harv Law Rev 104(7):1419–1482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DE (1997) Killing the black body: race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. Pantheon Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saletan W (2004) Bearing right: how conservatives won the abortion war. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel RB (1995) Abortion as a sex equality right: its basis in feminist theory. In: Fineman M, Karpin I (eds) Mothers in law: feminist theory and the legal regulation of motherhood. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 43–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel RB (2007) Sex equality arguments for reproductive rights: their critical basis and evolving constitutional expression. Emory Law J 56(4):815–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Spade D (2013) Intersectional resistance and law reform. Signs J Women Cult Soc 38(4):785–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su C-L (1996) Mucin bu shih nyuren weiyi de shenfen [母親不是女人唯一的身分] (Being a mother is not a woman’s only identity). Funyu Sinjhih [婦女新知] (the Awakening) 170:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • The Ministry of Interior, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (2008) Renkou jhengce baipishu [人口政策白皮書] (The population policy white paper). The ministry of interior, R.O.C. (Taiwan). http://www.ndc.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=FBBD5FE5E5F21981. Accessed 16 Mar 2016

  • Thornton A, Lin H-S (1994) Social change and the family in Taiwan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Trombley S (1988) The right to reproduce: a history of coercive sterilization. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai H-J (2007) Taiwan renkou jhengce de lishih singgou [台灣人口政策的歷史形構] (Historical formation of population policy in Taiwan). Taiwan Shehuei Syuekan [臺灣社會學刊] (Taiwan J Sociol) 39:65–106

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Klein M, Plant RJ, Sanders N, Weintrob LR (eds) (2012) Maternalism reconsidered: motherhood, welfare and social policy in the twentieth century. Berghahn Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • West R (2009) From choice to reproductive justice: de-constitutionalizing abortion rights. Yale Law J 118(7):1394–1432

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler M (2009) The framing of a right to choose: Roe v. Wade and the changing debate on abortion law. Law Hist Rev 27(2):281–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler M (2012) The possibility of compromise: antiabortion moderates after Roe v. Wade, 1973–1980. Chi.-Kent. Law Rev 87:571–590

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Taiwan University College of Law, Taipei City, Taiwan

    Chao-ju Chen

Authors
  1. Chao-ju Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chao-ju Chen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Constitutional Court, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chang-fa Lo

  2. Lee and Li, Attorneys at Law, Taipei, Taiwan

    Nigel N.T. Li

  3. College of Law, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Tsai-yu Lin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chen, Cj. (2016). Compulsory Motherhood Challenged and Remade in the Name of Choice: Framing the Right to Choose Under Old and New Maternalism. In: Lo, Cf., Li, N., Lin, Ty. (eds) Legal Thoughts between the East and the West in the Multilevel Legal Order. Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1995-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1995-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-1994-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-1995-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation