0 comments
The Russian government’s push to reinforce traditional values is intensifying, now targeting media presence about choosing not to have children.
What kind of future are you imagining? If children aren’t part of it, you may want to keep that thought to yourself in Russia.
After labelling feminists as ‘extremists’ and banning any media content related to queer people, the Russian government has now set its sights on those promoting ‘child-free’ propaganda in the entertainment industry.
On October 17th, a bill criminalizing broadcasters that promote a ‘childless ideology’ passed its first reading in the Russian State Duma.
If the proposed legislation becomes law, individuals who violate it could be fined up to 400,000 rubles (about £3,000), while businesses could face fines of up to 5 million rubles (about £36,200).
However, what exactly constitutes ‘child-free propaganda’ remains unclear.
Elvira Aitkulova, one of the bill’s initiators, emphasized that the legislative act targets the ideology of childlessness spread through the media, not personal opinions. As expected, this clarification has done little to reduce public confusion.
To some extent, ‘child-free’ propaganda could even include a happily married woman on a TV program who chooses not to have children. Your guess is as good as ours.
Potential threats posed by the draft law
The measure is seen as an extension of Russia’s efforts to promote traditional values.
Olga Suvorova, an activist working with domestic violence victims in a Siberian city, told Reuters, ‘The message is clear: give birth, and that’s it.’
She also warned that the act could threaten women’s rights, including access to abortion, by limiting their ability to obtain related information.
It’s important to note that, much like discussions due to the previous ban on gay propaganda, conversations about ‘birth’ and ‘termination of pregnancy’ in Russia are predominantly framed around cisgender women.
The draft law’s potential impact isn’t limited to reproductive rights, though.
In the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders ranked Russia 162nd out of 180 countries, underscoring the country’s dire lack of freedom of speech.
This proposal represents another instance of state-imposed censorship, scapegoating individuals who do not have children, as noted by Human Rights Watch’s statement.
Comment
byu/twistedsilvere from discussion
inchildfree
Anti-abortion state policies
Soviet Russia was the first modern state to legalize abortion in 1920.
Currently, termination of pregnancy is allowed until the 12th week of term and, under special circumstances, at later stages in Russia. However, legal doesn’t always mean accessible.
In August and November 2023, the Russian regions of Mordovia and Tver enacted laws penalizing anyone who ‘coerces’ women into having abortions.
These government measures have significantly affected reproductive healthcare procedures in Russia.
For instance, private health clinics have begun limiting services, forcing many women to rely on public healthcare for family planning options.
Meanwhile, the BBC reports that Russia’s Health Ministry has issued guidance instructing public healthcare professionals to dissuade women from terminating pregnancy.
The instructions even suggest advising underage parents, ‘Since you’ll be the same generation as your child, you’ll bond with them better.’
Reactions to the bill
The Russian parliament has framed ‘child-free’ advocacy as a Western concept undermining the country’s values.
However, Sofia Rusova, a member of a consortium of women’s rights NGOs, told Euronews that many people choose not to have children due to economic reasons.
Human Rights Watch views the proposal as part of a broader attempt by the government to regulate personal lives.
The bill still needs to pass two more readings before receiving final approval from President Putin. In any case international outrage will almost certainly increase.
Even though Russian authorities emphasize that the decision is still up to women, it’s important to recognize the potential threats that the future may hold. The law remains blurry, and that’s dangerous.
