What struck me in the interview, is the enormous amount of difficulties Rebecca Gomperts and Women on Waves have been confronted with. Whereas she had high hopes, ten years ago, for a whole fleet of ‘women on waves’ providing information and aid to women who required it, she recently has had to cancel some of their activities. This is the direct result of changes in Dutch abortion policy.

Partly, she is confronted with unjust allegations. For instance, she discusses the common misrepresentation of Women on Waves, especially reagrding what happens on their boat. The only types of abortion (if it can even be called that way) that are carried out there, are performed using abortion pills, and only in the first 16 days after a woman was expected to start menstruating. Moreover, their emphasis seems to be on providing information, rather than the actual abortion practice.

According to Gompert, the Dutch climate towards induced abortion is changing. Besides recent changes in the Dutch abortion policy, she also discusses how organisations against abortion receive more government funding than organisations in favour of the possibility for abortion. She concludes with being concerned that this financial inequality between organisations may topple public opinion against women’s opportunity to choose.

The first is a slight change in policy regarding the use of the ‘abortion pill’ in very early pregnancies (before 16 days after a women was expected to start menstruating). The government decided that regulation regarding this procedure now is part of the abortion legislation (which is wasn’t). Although the government states that this does not change much for abortion practice, opponents argue that this results in a more restrictive abortion legislation.

Secondly, health inspection ordered the prosecution of Women on Waves, a Dutch organisation that uses boats to provide abortions and information to women in countries where abortion is prohibited. By sailing to international waters, their actions are regulated by Dutch legislation, providing a legal basis. Apparently, they violated the law by using the wrong type of boat.

Interestingly, a major Dutch newspaper featured an interview with Rebecca Gomperts, founder of Women on Waves, just this weekend. I’ve already rounded up some thoughts on this interview with the founder of Women on Waves, Rebecca Gomperts, which I will publish tomorrow. So, if you’re interested in this subject, do come back then!

A lot has been written about this, as well as on what exactly should be interpreted as polarisation. Methodologically inclined literature seems to be debating this to some extent, but at least agree that it has to do with an increasingly broad distribution of attitudes or opinions. In less technical terms, this means that the opinions of large number of people in society differ in increasing amounts. so, we’re talking about polarisation of the general public, instead of the polarised activities of either pro-life, or pro-choice organisations.

What, then, has this to do with Women on Waves in Valencia? Women of Waves is a “Dutch non-profit organisation concerned with women’s human rights. Its mission is to prevent unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortions throughout the world.” (Quoted from their web-site.) The use boats to go to countries in which abortion is restricted of prohibited by law, allow women who want to have an abortion aboard, sail to international waters, let the women have an induced abortion, and then sail back to the national waters of the country they started. Since national legislature is not in effect in international waters, the national abortion bans are neither. What the Women on Waves do, it seems, is perfectly legal. But, it also raises controversy.

There is a lot to say about Women on Waves, both in favour in against, but I will remain neutral on this one. However, the news coverage on their recent arrival in Valencia, Spain, made clear to me another effect their actions has. As a sociologist, I’m interested in the unintended consequences of peoples’ actions, and I think that the presence of Women on Waves in a country or city might have a polarising consequence. Both pro-choice organisations (who invited Women on Waves), and pro-life organisations rallied in the Spanish harbour. They both use all the energy they have to bring their views to the attention of the larger public.

Sure, none of these organisations will have changed their positions. However, I think that the presence of both types of organisations, their rallying, and the coverage in the news of these events, might have forced people in Valencia, Spain, and perhaps even abroad, to form their opinions on induced abortion. This can either be in favour, or against, but the increased visibility of the abortion-debate must have decreased the number of people who aren’t really aware of the issue, or have never given much thought about it.

It is not the goal of Women on Waves to change peoples’ attitudes, but to allow women to have an abortion. Nevertheless, I think it might have had an unintented consequence of (slightly) polarising the abortion debate. Again, an interesting phenomenon for sociological study, and again it is just there to be found in the news. I love my job!