 This is Stink Tech. I'm Jay Fidel. It's a given Tuesday the 28th and we're here with Roopmati Khandekar. She joins us from very far away and we're going to talk about the effect that Ro V Wade, the reversal of Ro V Wade has had on global perspectives. This is very important. Good morning Roopmati or whatever time it is in your place in the world. Good morning on Wednesday 29th of June and so it's early morning here and it's an amazing pleasure to be on Think Tank Hawaii and talk to you about this landmark decision we can say and it's going to change everything everywhere. So let's talk about it and discuss it in such a way that we can get a broader perspective. So when the SCOTUS gave us 6-3 majority, it was stunning wasn't it? It just shocked the world, shocked this belief and that summarizes what we are going to speak about right now. So let's go Jay. First let's talk about your perspective, how you feel about this and then we'll do a geographical survey of how others that you are familiar with, how they feel about it in different countries. What's your perspective Roopmati? Correct. Now when you talk about this judgment, it's something of a judicial norm trespassing into a personal norm. So when you compromise into a person's personal space, it's like you can trespass into somebody's house but this is far more personal and taking away the rights. Jay, one line summary I can give you is it's not an event having a child is a process. So when you are forcing it on someone, you are technically giving that person a process to go through. It's not an event that they can abandon and when they abandon it, it's going to bring in more social evils. So you have to have willingness to get into this parenthood, both male, female, everybody and the larger perspective on this is that it's a constitutional right to decide what you can do with yourself. Religion, yes, you cannot harm life that is the other side of the coin but there are medical emergencies which require the abortions. Everything has to be taken care of. You can't make such a one-sided judgment and when there was a judgment they should have amended it rather than scrapped it by scrapping it. They are bringing in a lot of legalities. There's a list of companies who are willing to pay for the women to go out of the country. So this brings in this harmony in the society. You're disturbing the decorum of the society. The integrity of the judicial system is being questioned. How can you believe that they are going to go straight in other decisions when they give such a one-sided against female decision? There's a loss of confidence in the political system and there's a disturbance of the entire social decorum. So it's a far-reaching landmark and we need to do something to repeal it, to amend it. It can't go on like this because America is the beacon of freedom. We have the hegemon which directs the international global system towards democracy, towards personal rights and half of your population are women. If you're going to curtail their rights in such a only the United States, Poland and Nicaragua have reduced the female access to abortion rights. The rest of the countries are all moving forward. In India, we have reduction of this abortion control because of the ratio of women, the preference of a male child. But you cannot find out the gender of the child. These are the, what is that? These are the restrictions that come in place. But to totally tell a woman that you cannot go through unwanted pregnancy that is wrong. That is absolutely wrong. No, no. That was reflected in all the reaction that came, isn't it? From what you say and I want to explore that a little bit. It sounds like abortion is permitted in most or nearly all of the world. Is that true? Yes, yes, yes. They do. They do have medical access. But now in the US, the point is that you have a penalty if you go for an abortion. So the health, the entire healthcare system comes under scrutiny if you help out a person in need. So you're technically charged under felony. So that becomes a very complicated issue because health workers, they are designed program mentally to save lives. So by a medical abortion, if you're saving the life of the mother, they would want to go through it. Now you're endangering everybody. So two lives are at stake with your one act or one law. So that is repulsive for the society. So okay, that being the case, I imagine and you are in India right now and you've traveled and you've seen other places on your current trip. So I imagine that people everywhere know about Roe v. Wade and the reversal of Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court. And you've probably talked to a lot of people. I mean, I can tell you that everybody that I know in the US is talking about this news. It's a fair statement to say that everybody in India and the places you've been are also talking about this news. Am I right? The Roe v. Wade exactly people may not know about it or it doesn't have that much of far fetching consequences. We will see these effects in about say five years time. When you have a black market or an underground healthcare system that takes care of the unwanted pregnancies away from the justice judicial system, you will have a whole new system which comes into play away from the eyes of the political system. So this it requires five years to a decade. In India, you see if there is no restriction on abortion. You don't want the child or there is unwanted medical this they do go through it. So it's progressive here and it's gone. You know what Boris Johnson said? It's a big step backwards. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So if somebody in India or some, you know, some developing country or any country is learns about Roe v. Wade, the reversal of Roe v. Wade and finds that the U.S. is taking a big step backward. What do they think? What is their reaction? What is their reaction to the decision of Supreme Court? And maybe more important, what is their reaction to the United States? And I asked this question, you know, mindful of the fact that the United States is world famous for having a locked up Congress for having, you know, an argument between the Republicans and the Democrats on basic measures of public policy. So what is what is the reaction of an individual in India or elsewhere to the reversal of Roe v. Wade? Roe v. Wade, when we say that it's, you know, it's constrained the liberty of a woman only. It is shocking for people in India to understand that somewhere where they dreamt of the American dream, freedom, you can do whatever you want and everything is available and better healthcare system. In that you have a big restriction and on a majority of the population, you can't have liberty, equality and fraternity with limitations or with restrictions. It's like comparing it to the the Red Scott and Sanford agreement in judgment in 1857 when they said people of African descent cannot be American citizens. So how can you have such a sweeping decision, which just cuts out one part of your population from any liberty, quality and fraternity. So men have higher rights. Why do you give women voting rights when they can choose their political leaders, but they cannot choose what happens to themselves? I told you, religion has to be respected, right to life is for everybody, but that life has to be taken care of by a woman or a father. The mother father, if they are not capable of going through bringing up the child, they would prefer to not have the child. This is the beginning of a series of decisions which may come on the LGBT community or the minorities or say the immigrants. If they can make such a sweeping decision on American citizens, you can just imagine what they can do to migrants if they want to one day. Immigrants can be just swept off, it gives uncertainty in the system. You come to America for stability, you come for a better life, you come for a developed life and from the developing world, when you talk about America, you talk about all these things. There's going to be equality, better health care, better education, better lifestyle, but when you are under felony charges for not wanting a baby, so that is regressive. One thing that's common around the world is the notion of family and you referred to that a minute ago. Family, for a society to be stable, the family institution must be stable. Once the family institution declines, then the society, this is my view anyway, then the society must decline. It sounds to me like what you are saying and I would absolutely agree with it, is that if you restrict these days, especially in times when people can be poor and cannot have the resources to raise a child, if you restrict their right to an abortion, when it already exists, then you're undermining the family and people all over the world understand and respect the family. If in the United States, we intrude on the decisions just as you said of the family, we're intruding on the institution of marriage, the ability of a husband and wife to make family decisions. I would imagine that people in every country would react that way. Do you agree? Yes, absolutely point on Jay. You see in America, we have nuclear families, but in India and say the developing world or somewhere in America too, we have extended families or joint families where people live together and decisions are made by everybody. So there has to be a respect to your elders, there has to be a consideration of your youngsters, there has to be consideration of the family income, what can be done for the house, everything, there are a lot of consideration. Now, if you say that it's a wholesome process, but now in America, when you have a single person trying to make a decision and the government trying to monitor that person, it gets very restrictive for them because there is an advertisement of absolute freedom. Isn't it? In America, it's advertised to be absolute freedom. You can do whatever you want as long as you don't trespass on the liberty of others. So your restrictions are restricted to your, now if you are asking the judicial and political system to come inside a woman's body that is going to have far-fetching reactions because as I told you at the beginning of the program J, it's not an event, it's a process and parents have to be willing. If the father abandons the child, what does the mother do? Then you'll have abandoned children, you'll have, you know, you'll have a social system where you have free mongers and loafers running around and creating unwanted social elements which will create, you know, it's a pyramid which will keep on building up. So we have to understand that it has to be cut at the root and this has to be amended, taken back, repealed. You have to have some logistical changes in this. This can't work this way. It is absolutely not feasible to go ahead. So to continue on that particular track, if I have a given family and the government intrudes on my decision to have an abortion, my family decision to have an abortion, in a country where people don't have a lot of money and they would have decided to have an abortion because they couldn't afford the child and now they're forced to have the child and the child is therefore unwanted. Would you say that your comment implied or expressly indicated that if you put that pressure on people and they don't have the money, you're undermining the family. What you're saying is to the husband, for example, if you were thinking of leaving your wife, if you were thinking of abandoning this unwanted child, this is going to exacerbate that possibility. This is going to make it more likely that you will leave your wife and because you can't afford to have the child. What's the process, for example, in India or in some other developing country? In India, it's a traditional society. It's not a free society. There are restrictions of family, there is restriction of tradition, there is restriction of monogamous marriage, there is no polygamy, there is no polygamous partners. So you have a restrictive cocoon from the beginning. So the women in India know their limits more than if you get an American woman and you tell her you can't do this and you have to continue for seven births with the same person, they will not like it. But an Indian woman would love that because you think that for seven births, you will be with the same person. So that kind of mentality comes in mind. If you tell this person you cannot do this, she will be more willing than an American woman who is living free for decades, who's seen her parents live in freedom, who's seen her grandparents live in freedom. And suddenly a restriction is brought on her, on her personal choice to bring up a child that becomes, they will not listen Jay. They will not listen, you will have self abortions, you will have them going to which doctors, you will have them going to anybody who will help them in this time of crisis. Because at that time the woman is at her most vulnerable worst. So instead of support, if you give her restrictions, she's going to go the wrong way. She's going to abandon the child. That's the only solution that they come up with. Well, let's talk about abandonment of unwanted children. In the United States, according to the Supreme Court, there will be someone who will take that child. That child will be able to survive, there will be organizations and individuals who will act as a kind of safety net for that child. I don't really believe that's true, but that's what they apparently think, that there'll be some way that the unwanted child will be cared for in the United States in the wake of their decision. But it's different in another country. It's different in countries, for example, where there are few resources outside the family, where there are no institutional possibilities to take care of an unwanted child. And an unwanted child, the life of an unwanted child is a much harder life than it would be if there were such institutions. So what about that in India and developing countries where a child is unwanted, where the child is put out of the family? What happens to that child? Who will care for that child? What kind of a life will that child have? Yeah, Jay, in our previous program on democracy, when we spoke about democracy as a political norm and we had this question of poverty being in India, poverty is an economic norm. You know, there is a difference. Even poor parents would, whatever they have resources, they will give it to that child, they will try to raise the child. But even if that's standard of living is low, they will try to keep up with that. Abandoning traditionally is not very viable option in India. They continue carrying the child ahead, letting go of their own intake for the child's upbringing. Now, this sacrificing parents is a part of traditional society in India. Means you do with whatever you have, limited resources you have, or is a part of the developing world. You know, you'll have in China, you'll have four children who will be living with their parents after marriage or so they will live with their parents, they will take care of their parents. How many children in America would like to do that? They would like to go out on their own and live their own life after 18. So it's not a give and take relationship. It's not a mutual understanding relation. It's like, I'm on my own, you are on your own. So that has been, that has been the form of society. It's not wrong. It's not anyway, it's their way of life, their lifestyle that is being, you know, harnessed. But you can, when you're asking them to go in the opposite direction, living with no restriction and living with complete restriction, it's like a paradox that they have to pass through. They can't really go through this. I mean, a girl living in America would not have, would not follow the same restrictions that a girl in India would. That's my, that's a one-liner because of the mindset, because of the traditions, because of the kind of society you live in. There are restrictions everywhere. But in America, abortion is a right, which is a fundamental right, which has been taken away. It's like something like you can't speak. So that way. So you're skilled in economics and you've written in economics. I just wonder if you have thoughts, what happens in a given country that follows, you know, this rule that limits abortions? What happens to the economy? If, for example, India would follow the reversal of Roe v. Wade and would limit abortions, what would happen to its economy, all these things considered? Can you imagine the debate, Jay, if China had passed such a law, you would have had, or India would have passed such a law, they would have been communal riots, they would have been, you know, bombing off everything. But this is a very restrictive, a muted reaction to this judgment. If it had happened in any of these countries, which we are living in, the reaction would have been far stronger than what you're having with banners, it would have been far stronger because of the sheer population, that is for sure, but also because of the number of people. I mean, who would be affected by this? You can't have abandoned children in developing countries, but if you have abandoned children in America, you'll have foster homes to take care of. And then you have problems of the foster home and everything. But I feel nobody can take care of a child as much as a parent can. So I think parents' willingness to take care of a child would bring the child up in a far better environment than foster homes. So willingness of a mother's love is unprecedented in any form of love, isn't it? So if the mother is away from the child, how will the child do it? I mean, you can't imagine a world without mothers and children being together. So it puts stress certainly on both sides of that equation. But let me ask you this, this is really an interesting notion that up till this point, as you mentioned, America has been the city on the hill, the beacon for civil liberties and the rights of the individual. And now it's very clear from this decision that we're no longer in that place. We are imposing on women, imposing on their rights, going backward, as you said, taking a huge step backward. And because it's the Supreme Court and they're there for life, that's likely to last for a long time and have a profound effect. So up till this point, and since the end of World War II, the Marshall Plan, the United States has been a leader in the global liberal order, in national and international morality. And so there's been a phenomenon where many countries, if not most countries in the world, follow the lead of the United States. On this occasion, for this issue, it seems to me it's not necessarily the same phenomenon. Do you think that developing countries, India and many, many other countries, which now allow abortion, will change their minds? We'll say, wait, maybe the Supreme Court is right. Maybe we have to change our laws. Maybe we have to outlaw abortion also. What do you think? Is there any possibility of that? Absolutely not, Jake. Absolutely not. It's a beacon. The hegemon is a beacon of democracy in the liberal world order, but not for this one. I think everybody will pass the United States on this one and let women fight out for their rights over there, maybe help rather than change their own laws. But this is an ultra regressive decision. It's not about conservatism and liberalism. It's about fundamental rights of the even the child. You are endangering the child by giving unwanted pregnancy to parents. So child has to be full of joy, brings joy to parents, to grandparents, to family, to everybody. It cannot have any sadness associated with it. So this gives you have an axe over your neck of the political system of the United States, the judicial system of the United States. That's a hard pill to swallow, Jake. And it's going to be literally a disturbance of social decorum in the personal space. So they should pass gun laws. They should pass better laws which will save lives. Well, you know, it sounds to me like inherent in all of that in the fact that the United States can't seem to pass meaningful gun laws, that the United States is losing touch with free and fair voting and democracy in general, the democracy that it has sold to so many countries in the world. And now this, you know, the withdrawal of human rights to half the population is quite remarkable. And aside from the question of whether other countries will emulate this particular decision, which I think is clear, they will not. But what about the view of other countries and people around the world? Now that we have this withdrawal of human rights and women's rights, I mean, there was a journalist in Ireland about, I guess it was during the Trump time, where he said in his Irish newspaper, he said, the emotion we should feel for the United States is clear. It's pity. We should feel pity for what is happening in the United States. But I think I wanted to ask you that question. I mean, all these things are happening. And now this, what reaction will the world have to the United States? We have a president who was almost impeached twice, who kept three judges who have smashed the acts of conservatism on this judgment. So now, what, who are you trying to please? That is the question. If you're talking of the general population, it's not pleased. They are going to travel to other places and get their work done. This is just about the poor people who don't have access to travel abroad, don't have access to higher medical fees. They are the ones who are going to suffer. So it's just that this kind of a decision hurts marginalized sections of the society more than the general population. So the United States has to understand that it's leading the way. And when it takes these steps backward, the other countries are stunned. Only Poland and Nicaragua are helping on the same platter as the United States make some progressive decisions. Voting rights were hailed as such a big thing. And then you're taking away from someone a right is not, I told you, it's not appeasement of religion. It is wrong to abort a life. But if it is for medical reasons, give space for that. Give space for marginalized parents, somebody who doesn't want at all. So give space for that. If you do these amendments, if you give this maneuvering space, it will have a better impact rather than a fan decision to restrict everybody. So that is needed. Jay, just a little bit of talking of the law is needed, necessary. What about the way people see this on a racial basis? I mean, there are some commentators who feel that the reversal of Roe v Wade is racist. And because the people who don't have the resources are more often than not the disadvantaged and the minority races, if you will. And at the Supreme Court, at the heart of its decision is actually acting against them, making it impossible for them to do what they want to do, because the others do have the resources to travel and get an abortion elsewhere. What do people think about that? There is an underlying proportionality between poverty and population, isn't it Jay? The poor countries do have higher populations. So you have these marginal sections of the American society who have more kids. Maybe the white people will have fewer kids, but the black or the what is that minority immigrants will have four to five kids. So for them, it becomes a bit of a issue, isn't it? Because they do not have access to that healthcare, which a family of two living with one child will have. So they are going to be the ones who are going to suffer when you have forced laws on them. So that's why I think it is said to be more on the marginalized population. One last thing I wanted to ask you about, and you referred to this early on in our conversation today, is that if you have the resources and you would like to have an abortion, then you would go to a place, use your resources to go to a place as possible. And indeed, there are liberal states now like California and maybe Hawaii that would make it easier for someone from a red state to come and have an abortion. And that seems to be the likelihood in a number of states now. But it also happens on an international level. For example, India has very advanced medicine and other countries in Asia, they have advanced medicine. So do you think, Rupamati, that there will be countries that step up and say, why don't you have a vacation here? And we will offer you the medical services you might have wanted in your home state. Do you think that will happen? Is there any talk of that? Do you think it will happen in India or other places with advanced Western medicine? Just taking commercialization to a whole new different level, isn't it? There are people, Jay, who have not traveled outside their own lane. Isn't it? We are the privileged Lord, blessed Lord who can travel from country to country, hop from country to country. But not many people can afford to do these things. So for them to travel from one lane to another, say one city to another is a task. So we have to understand that they are the ones who actually need abortions when they cannot raise, they don't have enough resources to raise a child. So for them, the advertisement would not matter, they would not that. So that's what, so for commercializing abortion would lead to, I mean, what were the Supreme Court judges thinking when they did this? They have to think about the widespread repercussions of this. It's not just about pleasing the conservative side of ideology, it's about basic human rights. So I would sort of summarize our discussion today, is what were they thinking? What exactly were they thinking? And those beyond basic human rights, it also goes to America's brand, it's franchise in the world, America's idealism to the way the world sees America. And if they had been thinking about that, they would never have done this, because it seems to me we have, we have lost our leadership, not only because of this case, but right now in large part because of this case. You have to have a political system which takes note of this and says, hey, wait on, you cannot do this. And you have to have a strong leader. We are lacking that and we are really lacking the strong leadership that we needed, just as it would have gone and stopped the trespassing into Ukraine. Let me just go far-fetched into that. And same way, they should have stopped this trespassing into women's right. So a political system which says to the judicial system, do not cross your limits, and which protects the right of the people, that's what the political system does. A judicial system gives justice to people. Now we have both of them who are taking away basic human rights. Who do we go to? So that way, who to ask? What about this? Yeah, yeah. Well, there was a great sign at one of the protests of money that said America, the land of gun care and health control. Think about it. That's too straightforward, isn't it, right now? Well, thank you, everybody. A great discussion. Thank you, everybody. We'll talk to you again about other international issues and developments. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at ThinkTechHawaii.com. Mahalo.