Proposed Bill Would Lower Iraq’s Age of Consent to 9 Years Old

The Iraqi parliament is facing mounting pressure from civil society, women’s rights groups, and activists as it considers amendments to the Personal Status Law that could drastically affect the rights and well-being of women and girls in Iraq. If passed, these amendments would lower the legal marriage age from 18 to as young as nine years old for girls and boys, paving the way for widespread child marriages and eroding decades of progress in protecting women’s rights.

The current Personal Status Law, established in the 1950s, prohibits marriage under the age of 18. However, a loophole allows religious leaders to officiate marriages of girls as young as 15 with their father’s consent. A 2023 UNICEF survey found that 28% of Iraqi girls marry before the age of 18, highlighting the problems that child marriage even under the current legal framework. Under the proposed amendments, this situation would worsen as the age of consent could be lowered overall. Sarah Sanbar, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, warned that the amendments would allow marriages to be officiated under either the personal status law or specific Islamic schools of jurisprudence, further undermining women’s rights.

The proposed law has been opposed by women in parliament as well as many activist groups. Protests have erupted in Baghdad and other cities, with citizens voicing their opposition to the amendments. However, these protests have been met with violent clashes with law enforcement, reflecting the contentious nature of the debate. Many women members of parliament and activist groups have also spoken out against the amendments, emphasizing the devastating consequences they would have on Iraq’s women and girls.

Razaw Salihy, Amnesty International’s Iraq researcher, highlighted the dangers of child marriage, explaining that it deprives young girls of their education, increases their vulnerability to sexual and physical abuse, and subjects them to significant health risks associated with early pregnancy. One Iraqi mother also expressed her fears, stating: “My husband and my family oppose child marriage. But imagine if my daughter gets married and my daughter’s husband wants to marry off my granddaughter as a child. The new law would allow him to do so. I would not be allowed to object. This law legalizes child rape.” Despite these dire consequences, the amendments are being pushed forward at a time when urgent legal reforms are needed to address the systemic violence and discrimination that women and girls face in Iraq.

The amendments would not only lower the age of marriage but also open the door to legalizing unregistered marriages, often used to circumvent existing child marriage laws. They would remove penalties for adult men who engage in such marriages and for clerics who officiate them. Critical protections for divorced women, such as the right to remain in the marital home or receive financial support, would also be eliminated.

Salihy urged Iraqi lawmakers to focus on addressing pressing issues in the Penal Code, such as the acceptance of “honour” as a mitigating factor for the killing of women and girls and the failure to criminalize marital rape. She stated: “Iraq’s parliament must reject these harmful proposed amendments and instead focus their efforts on addressing woeful shortcomings in the Penal Code, which permits ‘honour’ as a mitigating factor for the killings of women and girls and allows for the corporal punishment of the wife and children by the husband, as well as failing to criminalize marital rape.”

The proposed amendments, if passed, would effectively grant religious councils of Sunni and Shia sects the authority to develop their own codes of Sharia rulings on personal status matters. This move would further threaten women’s and girls’ equality under the law and entrench discriminatory practices.

For decades, Iraq’s Personal Status Law has been a cornerstone of legal protections for women and girls, applying to all Iraqis irrespective of religion. These proposed amendments represent a significant step backward, undermining the progress that has been made and threatening the rights and dignity of half of Iraq’s population. The international community must join Iraqi activists in calling for the rejection of these amendments and the prioritization of reforms that protect and empower women and girls in Iraq.

Expanding Birth Control Access as the New Front in Reproductive Freedom

Photo by Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition

The Biden-Harris administration’s proposed rule to expand access to affordable contraception under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a timely and essential move, especially in the current political landscape where reproductive rights have been systematically eroded. This proposal would provide over-the-counter birth control without any cost sharing for women with private insurance, removing significant financial barriers to contraception for millions of women. This would include FDA-approved options such as Opill, the morning-after pill, and other methods like IUDs and condoms. Jennifer Klein, White House Gender Policy Council Director, emphasized that this move could have a transformative impact, ensuring more women can access contraception without cost-sharing. 

This initiative couldn’t be more urgent. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—which overturned the nearly 50-year precedent set by Roe v. Wade—the landscape of reproductive healthcare has shifted dramatically. With abortion access now either severely restricted or outright banned in many states, the need for accessible birth control has become a frontline issue. Women who have lost access to safe and legal abortion options are left with limited reproductive choices, making contraception not just a health service but a critical tool of autonomy and control over one’s future. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra emphasizes this by saying, “Now more than ever, access to and coverage of birth control is critical as the Biden-Harris administration works to help ensure women everywhere can get the contraception they need when they need it”​

The proposed rule would not only strengthen access to prescribed contraceptives but also tackle the loopholes created by religious and moral exemptions that have allowed some employers and institutions to deny birth control coverage. These exemptions have been a contentious issue since 2018, when regulations allowed private health plans to exclude coverage for contraceptive services based on moral or religious objections​. Under this new rule, women and dependents enrolled in plans with such exemptions will be able to access contraception directly from willing providers without additional cost, ensuring that their employer’s religious beliefs don’t determine their reproductive choices​.

This policy comes at a time when contraception is more than just a personal health decision—it’s a matter of economic and social justice. Nearly 90% of women of reproductive age have used contraception at some point in their lives, and access to reliable birth control is closely tied to women’s ability to pursue higher education, maintain steady employment, and plan their families responsibly​. The ability to control if and when to have children is not just a matter of health; it’s a fundamental right that impacts every facet of a woman’s life. As Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, aptly put it, “Access to birth control is critical to reproductive freedom. It gives people the reins to decide their futures.”​

However, while this proposal is a positive step, it doesn’t go far enough. The fact that this expanded coverage applies only to those with private insurance leaves millions of women—especially those from low-income backgrounds—still vulnerable. Contraception should not be a luxury afforded only to those employed or enrolled in a university health plan. It should be available, free of charge, to every woman in America, regardless of income, employment status, or geography. Access to birth control shouldn’t depend on a person’s ability to navigate complex insurance systems or rely on an employer’s benevolence.

In addition, this rule still retains religious exemptions for employers, which means that women who work for religious institutions or employers who claim moral objections may still face hurdles. Although the proposal seeks to create independent pathways for these women to access contraception, the process could still impose unnecessary burdens, delaying access to timely contraceptive care​. In a country that prides itself on freedom, we should be moving toward a system where reproductive health care is universal, not subject to the whims of individual employers or religious doctrine.

This proposal doesn’t address the needs of women without health insurance. While expanding access to no-cost birth control under the ACA is commendable, those without insurance remain sidelined. The U.S. should be aiming for universal access to contraception—comprehensive coverage that includes everyone, regardless of their insurance status. For a society to truly respect reproductive freedom, it must ensure that contraception is affordable and accessible to all, not just the privileged few.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs has created a reproductive health crisis in the United States. As state legislatures continue to attack abortion access, the federal government must counterbalance these efforts by protecting and expanding access to contraception. The Biden-Harris administration’s proposal is a necessary first step, but it’s only that—a first step. True reproductive justice will only be achieved when contraception is universally accessible, free from bureaucratic obstacles and moralistic exclusions. Women deserve nothing less.

Natural Disasters Aren’t Gender Neutral – Hurricanes Milton and Helene Prove It

Photo by NASA

Natural disasters don’t just ravage landscapes—they also expose and deepen systemic inequalities. Recent hurricanes, Milton and Helene, tore through Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas, destroying homes, businesses, and the lives built across generations. While governments rush to repair infrastructure and restore housing, they often overlook the people most impacted in the long term—especially women, low-income mothers, and their children. These groups bear the storm’s weight long after it has passed.

The truth is that the temporary solutions offered by governments and international organizations might patch immediate wounds, but they don’t heal the deeper, systemic problems that exacerbate women’s suffering. Disasters shine a spotlight on pre-existing inequalities, and for women, the picture is often bleak.

Hurricanes Milton and Helene are no exceptions to this trend. Disasters like these reveal systemic vulnerabilities, with women, particularly low-income mothers, suffering disproportionately. Despite the urgency of restoring physical structures, disaster response frameworks rarely address the unique needs of women. Until aid distribution and disaster response incorporate gender-sensitive policies, this cycle of inequality will persist. It’s essential for relief efforts to include hygiene products, prenatal care, and safety measures that protect against gender-based violence.

In the aftermath of disasters, risks of gender-based violence often surge. Shelters become overcrowded, social services strain under demand, and women are left more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. This pattern is alarmingly common: After Hurricane Katrina, domestic violence reports nearly doubled, a trend that was mirrored in the wake of Helene. The 2012 report “The Hidden Disaster” found that domestic violence incidents rose by 53 percent after New Zealand’s Canterbury earthquake, while physical victimization rates of women nearly doubled after Hurricane Katrina. From earthquakes in New Zealand to bushfires in Australia, women across the globe face heightened risks during and after climate-related disasters.

The needs go beyond housing. In the chaotic scramble of disaster recovery, shelters are seldom equipped to support those most in need, such as mothers with young children. Essentials like hygiene products, breastfeeding areas, and prenatal care are frequently overlooked, adding to the psychological and physical burdens these women bear.

As the 2012 report underscores, “Without long-term investments in affordable housing and community resilience, these vulnerable groups will continue to suffer disproportionately in future disasters.” Addressing this requires a radical rethinking of disaster preparedness and recovery. It’s time we acknowledged that women experience disasters differently than men. The path forward starts by prioritizing these differences to foster a more equitable recovery for all.

In addition to these downplayed issues, climate change has intensified the severity and frequency of natural disasters, and the gendered impacts are only becoming more pronounced. Climate change exacerbates existing inequalities, with women bearing the heaviest burden. From floods to hurricanes, women are often on the front lines of caregiving, resource gathering, and community rebuilding all while being more vulnerable to displacement, food scarcity, and violence. As climate change worsens, so too will these gendered impacts.

Decisive action to curb climate change and create gender-sensitive disaster response systems is crucial. Building climate resilience must go hand-in-hand with gender justice. Governments need to integrate women’s voices into climate change policies, ensuring that recovery efforts are not only reactive but also preemptive, equitable, and sustainable.

Let’s be clear: the fight for gender equality doesn’t end when the winds die down. Hurricanes Milton and Helene exposed the cracks in our disaster response systems—cracks that women and their children are falling through. This isn’t just about surviving the storm; it’s about dismantling the systemic inequalities that guarantee women will be left behind in every disaster. It’s about building a world where their needs are finally seen, heard, and addressed. And as the impacts of climate change continue to unfold, addressing the gendered dimensions of disaster response isn’t optional—it’s essential.

The Deadly Cost of Racial Bias: Addressing the Disparities in Black Maternal Healthcare

Photo by Mustafa Omar

The disparities in medical treatment for women of color, particularly Black women, starkly reflect the deep-rooted racial inequities in the U.S. healthcare system. These disparities are evident in higher rates of C-sections, elevated maternal mortality rates, and a lack of adequate pain management compared to white women, even when receiving care from the same doctors under similar conditions. Black women experience maternal mortality rates two to three times higher than their white counterparts, a statistic that should alarm a country that prides itself on advanced medical care. Despite this being a known issue, efforts to address them remain insufficient.

One of the most glaring examples of this disparity is in labor and delivery care, where Black women are subjected to C-sections at higher rates than white women, often without thorough consideration of alternative options. C-sections are a common surgical procedure used to deliver babies when vaginal delivery poses risks. While they can be life-saving, the frequency with which they are performed on Black women highlights a significant issue in maternal healthcare. Black women are 20% more likely than white women to undergo C-sections, often in non-emergency situations driven by subjective diagnoses like fetal distress. This leads to longer recovery times, higher risks of complications, and greater financial strain. 

Disturbingly, studies suggest that unnecessary C-sections for Black women are more likely to occur when operating rooms are empty, pointing to factors beyond medical necessity. One study found that 8% of healthy Black women had C-sections compared to 4.8% of healthy white women when there was no urgent medical reason. This suggests that decisions to perform surgery may be influenced by convenience or implicit racial bias, rather than patient health.

C-sections carry greater risks than vaginal births, including longer recovery times, higher infection rates, and greater difficulty with breastfeeding. These risks exacerbate the vulnerabilities that Black women already face, given their higher maternal mortality rates. The extended recovery required after a C-section can lead to longer hospital stays and increased chances of postpartum complications. The issue of fetal distress, a common justification for C-sections, is often subjective, and Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with it than their white counterparts. This suggests doctors may unconsciously apply different standards when diagnosing Black women, reinforcing disparities in care.

Frequent C-sections among Black women also have long-term implications for their reproductive health. Women who undergo the procedure face higher risks in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine rupture, abnormal placental development, and the need for repeat C-sections. This cycle of unnecessary surgeries creates enduring health risks for women of color, perpetuating maternal care inequities long after the initial procedure.

Financially, C-sections are also more burdensome than vaginal deliveries. On average, private insurance in the U.S. covers $17,000 for a C-section, compared to $11,500 for a vaginal birth. For low-income women of color, this financial strain can be devastating, particularly when paired with the extended recovery and higher risk of postpartum complications.

This disparity is not due to differences in the medical needs of Black and white women, but rather the systemic racism that pervades healthcare. The fact that these disparities emerge in non-emergency situations highlights the influence of implicit and structural biases, rather than purely health-related concerns. For instance, doctors may have a lower threshold for surgical intervention when treating Black women, driven by preconceptions about poorer birth outcomes. While the intention may be to “prevent harm,” these interventions often lead to more complications, longer hospital stays, and reduced breastfeeding success.

The recent overturning of Roe v. Wade compounds these disparities, placing yet another barrier between women of color and reproductive healthcare. With restricted access to abortion, existing health inequities are likely to worsen, disproportionately impacting Black and Indigenous women who already face immense challenges in accessing care.

Addressing these disparities requires not only reforms in how care is administered but also a reckoning with the deep-seated racism embedded in the medical field. Clinicians must be equipped with the tools to recognize implicit biases and understand how structural racism affects their decision-making. Some states, like California, have begun mandating implicit bias training for healthcare providers, but much more remains to be done.

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation where Black maternal health is getting worse. Dismantling the legacy of racism in maternal healthcare requires structural changes that ensure women of color receive the equitable, high-quality care they deserve. This means not only improving medical education but also enacting policy reforms to address the economic, social, and healthcare barriers these women face. Failure to act will only deepen the health crisis for Black mothers, perpetuating a cycle of inequity that must be broken. The U.S. healthcare system has failed Black women for far too long.

30 Years of Progress: The Evolution and Impact of the Violence Against Women Act

Photo by U.S. Department of the Interior

On September 13th, 1994, thirty years ago, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed into law. The monumental act has been a lifeline for women across the country, making history as one of the most influential pieces of legislation for women’s rights ever to be passed. Enacted and upheld for the last three decades, this law covers survivors of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA protects survivors, regardless of their sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation and regardless of the sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the person who has caused harm. 

The need for this legislation came from the gross failures of the legal and healthcare systems to take women’s claims of gender-based violence seriously. Before this enactment, women faced a system that routinely ignored or brutalized rape victims, prioritizing other emergencies over their trauma. Prosecutors often demanded that survivors prove they fought back, and defense attorneys used their past sexual history to discredit them. A variety of grassroots activists and many survivors of domestic assault, some who even became leaders in this movement, used their voices to fight for change to these injustices. 

In 1993, former Senator and now President Joe Biden introduced the first Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which came about after a three-year investigation into the pervasive issue of violence against women. While Biden championed the legislation, much of the heavy lifting behind the bill was done by his legal counsel, Victoria Nourse, who played a pivotal role in drafting the bill’s language and ensuring its comprehensive approach to addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Nourse, a highly respected legal scholar and professor, has since built a reputation as an expert in constitutional law, criminal law, and legislation. 

Along with Nourse’s efforts, Ellie Smeal and the Feminist Majority Foundation also played a major part in the act’s drafting. “I attended every meeting I could go to to support the bill. Biden had a team of only women drafting it,” said Smeal. These measures were revolutionary at the time and have since provided vital protections to millions of women nationwide. With bipartisan support, the bill was eventually passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. 

Since then, the VAWA has emerged as a critical response to injustices and has continued to be a safeguard. The legislation has been reauthorized in 2000, 2005, 2013, and most recently in 2022. The fifth reauthorization of the VAWA, which was supported and signed into law by President Joe Biden, continues to build on this legacy by not only reauthorizing critical grant programs until 2027 but also expanding the law to address emerging and pressing issues. It reflects a deeper understanding of the intersections of violence, power, and inequality, particularly focusing on marginalized communities such as LGBTQ+ individuals and survivors in rural areas, who are often underserved. 

The law’s extension of Tribal court jurisdiction over non-Native offenders on Tribal land is a particularly important measure, recognizing the sovereignty of Indigenous communities and the unique challenges they face. This reauthorization also takes bold steps in addressing the digital age’s complexities, introducing a federal civil cause of action for those whose intimate images are distributed without consent. The updates to programs like the SMART Prevention Program and the CHOOSE Youth Program further emphasize the importance of early intervention and comprehensive support for those affected by domestic and dating violence, underscoring that prevention is as critical as the response. Finally, the law’s connection to firearm safety through the NICS Denial Notification Act adds another layer of protection, recognizing the lethal intersection of guns and domestic violence. 

While it has undoubtedly made strides in providing safety and justice, VAWA’s continual need for reauthorization and expansion reminds us that the fight against violence is far from over. As new threats emerge—whether through technology, changing social dynamics, or gaps in existing protections—VAWA must adapt to address these challenges. The expansion of protections for underserved communities, the inclusion of cybercrimes, and the enhancement of trauma-informed practices all point to how our understanding of violence, especially against women, is broadening. Advocating for protections for women, like the Biden-Harris administration, which has done so much to keep up with these forever-evolving injustices, is what gives hope to women across the country that they are not alone in this ongoing fight for their rights and safety.

>