Search

The Zika outbreak of 2015-7 is a lens to analyse the positioning of abortion within in global health security. The sequelae of the virus almost exclusively affected newborn children, manifested through Congenital Zika Syndrome (CZS), and a focus on women at risk of, planning or being pregnant. At the global level, debate considered whether Zika would provide impetus for regulatory change for reproductive rights in Latin America, a region with some of the most restrictive abortion regulation in the world. However, regulatory change for abortion did not occur. We analyse why the Zika health emergency did not lead to any changes in abortion regulation through multi-method analysis of the intersection between Zika, health emergencies and abortion in Brazil, Colombia and El Salvador. These case study countries were purposefully selected; each had Zika infected women (albeit with differing incidence) yet represent diverse regulatory environments for abortion. Our comparative research is multi-method: framework analysis of key informant interviews (n = 49); content analysis of women's enquiries to a medical abortion telemedicine provider; and, policy analysis of (inter)national-level Zika response and abortion policies. We consider this within literature on global health security, and the prioritisation of a particular approach to epidemic control. Within this securitized landscape, despite increased public debate about abortion regulatory change, no meaningful change occurred, due to a dominant epidemiological approach to the Zika health emergency in all three countries and prominent conservative forces in government and within anti-abortion rights movements. Simultaneously, we demonstrate that regulation did not deter all women from seeking such service clandestinely. • Zika affected reproductive decision making, but did not impact abortion regulation. • Epidemiological framing ignored reproductive dimensions of emergency responses. • Conservative forces instrumentalized disability concerns to oppose abortion rights. • Women sought abortions clandestinely, citing Zika as a justification. • Abortion provision must form part of health emergency planning and response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19 response indicators focus on public health outcomes (such as infections, case fatalities, and vaccination rates), health system capacity, and/or the effects of the pandemic on the economy, yet this avoids more political questions regarding how responses were mobilized. Pandemic preparedness country rankings have been called into question due to their inability to predict COVID-19 response and outcomes, and COVID-19 response indicators have ignored one of the most well documented secondary effects of the pandemic – its disproportionate effects on women. This paper analyzes pandemic preparedness and response indicators from a feminist perspective to understand how indicators might consider the secondary effects of the pandemic on women and other equity deserving groups. Following a discussion of the tensions that exist between feminist methodologies and the reliance on indicators by policymakers in preparing and responding to health emergencies, we assess the strengths and weakness of current pandemic preparedness and COVID-19 response indicators. The risk with existing pandemic preparedness and response indicators is that they give only limited attention to secondary effects of pandemics and inequities in terms of who is disproportionately affected. There is an urgent need to reconceptualize what 'successful' pandemic preparedness and response entails, moving beyond epidemiological and economic measurements. We suggest how efforts to design COVID response indicators on gender inclusion could inform pandemic preparedness and associated indicators. • A feminist perspective on debates about the use of indicators in global health. • Pandemic preparedness and response indicators consideration of gender is limited. • COVID-19 has led to the development of innovative gender-based approaches. • These can be built upon through greater integration of feminist approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]