Domestic Violence and Abortion: The Case of Soviet Lithuania

‘My husband started screaming in fright, “remove it [the foetus – I.B.] quickly, if not, I will remove it for you!”’ In 1964, a woman in Soviet Lithuania wrote this to the editorial office of the women’s magazine Tarybinė moteris (‘Soviet Woman’) to seek solace and share her experience of violence from her spouse in relation to her abortion. ¹ Correspondence with the authorities, including the press as a mediator, was often resorted to by many people in the Soviet Union to express their opinions, ask for help or intercession in the face of bureaucratic system’s injustice. However, this letter is one of many describing everyday life and relationship problems. Some are particularly extensive and emotional, revealing decisions around abortion. Thus, the starting point for this research were such letters, shedding light on gender relations, domestic violence, and abortion, which was found in the archives of the only and most popular women’s magazine in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (LSSR) in Lithuanian language, as Russian-language magazines from other Soviet Republics were unpopular among Lithuanian women. This laid the basis for the hypothesis – domestic violence determined women’s reproductive choices, especially decisions to abort pregnancy.

In examining the issues of abortion and domestic violence, some scholars have noticed not only aspects such as the availability of the procedure after its decriminalisation in 1955, the challenging economic situation, the conditions of women’s quasi-emancipation in the professional sphere, and the inaccessibility or poor quality of modern contraceptives, but also gender relations. Christopher Williams examined abortion motives in late stages of the Soviet Union and noted that some women mentioned problems with their partners as reasons to terminate pregnancies. Unfortunately, he left this unanalysed. ² Focusing on Soviet Ukraine, Yulia Hilevich suggested that gender relations shaped the practice of abortion; however, she presented it as a mutual marital strategy or an implementation of women’s agency. ³ Anna Rotkirch reported that alcohol, violence, and emotional neglect experienced by women made them associate sexuality with something that led to pain. ⁴ However, the link between violent gender relations and abortion has not been further analysed. This article adds to the discussion by focusing on violent relationships between family members and partners as an important component in decisions to terminate pregnancies, without excluding the problem of modern contraceptives affordability, economic and other considerations.

To comprehensively investigate the issue, this study is based on the notion of a non-monolithic Soviet Union and focuses on the case of Soviet Lithuania – a late-Sovietised western borderline republic. ⁵ Such decentralised approach allows one to understand the practical application of social policies in the context of a particular Soviet republic and to consider a socio-cultural dimension by presenting qualitative research drawn from the analysis of extensive archival and published sources. Consequently, such questions are being raised: What was the context in which the most common family planning measures in the LSSR had emerged and why? What do egodocuments and official survey sources reveal about domestic violence and the circumstances of abortion decisions? Did the local experts and authorities use systemically collected information about the motives of abortion in the strategy of abortion prevention? What were the features of the public discourse on domestic violence and abortion?

Answering these questions requires an extensive use of primary sources. The letters written by working class women living in major towns and rural areas of Soviet Lithuania reveal the characteristics and the significance of domestic violence in women’s lives. Moreover, they disclose various aspects and peculiarities of abortion decisions: what social circumstances caused it, who was involved in it and to what capacity. These egodocuments unveil women’s’ agency and situations in which reproduction decisions were made, therefore, expanding our knowledge about the reasons behind pregnancy termination. However, available letters are not devoid of critical problems, for instance, they cover only a short period of time between the 1960s and the mid-1970s, so a comprehensive study of women’s agency in abortion situations covering a longer period and a broader stratum of society is not possible when based on letters alone. It is also worth noting that in the letters found, both the issues of pregnancy termination and violence are not central but are rather mentioned as side information in specific family situations, as well as in the broader context of female workers’ conditions under the Soviet regime.

Moreover, state-initiated questionnaires found in the records of the Ministry of Healthcare of the LSSR reveal official, systemically collected data in medical institutions from 1968, and show that experts analysed the problem of mass abortion in Lithuania. This source is crucial when comprehending what official information reached healthcare system managers and authorities. Each medical institution recorded women’s responses about abortion decisions differently – some used percentages, other specific numbers – complicating data analysis. Additionally, responses were often aggregated and recorded inconsistently across facilities due to the lack of a standardised form. Given the overburdened state of the medical system, particularly women’s healthcare institutions, and the frequent abuse of power over patients, it is plausible that medical staff may have recorded answers without interviewing the women. While this source is not entirely unreliable, like Soviet statistics in general, it should be approached with caution. ⁶

To understand whether the data showing decisions around pregnancy termination were subject to expert reflection, this article uses documents from correspondences within the medical system, ministerial instructions, and papers from the Chief Obstetrician and Gynaecologist of the LSSR. Moreover, this research traces the anti-abortion campaign, which took place in the Soviet Union, and specifically, in Soviet Lithuania. Tarybinė moteris is used as the main source to reveal the issues of domestic violence and abortion. This magazine not only implemented the strategy of the Sovietisation through propaganda programme as it was envisaged by the authorities, but also responded to the instructions on the matter issued by the government-sanctioned experts of the LSSR. Most importantly, it had to respond to its readers, meet their expectations. Tarybinė moteris is therefore a particularly suitable source for the analysis of propaganda images and material that was adapted for Lithuanian society and reached the biggest audience of women in the LSSR.

The article is divided into four sub-sections: (1) The popularity of abortion in Soviet Lithuanian society, (2) women’s’ voices, (3) official data on violent gender relations and reasons of abortion, and limits of experts in the LSSR, (4) domestic violence representations and Soviet Anti-Abortion Campaign in the public discourse. The first sub-section presents historical, social and cultural contexts of how and why abortion became available, and arguably the most popular method of pregnancy control in Soviet Lithuania. The second sub-section presents the documents recording domestic violence. Analysis of the information in these documents reveals reasons and motives around abortion. The third sub-section outlines the information about the circumstances and motivations for family planning that reached local government-enticed experts and authorities, as well as their responses. The final sub-section discusses public discourse around the causes of abortion, and domestic violence as an issue.

This study suggests that social and economic dependence of women on their partners, as well as physical and emotional violence women experienced in Soviet Lithuania determined their reproductive choices and affected their decisions to abort pregnancies. The regime of conservative gender relations which manifests in male dominant power dynamics within domestic structures, and gender-based violence (rape, beating, manipulation through social or economic power, threatening and emotional terror) in women’s lives, unaddressed by the Soviet policies and local authorities, were fundamental causes of abortion.

The Popularity of Abortion in Soviet Lithuanian Society

The regulation and law regarding the medical termination of pregnancy and the availability of contraceptive methods in the Soviet Union was dynamic – the Soviet government changed its abortion policy several times. It was legalised in 1920, banned in 1936, and legalised as a medical procedure again in 1955. ⁷ Only the latter resolution, which implementation in LSSR was delayed and took place in 1956, was relevant for Soviet Lithuania, occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940–1941, and reoccupied in 1944 to 1990. Formally, the LSSR did not have autonomous policy on Family or abortion regulations, yet the implementation of the policy imposed by the central Soviet authorities were in place, and the centralised policy did not respond to the specificities of any particular Soviet republic. ⁸

It is generally assumed that abortion eventually became a widespread method of reproduction control among women in the USSR, including Soviet Lithuania, although it remained an extremely violent, and socially stigmatised practice. ⁹ According to historiographical data in the Lithuanian SSR (the population of the republic is approximately 3 million) alone every year around 30 000–40 000 abortions were performed per year within the official medical system. ¹⁰ However, it needs to be stressed, that general statistics on abortion in the LSSR started to be collected more systematically only in the late 1960s, meaning that the archival documents do not contain any overall statistics. Hence, it cannot be verified whether the data presented in the Soviet database by the medical institutions to the Ministry of Health of the LSSR was based on any actual numbers, especially since miscarriages, criminal abortions and abortions performed in medical institutions were lumped together. In all cases, termination of pregnancy of any kind was referred to as ‘abortion’, which makes it impossible to know whether these pregnancies were terminated naturally or artificially. However, studies show that from the1960s to the 1990s the most popular family planning methods were abortion and interrupted intercourse. ¹¹ The question of these two methods as the most common arises, particularly because the LSSR so-called experts presented them as harmful in numerous ways. ¹² Therefore, it is necessary to consider the socio-cultural specificity of Lithuania.

The period of abortion prohibition (1944–1956) was characterised by a particularly difficult social situation in LSSR. In 1944, reoccupied Lithuania was tormented by war and post-war upheaval. The social structure of the society changed drastically due to the Holocaust, mass deportations and repressions caused by the Soviet regime, and migration. Moreover, forced collectivisation, urbanisation, and the armed resistance movement led to numerous casualties. Consequently, family relations were inevitably affected, and the Family policy introduced by the Soviet Union in 1944 influenced the further fragmentation of family ties and social structure. ¹³ Meanwhile, part of the population that remained in post-war Lithuania was still deeply religious, which may have influenced public and private attitude towards abortion, birth control in general and its methods.

Nevertheless, some ethnographic studies suggest that during and after World War II the society was more forgiving towards criminalised abortions in Lithuania. ¹⁴ It is likely that sexual violence that undoubtedly took place in the post-war period led to an increased demand for abortion. However, the documents revealing abortion practices in this period allow seeing cases only resulting in death or conviction of a woman. It is vital to note that such documents are scarce, and fatal or prosecution cases are extremely rare. Many abortions referred to law enforcement were ignored, not investigated. For instance, ‘The Prosecutor’s Office of Raseiniai was informed [about the abortion case – I.B.] but stated that they would not take any measures. That is because the perpetrator lived in the Ariogala district. The Ariogala militia stated that it saw no need to intervene’. ¹⁵ It can be presumed that the Soviet power structures, occupied with the matters of incorporating a country into the Soviet Union, saw these cases as politically insignificant social phenomena, resulting in such indifference.

Moreover, evidence on abortion practice in LSSR during the post-war period opposes the idea that during this time doctors in Soviet republics previously occupied by Nazis maintained a permissive approach and practice of abortion at the woman’s request, despite the ban. ¹⁶ It should be noted that at best a few doctors who worked during the Nazi period, continued working in the field after the Soviet re-occupation. On the contrary, at this time, illegal abortions were often carried out by lower level medical staff or people either not working in medical institutions or having no medical training at all, rather than by qualified doctors, let alone obstetricians-gynaecologists who practiced under the Nazi occupation. Furthermore, during the period of the Armed Resistance to the Soviet occupation in Lithuania (1944–1956), the only testimonies about illegal abortion come from those in militia, prosecutor’s office and medical institutions authorities. Employees in these positions had to show loyalty to the occupying power and provide it with the kind of information that was expected of them. Thus, statements recorded in official documents cannot be considered reliable, and reflecting the true situation. Therefore, the popularity of abortion practice in Lithuanian society until the 1960s remains unclear.

Nevertheless, after decriminalisation of abortion in 1955 almost all major medical institutions in the LSSR were somewhat equipped to perform abortions. The latter policy made abortion a medically normalised procedure. Over time, the abortion procedure was facilitated and made more available to a wider range of women, including teenagers: in 1964, pregnancy could be terminated using the vacuum method up to week 12, by surgery up to week 14, and the procedure became free of charge in 1975. ¹⁷ In 1984, the deadline of terminating pregnancy was extended to 28 weeks provided if there were ‘serious social reasons’ (death or imprisonment of a husband during pregnancy, rape, etc.). However, some evidence show that such practices were already present in the Lithuanian SSR in 1982. ¹⁸ This suggests that the legality of pregnancy termination could and have been disregarded due to social circumstances.

Meanwhile, modern medical contraceptive methods did not become widespread in society; this remained largely unchanged until restoration independence in 1990. Although the availability of contraceptives and the information concerning different methods of family planning had increased significantly in the 1960s, compared to earlier periods – booklets and magazines included family advice on how to avoid pregnancy, modern contraceptive measures were produced in the Soviet Union and imported from the socialist bloc countries. ¹⁹ However, starting from 1962, Lithuanian publications promoted only the following contraceptive measures: washing uterus after intercourse with boric or other acid, the Ogino-Knaus method, medical suppositories and pastes, IUDs, spermicidal creams and condoms.

However, all preventive contraceptive measures were often unavailable (and remained so throughout the occupation period), unsuitable or even extremely harmful for some women due to physiological reasons, while condoms were exceptionally unpopular among men and remained sparsely used. ²⁰ Former obstetric-gynaecologists remember that men in LSSR used to say that using a condom is ‘like smelling a rose through a glass’. ²¹ While the Hungarian-made contraceptive pill Infekundin was introduced in Soviet Lithuania pharmacies in 1968, the supply did not meet the demand, and they were portrayed negatively in the media. Moreover, the most primitive home-made concoctions containing easily accessible ingredients even in the context of Soviet shortages hardly attracted women’s attention. Studies show that couples did not use any mechanical pre-conception means at all. ²² Thus, such unpopularity of pre-conception reproductive control at the turn of the 60s–70 s (the period of increase in these methods), and an increased way of planning family through abortion is probable due to two reasons.

The first cause of choosing abortion opposed to other means of reproductive control relates to a change in 1968 Family policy. ²³ During the late 1960s, activist movements in the West including the 2nd wave of feminism associated with the spread of the contraceptive pill were greatly unwelcomed in the Soviet Union. And ongoing ‘Thaw’ of life had already changed various cultural phenomena incompatible with the authoritarian communist rule. ²⁴ The socio-cultural influence of the West, especially in Western borderline republics, had always been a concern to the regime, so the advanced contraceptives reaching the Soviet Union from the (relative) West and referring to a greater freedom and self-control were presented to the public with scepticism and false allegations. Eventually, they were demonised and not imported at all. Meanwhile, the overall Soviet Union progress in this matter did not reach the LSSR. This was due to no major changes in the medical field of family planning measures, apart from the ever-growing liberalisation of the abortion procedure. It is likely that the Soviet Union loosened the conditions of abortion to monopolise control over reproductive options. The second reason concerning preferred abortion over other options, I argue, is that preventive contraception was not even an option for women due to specific nature of relationships between partners, and spontaneous circumstances of conception, which were either not favourable to women or happened against their will.

Women’s Voices

In the light of the ‘Thaw’ – late 1960s, women in Soviet Lithuania indeed began to be more vocal about the contrast between the quality of life under the regime and the propaganda images. Therefore, Tarybinė moteris that printed propaganda-filled texts about the ever-improving living conditions and increasing aid and attention to women, especially motherhood, received more readers’ letters with each issued magazine. Many of them were letters of outrage, extensive life stories, everyday worries, tragic life events. Women sought advice on how to deal with situations they do not know how to handle. The significance of these letters lies in not only women wanting to express their opinions on article topics (this was encouraged by the editors to increase popularity of the magazine) or offer their literary drafts for publication, but also in asking for intercession of journalists. Women’s letters were not intended to publicise opinions or experiences, but rather to find comfort, help, advice otherwise not found anywhere else. It can be argued that the editorial board of the only magazine edited and printed in the LSSR for women in Lithuanian language was perceived as interactive media offering emotional (or other) support even if readers did not get answers to their inquiries.

“I am a simple working person. During the 30 years of the Soviet state, I have constantly heard concerns for a man, about the lawlessness, the hopelessness of the capitalist world! But after all, in the age of socialism, I am being driven out of the house with babies in my arms! Where can I look for support, who can I turn to? Where are the laws that are supposed to protect me and my child?” ²⁵ –

It can be argued that it was the propaganda articles on women’s rights (including the right to abortion), ideologically appropriate marriage and the toxic-old as opposed to progressive-new family types encouraged women to talk about the ills of relationships that they experienced. Paradoxically, the difference between the bourgeois and socialist societies’ realities, painted by the regime’s justifying propaganda, highlighted that the change was not so great after all, and that the principal gender relationship problems remained unchanged. The alleged improvement of women’s condition in the Soviet society represented in the magazine was not only out of touch, but also did not offer any access to help or at least a reliable channel suitable for expressing concerns without being silenced by a political programme which was parroted by fictitious women’s committee. Hence, having no other way to draw attention to the deep-rooted problems, women started to write collective letters about men’s heavy drinking and violent behaviour:

“The authorities of our collective farm drink a lot, and so do all men. They drink at work. They kick their wives out of the house when they come home from work. We cannot make a complaint to the chairman of the collective farm because he drinks more than the others. But perhaps you, the editorial board, could help us? We want to live like all people. We want to take part in cultural activities, and we want men back from work who are not drunk. We want them to respect us as women and as mothers, and not be out at night in the fields with small children. Come and see how our women live. They often walk around beaten up and cannot complain to anyone.” ²⁶

Moreover, the ‘voices from below’ were not only talking about physical violence. They noted psychological, sexual violence, manipulation, hostility practiced by other family members on the part of husbands, and correlation between different types of violence and family planning issues. So, there was a much broader spectrum of hostility, even if the told experiences were not labelled as ‘violence’. Indeed, domestic violence disclosed by women were usually, and particularly, connected to a decision to have an abortion. Although such testimonies are not specifically about abortion, it is safe to say that both aspects – abortion and violence – were seen by women as abuse, injustice and accompanied an overall sad, difficult lives. Essentially, physical and psychological violence, frustration in relationships with partners, their reactions to pregnancies and encouragement to undergo the procedure, as well as extended family members’ (often husband’s mothers’) say in the matter almost always accompanied women’s decisions to terminate pregnancies: ²⁷

“My husband started screaming in fright: ‘remove it [the fetus – I.B.] quickly, if not I will remove it for you!’. And he began to terrorise me, ‘eat your own food!’. His mother won’t let me go to the bathroom or take a bath. […] And at night, when he comes from Milašienė’s house, both him and his mother attack and beat me.” ²⁸

Based on letters found it can be determined that the consideration or decision to terminate a pregnancy correlated with violence or women’s (not necessarily reflective) psychological reaction to the threat of violence, be it physical or psychological. This suggests that the decision to terminate a pregnancy may have often been motivated by psychological self-defense, or escape from a critical life situations, thus, became a coping mechanism in abusive domestic settings. It should also be noted that the use of abortion as a method of family planning may have been linked to the violent circumstances of conception.

The circumstances surrounding the decision to have an abortion are indeed closely linked to the culture of guilt, shame, silence and fear that prevailed in nonetheless patriarchal Soviet society. When looking more broadly at the situations found in the letters, a key point must be addressed – women’s social, economic and emotional dependence on their partners; it is precisely the conservative gender regime in the private sphere that stands out:

“It’s been five years since I separated from my husband. In the last few years, I have been friends with someone else because I thought that it would be foolish to expect anything. That man got me pregnant. And now, as if by misfortune, my real husband is back in the family. I had no choice but to get an abortion, secretly from my husband. For the sake of my son’s happiness, I decided to do so. Because if my husband found out, he would have left us for good, which is what I fear most.” ³⁰

Indeed, researchers attribute such gender regime to the popularity of abortion as a method of reproductive control and interrupted sexual intercourse as a contraceptive. ³² Here, the distribution of gender responsibilities also matters, especially in the context of sexual relations. Women’s submission to the men’s will and trust in their ability to control conception, and the idea of chastity of women through ignorance about sexual relations are evident in conservative societies. Soviet puritanism ³³ supported such attitudes, which reflected in not only a limited sex education in the LSSR, ³⁴ but also in a biased mass media representation of non-marital pregnancy. The latter was mostly depicted as an ‘inevitable result’ of a naïve girl’s intimacy and man’s dramatic deception. On the other hand, it was also encouraged to manipulate men by becoming pregnant, as it was later officially announced that ‘pre-marital pregnancy […] can be the only opportunity to build a family with a person of one’s choice’. ³⁵ Ultimately, the conservative gender relations regime apparent in women’s letters reflected violence and dependency – all that was allegedly eradicated in Soviet society.

Official Data on Violent Gender Relations and Reasons of Abortion, and Power Limits of Experts in the LSSR

Partner’s involvement in abortion decision is to some extent obvious from medical and juridical system’s internal documents as well, particularly, during the period of abortion prohibition in the LSSR. From 1944 to 1956 women were prosecuted for undergoing an abortion, and in some cases, partners’ role in those situations was documented. For example, in 1947, a man who, according to the testimony, gave the woman money to terminate her pregnancy, stood in trial alongside her. This was sufficient for a trial, yet he was acquitted for lack of evidence, and the woman was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment. ³⁶ In 1952, another woman died because of an abortion, a man was convicted of being an accomplice encouraging her to do the procedure by financing it, and claiming that if she aborted the pregnancy, he would marry her. ³⁷

Yet after the decriminalisation in 1955 men’s influence, such as encouragement, meditation or violence, on women’s decisions to terminate pregnancies is often overlooked or ignored. It seems, that legalising abortion puts the full responsibility on women ignoring the context and circumstances of the decision. Although cases of partner’s involvement are rare in documentation and especially hard to find, they have not gone completely unnoticed. In 1965, the chief obstetrician and gynaecologist of the LSSR Jonas Neniškis stated that out of the 13,400 examined abortion cases 6% stated ‘other reasons’ as for undergoing abortion. He presumed that this included rape, spouse’s unwillingness to have children, and women’s unemployment, but this was not elaborated further. ³⁸

On the other hand, the conservative turn on the Soviet Family policy in 1968 prompted Jonas Neniškis to issue an order and an instruction to all medical establishments to systematically collect information on patients who apply for abortion. ³⁹ It remains unclear whether this order was issued as his personal initiative or as an execution of instructions ‘from above’. However, it is probable that the reasoning behind this instruction was twofold. Firstly, one of the aims of the All-Union anti-criminal abortion programme was to improve control of abortion practices taking place outside the official system. Secondly, despite abortion being legal, the official Soviet Family policy was pro-natalist: the Ministry of Health Care aimed to analyse reasons behind pregnancy termination, and eventually improve anti-abortion policy strategy, reduce the number of abortions in the country. On the local level, it had to be done by the local experts.

Accordingly, Jonas Neniškis wrote a recommendation for questions a woman inquiring about abortion should be asked. The recommended inquiries were (1) specific physical work during the miscarriage, (2) illnesses during pregnancy, (3) catching a cold during pregnancy, (4) fatigue, (5) insomnia, (6) sex life, (7) number of children in the family, (8) whether the pregnancy was expected, (9) whether the woman had or is undergoing treatment for infertility, (10) whether the woman has any genital infantilism and (11) whether the woman has any congenital genital abnormalities. ⁴⁰ Importantly, in addition to the standard reasons suggested in the documentation form such as hard physical work or health reasons, social and emotional circumstances such as sex life or unwanted, unexpected pregnancy were also included.

However, the questionnaire had its flaws: it was fragmented, the questions were not interlinked, and some of them made even doctors sceptical. For example, the chief obstetrician and gynaecologist at the Klaipėda city hospital Girčienė remarked there was no need to ask about ‘fatigue’ as it could probably be attributed to all women in the country. She observed that without exception all women in Soviet Lithuania were overworked and exhausted. ⁴¹ Moreover, there was not standardised form for marking the answers. Although some of the answers were foreseen in advance and one had to only mark how many women had given a particular reason, it was still possible to document other cases and specify the answers. Still, whether this was specified depended on medical staff, an individual employee, or internal procedures of a particular institution.

From then on, every quarter of the year, a pile of variously documented data on the circumstances of abortions in cities and towns of the LSSR reached the Ministry of Health. For instance, during the first half of 1970, 946 requested abortions were recorded in the hospital of the administrative area of the fifth largest city of Lithuania Panevėžys. Reasons for these abortions were the following: do not want more children (256); a small child in the family (273); husband is absent (79); poor living conditions (73); not getting along with husband (37); willing to continue education (19); too many children in the family (81); poor material conditions (32); husband is in prison (1); husband is in the army (2); poor health (71); husband is sick (7); took lots of medication during the pregnancy (5); husband is an alcoholic (6); medical indications (21); husband died (2); husband suffers from mental illness (2). ⁴² More structured documentation, yet more vague or inaccurate answers were provided by a hospital in the Vilnius administrative area. Here, in the first half of 1970, 33% of women out of a total of 6427 cases terminated their pregnancies because they already had two or more children, 18.5% due to having small children, 8.8% were single, 8.3% had poor quality of housing, 2.4% had a lack of nursery services. ⁴³ Unfortunately, the remaining 29% of the answers remain unmarked and unexplained in the document. In both cases, there is no explicit commentary on the data, women, families or family planning situation in general. But this information was reaching the healthcare system authorities in the LSSR and had to be handed over to Moscow along with dry statistics.

Indeed, based on the official results, it can be claimed that the widest range of answers related to various issues with partners/husbands in families: absence of one, their hostile behaviour towards women (sometimes directly identifying violence, including sexual), problematic relationships, partner’s illness or addiction, unwillingness to have children, and similar. Apparently, these correlated with social or economic risks and implied other kinds of social problems stemming from gender relations and society’s social rules. Thus, the data that reached the LSSR’s health system managers reflected a broader situation in a society, to which the experts and authorities had to respond accordingly.

However, even the economic and material causes regarding abortion, particularly evident in the systematic collection of questionnaires, created a sense of powerlessness among those who were appointed by the USSR Health Care system authorities to be responsible for changing the abortion popularity locally. Undoubtedly, one of the most prominent reasons provided in the data was social unsafety caused by economic and social circumstances. However, it is important to note that officially the major indicator of economic wellbeing was the size and type of housing, while the income or other economic and social factors of poverty were not discussed by the local experts – the economic wellbeing of a family was usually determined by the features of the living space. ⁴⁴ It is therefore likely that any answers about a woman’s economic and social situation not related to housing or child-care facilities were either not mentioned answering the questionnaires at all or hidden under other statements, such as ‘not wanting to have more children’. Nevertheless, local doctors openly stated in institutional documents that:

“The missions set up to fight abortion are not serving their purpose and are ineffective. […] They do little to help. The tasks are quite difficult and impossible to achieve, such as: providing housing, a nursery, etc. Because according to the reasons behind abortion, many women terminate their pregnancies because of bad housing or because there is no one who can look after the children, there are simply not enough places in nurseries, there is a shortage of housing.” ⁴⁵

Meanwhile, the data on the influence of emotional experiences (especially experiencing different forms of violence and emotional reaction to it) caused by husbands / partners or others, did not reflect in the documentation of the local experts, nor the LSSR authorities. There were practically no insights expressed on this problem as if it was invisible or insignificant.

Yet the experts who collected and analysed the gathered data to some extend have noticed the situation concerning women’s emotional and social state in the Soviet society. It is likely that relational and emotional aspects of everyday women’s lives, even if acknowledged, were still locally perceived similarly to economic status – as a systemic shortage of housing or lack of social assistance. Latter problems were embedded in communist regime, its political strategy and goals. Making systemic changes of this magnitude were not in the hands of those made responsible for reducing the number of abortions. On the other hand, if the connection between conservative gender relations, widespread and uncontrolled violent relationships and abortion as a perverse and socially unwished practice had been made public or thoroughly addressed, it could have compromised the image of improving wellbeing of women, and successful emancipation under communism. Exactly that was one of the most paramount arguments for the benefits of living in the USSR.

Domestic Violence Representations and Soviet Anti-Abortion Campaign in Public Discourse

It remains unclear whether issues of the link between gender relationship and abortion in particular, was not considered significant or was not given enough importance more generally. However, it can be argued that the measures that have nevertheless been taken to tackle abortion and domestic violence problems were entirely rhetorical. Both, abortion and domestic violence, were mostly addressed in the family planning propaganda. Abortion usually was presented in anti-abortion campaign (which was launched at the all-Union level with the decriminalisation of abortion in 1955). ⁴⁶ And domestic violence has been covered in occasional articles on the family and the functions of its members. But the family planning propaganda tackling the later appeared around the mid-60 s. Thus, in search of the link, it is relevant to look specifically at the public discourse on abortion and domestic violence since the 1960s.

The Soviet authorities presented to the public the reproductive control service – in particular, abortion – as a ‘gift’: a right granted by the state in good faith, unavailable to the allegedly exploited women in the West. However, starting with the 1960s, the discourse on abortion depicted fictional situations narrated by an authoritative voice, usually that of a doctor or a self-critical woman herself, presenting counterarguments to a theoretical decision of terminating a pregnancy. In such articles, abortion was almost always presented as an act of inappropriate individualistic, egoistic motives, emphasising women’s ideologically unfit attitude towards their social responsibilities: ‘More and more often I think about the two, who I did not allow to see the world. […] There was no shortage of bread then. I was selfish’, a fictional woman claims in an article published in Tarybinė moteris of 1984. ⁴⁷ A woman’s self-interest rather than societal goals was a prevalent discourse in abortion propaganda.

The same discourse had another implicit argument for abortion – the economic poverty of a family. The counterargument to this suggested that poverty or deprivation in families is normal or even plausible. Deprivation supposedly strengthens families and fosters family cohesion (in terms of both economic and social freedoms, the scope of individual independence had been considerably reduced, as the number of family members had increased). Most importantly, deprivation develops the ‘right’ morals in children: allegedly, if children are in scarcity of basic needs, they grow up selfless, are more inclined to share, and as the press constantly reminded ‘it would be even better […] if some things in family were lacking – then children would grow up to be better’. ⁴⁸ Likewise, the rhetoric of the viciousness of an only child was implied:

“An only child is often pampered […], grows up selfish, and often goes astray. An only child is not very good psychologically or physically. […] Living in ‘greenhouse conditions’, a child grows up physically weak, usually capricious, and often ill.” ⁴⁹

Another narrative tried to intimidate women regarding consequences of abortion procedure, suggesting their position in a society would change, as well as physical and psychological health. As Amy E. Randal observes, it was the impact on partner relationships, as well as women’s and families’ happiness that was perhaps the crux of the Soviet anti-abortion campaign. ⁵⁰ Almost all publications of this campaign including the documentary film Aborto Žala (‘The Harm of Abortion’) reiterated and emphasised that through abortion women risked their social and individual fulfilment, health and happiness. According to those publications, becoming infertile or incapacitated would make women devoid of the meaning of life, and neglect their social responsibilities of giving birth and working. In almost all cases, the campaign’s arguments and manipulations were targeted at young women, agitating them to terminate the first pregnancy. It was young women in particular who were identified by the Soviet experts as being morbid consumers, egoists, and demoralised individuals, incompatible with socialist values and communist aims. ⁵¹

In case of domestic violence, men’s alcoholism and family ‘dysfunction’, without specifying what that term meant, indeed appeared as a main factor in situations involving decision to terminate pregnancy. However, the focus here was on the problem of alcoholism, which was rather discussed as corelating to the potential problems of birth defects and the birth of ‘unworthy’ children. ⁵² Nevertheless, namely male drunkenness and violence started to be presented as interconnected problems. It is not entirely clear what the causation of this discourse was, but it can be assumed that the increase in published articles on violence could have been linked to women speaking more openly about the situations they experienced, namely, writing to magazine Tarybinė moteris editors. Although there were no personal responses to women’s complaints about violent family lives or relationships with partners, they were followed by several articles in the magazine on the issue of domestic violence, family relationship problems or the psychology of men and women, their roles and functions in family life.

However, speaking more openly about the issue and reactions to it in the press without mentioning that the articles were prompted by women’s letters had not changed the official reaction to it. Gender-based violence in couples’ relationships continued to be known as a public secret ⁵³ due to practical non-criminalisation of such cases. ⁵⁴ Despite the existing legal framework for domestic violence crimes, its implementation was complicated by tendentious treatment of the problem, that is, justification for violence and victim blaming. ⁵⁵ Indeed, violence was presented by the experts as the result of male drunkenness and family ‘dysfunction’, but these problems arose from women’s inability to properly perform their feminine duties, as the welfare of the family remained the domain of women. After all, the most important function of women in Soviet society, regardless of their work duties, remained sacrifice for the wellbeing of the family privately and the stability of the family institution publicly. ⁵⁶

Looking at public discourse, the impression is that undesirable family planning decisions are, in any case, the result of women failure to fulfil their social function. Such discourse was, of course, a direct, systematic, and widespread endorsement of patriarchal norms in both the public and private spheres in the Soviet Union. Indeed, at the political level, the focus of the Soviet emancipation policies was not on changing gender relations in society from pre-modern/conservative to progressive, but on more actively subjugating women to the regime’s goals. ⁵⁷ Thus, despite the widespread propaganda about gender equality, abolition of outdated conservative gender relations, and the regime’s policies defending women, the public discourse created by the regime-supported experts – doctors, scientists, and authoritative public figures – was unambiguously patriarchal, with no room for public discussion or criticism.

Moreover, it is important to note that only physical violence was discussed publicly. Meanwhile, sexual violence was almost ignored as a topic of physical violence. Sexual violence In the Soviet Union was usually mentioned in the fields of sexology and sexopathology, but the topic was hardly touched in the LSSR. It was only scarcely noted that, for example, it is inappropriate for a husband to behave rudely with his wife on the first night of marriage. ⁵⁸ Or, as the researchers note, sexual crimes were a only mentioned when discussing sadism, masochism and pathological mental disorders. ⁵⁹ Yet, compared to socialist Poland, the discourse in the LSSR seems to be almost non-existent in this respect. ⁶⁰ Therefore, violent sexual situations were publicly presented in the same way – without any nuances. Here also women were to be blamed. It was their responsibility for provoking specific male behaviour: ‘In such cases, it is often the girls themselves who are to blame. Allegedly, they have failed to show girlish pride to men and demand genuine self-respect from them’, ⁶¹ or:

“Because there are still women who have been beaten, are being beaten and will be beaten [emphasis in original – I.B.]. This will continue to be the case until women learn to defend their dignity, until public organizations, the guardians of public order and morality, try to make some kind of settlement of the unresolvable conflicts in the family.” ⁶²

Sespite public assessments on who was to blame for violent situations, the society expected the militia to intervene in domestic conflicts, since there was a legal pretext for doing so if a man’s behaviour was publicly perceived as hooliganism. Here, it is important to mention that the flawed nature of the law in cases of domestic and partner violence had not been concealed and was publicly scrutinised. The problem of non-registration was raised in 1967 in a Tarybinė moteris article concerning the laws applied to violent men: ‘when called upon, militia officers come to an apartment where a drunken man is making noise, they try to understand the circumstances, but do not formalise the complaint legally’. ⁶³ The content of ‘making noise’ here stays unclear, although many readers likely understood it as hostility against family members, especially wives.

However, the direct connection between physical violence, and overall male behaviour towards women, and family planning decisions, particularly abortion, had not been made by propagandists. In general, social, economic and emotional dependence of women on their partners, violence and abortion had never been linked causally in the public discourse, at least in terms of life realities for women and families under socialism. A woman ‘belonging’ to a husband, violence against children, socially unacceptable pregnancies out of wedlock, etc. were all spoken of solely as vicious remnant of the past, which allegedly were almost non-existent in the new-type socialist society. ⁶⁴ However, this narrative in propaganda has been used to denigrate the bourgeois past on any topic, rather than shed light on an existing social problems.

Meanwhile the anti-abortion campaign could have been also directly and primarily subordinated when solving or preventing other political problems rather than affecting the scale of abortions. Distorted representation of the causes of abortion suggests that the anti-abortion campaign, in fact, lacked practical interest in tackling the issue of the scale of abortion. ⁶⁵ Perhaps because the increase in the number of babies would lead to problems that could not be solved: general dissatisfaction with the quality of life under the regime, improvement of child-rearing facilities, social assistance to mothers and similar. ⁶⁶ In addition, the general concern that single mothers, ⁶⁷ and unplanned children (whose families usually were unable to provide for financially) who were abandoned en masse in children’s homes, was becoming a burden on the state. Moreover, a steady crime rate among juveniles who grew up in state-run institutions meant that they were the ‘headache’ for various governmental representatives. Indeed, these problems were much more evident in society and more compromising to the image of welfare in the Soviet Union, than demographic problems.

These findings are reinforced by the fact that in both cases of abortion and domestic violence, the rhetoric of publications was not characterised by any peculiarities in relation to the socio-cultural context of Lithuanian society. The rhetoric in publications on these topics remained unchanged, no new arguments or representations emerged thorough the period of occupation. E.g. although the most widespread and historically dominant religion in Lithuania was Catholicism (unlike in other republics of the Soviet Union), and the Catholic community remained greatly active in the resistance struggle against the occupying regime, ⁶⁸ the rhetoric of the anti-abortion campaign had not been reshaped by this. It had not duplicated or replicated the arguments of Christian anti-abortion propaganda to win the favour of believers. For instance, the aspect of unborn life as intrinsically valuable is exceptionally rare in the Lithuanian version of anti-abortion articles, with only a few exceptions. In case of domestic violence as well, the articles were not substantially different from those published in the Russian-language press in Soviet Russia.

In both cases, publications had a specific ideological basis – the reinforcement of women’s social function, the multiplication of the future builders of communism in the Soviet society, and the stability of family institution. Thus, it is likely that in the ideological context of women’s independence and autonomy under the Soviet regime, public representations of intertwined problems of gender relations and family planning complexities could not exist – political goals of the state and its imposed. Family policy were fundamentally at odds with propaganda slogans. Thus, publications on these topics reveal that the discussion has been limited by a broader strategy of Sovietisation and other political goals.

Conclusions

The research shows that abortion was one of the most used means of preventing pregnancy in the late-Soviet LSSR. Meanwhile, the various types of pre-conception measures, which were already made known publicly and were at least partially available starting from the 1960’s, did not become a substitute for the latter method. This was due to two reasons. On the one hand, modern medical contraception and the accompanying culture of personal freedom mainly reaching the Soviet Union from the relative West was incompatible with the policy strategy of the Soviet Union at the turn of 1960s–1970s. On the other hand, the most favoured methods of controlling pregnancies were directly linked to the specificity of gender relationships, which were characterised by conservatism, spontaneity and lack of mutual consent.

By confronting the propaganda messages about successful emancipation of women, the new socialist family and exemplary partner relations, women in the LSSR exposed the real situation of domestic violence and overall social injustice. To express dissatisfaction with the lack of improvement in women’s lives under the communist regime, they revealed violence they experience on a daily basis. Women’s voluntarily written letters to the editorial office of Tarybinė moteris magazine in the 1960s and 1970s show that women’s economical, emotional and social dependence on their husbands and partners was significant. Furthermore, they shed light on the fact that one of the main aspects of the abortion phenomenon in Soviet Lithuania was various types of violence, including sexual. This exposure of women’s everyday lives and relationships suggests that pre-conception family planning measures were unlikely to be wanted precisely because of spontaneous, unplanned and likely unconsented circumstances of conception.

The media presented the issue of domestic violence and abortion in the framework of the Soviet anti-abortion campaign, which was biased. The representations featured attribution of responsibility for violence to women themselves and never showed correlation between violence, influence and involvement of women’s partners in the decision to terminate a pregnancy, and high numbers of abortions. Due to the non-politicisation of the issue, and gender-based violence in particular, as well as the actual persistence of women’s social, economic and other dependence on men in the Soviet system, the problem was not systematically addressed.

It is likely that the anti-abortion campaign, as the limited representation of gender-based violence, were subordinated to the political goals of maintaining the regime and conservative patriarchal gender relationship regime, rather than decreasing numbers of abortion in the society. Local experts were aware of the situation, namely, women’s economic and socio-cultural disempowerment, poverty and dependence on their partners. Nevertheless, their reactions to the systematically collected material on the motives and causes of abortion expose their powerlessness to retaliate in the conditions exposed by the regime, despite them being tasked to reduce the number of abortions in the LSSR by the authorities.