You cannot follow the agenda, yet the issue remains a pressure point for many. Abortion is a tough topic to pin down in a single moment. It might be something you saw in the news feed, a discussion by MPs, or a televised debate. It surfaces across radio, television, and conversations in living rooms—everywhere people talk about it.
The topic is presented in a way that mirrors the familiar cooking of potatoes by Tosya Kislitsyna from a popular show: fried, boiled, mashed, French fries, potato pie, and potato pastries. In this narrative, officials argue that women forget their purpose is to bear children and raise families. Some propose cutting access to higher education because it grants women new freedoms. Officials advocate pushing women back toward submission, sometimes with coercive rhetoric. As a result, some regional legislatures restrict abortions in private clinics. Then the message shifts, claiming the original point was misunderstood. And with a sudden turn, the Nizhny Novgorod Legislative Assembly approves a ban on abortions performed by private clinics.
The issue of abortion and its control has become so heated that mid-level authorities are already trying to stamp their own mark on it.
Certain official statements guarantee attention. A television principle once noted by Vladimir Pozner is that repeated exposure makes actions feel normal: if a woman is blamed for making a personal choice, society may come to accept that stance. The point is to set aside personal problems rather than solve them.
The idea circulating now is that a woman should seek her husband’s consent before terminating a pregnancy. First, religious voices raise the possibility of such a law, then public figures, media commentators, and opinion leaders elevate the debate. The discussion then shifts toward whether a man would be willing to provide financial support for upbringing. The question arises: will the paper granting permission be paired with money for the child’s future, or will those two pieces stay separate?
In this atmosphere, it feels as though some officials operate in a detached, bureaucratic bubble. In healthy families built on trust and shared decision, such choices are discussed together. It is a deeply emotional decision, and in real relationships, women do not face it alone. The notion of asking a partner’s permission could deter marriage, as no one wants to push themselves to the limit.
Perhaps a family will stay together, welcome six children, and find happiness for both sides and the state. Or a couple may part after a couple of years, only for one to discover a pregnancy post-breakup. What then? Would the woman need to seek permission from a beloved but not loved partner to end a pregnancy? This echoes a storyline from a domestic channel that often ends with a hopeful moment, a stroller pictured in the closing minutes, while officials appear detached from the realities of daily life.
There is a sense that officials who push this agenda view voters who show up in rain or snow as naïve about governance, unfit to engage in serious discussion. To claim that higher education is unnecessary for women and that motherhood should take precedence over study seems like political theater. Some may see it as a quiet play to shape public perception rather than address real needs.
It might look like a subtle tactic to some. The surface message celebrates motherhood while implying that those who choose abortion are choosing badly. The state’s tone toward women can feel diminishing, comparing contemporary women to past constraints and removing their agency. Modern, educated women face a different reality than earlier generations, and the policy debate risks pushing them back into outdated roles or curfews on personal choices.
There are very few topics where a general citizen can outline a clear way for the government to listen and respond. Family life sits high on that list. It could be a space for constructive dialogue rather than a battleground of bans and moral judgments. Russia is dealing with a demographic shift and a shrinking birth rate from a long-ago peak. The goal should be to understand shifts in society and explore options that help families without sidelining women’s autonomy. The discussion could move beyond simple slogans about patriarchy and childbirth to practical support that matches contemporary life. A change in direction is possible, if all sides are willing to listen and adapt.
The piece ends with a note about perspective. The author presents a personal view that may not align with the editors’ stance, a reminder that public discourse often reflects diverse angles and evolving opinions. The aim remains to reflect the real challenges families face while inviting ideas that protect both women’s choices and social stability.