HHH Column: Representation and Rights: Women on Waves’ shifting strategies, 1999-2008
The HHH column is a monthly blog in which History, Health & Healing members share their thoughts on research, current affairs, or anything related to medical history. Each edition is written by a different member — in due time, we hope to give everyone the opportunity to contribute. This month, the floor is for Fenna van der Wall, who recently graduated with a Master’s in History from the VU, specialising in Medical and Health Humanities. She wrote her MA thesis on Women on Waves, and aims to pursue a PhD on the subject, focusing on Women on Waves and the international fight for reproductive health.
Representation and Rights: Women on Waves’ shifting strategies, 1999-2008
By Fenna van der Wall
It sounds like a bizarre plan: sail a boat to countries with severely restricted abortion access, take women aboard who are seeking an abortion, sail them 12 miles off shore to make sure you are in international waters and then legally provide them the abortion pill because your boat is registered under the Dutch flag and therefore follows Dutch law. Bizarre perhaps, and definitely unique, but the Dutch activist organisation Women on Waves has shown that this method works.
Women on Waves (WOW) was founded in 1999 by doctor Rebecca Gomperts, with the intention of providing abortion services to women in countries where the practice is illegal and preventing unsafe abortions.[1] Because of her experience of working on one of Greenpeace’s ships, Gomperts was familiar with the way maritime law works and put this into practice for providing reproductive healthcare. In my MA thesis research, I closely investigated WOW and how they used representational strategies and “media politics” to frame their mission and compared it to the opponents’ counter-efforts. In this blog I will highlight some of the most illustrative examples of how WOW represented their unique form of abortion activism.
WOW’s very first mission was to Ireland in 2001. At the time of this mission, Ireland had the strictest abortion legislation of the European Union, banning it in all cases and even prohibiting the distribution of information on the topic.[2] An important part of WOW’s Ireland mission was to test their concept and lay down its foundational elements. They therefore emphasised one representational strategy strongly, which remained consistent during the trips to come: abortion care was presented as a human right, rather than “just” a women’s issue. They intended to show that “women who abort” are not a separate category, but people who want to access regular forms of reproductive healthcare. In their first media appearances in Ireland, they ensured that this point was made very clear, illustrated by Gomperts saying: “we are here in solidarity with the Irish women who have been denied their human rights,” with another WOW member stressing that this “is about all of us.”[3]
WOW’s opponents were very quick to counter this argument with a common narrative in antiabortion rhetoric: human rights should also include the rights of the foetus, or in their words, the “unborn child.” This argument, summed up as “all babies matter,” easily led to accusing WOW of murder.[4] The Irish branch of the organisation Human Life International took action to counter the efforts of the “murder ship,” by introducing their own ship and what they called “Operation Babe-Watch.”[5] Comparing themselves to lifeguards, “offering a life alternative instead of death,” they sailed next to WOW’s ship, intending to take women aboard who could be persuaded to change their minds about their abortion (see image 2).[6] The image of a baby portrayed on the ship accompanied with the text “LIFE”, reminds of the way antiabortion protesters often use foetal imagery to evoke emotions in its viewers.[7] Operation Babe-Watch turned out not to pose too many problems for WOW, but it is an interesting illustration of the antiabortion representational rhetoric.
WOW’s representational strategies also included more symbolic efforts, one of which was presenting their mission as art activism. On their ship they carried a fully functional gynaecological clinic built inside a shipping container (see image 3). This clinic was designed by an artist, and although fully functional, also reflects Joep van Lieshout’s distinct artistic style. The clinic was even featured on the 2001 edition of the art exhibition Venice Biennale.[8] For both WOW and Van Lieshout, the fact that the clinic would be used for treatment was not an obstacle in referring to it as an artwork. In fact, this turned out to be quite useful for WOW. Whilst they were on their way to Ireland, they received a message that the clinic’s medical license was not in order. However, because of its connection to art, they were spontaneously able to argue that the clinic was merely an artwork, and after sending over some documents, the issues were resolved.[9] According to art historian Carrie Lambert-Beatty, this has to do with “art’s autonomy,” where art exists in its own separate realm outside politics, which is usually respected by the state.[10] WOW’s logo was also designed by a Dutch artist, Kees Ruyter (see image 1).[11] The logo shows a ship on waves, illustrating their mission, but also shows a clear shape of a squared cross. This cross reminds of the symbol commonly used to represent medical or humanitarian aid. By using this symbol in their artwork, WOW associates itself with providing medical and humanitarian aid, thereby legitimising their mission.
In 2004 WOW set sail to Portugal. This trip presented them with one big obstacle: the Portuguese government denied their ship access to Portugal’s territorial waters. Despite WOW’s efforts to fight this decision by bringing up international agreements that should have allowed them in, the Portuguese government did not budge.[12] WOW therefore had to shift gears and think about other ways to reach the Portuguese women. Gomperts decided to take matters into her own hands. She was invited on Portuguese national television to talk about the situation, and she brought a packet of misoprostol, a drug used to induce abortions. She then explained on TV in detail how women could get this medication over the counter and how to use it to self-induce an abortion.[13] This brings me to the last representational strategy I want to highlight: Gomperts’ action framed abortion as something women have agency and control over. Because of the strict abortion laws in Portugal fewer doctors were willing to take the risk and provide the service in secret.[14] By going on live television and directly giving women these instructions Gomperts framed abortion as something that no longer required the help of doctors and empowered women to take their reproductive health in their own hands. This is in line with historical examples of women taking control over their healthcare in the “self-help movement,” in which women educated themselves about their bodies and health, emerging as a critique on how medical authority was usually in the hands of male physicians.[15]
After the tv-appearance, WOW also published the protocol on how to use misoprostol on their website. This resulted in a lot of responses and emails, and the organisation realised how impactful the internet could be in spreading information.[16] This eventually led to the launch of their sister organisation Women on Web in 2006, a website where women can receive information about safe self-induced abortions, and get the medications send to their home. This new way of providing abortion services marked a shift for the organisation, as they moved from maritime missions to the internet. This raises the question of whether representation, as illustrated by this column, remained a core strategy for WOW. I am currently working on a project aiming to uncover the effects of this turning point for the organisation’s strategies and investigate this new era of abortion activism, in which WOW is still active to this day.
Bibliography
‘Abortusboot naar Portugal’, De Telegraaf (Aug 24th 2004).
Dudley-Shotwell, Hannah, Revolutionizing Women’s Healthcare: The Feminist Self-Help Movement in America(Rutgers University Press 2020).
Gomperts, Rebecca, Women on Waves (Amsterdam 2002).
Hopkins, Nick, Suzanne Zeedyk and Fiona Raitt, ‘Visualising abortion: emotion discourse and fetal imagery in a contemporary abortion debate’, Social Science & Medicine 61 (2005) 393-403.
Lambert‐Beatty, Carrie, ‘Twelve Miles: Boundaries of the New Art/Activism’, Signs 33 (2008) 309-327.
McCann, Fiona, ‘Bishop to sail to block abortion ship’, The Irish Times (June 13th 2001).
Rosen, Carly, ‘Women on Waves, Ireland, and the Abortion Ship Pilot Mission’, Women Leading Change: Case Studies on Women, Gender, and Feminism 1 (2016) 28-37.
Ruault, Lucile, en Ethan Rundell, ‘The Transnational Circulation of Feminist Self-Help: The Second Act in the Fight for Abortion Rights?’, Critique internationale 70 (2016) 37-54.
Sommerlad, Nick, ‘‘Abortion’ ship could face rival pro-life vessel’, PA UK & Ireland National Newswire (June 12th 2001).
‘Steun voor Women on Waves’, Het Parool (Sep 2nd 2004).
Tillman, Stephanie, and Amber Johnson, ‘Abortion language, nesting dolls theory, and an autoethnographic plea for radical transformation’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 108 (2022) 436-440.
Vessel (Sovereignty Productions 2014) <https://vesselthefilm.com/>.
‘Who Are We?’, Women on Waves <https://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/650/who-are-we> [accessed Oct 26th 2025].
‘Women on Waves’, Mediamatic <http://www.mediamatic.net/en/page/8963/women-on-waves> [accessed Nov 27th 2025].
‘Women on Waves – Kees Ruyter’ <https://www.keesruyter.com/women-on-waves.html> [accessed Nov 27th2025].
‘Women on Waves wil politieke druk op Portugal’, Leeuwarder Courant (Aug 30th 2004).
[1] ‘Who Are We?’, Women on Waves <https://www.womenonwaves.org/en/page/650/who-are-we> [accessed Oct 26th 2025].
[2] Carly Rosen, ‘Women on Waves, Ireland, and the Abortion Ship Pilot Mission’, Women Leading Change: Case Studies on Women, Gender, and Feminism 1 (2016) 28-37, pages 32-33.
[3] Vessel (Sovereignty Productions 2014) <https://vesselthefilm.com/>, minute 13:13-13:21; Rebecca Gomperts, Women on Waves(Amsterdam 2002).
[4] Stephanie Tillman and Amber Johnson, ‘Abortion language, nesting dolls theory, and an auto-ethnographic plea for radical transformation’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 108 (2022) 436-440, 437.
[5] Fiona McCann, ‘Bishop to sail to block abortion ship’, The Irish Times (June 13th 2001).
[6] Nick Sommerlad, ‘‘Abortion’ ship could face rival pro-life vessel’, PA UK & Ireland National Newswire (June 12th 2001).
[7] Nick Hopkins, Suzanne Zeedyk and Fiona Raitt, ‘Visualising abortion: emotion discourse and fetal imagery in a contemporary abortion debate’, Social Science & Medicine 61 (2005) 393-403.
[8] ‘Women on Waves’, Mediamatic <http://www.mediamatic.net/en/page/8963/women-on-waves> [accessed Nov 27th 2025].
[9] Gomperts, Women on Waves, 36-39.
[10] Carrie Lambert‐Beatty, ‘Twelve Miles: Boundaries of the New Art/Activism’, Signs 33 (2008) 309-327, 321-322.
[11] ‘Women on Waves – Kees Ruyter’ <https://www.keesruyter.com/women-on-waves.html> [accessed Nov 27th 2025].
[12] ‘Women on Waves wil politieke druk op Portugal’, Leeuwarder Courant (Aug 30th 2004); ‘Steun voor Women on Waves’, Het Parool (Sep 2nd 2004).
[13] Vessel, minute 36:27-40:23.
[14] ‘Abortusboot naar Portugal’, De Telegraaf (Aug 24th 2004).
[15] Lucile Ruault and Ethan Rundell, ‘The Transnational Circulation of Feminist Self-Help: The Second Act in the Fight for Abortion Rights?’, Critique internationale 70 (2016) 37-54; Hannah Dudley-Shotwell, Revolutionizing Women’s Healthcare: The Feminist Self-Help Movement in America (Rutgers University Press 2020).
[16] Vessel, minute 44:07-45:26.