Abortion Is A Woman’s Right To Decide

Context: The amendment to the abortion laws (Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act 2021) retains the notion that the state must intervene in what is a woman’s absolute right.

Evolution of abortion laws in India

• The Indian Penal Code: included provisions regarding termination of pregnancy, were enacted in keeping with the British law on the subject.
• The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP): Was based on “The Report of the Shantilal H. Shah Committee to Study the Question of Legislation of Abortion” 1967.
  • Provisions:
    • Abortions were made a crime, putting the woman concerned and her doctor in jail.
    • Section 3 put an outer limit of 20 weeks on the length of the pregnancy and required two doctors to certify the risk to the life of the woman or grave injury to her physical or mental health or that there was a substantial risk that the child born.
    • Section 5 created an exception to the 20-week limit whenever such an abortion was immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
  • Issues:
    • Outdated rationale for the limit of abortion: While the rationale given for limiting the abortion to the 20th week (under the MTP Act) is lack of technological advancement, but now, medical advancements credible enough.
    • Resulted in the rise of illegal abortion: As women seeking abortions were pushed to terminate in unhygienic and dangerous places.

Issues with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act 2021: It still reserves to the state the right to dictate to the woman that she cannot have an abortion at will.

• Even though the limit has been pushed back from 20 to 24 weeks, this comes with the same state conditionalities as before.
• 24 weeks is not rational given today’s technology where abortions can be done safely up to full term.

• Medical boards are obstacles: Section 3(2B) requires a pregnant woman to approach a medical board in cases of substantial foetal abnormalities and where she has crossed 24-week limit. Issues involved -
  • Breach of privacy: Disclosure of personal details before a panel of minimum 3 doctors.
  • Infeasibility: Single-board for a state cannot handle the anticipated volume of cases.
  • Incapacity: Assuming multiple boards will be established, records show that no State has finances or human resources to maintain the operation and functioning of these boards.
  • Arbitrariness: Right to seek termination is restricted to “such category of women as may be prescribed by rules”.