Conditions apply

Context: The MTP Bill, hailed as progressive, discounts women’s bodily autonomy and reeks of ableism.

Progressive steps in MTP Bill, 2021: compared to the MTP Act, 1971

• Destigmatizing pregnancies outside marriage: by replacing “any married woman or her husband” with “any woman or her partner”.
• Increased the legally terminable time limit: 
  • Pregnancies terminable subject to the opinion of one medical practitioner is raised to 20 weeks
  • A pregnancy terminable subject to the opinion of two medical practitioners is raised to 24 weeks.
  • Section 3(2B), however, makes the upper gestational limits inapplicable to abortions necessitated, in the opinion of the Medical Board, by any “substantial foetal abnormalities”.

Concerns associated with MTP Bill, 2021 

• Potential for executive overreach: There is ambiguity related to the termination of pregnancies during the gestational periods of 20 weeks and 24 weeks.
• Does not provide right to abortion at will: Thus crippling their bodily autonomy as it seeks to cater to women “who need to terminate a pregnancy” as against “women who want to terminate pregnancy”.
  • Termination is allowed when the life, mental,/physical health of the women or child is at stake.
• Promotes societal prejudices (ableism) against persons with special needs: Due to the treatment of “physical or mental disability” or “foetal abnormalities” as separate categories amounting to heightened circumstances for termination of pregnancies.
• Strange dichotomy emerges: Not clear whether medical advancement is such that safe abortion is possible at any point in the term of pregnancy.
  • If yes, termination only in cases of “substantial foetal abnormalities” is fictitious and moralistic.
  • If no, then termination at any stage due to “substantial foetal abnormalities” exposes the secondary status of women’s safety.
• Ignores to address the limited access to abortion facilities:  Due to legislative barriers and the fear of judgment from medical practitioners for unmarried women. 
• Against KS Puttaswamy v Union of India judgement- Women’s constitutional right to make reproductive choices and the right to “abstain from procreating” was read into the right to privacy, dignity and bodily autonomy.