Uruguay may legalize abortion generally within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with a general ban thereafter with exceptions (like rape within 14 weeks, fetal deformity, or threat to the life of the pregnant woman). It also requires a five-day 'reflection' period, after an interview with a panel of three people (social worker, gynecologist, and a psychologist). The law also allows health care institutions to decline to perform abortions. The Boston Herald provides a good overview.
The reactions from pro-choice and pro-life forces in Uruguay are what one would expect, with pro-life forces concerned about giving any ground to abortion and pro-choice forces worried about the procedural barriers in the law and access issues.
I don't know much of anything about Uruguay, but I wonder about whether this will reduce the number of illegal abortions (and, by extension, unsafe abortions) taking place. This is one of the stated motivations for enacting the law. The Herald notes that most major health institutions in the country are Catholic-run. Therefore, if one legalizes abortion yet most of the institutions in which legal abortions could take place refuse to perform them, then very little will change. It is not unprecedented for a country to have laws that permit abortions under certain conditions while, in practice, many or most women continue to receive abortions outside of those legal limits.
Also, while this law (as reported) appears closer to European-style abortion laws (rather than the abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-viability law of the United States), European countries tend to blend limits on legal abortion with better access to the procedure itself (the UK, for example) and a social welfare state that provides support for women who take their pregnancies to term. If Uruguay does not provide decent access to the abortion procedure and does not have a robust social welfare state to help new mothers, then abortion policy in practice may not change much.
At the same time, the law may be one of those 'foot in the door' type laws, which, by its passage, publicly legitimizes some abortions, which could lead to a shift in public opinion and modification of the law after its flaws become apparent in practice.
UPDATE: The law passed the lower chamber of parliament, as predicted, by a 50-49 margin. This should be the last major obstacle for the law, as the Senate and President are predicted to approve.
The reactions from pro-choice and pro-life forces in Uruguay are what one would expect, with pro-life forces concerned about giving any ground to abortion and pro-choice forces worried about the procedural barriers in the law and access issues.
I don't know much of anything about Uruguay, but I wonder about whether this will reduce the number of illegal abortions (and, by extension, unsafe abortions) taking place. This is one of the stated motivations for enacting the law. The Herald notes that most major health institutions in the country are Catholic-run. Therefore, if one legalizes abortion yet most of the institutions in which legal abortions could take place refuse to perform them, then very little will change. It is not unprecedented for a country to have laws that permit abortions under certain conditions while, in practice, many or most women continue to receive abortions outside of those legal limits.
Also, while this law (as reported) appears closer to European-style abortion laws (rather than the abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-viability law of the United States), European countries tend to blend limits on legal abortion with better access to the procedure itself (the UK, for example) and a social welfare state that provides support for women who take their pregnancies to term. If Uruguay does not provide decent access to the abortion procedure and does not have a robust social welfare state to help new mothers, then abortion policy in practice may not change much.
At the same time, the law may be one of those 'foot in the door' type laws, which, by its passage, publicly legitimizes some abortions, which could lead to a shift in public opinion and modification of the law after its flaws become apparent in practice.
UPDATE: The law passed the lower chamber of parliament, as predicted, by a 50-49 margin. This should be the last major obstacle for the law, as the Senate and President are predicted to approve.
Comments