In India, the issue of abortion entered the feminist struggle through a very different means from that followed in the West. Here, the pressure of population growth is of most importance which means that the right of an individual is not in question. The dominant ideology in, and about, countries such as India presents poverty as a function of a rising population. One consequence of this ideology is that family planning has become a central focus of governmental programmes for economic development.

Aarathi P.S. who studied the Parliamentary debates during the formulation of the MTP Bill and Act says, “law and policy frameworks on women’s health, world over are commonly dominated by the perception of women essentially as reproductive machines and the problems of sexuality seen to be inherent in it—the role it adopts is therefore, predictably protectionist in most places.”

In the 60s and 70s when the MTP Bill was being discussed in the Parliament, the discussions did not involve rights-based arguments. Even on grounds of health, there was no mention of maternal mortality due to unsafe abortions, which could probably be the most valid reason for bringing in the law. In the context of family planning, the contraceptive failure was considered as one of the major health hazards for women and a reason for the introduction of the Bill in the Lok Sabha. By openly specifying eugenic consideration as a ground, the perspective here marked the beneficiary as only women, since it was based on the imagination of ‘mothers as primary care givers’, because, in some cases women run the risk of having crippled children. 

The parliamentary debates clearly indicate that there was an undercurrent of demographic reasoning in this legislation. The minister while presenting the Bill in the Rajya Sabha identified the ‘small family’ as the social reason behind the legislation. This was in spite of the fact that the Shantilal Shah Committee Report (the committee set up by the government to investigate the need for a medical termination act) specifically warned that attributing demographic value to the legislation could act as counter-productive to the programmes on family planning. The report said, “legislating abortions with a view of obtaining demographic results is unpractical and may even defeat the constructive and the positive practices of family planning than contraception.”

The language and way of introduction of the Bill clearly indicates the assumption that the society was not in a mind to accept the idea of women’s liberation, which was the core debate in the United States, the European countries and the erstwhile Soviet Union while demanding for legislation. The social context in India was also significant, as it determined how the benefit for women was framed in a way where issues such as bodily autonomy, self-determination, exercise of choice, etc., were deemed out of question to be debated in the public and social spheres. 

The discussions on the legislative process of abortion cannot be a disjuncture from reproductive politics. In other parts of the world, these discussions primarily challenged the notions of power and control in family, and its sexual and procreative roles. But the experience from India is an exception. The question of reproductive autonomy remains unarticulated in the entire debate. How the socio-economic and cultural conditions of different categories of women and the multiple levels of discriminations they undergo have an impact on the utilization of the provisions created by the new law did not figure in the debates. The legal, moral and political battles on abortion around the world at the time were also not factored in the debates in Indian Parliament.

The legislative process and practices related to the MTP Act remained instruments of perpetuation and validation of patriarchy in India. The debates clearly indicate that the law dealing with the health of women is dominated by perceptions that consider them essentially as reproductive machines, and is predictably protectionist. The political imagination of the legislative process considered them as childbearing beneficiaries, and could hardly capture the idea of women as equal rights-bearing citizens.

Let’s take a look at how advocacy for abortion has panned out in other countries.

In December 2020, the majority of Argentina’s senate voted yes on a bill to legalize abortions up to 14 weeks into a pregnancy which is a significant liberalization of the current law, which generally prohibits the procedure, except in cases of rape or risks to the pregnant woman’s health. This victory comes after decades of feminist advocacy and a women’s movement that has demanded its issues be understood as interconnected and overlapping. The message of Argentinian feminists has been that one cannot separate the right of a woman to decide what happens to her reproductive system from the right of a woman to decide what happens to the rest of her body and the rest of her life. In essence, there are connections between abortion rights and the right to live free from violence, the right to go to school, the right to be paid fairly, the right to political representation and the right to chart one’s own course.

Since 2018, this is what many Argentinian women have been yelling on the streets: That for women to be full sovereign citizens and equal participants in society, they need full sovereignty over their own bodies. The abortion-rights movement has gone hand in hand with the fights against gender-based violence and gender discrimination more broadly, because women’s lives aren’t segmented into political buckets. Originally, a powerful new feminist social movement called Ni Una Menos (“Not one [woman] less”) spurred the abortion debate. In 2015, after several grisly murders of young women, Ni Una Menos was organized to call attention to gender violence and inspired thousands of Argentine women to take to the streets.

Linking previously scattered social movements, Ni Una Menos forged a diverse coalition of women to challenge the status quo. After beginning as a protest against sexual violence, Ni Una Menos eventually broadened its claims to encompass reproductive rights. Feminist activists argued that without legal abortion, “ni una menos” would always be a misnomer, because unsafe, clandestine abortions represent one of the leading causes of maternal deaths in Argentina. Ni Una Menos framed abortion as an issue of social justice and public health — rather than the United States’ framing, in which it is an individual right. Further, it emphasized that poor women in particular are likely to encounter dangerous conditions when seeking abortions; one popular chant at demonstrations has been: “The rich abort, the poor die.” That has changed the reproductive rights conversation.

Through persistent mobilization, female activists persuaded public officials and fellow citizens that the prohibition on abortion had failed — and that only legal access could address the serious public health crisis afflicting Argentine women, primarily those who are poor. According to an analysis of public opinion data from the AmericasBarometer, citizen attitudes became more favorable toward legalization only after Ni Una Menos arrived on the scene in 2015, amid record rates of protest by women.

Argentina’s abortion legalization could have ripple effects throughout the Americas. Abortion rights movements in other countries have already been buoyed by Argentina’s example. If the research on Argentina is any indication, abortion rights advocates in other Latin American countries may have more success if they focus on the public health consequences of prohibition and its disproportionate impact on women living in poverty. Ultimately, abortion legalization in Argentina won because of the persuasive power of street activism. Perhaps the leftist and rightist social movements will be similarly critical in determining the future of abortion laws elsewhere in Latin America.

In 1983, the Irish government came up with a law banning all kinds of abortions (except when the pregnant woman’s life is at risk) in the country. This law is infamously referred to as the 8th amendment. Subsequent amendements in 1992 allowed people to travel abroad to get an abortion and to distribute or avail information and services of abortions in other countries. Together, these laws have made lives a struggle for Irish women. 

Following the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012, a massive country-wide movement began to repeal the 8th amendment. Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion since it would have been against the Irish law. She suffered through an incomplete and septic miscarriage and died in 2012. Campaigners highlighted at the time that the lack of legislation clarifying the limited circumstances in which abortion is legal in Ireland contributed to Halappanavar’s death. Several rallies and vigils were organised nationwide, calling for the Irish government to legislate in relation to abortion on the basis of this case. Campaigners argued that legislation remained outstanding at the time of Halappanavar’s death despite the European Court of Human Rights having instructed the state to clarify its laws on abortion after finding that the Republic of Ireland had violated the convention by failing to provide an accessible and effective procedure by which a woman can have established whether she qualifies for a legal abortion under current Irish law. Halappanavar’s death essentially began the country-wide call in 2012 for a movement that in many ways, won it’s battle in 2018 but practically, is still on. 

Political parties like the Communist Party of Ireland, Green Party, Labour Party, Social Democrats and many organisations like Together for Yes, Irish Congress for Trade and The Irish Times (leading newspaper in Ireland) called for a repeal of the eighth amendment. The Worker’s Party released a statement saying that “women have the right to control their own bodies, including their fertility, and to pursue all reproductive choices.” They believed that is fundamental to any reasonable concept of gender equality. “The Workers’ Party supports a full programme of secular sex education for schools, free access to contraception, proper health and social care for pregnant women, the provision of appropriate free and quality child care facilities and adequate support for single and low income parents. The Workers’ Party believes in a woman’s right to choose and supports the provision of free and safe abortion in Ireland which will include practical facilities to support women seeking an abortion and quality post-abortion care”, it went on to say. In line with the statement, the party called for a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment of the constitution along with a legislation providing free and full access of abortion information and services. 

Similarly, Together for Yes is the national civil society campaign to remove the Eighth Amendment from the Constitution. They campaigned for a more compassionate Ireland that allows abortion care for anyone who needs it. The Together for Yes Campaign Platform brought together a wide range of civil society organisations who represent various sectors of Irish society like Irish Family Planning Association, Inclusion Ireland, Doctors for Yes. Their shared, unified aim was to secure a yes vote in the referendum to remove the 8th from the constitution.

In May 2018, a bill (36th amendment) to legislate abortions in the nation, was put to a referendum. Thanks to the wide campaigning done in the country by political parties and civil society organisations, the bill was approved by 66.4% voters. The bill was put to effect in September 2018. However, while the law may have changed, many people are still struggling to access abortions in Ireland due to lack of provision, the time restrictions on terminations, the illegal activities of anti-abortion campaigners – and an enduring legacy of shame. It is still a struggle but thankfully, not a legal one anymore.

Abortions were banned in Poland in all cases until 1932. In 1932 however, a legislation was passed that legalised abortion for medical reasons and also in the cases of rape. In doing so, Poland became the first nation in Europe to allow abortion by law for a non-medical reason i.e. rape. The law was amended in 1956 to add to the list abortion in cases where the woman might be experiencing “difficult living conditions”. This was obviously subject to interpretation and by late 60s and 70s, the interpretation mostly changed to allowing abortion on request.

Despite this progressive history in terms of women’s right to abortion, women were seen flocking streets and major roads in Poland in October 2020 protesting for the right to abortion. So what changed? What happened in the last 70 odd years?

With the fall of communism, the right-wing leadership and ideology returned to Poland in 1989 and furthered its hold in society throughout the 90s. With the help of the Roman Catholic and Lutherean Churches, right-wing politicians began pressuring the government to ban all abortions exceot in cases where the pregnant woman’s life cannot be saved by any other means. This was certainly opposed by the left-wing opposition party. In 1993, the government enacted a law that would keep both sides happy. The law now allowed abortions in three cases:

• in cases where the pregnancy is the result of a criminal activity like rape or incest
• in cases where the mother cannot be saved by any other means
• in cases where a deformity has been detected in the foetus

While activists and scholars were not happy with the new provisions, it was still a compromise that had to be made. In 2020 however, the Constitutional Court in Poland ruled on the constitutionality or rather the lack of it in abortion cases where a foetal defect may have been detected. This enraged the nation, especially women and resulted in a nation-wide strike, the largest that Poland has ever witnessed.

It is quite unfortunate to think that Poland was once the flagbearer of abortion for non-medical reasons in Europe. In fact, there are reports that even suggest that people from Sweden migrated to Poland to get the abortion service once. Since the 90s though, the country seems to be regressing more and more towards a society of discrimination and ignorance towards resproductive health and one’s choice over it.

It must be noted here that in 2019 itself, out of the 1,110 legal abortions in Poland, 1,074 women chose abortion after a prenatal test. Considering the new law and the number of abortions registered in 2019, the situation in Poland illustrates the government’s refusal to acknowledge the needs of Polish women and to respect women’s rights.

Since 2020 though, a new movement and sparks of newer waves of protests seem to be emerging. Tens of thousands of women were seen on the streets of Warsaw. Their slogans read “Wypierdalać” which translates into “get the fuck out of here.” Other slogans read things like “women’s hell”, “I am terrified, I feel unimportant”. People also shouted pro-choice slogans like “You’ve messed with women”, “Hey, hey, hey, abortion is ok”, and “Liberty, equality, abortion on demand.”

If anything has to be learnt from other international movements and experiences in demanding SRHR, especially abortion rights, it is perhaps that one needs to move beyond the simple narrative of “choice.” Like how in the manifesto, Feminism for the 99%, the authors note that we need a feminism that demands and wins public services for care, social housing, universal health care, and wage justice. “We need an internationalism that rejects forced austerity on the global south, imperial aid interventions and neocolonialism.” It remains to be seen what this new wave of protests for women’s rights over their bodies will result in.