Editorial: Pro-choice, pro-life

CHENNAI: Sidelining the right to choice of a woman keen on ending her pregnancy, a 27-week-old foetus recently won the right to live its full natural gestation period after the Supreme Court refused to force its premature delivery. The apex court said a healthy and viable unborn child in the womb that poses no danger to the mother’s life could not be terminated. As the length of the pregnancy had crossed 26 weeks, medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) could not be permitted, the court said, adding that it does not meet the requirements stipulated under the MTP Act, 1971.

The Supreme Court bench said the Centre has agreed to pay the medical costs for the delivery and incidental expenses. If the petitioner chooses to give up the child for adoption, the Union government has promised to expedite the process. The development has inspired debates on the logic of forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy with the aim to deliver a child with better chances of being adopted, as permitting termination would be ‘unconscionable’.

The Supreme Court’s decision makes it clear that there are no explicit rights bestowed upon the unborn. But if the foetus becomes viable and is capable of surviving outside the mother’s uterus, the woman’s right to choose stands nullified, with the exception of specific conditions outlined in the MTP Act being met. The statute permits abortion beyond 24 weeks only in cases where the foetus exhibited substantial abnormality, or where the mother’s life was under threat. Having said that, the question of Indian women enjoying reproductive autonomy has been called into question.

Consider this: The petitioner was a 27-year-old woman with two children – the youngest being less than a year old. The woman, suffering from lactational amenorrhoea, a condition in which breastfeeding women stop menstruating, became aware of her pregnancy only 20 weeks in. The lady went on to submit that she suffered from post-partum depression and that her mental condition was not primed to raise another child. Her husband happened to be the only earning member in the family, which was ill-placed to care for a third child.

The apex court’s decision runs contrary to common wisdom regarding the social, economic, psychological and physical consequences of continuing an unwanted pregnancy on women. The state’s assurance of providing healthcare support as well as assisting in adoption does not account for the mental and physical agony endured by women who are forced to carry a child to term, only to give the infant up for adoption. It is worth recalling that back in 2018, in the case of a 10-year-old pregnant child, the medical and legal community stood by its position that aborting a 24-week late pregnancy was riskier than a full-term delivery for a child suffering from a congenital heart condition.

The bottom line seems to be that the overriding concern expressed by the courts favours the foetus and not the pregnant individual’s agency. It is essential that a patient’s rights and ethics are embedded into the training of medical professionals in order to address concerns of autonomy and decision-making. Doctors as well as members of the legal fraternity need to be made aware of the procedures pertaining to safely carrying out late abortions as well as the impact of forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies.