SC verdict ‘robbed’ girl of her childhood
Need changes in the law to allow abortion till 24 weeks
The Supreme Court judgement that refused a medical termination of pregnancy of a 10-year-old rape victim has rekindled the debate about the adequacy of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
The SC refused abortion of a 28-week foetus on medical grounds that it would endanger the lives of both mother and child. The MTP Act legalises abortion only under 20 weeks, an exception being Section 5 of the Act, which allows abortion after 20 weeks in case it is ‘immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.’
An amended Bill of the 1971 law, which extends the bar from 20 to 24 weeks, has been in cold storage for the past three years. This draft Bill allows women whose pregnancies are within 24 weeks, reproductive rights in consultation with their medical practitioners.
The draft Bill also allows abortion beyond 24 weeks in case the foetus suffers from substantial abnormalities.
The demand for amending the MTP Act has been increasing from crosssection of people in view of the rising incidence of sex crimes and the urgent need to empower women with sexual rights and choices both for their own interest and for the sake of reducing fertility rate as a whole.
Rachna Waddepalli, an advocate in the Hyderabad High Court, said that in the case of the 10-year-old girl “the rights of an unborn child who cannot advocate for itself, versus the rights of its mother who is herself a child, one has to strike a balance. Right to “life” of the foetus should not include just a right to “birth,” but “life.”
The advocate opined that “in the present case, deciding on a late term abortion was not by choice. Medicine has advanced enough to let doctors help the little girl in good faith and take care of her health. And if it’s too risky, it’s a risk worth taking under the circumstances as decided by her parents for her.”
She pointed out, “When one can terminate a child at 20 weeks, which is viable in India, 24 weeks is the viability in the UK, would the courts also charge the killing of a pregnant woman with a double murder? Why would the value of the life of a foetus as a person be lessened then? Are the moot questions with no answers?”
She said that the Supreme Court denying permission to a 10-year-old rape victim to abort her 28 week pregnancy on medical grounds that it would endanger both their lives brought to the fore the debate of Law versus Morality.
The Supreme Court has held that “life” has to be meaningful, complete and worth living. Abortion is allowed in case it’s inevitably necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
She explained that the strict reading of the provision of the law and asking a woman to carry the baby to full term, deliver it and bring it up is going to put her through mental and physical agony.
Ms Wadepalli said, “The victim’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution was already affected by the repeated rape by her uncle. The opportunity granted by law to develop in a healthy manner with educational facilities has been robbed; her personal dignity and intimate choice are put at risk. It’s not about women’s rights and their respective choices. It’s a child’s right to a pain-free life and about giving back her childhood.”