- It goes without saying that women always tend to be at the center of the crossfire on matters of sensitivity involving their bodily functions. Of course, we know how Mother Nature too has shown its bias towards men over women as the process of reproduction is bestowed upon the latter who ensures life sustains by giving birth to progenies. Even though we sing hosannas to women for being the flagbearers of humanity, in reality, it is a far cry as the fairer sex fights to survive amid a misogynistic and patriarchal society. Despite efforts to usher in a level playing field between the two sexes, there is still a long way to go before gender parity is accorded in a true sense to break the long-established barriers.
PC: Getty Images
- Though the Indian Constitution bestows certain rights irrespective of gender, what about the right to bear a child or abort as guaranteed, especially concerning pregnant mothers? This situation is playing out right now in no less than the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court. As you must be aware, in its split verdict on the petition for termination of a 26-week pregnancy a Supreme Court bench has voiced two opposite ideas of rights in such matters. One Judge granted permission because the interest of the petitioner must be given more preference. Another Judge refused permission out of concern for the viable fetus. The CJI heading a different bench also pointed to the rights of the unborn child. Is this line of argument, right? Let’s delve into it.
- Note that these two profoundly different perspectives mirror a confusion that extends to the lower courts. Separately, it is also widespread across the medical fraternity, on whom women are even more independent for abortion than courts. Is this confusion at all justified by the history of the abortion law in India? No. From abortion being legalized by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 to gestational limits for pregnancies that may be aborted being raised by the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021, the whole chain of reforms has been girded by an understanding of women’s rights and bodily autonomy. Yes, bodily autonomy. Despite its many progressive changes, activists have identified several ways in which the law still needs improving.
PC: azmirro
- And the requirement of medical boards to decide on cases beyond 24 weeks is dark humour at best of times for large parts of the country, where even one doctor is hard to find. But even today, it should be crystal clear to both medical and judicial practitioners that her decision must be respected. The only competing consideration is her My body, my choice should prevail duly supported by the law. The courts are expected to rule swiftly, plainly, and evenly on pregnancy termination. A larger SC bench should speak up for women’s rights clearly, and strongly, restrain attempts, however apparently well-intentioned, to restrict these. Women must have the autonomy to decide what they want vis-à-vis giving birth to a child. No questions asked.
