The New MTP Act Amendment: Is It ‘For Keeps?’
The 2021 Amendment of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (1971) was recently passed in the Rajya Sabha on 16 March 2021 and by the Lok Sabha on 17 March 2020. The amendment boasts of providing women with safe and legal abortion services on therapeutic, eugenic, humanitarian, or social grounds. It promises to protect a woman’s autonomy and identity. The MTP Act amendment modifies Section 3. And extends its support to ‘vulnerable women’ who have been a victim of a crime. To shield a woman from unsolicited judgment, the amendment is full of it.
The Amendment
Firstly, the MTP Act amendment enhances the upper limit of gestation. It has increased from 20 weeks to 24 weeks for special categories of women. These include survivors of rape and other ‘vulnerable’ women. Apart from this, the opinion of only one medical expert will be required up to week 20 and two experts up to week 24. Furthermore, the upper limit may not even be applicable in cases of substantial fetal abnormalities as recognized by a Medical board. Moreover, this renders a woman’s decision unimportant, and the fate of a disabled child is questionable. The MTP Act, 1971 was quite archaic, and to become cool with the norms, the bill replaced a few words. ‘Married woman and her husband’ has now been changed to ‘woman and her partner.’ And this alone is being deemed applaudable.
Train To Rightsville
By increasing the gestational upper limit for abortion and keeping in mind its medical possibility, the amendment gives time for a genetic mutation to crop up that requires medical intervention. Or for court decisions to arrive in cases of conception from harassment, the mother does not wish to continue. To add further to this note, certain fetal mutations are noticed well past the 20 weeks. The tweak in the upper limit gives the parents enough time to get treatment or termination according to their own judgment (if it filters through the Medical board first). Changes are being hailed as the need of the hour and the wrong that has been set right. Indeed the replacement of the term married woman extends the right to autonomy no matter the marital status.
Next Stop Wrongsville
Every coin has two sides, and this one does too. While the amendment is being called a progressive one, it only goes as far as protecting a few rights and leaving a plethora of them. It does state that the law protects the mother’s autonomy. However, she remains far from getting to choose for herself. A medical practitioner gets to decide, and the legal aspects of the act also protect a doctor more than it does for the mother. No wonder it is called the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and not the Abortion act.
It also points out that an unmarried woman has the right to legal abortion services after failure of contraception, stigmatizing a child out of wedlock as unnatural. The term ‘substantial fetal abnormalities’ that are assessed by a medical board and is part of the amendment prejudices against disabilities that are seen as unfit for a ‘normal’ life. If anything, it should be the parent’s decision on both emotional and financial grounds.
Long Way To Perfectville
The war between pro-choice and pro-life is another one. But the war within being pro-choice is the one being addressed here. Firstly, to make the law more progressive, it needs to be sensitive towards survivors of violence and not term them as ‘vulnerable.’ Second, to make the law even more progressive, we have to understand that an unmarried woman. She does not need to terminate a conception solely for the reason of the failure of contraception. Next, using eugenics as a reason for abortion does not make the act flexible. Instead, it suggests that we need to fit a mold.
The last necessary amendment is the sensitization of the medical staff to make the institution a safe haven. Contrary to another place of judgment for a woman. Motherhood is not the norm. It does not make anyone more of a woman. And its absence does not make anyone lesser of a woman. There may be reasons beyond ‘fetal abnormalities’ and ‘medical risks’ to have an abortion. They should all be as legal as black in a courtroom.
Featured Graphic Design: Ruta Shelke
Author
