Portugal takes step back on abortion legalization

According to international press reports, a law that would have allowed Portuguese women abortions through the 10th week of pregnancy and into the 16th week if their physical or mental health was at risk has been rescinded after a referendum to determine the statute's future was voided because of low voter turnout. Passed in February, the law was a liberalization of Portugal's strict anti-abortion laws, which ban all abortions except for narrowly defined medical reasons or in the case of rape (and those are permitted only until the 12th week of pregnancy). Because the issue is such a controversial one, politicians had turned to a national referendum asking Portuguese voters to overturn or ratify the new law. The referendum was the first in the country since the end of its right-wing dictatorship in 1974, and 50% participation was required. Only 31.5% of the country's 8.5 million eligible voters went to the polls on June 28. Of those voting, 50.9% voted against the liberalized new legislation. Sunny weather and World Cup soccer matches were both pointed to as reasons for the low turnout. Officials estimate there are some 20,000 illegal abortions annually in Portugal. Abortion-rights activists in the mostly Roman-Catholic country say hospitals see roughly 10,000 women a year suffering from complications from illegal abortions, and that at least 800 women die each year from the procedure. In the next day's Diario de Noticias, a daily paper in Portugal, the entire front page was filled with a giant question mark. "What now, lawmakers?" the headline read.

[Legal secrecy: abortion in Puerto Rico from 1937 to 1970]

The essay discusses abortion in Puerto Rico from 1937 to 1970, concentrating in its legal status as well as its social practice. The research documents the contradictions between the legality of the procedure and a social practice characterized by secrecy. The essay discusses the role of the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion in promoting the legal practice of absortion in Puerto Rico. It also discusses the ambivalent role of medical doctors who, despite being legally authorized to perform abortions to protect the life and health of women, refused to perform the procedure arguing abortion was illegal. The essay concludes with a brief discussion on perceptions of illegality regarding abortion, emphasizing the contradictions between the practice of abortion and that of sterilization in Puerto Rico.

Cambodia passes new limits on abortion

According to international news sources, Cambodia's parliament approved a law limiting the circumstances under which abortions can be performed on October 6 [1997]. Members of parliament say the new law, the first ever passed regulating abortion in Cambodia, is intended to reduce maternal morality rates from abortions performed by unlicensed health practitioners under unsanitary conditions. Local news outlets report that the Cambodian Health Ministry estimates the maternal mortality at 4.7 deaths per 1000 live births. The rate in the US is 0.12 deaths per 1000 live births. The law requires that abortions be performed by licensed health professionals in hospitals and certified clinics within the first trimester of pregnancy, and that women under the age of 18 must obtain parental consent. The new law also sets harsh penalties for those who harm women during illegal procedures--up to 5 years in prison if a woman is injured and up to 10 years if she dies. Opponents of the law say they fear that the new restrictions will push abortion even further underground, as the hospital system cannot handle the current demand for abortion.

Ohio House approves two restrictive abortion bills

A bill prohibiting the use of state funds to pay for state employees' health benefits related to "nontherapeutic abortions" passed the House on September 9 by a vote of 60-34. The measure, HB 395, defines a "nontherapeutic abortion" as a procedure performed when the life of the mother would not be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term; the bill was amended to exempt victims of rape and incest from the funding restriction. Under HB 395, the state would pay for benefit plans that allow state employees to purchase an optional rider for abortion coverage. Also on September 9, the House passed HB 421 by a vote of 66-28. The measure amends Ohio's informed consent law for abortion by requiring a physician, but not necessarily the same physician who will perform the procedure, to meet with the patient in person and in a private setting 24 hours prior to the procedure. Just before the vote was taken, an amendment was offered and approved 68-26 which changes Ohio's parental notification law to parental consent. Both bills have been referred to the Senate for consideration.

House approves ban on abortion method

On March 20, the House voted 295-136 in favor of HR 1122, "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997." As a result of a last-minute substitution, the bill that was approved is identical to HR 1833, the legislation that passed the House and Senate last year but failed to muster enough votes to override President Clinton's veto (see RFN V/8). HR 1122 would prohibit a physician from using the method--which, as described, suggests but does not accurately define the abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation--unless a woman's life is endangered and no other procedure would suffice. Violators would be penalized with a fine and/or up to two years in prison. In addition, the bill provides grounds on which a woman's husband (or, if she is under 18, her parents) may obtain relief in a civil suit. The substitute bill came in place of HR 929, which passed the House Judiciary Committee on March 12 (see RFN VI/5). With minor differences, that measure also targeted the abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation, and it, too, was vague enough to outlaw other second-trimester abortion methods. With the change, anti-choice leaders in Congress appear to be holding members who oppose the ban, and the president, politically accountable for maintaining their position in the face of a renewed discussion of the number of such procedures performed. Five representatives--Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Martin Frost (D-TX), Sue Kelly (R-NY), Christopher Shays (R-CT), and Peter Visclosky (D-IN)--succumbed and voted in favor of a ban after opposing it last year. With or without their switch, the margin of victory is sufficient to override the veto promised by President Clinton. But while the equivalent bill in the Senate, S 6, is likely to also be approved, it is believed that its proponents are several votes shy off a veto-proof margin. S 6 is currently under consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee.