By BÁRBARA RODRIGUES DE SOUZA, GUSTAVO PORTO SANTOS, ISABELLA TARDELLI MAIO, LILIAN DE MORAES DANTAS & GILBERTO MA RODRIGUES*
The debate on PL 1904/24 reveals the fragility of women's rights in the face of political and social crises
For the NGO Center for Reproductive Rights, whose offices are in different parts of the world, there is a global trend towards the liberalization of abortion. In general, there is no consensus on how this process should take place and each nation has its own procedures and rules. In some cases, the decision may even vary from one federal state to another, as is the case in the United States.
PL 1904/24 makes Brazil different from its neighbors in Latin America. According to the reporting by Intercept Brasil, until 2020 legal abortion only existed in Uruguay, Cuba, Guyana, French Guiana and Argentina. However, there is still a scenario in which abortion is decriminalized but not regulated, as seen in Chile in 2021.
Furthermore, it is important to mention that abortion remains one of the most divisive and debated topics globally. Positions regarding it are shaped by a complex intersection of cultural, religious, political and social factors and manifested in different decision-making spaces.
At the meeting of the G7, a group of the seven main world economies created in 1975, The United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Japan disagreed on how abortion should be included in their joint declaration. The distancing of the agenda can be noticed by the use of the terms “sexual and reproductive rights” as a result of an Italian requirement. According to Reuters, the exclusion of the reference to “safe and legal abortion” from the motion did not please French President Emmanuel Macron.
In retrospect, we remember the unprecedented act of the French government on March 8th, Women's Day, of placing the right to abortion in the Constitution, mobilizing not only the protection of women's rights, but also the need for clarity and consistency of current legislation.
Even though documents produced by international organizations, such as the G7, do not directly modify the laws of the member countries, it is essential that the debate continues to be encouraged. The content discussed in these different decision-making bodies indicates not only the position of governments and their countries, but also the agenda to be pursued and the efforts to be directed towards this.
The United Nations (UN) had communicated results of analyzes carried out on the protection of women in the Brazilian context and demonstrated concern regarding the high rates of maternal mortality and rape in the country, in addition to signaling the right to legal abortion as a health promotion. In this context, Leticia Bonifaz Alfonzo, expert at the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) argues that the approval of PL 1904/24 demonstrates a break with international guidelines that determine, at a minimum, access to legal abortion in cases of violence against women or risk to the life of the pregnant person, as is the case of World Health Organization (WHO) that establishes the determination of gestational time for abortion as a way of increasing access to clandestine and unsafe alternatives for the lives of pregnant people, representing a violation of rights.
The Latin American Consortium against Unsafe Abortion (Clacai) together with several entities such as Safe Abortion Access Network (REDAAS) in Argentina, institution formed by health and legal professionals with the aim of guaranteeing the right to legal and safe abortion, spoke out against PL 1904/24, reiterating the risks to the health of women and girls.
The context of Argentina, a country with a similar socio-historical formation to Brazil, presents important points to be considered when approaching the issue of abortion. On December 30, 2020, Law No. 27.610 was approved, on Access to Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy (IVE), which legalizes abortion throughout the national context. Under this Law, pregnant people have the right to terminate their pregnancy up to the 14th week of pregnancy, without the need for justification. Furthermore, the law guarantees the right to abortion in cases of violence or risk to the pregnant person's life.
This milestone represented a major advance in women's reproductive rights and access to fundamental human rights. However, it was the result of the struggle of the women's and feminist movement, popularly known for wearing green scarves, who claimed the right to their own bodies and their own decisions. In this way, this achievement demonstrated the importance of expanding dialogue with society and the support of various entities, social movements, parties and activists to advance the agenda on abortion, strengthening the struggle of women and feminists.
Although it is a significant advance, especially in the context of Latin America, there are still many challenges to implementing and improving access to abortion, such as ensuring the necessary supplies to carry out the procedure, qualified professionals and the expansion of places that perform the procedure. procedure. Furthermore, Law No. 27.610, as in the case of Brazil, faces threats of reversal, since the Argentine president, Javier Milei, shared his position against the current legalization of abortion that prevails in the country. The Argentine head of state's controversial statements were present in a recent interview, in which he called abortion advocates “murderers”. In addition to this, he also stated that This issue will not be a priority in your government, that is, even though it does not intend to repeal the law, it also does not place it as a priority for the continuity and maintenance of the program.
The legislative evolution of the issue of abortion at the domestic level
To paraphrase Simone de Beauvoir, all it takes is one crisis for women's rights to be questioned. Nowadays, this is seen in PL 1904/24, of collective authorship, which “adds two paragraphs to art. 124, a single paragraph to article 125, a second paragraph to article 126 and a single paragraph to article 128, all of the Brazilian Penal Code, and provides other measures”. In practice, known as the “Abortion PL”, the proposal amends Decree-Law No. 2.848, of December 7, 1940, and establishes a penalty of up to 20 years in prison for illegal abortions. Another change concerns the time limit for rape victims to have an abortion (up to 22 weeks), otherwise they would also incur the penalty. Furthermore, the Bill also affects minors under 18 who have an abortion, which may involve their stay in correctional establishments to carry out socio-educational measures.
The graph below shows the partisan distribution of 56 deputies (to date) identified as co-authors of PL 1904/24. Among them, 44 are men and 12 are women.
Protocoled by Sóstenes Cavalcante (PL/RJ) in May, the PL was placed by the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira, on an urgent basis, dispensing with deadlines and regulatory formalities. It is noteworthy that this process took place through symbolic vote, that is, when there is no voter identification or vote count. However, the project lost strength as civil society became aware of its existence. In this case, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro were the scene of demonstrations against the approval of the “abortion bill”. In view of this, federal deputy Jandira Feghali (PCdoB/RJ) pointed out that “the presence […] on the streets is decisive, which gives us the main support, so that we can have victory in the National Congress”.
Representative Sâmia Bomfim (PSOL/SP) organized a petition that surpassed 100 thousand signatures in just one day, “Arquiva, Lira”, reiterating the need to mobilize society to stop the project. Once the negative repercussions have been observed, Sóstenes took to social media and suggested increasing the penalty for rape.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) spoke out against PL 1904/24 in an interview with Rádio Mirante de São Luis: “This abortion madness and such great insanity is something unthinkable for a person of perfect mind. We have to face this debate, we have to have the courage to debate and differ.”
The debate over PL 1904/24 reveals the fragility of women's rights in the face of political and social crises. In this sense, the proposal to toughen penalties for abortion and its implications reflect a regressive stance in relation to reproductive rights, contrasting with international trends towards greater liberalization and protection of women's rights. The social mobilization against the project highlights the importance of society's participation and popular pressure in defending these rights, as analyzed in the Argentine scenario, with the approval of Law No. 27.610, although not without challenges.
*Bárbara Rodrigues de Souza, Gustavo Porto Santos, Isabella Tardelli Maio, Lilian de Moraes Dantas are researchers from the Human Rights GT of the Brazilian Foreign Policy and International Insertion Observatory (OPEB).
*Gilberto MA Rodrigues He is a professor of International Relations at the Federal University of ABC.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
