Union Health Minister, Dr. Harsh Vardhan moved the said Bill which was passed by a voice vote. The MTP bill ensures that women get access to safe and legal abortion services on humanitarian grounds.
On the 18th of March, the MTP Act, 2021 received the assent of the President of India, bringing into law a series of changes in India’s abortion law which could allow abortions by unmarried women for contraceptive failure and abortions beyond the sooner gestational limit of 20 weeks.
Opposition’s Take
Opposition Members of Parliament acknowledged that the said Bill doesn't give women the freedom to form a choice, since they have to go for a nod from the medical board in the case of pregnancies beyond 24 weeks.
The Opposition party’s demand to send the said Bill to a special Parliamentary committee for detailed scrutiny was defeated by a voice vote in the Parliament.
During the talk, however, many of the Opposition members, while welcoming the Bill, acknowledged the severe lacunae and problems with its approach. The medical board had to possess specialists but government data itself showed a grave shortage in availability of doctors.
Congress leader, Ami Yagnik asked, “Should the State intervene when the pregnant woman is worried about her own life, about the well-being of the fetus, and also about the stigma involved?”
Current Scenario
Abortion in the present situation requires the opinion of one medical practitioner if it’s sought for within the first 12 weeks of conception, and two medical practitioners if it’s sought for anytime between 12 to 20 weeks of conceiving.
The Bill allows abortion to be done on the advice of one medical practitioner for up to 20 weeks, and two medical practitioners within the case of certain categories of women between 20 and 24 weeks.
For a pregnancy to be terminated after 24 weeks just in case of considerable fetal abnormalities, the opinion of the State-level medical board is vital.The Bill was passed in March 2020 by the Lok Sabha.
The amendments, Dr. Harsh Vardhan said, had been made consistent with the rising number of pleas within the court. There are 23 petitions before the Supreme Court and many of hundreds within the High Courts.
“Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, we'll not frame any law which harms women, this is often to preserve and protect the dignity of women,” he said.The original Bill was framed in 1971.
The Background of the Amendment Act
The order was gone a Division Bench of judge DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh during a petition by a pregnant woman suffering from Anencephaly+, a fetal abnormality.
The petitioner's request for medical termination of pregnancy was turned down by the medical practitioner on rock bottom that the permissible limit of 20 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act had already crossed.
After the petitioner moved the Apex Court challenging Sections 3(2)(b) and 5(1) of the MTP Act which prescribes an upper limit of 20 weeks for an abortion, a direction was gone the Court to constitute a Medical Board to seem at her.
The Medical Board concluded that the petitioner was within the 25th week of her pregnancy and thus the fetus suffered from a condition that was incompatible with life.
The petitioner thus pressed for a direction to permit medical termination of pregnancy. The Bill provides for raising the existing upper limit from 20 to 24 weeks for some categories of girls but doesn’t specify the said category.
The bill leaves the categories to be defined by the states within the amendments to the MTP rules and includes survivors of rape, victims of incest, and other vulnerable women like differently-abled women and minors.
A move worth appreciation is from ‘married woman and her husband’ to ‘woman and her partner’. However, access to abortion facilities is restricted not just by legislative barriers but also by the fear of judgment from medical practitioners.
Healthcare providers must be sensitized towards being scientific, objective, and compassionate in their approach to abortions notwithstanding the woman’s legal status. Absent such steps, progressive legislative amends won’t create meaningful change on rock bottom.
Criticisms of the Act
The special mentions of “serious physical or mental abnormalities” and “substantial fatal abnormalities” also deepens societal prejudices against people with special needs.
Undoubtedly, a woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy of a toddler likely to suffer from physical or mental anomalies or one diagnosed with fetal abnormalities, on socio-economic grounds or otherwise, merits recognition.
In treating the above-said categories as inherently separate from the others for pregnancy termination, the Bill reveals its bias towards ableism. This proves a pre-conceived notion that some people are by default societally undesirable and more eliminable than others.
Written By - Jibita J. Binnu
Edited By - Nandita Singh
 Bill Passed by the Upper House of the Parliament){kind=link}
Social