The Right to have children is a right recognized by women in many countries.
This right is very important in society as it gives women the protection to give
birth to children without coercion, restraint or prejudice. Parental rights are
violated when a woman is forced to have an abortion without her consent.
In Layman's term, 'abortion
' means a pregnancy that is intentionally terminated.
Women throughout civilization have tried many contraceptive methods. Whenever a
child-bearing woman declares her desire to abort a child, a controversy arises
as to who decides the destiny of the pregnant woman and her unborn child. We
have already past the age of humanitarian advancement, but it is still a
question of law whether women are free to exercise abortion or not. Every now
and then we come across an abortion controversy.
The lifesaving stance prohibits euthanasia, abortion and other kinds of human
killing. Many proponents believe it to be the choice of the individuals involved
whereas some find it a taboo to kill a child. Moreover, forcefully exercising
one's right to abortion differs from doing so voluntarily or after reaching
consensus with one's spouse and his family relatively little.
In order to be free from all these questions and make a uniform law that governs
the rights of women, The Medical Termination of Pregnancy act was passed in
Prior to 1971, abortion was considered illegal in India. The Indian law had no
provisions for abortion. Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 even states:
"Anyone who voluntarily attempts to miscarry a woman, except with good intention
or when her life is endangered, is punishable by up to three year imprisonment
and a fine." For centuries, women have died from unsanitary and illegal abortion
methods. Many countries, including Spain, Greece, and the UK, have liberalized
their abortion laws over the past 30 years.
Today, relatively few countries maintain strict and restrictive abortion laws
like the United States. The Supreme Court of United States has again
criminalized the abortion laws after overturning its 50 years old judgement of
Roe v/s Wade.
The women there are already facing the repercussions of the judgement as they
are being denied their right to reproduction and dignity.
However, it's still a question as to what will be the result of this historical
and changed judgement on the people of United States.
Historical Background Of MTP Act,1971
In Indian society, abortion was considered a disgrace, and the morality of women
was called into question whenever a woman chose to abort her child.
Abortion was acceptable in only few cases such as:
- When the pregnant woman is physically and mentally ill.
- When the woman has been a victim of sexual assault or rape.
- When the child to be born is unfit and debilitated.
The Central Family Planning Board of India established the Shantilal Shah
Committee in 1964 to investigate into the country's abortion legislation. The
research included recommendations for changes to the rules governing abortion in
an effort to increase its efficacy and reduce the rates of miscarriages and
maternal fatalities linked to illegal and dangerous abortions.
Its objective was to look into and evaluate abortion's moral, social, legal, and
medical reasons. The Shantilal Shah Committee delivered a report detailing its
in-depth observations on the situation on December 4, 1966. Based on the
committee's recommendations, The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha introduced a Medical
Termination Bill in 1969, and the Parliament approved it in 1971.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act became operative at the start of 1972.
The Act had additional modifications in 1975 that made it clearer and more
practical. With the implementation of this law, it became more simpler to obtain
legally sanctioned abortions in certain situations.
The requirements of the statute provide that only a qualified medical
professional may end a pregnancy. Any pregnancy can't be terminated by anybody
who is not a licensed medical practitioner, under any circumstances. The doctor
must treat the patient in good faith and without any animosity or illegal
collaboration with the woman or anybody connected to her.
According to Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, "good faith
defined as anything done with due care and effort. In accordance with Section 8
of the MTP Act, licensed medical professionals are likewise protected for
actions they do in good faith even if they cause the mother's death.
In Murari Mohan Koley V. The State
, the petitioner, a licensed medical
professional with experience executing abortions, was approached by a lady who
wanted to have an abortion since she had a 6-month-old daughter. The woman's
health started to deteriorate due to some reason and she was even shifted to
another hospital but ultimately passed away and there was not even abortion
done. To be free from criminal liability under Section 3 of the MTP Act, the
petitioner had to demonstrate that his action (and his failure to act) was made
in good faith.
|Analysis Of Attitudes Of
Different Groups On Mtp Act
|Name Of Group
|Origin Of Idea
|Reason For Passing Bill
|Attitude Towards MTP
Ford Foundation 37-1/2%
|Family Planning Unit
|Family Planning Unit
|All India Women's Conference
|Family Planning Unit
|National Federation of Indian Women
|Family Planning Unit
|Did not take a stand
|Family Planning Unit
|Emancipation of Women
Termination Of Pregnancy: Time Period, Conditions, Place
Time Period And Conditions For Abortion:
According to Section 3 of The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971, a
pregnancy may be terminated no later than twenty weeks into it.. Pregnancy
termination before twelve weeks in allowed under Section 3 with the consent of
just one doctor. However, if the pregnancy is to be terminated between the
duration of twelve and twenty weeks, then atleast two medical professionals must
be of the opinion that if the pregnancy is continued:
- The woman's life would be in danger
- Her mental health would suffer due to pregnancy
- There is a risk that she will suffer a serious physical injury
- The pregnancy is a result of rape
- The married lady and her husband failed to use a contraceptive,
resulting in pregnancy
- High possibility that the child would be born with severe physical or
mental defects that would severely impair their quality of life.
When the pregnancy is a result of rape, forcing a woman to carry the child would
be cruel and could cause the lady great mental suffering. Thus, the court need
not hold a trial or issue a ruling in these situations in order to approve the
abortion. It is sufficient that the woman said she had been raped.
Pregnancy termination is permitted in cases where the woman or her husband's use
of a contraceptive technique failed in order to spare the woman from the mental
anguish brought on by the unwanted pregnancy. The medical professionals will
consider all the pertinent facts, including the woman's surroundings or
reasonably foreseeable situation, while forming their opinion.
Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy states that no pregnancy of a
woman under the age of eighteen, or a woman who is mentally ill after turning
eighteen, may be terminated without the written consent of her guardian. Thus,
the section makes it crystal clear that, although consent is a requirement,
adult women of sound mind are not required to obtain anyone's consent in order
to end a pregnancy under the terms of the Act. Women who are mentally ill and
minors must have their guardian's consent.
In Shri Bhagwan Katariya And Others v/s The State Of Madhya Pradesh
, a pregnant
woman was taken by her husband and family to have the fetus aborted. She did not
consent to the aforementioned abortion. The court ruled that while Section 3 of
the MTP Act recognizes abortion performed in certain circumstances without the
woman's consent, in this case the woman's doctor and relatives would be held
accountable for performing the abortion without her consent, which caused
immense mental pain to the woman.
Place Of Abortion:
Section 4 of the Act provides information on where legal termination of
pregnancy can be carried out. Such procedures may only be performed at a medical
institution or hospital established by the government or in any other place.
Section 5 contains an exception on the place and time of termination
of a pregnancy as mentioned in Section 3 and 4. In certain emergency situations,
when immediate termination of a pregnancy is necessary. In order to save the
life of a pregnant woman, licensed physicians may skip the pregnancy, even if it
is more than 20 weeks and perform the procedure at the nearest location,
depending on the situation.
Who Can Take Advantage Of The Legal Termination Of Pregnancy Facility:
Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, only some Indian women
were allowed to get their pregnancy aborted like the married women and rape
victims. No other woman had the right to abort their child.
So, for them either
they were forced to continue with their pregnancy or opt for illegal termination
of the child which is many cases proved harmful to women. Even for married
women, they were under the obligation to prove that the pregnancy resulted from
failed contraceptive measures and failure to do so would lead them to
compulsorily deliver a child against their own will.
Flaws In The Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971
- The limited right to end a pregnancy beyond twenty weeks was not allowed
by law. It also faced many legal obstacles. Therefore, it became a need to
introduce legislation which would increase the term of pregnancy termination
from 20 weeks to 24 weeks.
- One of the many reasons for the failure of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971 was that its primary purpose was to keep pregnant women
safe and empowered by giving them the right to qualify for pregnancy
termination under their free will and it failed in doing so.
- The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act has come under fire for not
utilizing current innovations. Since it was introduced in 1971, when
technology was not particularly sophisticated, it needed to be modified.
Therefore, it was necessary at the time to introduce new provisions.
- If the girl is under the age of 18 and mad or lunatic, written
permission from a guardian was required as per the legislation.
- Another charge against the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971
was that it made the already complex legal processes even more complex. More
practical and simpler terms were needed.
- Abortion in the second trimester requires the consent of two doctors.
This is especially difficult in rural areas where there is often no second
medical practitioner available.
Due to all these shortcomings, The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,1971 has
already been amended several times. The latest amendment being the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act,2021.
The Medical Termination Of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021
The 2021 Medical Abortion (Amendment) Act satisfies the growing demand for
better laws as a result of advances in healthcare technology and innovation.
From the issue of privacy rights to the unlawful sex determining killing of
women, these issues are all addressed in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy
(Amendment) Act, 2021.
On March 2, 2020, Dr. Harshvardhan Goyal of the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare introduced the Medical Termination of Pregnancy bill 2020 to the House
of the People after conferring with numerous experts, advisers, and other
government agencies. This statute modified the Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Act of 1971, which dealt with medically necessary abortions. In addition, the
goal of the proposed bill was to improve the effectiveness of some legal norms
Additionally, the measure intended to extend the window for legal abortion from
20 to 24 weeks, allowing women to safely and reliably terminate their unwanted
pregnancies. In addition, it attempts to enhance the safety measures,
gestational age, and privacy of pregnant women. The proposed bill also aims to
incorporate contemporary medical and health practices that, regrettably, were
not covered by the statute of 1971.
Numerous public interests' lawsuits have been
filed over the abortion of fetuses past the age of 20 weeks. It even allows all
women, including those who have been sexually abused, raped, or physically or
mentally disabled, to terminate their pregnancies.
The Medical Termination Of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021's Notable Features Include:
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 2021 aims to expand the list of
women who are eligible for abortion to include victims of rape and assault,
incest victims, married women, girls under the age of 18, women with special
needs, and women with birth defects. It seeks to expand the scope of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The law has several notable features, described in more detail:
- It aims to make changes to the 1971 Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Act. By assisting in the eradication of preventable maternal death, this
legislation will significantly contribute to the achievement of the
Sustainable Development Goals.
- According to the law, just one licensed physician is necessary for
terminating a pregnancy at 20 weeks of gestation as opposed to two.
- It includes a new clause requiring consultations with two or more
licensed physicians if a pregnancy is interrupted between 20 and 24 weeks.
- The law aims to broaden the scope of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act of 1971 by creating a specific category for some women,
including those with particular needs, rape victims, females under the age
of 18, and incest survivors.
- Additionally, the bill raises the maximum pregnancy duration for
abortion from 20 weeks to 24 weeks, as many women can make the most of this
time and end a life-threatening pregnancy effectively.
- The law aims to safeguard the privacy and anonymity of pregnant women
who desire to end their pregnancy. This is an innovative idea that will
protect women's identities and protect their privacy.
- No medical professional should disclose the name of a woman who wishes
to terminate her unborn child under any law in effect from the time the act
- Situations where a woman can medically terminate a pregnancy include
fear of serious danger to her overall health, fetal malformation, pregnancy
brought on by the failure of any form of contraception or getting pregnant
as a result of rape. All of these issues cause the woman who is trying to
get pregnant tremendous suffering and anguish.
- The new law also establishes a medical board whose responsibility is to
handle instances in which the fetus is proven to have significant defects.
Elemental Defects In The Medical Termination Of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021
In critical analysis of the revised law, it can be seen that there are a number
of key areas where some doubt remains.
A pregnant woman who has been raped and has passed the limit of twenty-four
weeks is obligated to seek assistance from the court to have the child aborted
because the amended law does not provide a remedy in this case. Complications in
the abortion cases multiply when the judiciary decided to abort the child for
This same problem persists for the Health Commission today. The revised law does
not set a deadline by which the health commission must decide on the removal of
fetus. Termination of pregnancy is a time limited action, causing unnecessary
delays that always put pregnant women in a dilemma.
The updated law does not provide transgender persons, who are now regarded as
the "third gender," a voice.
Last but not the last, strict regulations to prevent vagrant behavior have not
yet been introduced in the revised law, because abortion of children requires
certain know-how and practices. Such work can only be performed by experienced
physicians. Taking the help of quacks or people without professional training
can put the life of the pregnant woman at risk.
The United States Abortion Law
Abortion in the United States and its territories is a contentious issue in
American politics and the culture wars, with abortion laws varying widely across
US states. The Democratic Party has typically defended access to abortion and
promoted contraception, whereas the Republican Party has generally sought to
limit or outlaw it based on the stage of pregnancy. The pro-abortion movement
advocates patient choice and bodily autonomy, while the anti-abortion movement
upholds fetus' right to life.
Framed historically as a debate between pro-choice and pro-life labels, most
Americans agree with some positions on both sides. Prior to the United States
Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade, abortion was already legal in several
states; and the decision set a nationwide uniform framework for state
legislation on this subject. It also sets a minimum period during which the
abortion was legal.
This basic framework, set out in Planned Parenthood v. Casey remained nominal,
although actual abortion availability varied significantly from state to state,
as many countries lacked abortion facilities. According to Casey, a law cannot
have "the aim or effect of creating a substantial hindrance to a woman seeking
abortion of a nonviable pregnancy" as it's a burden. Codifying abortion rights
into federal law was introduced by Judy Chu. The bill was passed by the US House
of Representatives but was rejected by the US Senate.
In 2022, Roe and Casey were overthrown in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization case, ending protections of abortion rights under the United States
Constitution, and allowing individual states to regulate every aspect of
abortion, not anticipated by federal law.
The Roe V. Wade Case Summary
The Supreme Court made its decision about the validity of abortion in the United
States in response to the famous 1973 court case Roe v. Wade.
Jane Roe, a pregnant unmarried woman, brought a lawsuit against Texas' abortion
regulations on behalf of others as well as on her own behalf. In support of the
claim that Texas' abortion regulations were too ambiguous for medical
professionals to follow, a Texas doctor joined Roe's lawsuit. For breaching the
law, he had already been arrested once.
Abortions were prohibited in Texas at the time unless the mother's life was in
danger. Abortion was prohibited, whether legally or illegally.
The Supreme Court Of The States Made Two Significant Rulings:
Texas Presented Three Key Justifications For Upholding The Abortion Law:
- The US Constitution's 'Right to Privacy' guarantees a person's ability
to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
- Abortion is not a fundamental human right. It must be evaluated against
the government's objectives in protecting mother and fetal health.
The Following Arguments Served As The Foundation For Jane Roe And The Others
In The Case:
- States have a stake in preserving health, upholding medical standards,
and defending unborn children.
- The 14th amendment protects the fetus as a "person".
- Prenatal life protection is a compelling state interest from the moment
- A person's "liberty" is violated by Texas law in accordance with the
- The Texas law violated the Bill of Rights' that guarantees 'privacy of
marriage, families, and sexual relations.
- The right to abortion is unalienable; a person is free to terminate a
pregnancy whenever, however, they please.
However, the court acknowledged that abortion is subject to privacy rights.
Everyone has a basic right to privacy, as established in the 14th Amendment's
Due Process Clause. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that this right to
privacy extends to the control of pregnancy.
The Court Even Compelled That Many Things Are At Risk When Pregnancy Is
Compelled To Continue, Including:
- Physical Wellbeing
- Behavioral Health
- Financial Difficulties
- Public Shame
The court disagreed with the States' assertion that constitutional protections
begin at conception. The term "person" is not defined in the American
Constitution. However, it does state that people who are "born or naturalized"
in the US are covered by its safeguards
However, the court disagreed that the Constitution ensures an outright right to
early termination of pregnancy. At the end of the day, the privacy right doesn't
restrict States' from putting a few regulations on early termination.
The court made a structure to offset the States' advantages with the privacy
privileges. By dividing pregnancy into three trimesters of 12 weeks each, the
court established the rights of each party, in order to account for the
possibility that pregnant people's freedoms may conflict with the rights of the
State to protect potential human existence.
- The court determined that fetus removal during the first trimester of
pregnancy cannot be regulated by the state beyond requiring that the
practice be performed by a licensed specialist under circumstances that are
- During the second trimester, the court held that a state might allow for
early termination of pregnancy if the guidelines are sensibly connected with
the wellbeing of the pregnant individual.
- The state's desire to protect the possibility of human existence
balances off the right to privacy throughout the third trimester of
pregnancy. If the removal of the fetus isn't required to protect the life or
health of the expectant mother, the state may outlaw early abortions.
However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Rehnquist opined that the right to
early termination was not all around acknowledged and accepted, and accordingly,
the right to privacy was not intrinsically engaged with this case.
Dobbs v/s Jackson Women's Health Organization: The Disputed Judgement
Roe v. Wade
(1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey
(1992), which established and upheld, respectively, a constitutional right to an
abortion, were overturned by the US Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Woman's
in June 2022. In particular, the Roe v. Wade
established a constitutional right to an abortion prior to the conclusion of the
second trimester of pregnancy (which court understood as the usual point of
"A recognition of the right of woman to choose to have an
abortion before viability and to get it without undue interference from the
State" was stated in Casey lawsuit, which upheld the "essential holding of Roe".
The appellant state in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization,
argued that laws prohibiting pre-viability abortion are not always
illegal despite Roe and Casey and other Supreme Court decisions establishing a
constitutional right to such an abortion.
Nothing in the Constitution's text,
structure, history, or tradition, the State claimed, "supports a right to
abortion," therefore States may "prohibit elective abortions before viability."
Dobbs gained widespread attention because it effectively overturned 50 years old
legal precedent, allowing states to place severe limitations on the
accessibility of abortion and even to outright ban it.
But in May of the same year, the press received access to what appeared to be a
draft of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.'s majority decision in the matter. A
majority of the Court appeared to have decided to overturn both Roe v. Wade
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, according to the draft opinion.
The official judgement of the Court written by Alito and delivered on June 24th, 2022,
overturned both Roe and Casey in addition to upholding Mississippi's ban on
pre-viability abortion. In his opinion, Alito concurred with Mississippi that
Roe and Casey were egregiously incorrect. In his view, Roe was incorrect due to
its weak reasoning and cursory, inaccurate evaluation of the historical
evidence, and Casey was incorrect due to its affirmation of Roe's "essential
holding" that the Constitution grants abortion rights.
Although the decision acknowledged additional potential constitutional sources
for the right, Roe held that the abortion right is implicitly in the right to
privacy and that the Due Process Clause of the 14thAmendment protects that Right
to Privacy. For its side, Casey held the position that the Due process provision
directly (without reference to the right to privacy) guarantees the right to an
Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., joined the majority in a concurring opinion in
the ruling, saying that the fetal viability is an arbitrary stand to use when
deciding whether a law restricting abortion is constitutional and that as a
result, the case can't be overturned on this basis. He specifically disagreed
with Alito's assertion that "Roe and Casey must be overruled,
that the Court had obviously gone further than necessary to decide the case.
He believed that the Court had broken a basic yet simple rule of Judicial
restraint: if it is not required to determine more in order to resolve a matter,
then it is not necessary to decide more. According to Roberts, the majority
should have upheld the case and left for another day whether to reject any right
to an abortion at all because a prohibition on abortion after 15 weeks of
pregnancy still gives a woman a reasonable opportunity to exercise her right to
end her pregnancy.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote a combined
dissent in which they criticized the five-member majority that overturned Roe
for destroying women's reproductive freedom by allowing states to
compel women to give birth.
They said that by doing so, the majority had reduced women's standing as "free
and equal citizens
" by undermining their personal autonomy, robbing them of
the power to manage their own bodies and choose the direction of their future
lives. Nothing in the majority's ruling would be in conflict with the state laws
that forbid abortion "after ten weeks, or five weeks, or three weeks, or one- or
from the time of fertilization," without exemption for rape, incest, or other
serious crimes, they said.
The dissenters contend that additional limitations that might be implemented in
the wake of the majority's ruling include prohibitions on using or receiving
abortion medication, travelling across state lines for the purpose of getting an
abortion, disseminating information about or providing financial support for out
of state abortions, prosecuting expectant women who attempt to get an abortion.
Finally, the dissenters charged the majority of weakening the Court's legitimacy
by showing the American people that their constitutional rights 'hung by a
thread' and that a simple change in the Court's composition could expunge such
rights. They came to the conclusion that "this Court breaches its guiding
values" by overturning Roe and Casey. The dissidents made a pointed gesture by
leaving off the standard qualifier respectfully from the final lines of their
opinion and simply writing "we dissent."
How The Decision Impacted The Life Of Women
Women's sexual and reproductive health and rights violations are frequently
brought on by deeply ingrained attitudes and societal norms. Women are
frequently valued based on their capacity for reproduction due to patriarchal
conceptions about their duties in the family.
Early marriage and pregnancy, or several pregnancies spaced too closely together
- often as a result of attempts to create male offspring due to the preference
for sons- has a terrible effect on women's health and can even have deadly
repercussions. Infertility is also frequently blamed on women, who then
experience rejection and other forms of discrimination as a result.
However, The Decision Has Had Various Implications On Women, Namely:
- An Increase In Unwanted Pregnancies:
unwanted pregnancies can limit a person's ability to make decisions about
their life, especially a mother, and can also be detrimental to their mental
health and ability to advance personally. Children that are unwanted at
birth may also have less opportunities. The WHO links higher parental
investments in their children's educations to a higher possibility of
children being 'desired' as one example.
- States now have sole discretion over whether abortion is legal. The
majority of States are likely to restrict or outright prohibit access to
- Psychological Effect:
Pregnant women who are denied the option of having an abortion are more
likely to continue communicating with a violent partner and ultimately raise
the child by themselves. Higher levels of anxiety and despair have also been
linked to being denied abortion.
- Economic Impact:
Compared to women who had abortions, women who were refused them are more
likely to be unemployed.
Additionally, General Comment 22 of the CESCR recommends States to repeal or
abolish laws, policies, and practices that criminalize, restrict, or jeopardize
access by individuals or a particular group to facilities, services, goods, and
information related to sexual and reproductive health.
Comparative Analysis Of Abortion Laws In India And USA
Abortion has long been the subject of a heated social vs. legal debate. This
conflict is still being fought. However, despite this impasse, the country is
seeing an increase in number of progressive laws pertaining to abortion. The
abortion regulations are being relaxed to actively take into account the
situation of women and their right to abortion with every modification made or
IPC first implemented an inherent punishment strategy in 1860. The only
circumstance indicated for a purposeful abortion not being subject to criminal
culpability is when the mother's life is in danger, according to the parts of IPC that deals with abortion. There is no mention of an abortion brought on by
rape or a contraceptive method that failed. Furthermore, it does not take into
account the exception for abortions related to mental health.
The nation did, however, finally mature sufficiently to relax such restrictions.
The MTP Act considers the psychological repercussions of having an unwelcome
child. Additionally, the 2021 amendment raised the gestational period to 24
weeks while focusing on women's privacy and technical advancements in abortion.
This demonstrates how the laws are progressive and reflect all changes that
occur so that better abortion facilities are available.
Even if laws change overtime, they still need to be updated. Similar to how the
MTP Act had undergone periodic revisions, the IPC's sections addressing abortion
should likewise be updated in light of current social trends and technological
advancements. The laws governing abortion will benefit from this.
States in the USA essentially follow the same abortion legislation as those
listed above. Prior to the famous Roe v. Wade decision, there were highly strict
abortion rules that did not allow women to end a pregnancy until the mother's
health was seriously threatened.
It offered women more freedom to terminate pregnancies by taking into account
the right to abortion inside the "zone of privacy". It's important to keep in
mind, though, that an abortion brought on by rape or incest is not taken into
account by the legislation.
Even today, the USA, one of the most progressive countries in the world, forbids
women from having a legal abortion if they become pregnant. Furthermore, only a
small number of US states allow pregnant women with mental illnesses to get
abortions. Additionally, the consequences of continuing an unintended pregnancy
are not considered on a medical or psychological level.
The Roe v. Wade
case legalized abortion in the US; the court acknowledges the
right to abortion as a woman's right to privacy. They also believe that it is up
to women to decide whether or not to end their pregnancies. By making this
choice, the United States becomes one of the first nations to loosen its
restrictions on abortion. Women could end their pregnancies in the first
trimester thanks to this ruling.
Then, other limitations on abortion regulations were added, such as requirements
for parental or spouse approval. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's rule that
abortion is a constitutional right is overturned, giving all states the freedom
to either outlaw it or place most restrictions on it.
Some people might not even be exempt from these scenarios, whether it be rape or
teen pregnancy. Abortion supporters have praised the Supreme Court's decision
while those who support abortion have decided it.
After comparing the legal system of the two nations, it can be concluded that
India's abortion regulations are significantly more lenient than those in US. It
is a woman's right to choose whether she wants the child or not, whether she
lives in India or the US. Even though India took a while to recognize abortion
as a right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, they did so, and the
country's abortion regulations have improved as a result.
The right to liberty, health, privacy, and life of women are all violated by the
prohibition on abortion. To safeguard women's physical and emotional health,
abortion should be permitted.