Latest update May 13th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jul 05, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News – Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the long-standing Roe vs. Wade which had provided constitutional protection to the right to an abortion. But the Dobbs vs. Jackson decision does not outlaw abortion but rather leaves this up to the States concern.
Some States have promulgated legislation which makes it difficult for aborting pregnancies. And it is expected that with Dobbs vs. Jackson that the movement to contain abortions is going to spread to other states, unless some federal legislation is passed – an unlikely development – that would override States from deciding on abortion rights.
Dobbs vs. Jackson, surprisingly, has not emboldened – at least not as yet – the right to life movement. But it will inevitably.
But what about Guyana? Will the decision of the US Supreme Court embolden the dormant right to life movement and lead to demands for overturning the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTPA).
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill of 1995 was piloted through the country’s National Assembly by then Minister of Health Gail Teixeira, after what was a bruising public debate and agitation between anti-abortionists (pro-life) and those supporting the right to abortion (pro-choicer). At the end of that debate and the passage of the Bill, an exhausted and obviously relieved and emotional Teixeira was moved to tears. The pro-choice had won or so they presumed.
The MTPA provides for the right to the termination of any pregnancy up to eight weeks. For pregnancies between 8 weeks to 12 weeks, this can only be done by an authorised medical practitioner but only in an approved medical institution and only if the pregnancy involves risk to the life of the mother or the risk of grave injury to her, or if it would result in a birth of a child who would suffer grave physical or mental impairment or if the mother is of unsound mind and incapable of caring for the child.
The MTPA also provides for the termination of a pregnancy between 8 to 12 weeks if the pregnancy was due to rape or incest, the woman is HIV positive, or if the pregnancy occurred despite the efforts to prevent same.
The MTPA also allows for a pregnancy to be termination of pregnancies more than 12 weeks but less than 16 weeks for the aforesaid reasons except that, in this instance, it requires the approval of two medical practitioners. For pregnancies of more than 16 weeks, the sanction of three medical practitioners is required.
The vote on the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill was supposed to be a conscience vote. But one side of the House – the government’s side – voted almost exclusively for the Bill while the Opposition – voted almost exclusively against the Bill.
Ironically, it was the PNC when it was in office which in 1983 had drafted an abortion law. The draft, however, despite being later approved by the PNC Cabinet, never found its way into the National Assembly. The PNC therefore, at best, wavered when it came to reproductive rights.
In Guyana, therefore, there is no complete freedom to an abortion but there is a substantive right to such a procedure. And it is this substantive right to which most of the pro-lifers were opposed and probably are still opposed.
The right to an abortion in Guyana, however, has been snagged by an unexpected source. Many of the country’s nurses have refused to be part of any abortion procedure. They have objected on conscientious grounds to participate in abortion procedures.
But this action while curtailing legal abortions and medical institutions has only served to push abortions further underground and towards backstreet clinics. A few years back a woman died after a doctor performed an abortion procedure in his private clinic.
The recent decision of the US Supreme Court has surprisingly not as yet triggered a reaction from Guyana’s fanatical religious right (the pro-lifers) – a segment of which once marched through the streets of Georgetown hurling abuse at doctors believed to be involved in the medical termination of pregnancies.
But you can bet that it will not take much to awaken these sleeping forces. The debate on reproductive rights is about to enter a new phase.
While Dobbs vs. Jackson has no legal implications for the right to an abortion in Guyana, it will allow for the redrawing of the battle lines between the pro-life movement (which is opposed to abortion) and pro-choice movement (which defends the right to abortion on grounds of reproductive rights).
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
Listen how to run an oil country
May 13, 2024
GCB T10 Blast Semi-finals… Kaieteur Sports – The semi-finals of the GCB T10 Blast will get underway today, barring inclement weather as the final four teams look to book spots in the...Kaieteur News – The PPP is engaging in myth-making in seeking to perpetuate the narrative that it is now an ideologically... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Is it ever justifiable for journalism to fan the flames of geopolitical tension? This question arises... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]