Are the restrictive provisions of sections 2(1)(c) and 5(5)(b) of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996 unconstitutional?
Loading...
Date
Authors
McQuoid-Mason, D. J.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Faculty of Law, University of the Free State
Abstract
Showing abstract in English
English: Sections 2(1)(c) and 5(5)(b) of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996
only allow a termination after the 20th week of gestation on very limited grounds. No
provision is made for terminations of pregnancies arising from rape or incest. Therefore
women survivors of rape or incest who, for reasons beyond their control, postpone their
decisions to terminate until the third trimester will not qualify for a legal abortion unless
they fall under the existing grounds in the Choice Act. The provisions of the Choice Act
regarding the third trimester are more restrictive than those in section 3(1) of the Abortion
and Sterilization Act 2 of 1975. The latter did not adopt a trimester approach and
allowed a termination on the grounds of rape or incest at any stage of the pregnancy
— subject to certain conditions concerning the verification of the cause of the pregnancy.
By excluding rape and incest as grounds for termination of pregnancy in the third trimester
the Choice Act imposes an “undue burden” on women who are survivors of rape or incest
and their exclusion is unconstitutional.
Description
Citation
McQuoid-Mason, D. J. (2006). Are the restrictive provisions of sections 2(1)(c) and 5(5)(b) of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996 unconstitutional? Journal for Juridical Science, 31(1), 121-133.