In December 2023, the City Council of Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, approved a bill that mandates the listening to fetal heartbeats for women considering pregnancy termination. In Maceió, Law No. 7,492 came into effect, requiring women opting for a legal abortion in the city’s public health system to watch videos and view images of fetuses.
These are just two examples of various municipal regulations in the legislative process or recently completed in Brazil with similar content. The frenzy surrounding the issue of abortion in Brazil is incomprehensible, considering that the country already has legislation criminalizing the practice. Under the current legal framework, pregnancy termination is only allowed in three specific situations: in cases of rape; when the woman’s life is at risk; and when the fetus is diagnosed as anencephalic.
Therefore, all measures that aim to impose the requirement for women to listen to fetal heartbeats or look at photos have elements of cruelty. Such experiences subject pregnant women who have been raped, are at risk of life, or are carrying an anencephalic fetus to even more traumatic experiences.
Also in December 2023, Kate Cox, a 31-year-old American living in Texas, had to leave her home state to terminate her pregnancy. It was a difficult decision for her, as she had planned to become a mother and wanted to keep the pregnancy at all costs. Even in the face of life-threatening risks and the inevitability of the fetus’s inviability, Kate had to travel to another state to undergo a procedure that was already causing her deep anguish: terminating a wanted and planned pregnancy.
In a case like Kate’s, the trauma would be even greater if she were confronted with the sound of fetal heartbeats and the image of a fetus that could never survive.
It is evident that the already formed life of the woman takes precedence over the “imminent life” of a fetus or embryo. This opinion is not only mine but also that of the philosopher Ayn Rand. To her, those who did not understand and accept women’s right to choose understood little or nothing about individual rights. After all, pregnancy naturally puts a woman’s life at risk, and no one should be forced to face that risk against her will.
In addition to cases like Kate’s, there are women who are pregnant against their will, i.e., victims of rape. In these situations, the trauma and torture of requirements like those imposed in Santa Maria and Maceió are even greater. The injustice is further aggravated by subjecting them to a process that inevitably reopens deep traumas.
By imposing the listening to fetal heartbeats or exposing women to impactful images, such legal provisions not only violate women’s privacy and autonomy but also subject them to situations of intense psychological suffering. It is crucial to recognize that by forcing these practices, we are, in fact, promoting a form of torture—expressly prohibited by the Brazilian Constitution.
One of the central points of contention lies in the constitutional right to privacy and autonomy. The Constitution guarantees people’s right to make decisions related to their health and bodies, and the choice about whether to continue a pregnancy is a highly personal decision, especially in the cases already provided for in Brazilian legislation. The imposition of listening to heartbeats can be interpreted as an attempt to influence the woman’s decision, contrary to the principle of individual freedom enshrined in the law.
By linking the permission for pregnancy termination to specific conditions, the law already acknowledges the complexity of these situations and the need to respect women’s individual decisions. However, by adopting coercive and degrading practices, the recent municipal laws demonstrate a concerning lack of recognition of women’s dignity.
In addition to being materially unconstitutional, as they violate constitutional principles, these projects also incur formal unconstitutionality. That is, since the subject matter is a federal competence, the Union is the federative entity with the authority to legislate on the issue. By establishing divergent rules at the municipal level, these laws not only disregard the normative hierarchy of the legal system but also challenge the legal authority established by the Federal Constitution.
The formal unconstitutionality is yet another critical aspect of these laws, highlighting the importance of a cohesive approach aligned with the existing legal system. These municipal laws not only fail to recognize the right to women’s physical and mental integrity but perpetuate a culture that normalizes violence against them.