Hubbry Logo
Abortion in ChileAbortion in ChileMain
Open search
Abortion in Chile
Community hub
Abortion in Chile
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Abortion in Chile
Abortion in Chile
Abortion in Chile
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Abortion in Chile is legal under limited circumstances: when the pregnant woman's life is at risk, in cases of rape (within 12 weeks of pregnancy, or 14 weeks if the victim is under 14), and in cases of fatal fetal abnormality.[1][2] These exceptions were enacted in September 2017 after Congress approved a bill introduced under President Michelle Bachelet and the Constitutional Court upheld its constitutionality.[1][3][4][5] Prior to 2017, most forms of abortion had been prohibited since 1989.

Debate over reproductive rights has continued: the 2022 proposed draft constitution included provisions to expand abortion access, but the draft was rejected by voters in a national referendum.[6] Earlier reforms included the legalization of emergency contraception in the 2000s,[7] and legislative attempts to decriminalize abortion up to 14 weeks were rejected by the Chamber of Deputies in 2021.[8] The Catholic Church and conservative groups remain influential in the debate, while public opinion has shifted toward greater acceptance in some circumstances.

[edit]

"The Law of God says 'Thou shalt not kill.' Nothing can be more unnatural than punishing with death the defenseless, but person, who is yet to be born. Aborting is killing, even if the corpse is very small."

Admiral José Toribio Merino in 1989.[9]

In 1931, the Health Code introduced a provision allowing therapeutic abortion,[10] permitting women whose lives were at risk to undergo the procedure with the approval of two doctors.[10] However, this provision was abolished by the military dictatorship on September 15, 1989, citing advancements in medicine that made it "no longer justifiable."[11]

The current laws regarding abortion are codified in the penal code under articles 342 to 345, which address "Crimes and Offences against Family Order, Public Morality and Sexual Integrity."[12] According to these laws, illegal abortions are punishable by up to five years of imprisonment for the person performing the procedure, and up to ten years if violence is used against the pregnant woman. If a pregnant woman consents to or performs an illegal abortion on herself, she may face up to five years in prison. Additionally, a medical doctor practicing an illegal abortion may be sentenced to up to 15 years of imprisonment. The country's constitution, in article 19-1, states that "the law protects the life of those about to be born." Prior to 2022, a two-thirds majority in each chamber of the Chilean Congress was required to amend this article.[13]

Since 1990, legislators have submitted 15 bills related to abortion for discussion in Congress, with 12 bills presented in the Chamber of Deputies and three in the Senate. Approximately half of these bills aimed to increase existing penalties or create legal barriers to hinder the legalization of abortion. Two other bills suggested the construction of monuments to commemorate the "innocent victims of abortion." Four bills have requested allowing abortion when the mother's life is at risk, and one bill proposed it in cases of rape. Currently, nine bills are under review, while one has been rejected. Five others have been archived, meaning they have not been discussed for two years. Two identical bills requesting the reinstatement of therapeutic abortion as it was before 1989 are currently under review in the Chamber's Medical Commission. The first bill was submitted on January 23, 2003, and the latest on March 19, 2009.[14]

In November 2013, during the administration of conservative President Sebastián Piñera, a law was enacted declaring March 25 as the "day of those about to be born and of adoption."[15]

Legalization

[edit]

On January 31, 2015, President Michelle Bachelet submitted a draft bill to Congress with the aim of decriminalizing abortion in specific cases. The proposed cases included situations where the mother's life is at risk, when the fetus will not survive the pregnancy, and in instances of rape during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (18 weeks if the woman is under 14 years old).[16] On August 2, 2017, Congress approved the bill, reducing the allowable timeframe to 14 weeks in the case of a girl under 14 who has been raped.[17] A request from the opposition to declare the law unconstitutional was rejected by the country's Constitutional Court in a 6-4 decision on August 21, 2017.[3][4][5]

The court ruling allowed health facilities to refuse to provide abortions by claiming "conscientious objector" status, although the bill, as approved by Congress, granted this right only to individuals.[3][4] President Bachelet promulgated the law on September 14, 2017,[18] and it was published in the country's official gazette on September 23, 2017.[1] The Ministry of Health published a protocol for "conscientious objectors" on January 27, 2018.[19] Subsequently, medical coverage in both the public and private sectors became available on January 29, 2018.[20][21]

On March 23, 2018, the incoming administration of Sebastián Piñera made modifications to the protocol, allowing private health institutions receiving state funds to invoke conscientious objection.[22] However, in May 2018, the Office of the Comptroller General declared both versions of the protocol illegal.[23] In October 2018, the government published an amended protocol, reinstating the prohibition on private health institutions receiving state funds from invoking conscientious objection.[24] Nevertheless, in December 2018, the Constitutional Court, acting on a request from a group of lawmakers supporting the sitting administration, deemed that specific section of the protocol unconstitutional.[25][26]

Women's health

[edit]

An amendment made by the Chilean government to section 119 of the Health Code in 1989 stated that there could be no actions taken that would induce an abortion. This amendment was made due to the belief that with medical advances in maternal care, abortion was no longer seen as a necessary means of saving a woman's life.[27]

Concern over high rates of abortion and high maternal mortality rates led the Chilean government to launch a publicly funded family planning program in 1964.[27][28] Deaths due to illegal abortions dropped from 118 to 24 per 100,000 live births between 1964 and 1979.[27]

There was also a statistically significant decrease in maternal deaths due to abortion from 1990 to 2000.[29] Experts attribute the decline in hospitalizations due to abortion during this period to the increased use of sterilization and antibiotics by illegal abortion providers, the increased availability of the abortifacient drug misoprostol, and the increased use of contraception.[28] In terms of accessibility, in 2002 it was noted that most of the family planning services were offered to married women.[27]

A 2015 study by the Chilean epidemiologist Elard Koch has shown that the decreasing trend in maternal deaths due to abortion has continued through 2009.[30] These results challenge the common notion that less permissive abortion laws lead to greater mortality associated with abortion. Koch states that the increases in women's education and in community support programs for women with unplanned pregnancies have contributed to the reduction of induced abortions and maternal deaths in Chile.

In the period 2000 to 2004, abortion was the third leading cause of maternal mortality in the country, accounting for 12% of all maternal deaths.[31] While there are no accurate statistics, it is estimated that between 2000 and 2002 there were between 132,000 and 160,000 abortions in the country.[32]

A 1997 study found that the majority of eighty women prosecuted in Santiago for having an abortion were young, single mothers, and that many were domestic workers who had moved to the city from rural areas. It also found most of the women were reported to authorities by the hospital at which they sought treatment for their complications, and had no legal representation, or were defended by inexperienced law students.[33]

Public opinion

[edit]

A July 2006 MORI survey found that 26% of Chileans believed that abortion is "justified", up from 18% in 1990.[34]

A July 2008 all-female nationwide face-to-face poll by NGO Corporación Humanas found that 79.2% of Chilean women were in favor of decriminalizing abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk; 67.9% said it was urgent to legislate on the matter. According to the study, 74.0% of women believed abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, 70.1% in instances of fetal abnormality and 24% in all cases a woman decided it was appropriate.[32]

A March 2009 nationwide telephone poll published by La Tercera newspaper found 67% were against abortion, 19% in favor and 11% in favor only in extreme cases. Regarding abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk, 48% were in favor, 3% only in extreme cases and 47% were against. In cases where the baby would be born with a defect or disease that would most likely cause the baby's death, 51% were against permitting an abortion, 45% were in favor and 2% only in extreme cases. 83% were against performing an abortion on an underage girl who had unprotected sex, while 14% were in favor. 57% were in favor of abortion in the case of rape, with 39% against it.[35]

An October 2009 opinion poll published by Universidad Diego Portales and covering 85% of urban areas of Chile found that a majority were against abortion when the pregnant woman or couple did not have the economic means to raise a baby (80%), when the pregnant woman or couple did not want to have a baby (68%), and when the fetus had a "serious defect" (51%). On the other hand, a majority were in favor of abortion when the pregnant woman's health is at risk (63%) and in cases of rape (64%).[36]

A January 2017 opinion poll conducted by CADEM found that 57% wanted abortion to be allowed in only a few cases, while 19% wanted abortion illegal in all cases and 22% wanted it legal in all cases.[37] A majority were in favor of abortion when the woman's health is at risk (76%), when the fetus does not have a high probability of survival (72%), and when a woman is pregnant as a result of rape (71%), while only a minority supported abortion in cases of a fetus having a physical disability (36%) and in cases of a mother not being able to afford a child (20%).

In August 2021, a Cadem survey showed that 46% of Chileans agree with abortion within 14 weeks, 52% disapprove of the measure and another 2% did not know or did not respond.[38]

Church influence

[edit]

Around 66% of Chilean citizens identify themselves as members of the Catholic Church, and the government observes many Catholic holidays.[39] The Church has consistently maintained conservative views on abortion while supporting birth control as a means of preventing abortion.[40]  

In the 1960s, the Church supported family planning initiatives aimed at reducing maternal mortality rates and stemming the rapid population growth of the time.[40] During the Christian Democratic government of the 1960s, the Church supported the use of contraceptive pills.[40] With the military coup of Augusto Pinochet, there was a return to a new conservative approach in the Catholic Church during the 1980s and 1990s, which is argued to still be strong today.[41]

Today, Catholic arguments in the abortion debates often cite Pope Paul VI's Humanae vitae, an argument that asserts that there should be no unnatural intervention in family building between a man and a woman. This argument is mainly used against abortion but has also been used as an argument against birth control.[41] However, this argument is not the sole view of Catholics in Chile. While the majority of Catholic leaders do not support abortion or contraceptives, there are arguments that find that practicing sensus fidel or simply being faithful is enough and that Humanae vitae does not accurately reflect the necessity of modern-day practices.[41]

There are two important conservative Catholic groups that influence modern-day abortion dialogue:

  1. Opus Dei is a Catholic organization that was formed in 1928 by St. Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer y Albás. Opus Dei has a rigid structure to its approach towards Catholic practice and is against abortion. It has been criticized for aggressively recruiting elites, given that it was formed with highly influential and educated members. Opus Dei continues to enjoy the support of the Vatican.[42]
  2. The Legionaries of Christ is a Catholic organization formed in 1941 by Marcial Maciel, a controversial figure who was asked by Pope Benedict XVI to step down from his priesthood duties in 2005 in light of accusations that he had committed abuse against minors. The Legionaries of Christ are known to recruit members and have influence in elite business sectors in Chile.[41]

These two groups are thought to have influence in more elite circles in Chile which then influence public opinion on abortion as well as policies regarding abortion access.[41]

International reaction

[edit]

In November 2004, the United Nations (UN) committee monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) ruled that Chile should allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. In 2007, the United Nations Human Rights Council expressed concern over the country's "improperly restrictive" legislation on abortion, especially in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.[43] The UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights also expressed concern over the country's "excessively restrictive abortion laws" in May 2009.[43]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Abortion in Chile

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Abortion in Chile encompasses the legal, medical, and social dimensions of termination in a nation with a historically stringent prohibition rooted in its 1989 penal code, which banned the procedure under all circumstances until partial in 2017. That year, legislation permitted in three specific instances—when the woman's life is at risk, the is inviable, or the results from —marking a shift after decades of total criminalization, during which clandestine procedures were estimated to contribute to maternal mortality despite limited empirical data on prevalence. Implementation has been constrained by bureaucratic hurdles, widespread conscientious objection among providers, and uneven regional access, resulting in modest utilization: from 2018 to 2024, only about 5,370 legal abortions were requested nationwide, averaging roughly 767 annually, far below projections amid persistent underground practices. The 2017 reform, enacted under President , faced opposition from conservative factions citing ethical concerns over and potential for abuse, particularly in the clause, which requires victim certification and has seen the lowest uptake among the three grounds. Post-legalization data reveal causal challenges in translating policy into practice, including provider shortages and stigmatization, with peer-reviewed analyses indicating that legal access has not substantially reduced overall rates due to these barriers, underscoring the gap between legislative intent and empirical outcomes. As of mid-2025, President Gabriel Boric's administration has advanced a bill to decriminalize up to 14 weeks gestation without cause restriction, potentially aligning with broader Latin American trends while reigniting debates on impacts, socioeconomic disparities in access, and the influence of the country's Catholic heritage on policy. This evolution reflects ongoing tensions between autonomy, health risks from unsafe alternatives, and moral frameworks, with evidence suggesting that partial reforms yield limited causal effects on reducing clandestine abortions without addressing institutional resistance.

Historical Development

Pre-20th Century and Early Regulations

In the Spanish colonial period, spanning from the until Chile's in , abortion was criminalized under the laws of the Spanish Crown, which drew heavily from Catholic prohibiting the termination of pregnancy as a grave sin against life and family order. These regulations, including provisions from the 1505 Laws of Toro that equated abortion with after , were enforced sporadically through ecclesiastical and civil courts, with punishments ranging from to corporal penalties, though records of prosecutions in remain scarce due to the focus on broader moral oversight rather than systematic tracking. Indigenous practices among groups like the involved herbal abortifacients for spacing births or in cases of hardship, but these were undocumented in colonial archives and often subsumed under accusations of sorcery or when discovered by authorities. Following , early republican retained much of the Spanish legal tradition without a unified penal code until 1874, during which continued to be treated as a transgression tied to Catholic norms, with enforcement primarily targeting lower-class women through local tribunals rather than elite society. The 1874 Chilean Penal Code, the nation's first comprehensive criminal legislation, explicitly criminalized both (Article 343, punishable by temporary imprisonment of one to three years) and induced by third parties (Articles 342 and 344, with penalties up to five years' ), framing it as a against order and personal integrity without exceptions, even for therapeutic reasons. This codification reflected elite societal values emphasizing honor and lineage preservation, leading to lax enforcement among upper classes where discreet arrangements prevailed, while anecdotal court records from the late highlight as a more frequently prosecuted alternative among impoverished, unmarried women facing . Comprehensive data on abortion incidence remains absent for this era, as vital statistics were rudimentary and focused on baptisms rather than terminations, underscoring a cultural reliance on stigma and concealment over rigorous legal application. Prosecutions, when pursued, often conflated with , with historical analyses noting higher rates of the latter in frontier regions among marginalized populations, reflecting economic pressures and limited access to alternatives rather than codified policy shifts.

Therapeutic Abortion Era (1931–1989)

The 1931 Código Sanitario (Health Code) introduced Chile's first explicit legal provision for therapeutic abortion, permitting the procedure solely when necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. This exception required certification from three physicians or, alternatively, one physician supported by two witnesses, reflecting a cautious regulatory framework amid early 20th-century public health reforms aimed at reducing maternal mortality from unsafe practices. The law maintained the 1874 Penal Code's criminalization of abortion in all other circumstances, positioning therapeutic cases as a narrow medical safeguard rather than a broader reproductive right. Implementation proved restrictive and underutilized, with legal abortions comprising only a small fraction of procedures due to procedural hurdles and societal stigma. Physicians faced ethical and professional pressures to certify only imminent life-threatening risks, often requiring exhaustive documentation and hospital oversight, which deterred many eligible women from seeking approval. By the mid-20th century, as Chile's Catholic grew to encompass over 80% of the populace, ecclesiastical opposition reinforced conservative interpretations, limiting expansions to fetal anomalies or socioeconomic grounds despite advocacy from some medical and feminist groups in . Urbanization and social shifts from the 1940s onward exacerbated demand for abortion beyond therapeutic limits, fostering a parallel clandestine market estimated to involve tens of thousands annually by the 1960s, often performed by unqualified practitioners using rudimentary methods like or physical trauma. Medical reports from the era documented elevated risks of and hemorrhage in these illicit cases, contributing to maternal deaths that officials attributed partly to incomplete enforcement of the therapeutic exception. Despite the legal allowance, cultural taboos and institutional conservatism—bolstered by Catholic doctrine emphasizing fetal life from conception—ensured that documented therapeutic abortions remained rare, with hospital records indicating fewer than 100 annually in major facilities during the 1970s.

Total Criminalization Under Pinochet (1989–2017)

In 1989, during the waning months of Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship, Chile implemented a comprehensive ban on abortion by repealing Article 32 of the Health Code, which had permitted therapeutic abortions to save the mother's life since 1931, and enshrining the prohibition in the Constitution. This measure eliminated all exceptions, criminalizing the procedure under any circumstances, with penalties including imprisonment for both providers and women seeking abortions. The policy aligned with the regime's conservative agenda to reinforce traditional family roles, encourage population growth, and reflect the influence of Chile's predominantly Catholic population, where the Church historically opposed abortion expansions. Despite the total , underground abortions continued, though estimates of their incidence varied significantly due to the clandestine nature of the practice. Epidemiological studies based on hospital data and risk modeling indicate approximately 13,000 to 18,000 illegal abortions annually during the and , representing a rate of about 11–27 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. Higher figures, sometimes cited by organizations at 60,000–200,000 per year, derive from indirect surveys prone to self-reporting biases and lack corroboration from vital statistics or provider records, potentially inflating numbers to underscore policy critiques. These illicit procedures carried legal risks, including 3–5 years imprisonment for women and up to 10 years for medical personnel, though enforcement focused more on providers than patients. Empirical outcomes included a marked decline in abortion-related maternal mortality, contradicting expectations of increased deaths from unsafe procedures. Prior to the ban, accounted for 30% of maternal deaths, with a of 10.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in the late ; post-1989, this fell to 0.39 per 100,000 by 2009–2013, a 96% reduction sustained through improved maternal healthcare, widespread contraception access, and prenatal screening programs implemented during and after the . Overall similarly decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births in the initial post-ban decade, driven by factors such as expanded women's education and hospital infrastructure rather than abortion availability. This trend persisted into the democratic era, with the ban upheld by successive governments until 2017.

Grounds for Permissible Abortion Post-2017

In September 2017, promulgated Law 20.418, amending the Penal Code to decriminalize the voluntary interruption of under three narrowly defined circumstances, reversing the total ban in place since 1989. These exceptions apply only when specific legal criteria are met, excluding broader justifications such as socioeconomic hardship, fetal anomalies compatible with life, or elective reasons. Outside these grounds, remains punishable by imprisonment for both the woman and any accomplices, with penalties ranging from 3 to 5 years for the pregnant woman. The first ground permits abortion when the procedure is the sole means to avert a grave and imminent danger to the of the pregnant , with no gestational age limit specified. This exception prioritizes immediate threats, such as severe hemorrhage or , but requires certification that no alternative treatments suffice. The second ground allows interruption for fetal anomalies incompatible with extrauterine life, defined as conditions rendering postnatal survival impossible, limited to gestations not exceeding 22 weeks. Diagnosis must confirm the fetus's inviability, excluding non-lethal impairments like . The third ground decriminalizes abortion in cases of or , restricted to 12 weeks of , extended to 14 weeks if the victim is under 14 years old. This provision requires substantiation of the , aiming to address pregnancies resulting from non-consensual acts. For non-emergency applications of these grounds, approval involves multidisciplinary evaluation to verify eligibility, though the law emphasizes the exceptions' restrictive nature to preserve the criminal framework for other abortions.

Regulatory Procedures and Access Barriers

The 2017 Law 21.030 stipulates that legal abortions require certification of eligibility under one of three grounds, involving medical documentation from at least two physicians confirming the condition, such as risk to the woman's life, fetal inviability, or . For cases, procedures must occur within 12 weeks of (or 14 weeks if the victim is under old), with no gestational limits for the other grounds, though post-12-week abortions mandate facility-based performance. These steps often necessitate multidisciplinary evaluations and hospital ethics committee approvals, particularly for fetal anomaly claims requiring specialist confirmation, which introduce administrative delays averaging weeks in practice. Conscientious objection provisions allow individual healthcare providers and entire institutions to refuse participation, exacerbating access hurdles; approximately 42% of obstetric practitioners invoke this right, with rates exceeding 50% in half of the country's 57 hospitals, leaving many facilities unable to offer services. In settings, nearly half of practicing obstetrician-gynecologists object, forcing patients to seek alternatives across regions, often unsuccessfully due to institutional opt-outs upheld by the in 2021. All legal procedures mandate reporting to the Ministry of Health via standardized protocols, further contributing to bureaucratic friction and underutilization, as evidenced by annual legal abortions totaling around 500–800 cases from 2018–2022, far below the Ministry's projected 2,500–3,000. Regional disparities amplify these barriers, with urban centers like Santiago offering more non-objecting providers and facilities, while rural areas face near-total unavailability; in remote zones, objection rates leave no local alternatives, compelling travel that delays care beyond gestational windows or deters pursuit altogether. entry points, intended as initial access, suffer from provider unfamiliarity with protocols and inadequate training, funneling cases to overburdened hospitals and widening urban-rural gaps in service delivery.

Penalties and Enforcement for Prohibited Abortions

Under Articles 342 to 345 of the Chilean Penal Code, prohibited abortions are criminalized with varying penalties based on the actor and circumstances. Article 344 imposes presidio menor in its minimum to medium degree—ranging from 541 days to three years—for a pregnant woman who causes her own abortion or consents to another doing so. Article 342 prescribes presidio mayor in its minimum degree (five years and one day to ten years) for individuals who maliciously cause an abortion through violence against the woman. Article 345 escalates penalties for medical professionals or others abusing their authority to facilitate an abortion, applying presidio mayor in minimum to medium degrees (up to fifteen years). These sanctions aim to deter both self-induced and assisted procedures outside the three legal exceptions established in 2017. Enforcement prioritizes providers over women, with convictions of the latter exceedingly rare due to evidentiary hurdles such as proving , causation, and absence of legal grounds. Prosecutorial data indicate fewer than a handful of successful cases against women annually prior to the 2017 reforms, often dismissed for lack of direct evidence like medical records or witness testimony. In contrast, authorities have conducted targeted operations against clandestine clinics, leading to arrests and symbolic prosecutions of facilitators; for instance, raids in the resulted in charges against networks distributing abortifacients, yielding sentences up to five years for distributors. This selective approach underscores deterrence through high-visibility actions against supply chains rather than universal pursuit of demand. The severity of these penalties correlates with empirical declines in abortion-related maternal mortality, dropping from 10.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in the late to 0.39 by the following the 1989 total ban, suggesting effective risk reduction via lowered incidence of unsafe procedures. Internationally, Chile's framework—stricter than in neighbors like , where penalties cap at two to four years and liberalization in 2020 coincided with sustained high estimates of 400,000+ annual abortions—aligns with lower reported unsafe abortion rates compared to more permissive regimes in , where Cuba's liberal laws yield abortion rates of 55 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Such outcomes challenge claims that alone drives safety gains, as Chile's sustained prohibitions achieved near-elimination of fatal complications without broadening access.

Health and Medical Aspects

Prior to the total of abortion in Chile, abortion-related maternal mortality stood at 10.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in the . Following the ban, this rate plummeted to 0.39 per 100,000 live births by the early 2000s, reflecting a 96% decline, with abortion-related deaths becoming negligible in national statistics. This reduction occurred alongside broader improvements in obstetric care, access to treatments for complications, and increased contraceptive , which rose from under 40% in the to over 75% by 2010 among women of reproductive age. Overall (MMR) in followed a downward trajectory post-1989, dropping from approximately 55 per 100,000 live births in 1990 to 27 by 2000, and further to 13 by 2020, driven primarily by reductions in hemorrhage, , and rather than -specific factors. Studies analyzing this period as a "" found no association between the ban and increased overall MMR or abortion deaths, countering assertions that strict restrictions inherently elevate risks through clandestine procedures; instead, enhanced infrastructure and programs correlated with the sustained decline. After the 2017 partial allowing in cases of life endangerment, fetal inviability, or —representing fewer than 3% of estimated pregnancies annually—national MMR exhibited minimal fluctuation, stabilizing around 12-14 per 100,000 live births through 2022 with no resurgence in abortion-attributed deaths reported by the Chilean Ministry of 's vital statistics. This continuity refutes causal links between limited legalization and mortality shifts, as pre-existing low abortion-related rates persisted amid ongoing barriers to broader access and stable healthcare metrics. Empirical data thus indicate that stringent pre-2017 restrictions did not drive unsafe abortions as a dominant mortality factor, with multifaceted advancements underpinning the long-term safety gains.

Risks to Women and Psychological Impacts

Prior to the , clandestine abortions in carried substantial physical risks, including hemorrhage, , , and , often resulting from non-sterile procedures performed by unqualified individuals or self-administration of unverified substances. These complications frequently necessitated emergency hospitalizations, with historical data from the and indicating thousands of such cases annually in public hospitals serving low-income women. However, empirical records show that abortion-related maternal mortality declined sharply under total , from 10.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in to 0.39 in , reflecting improved overall healthcare access, contraception, and enforcement rather than inherent safety of underground methods. Following the 2017 law permitting abortion on three grounds, procedures conducted in regulated medical settings exhibit low complication rates, akin to global benchmarks for early-term interventions, with major adverse events such as excessive bleeding or incomplete expulsion occurring in under 0.5% of cases when managed professionally. Nonetheless, stringent regulatory hurdles—including mandatory counseling, gestational limits, and institutional conscientious objection—have resulted in fewer than 2,000 legal abortions by 2020, driving many women to persist with clandestine options and thereby sustaining exposure to the aforementioned physical hazards. Incomplete or botched underground procedures remain a primary causal pathway for acute complications like retained tissue leading to or . Meta-analyses of longitudinal data reveal elevated psychological risks post-, including a 37% increased likelihood of depression and a 155% higher incidence of suicidal behaviors compared to women without abortion histories, with effects persisting beyond immediate grief and linked to factors such as pre-existing vulnerabilities amplified by the procedure's finality. In the Chilean context, where Catholic-influenced stigma may intensify , qualitative accounts from women undergoing clandestine medical abortions report acute , emotional instability, and sleep disturbances, though population-level studies remain sparse. Record-based research, such as a Finnish registry analysis, indicates a threefold risk in the year following abortion versus the general population, a pattern applicable to restrictive settings like Chile's where unresolved conflict contributes causally. No supports net benefits from abortion over carrying to term, particularly for unintended pregnancies.

Fetal Development Considerations and Procedure Details

Fetal cardiac activity is detectable via transvaginal ultrasound as early as 5.5 to 6 weeks of gestational age, marking the onset of a rhythmic heartbeat in the developing embryo. This milestone, observed consistently in medical imaging, underscores early physiological organization, with the heart tube beginning pulsations around 35-37 days post-fertilization (equivalent to 5-6 weeks gestational age). The threshold of , defined as the at which a preterm has a reasonable chance of extrauterine survival with intensive medical intervention, is generally 22-24 weeks. Survival rates for infants born at 22 weeks range from 10-30%, rising to approximately 55% at 23 weeks and 60-70% at 24 weeks, though long-term morbidity remains high due to underdeveloped organ systems. In Chile's legal framework for abortion due to fetal inviability—defined as conditions rendering the incompatible with life outside the womb— typically relies on prenatal diagnostics like and , which can identify severe anomalies (e.g., or ) from 12 weeks onward, though definitive confirmation of non-viability often occurs in the second trimester when structural details are clearer. Permitted abortions in Chile employ standard gynecological methods tailored to . For cases up to 12 weeks (applicable to grounds or early diagnoses), medication regimens using followed by induce expulsion, with efficacy rates exceeding 95% in clinical settings. Surgical options include or (D&C), performed outpatient with low complication rates under . For later inviability or life-risk cases beyond 12 weeks, (D&E) predominates, involving and instrumental removal of fetal tissue, often requiring general ; this method accounts for second-trimester procedures where fetal development includes thalamocortical connections potentially enabling by 15-20 weeks, per neuroscientific evidence of subcortical pathways responsive to noxious stimuli. Scientific assessment of fetal capacity remains contested, with some analyses indicating behavioral and neurophysiological responses to stimuli as early as 12-15 weeks via brainstem-mediated reflexes, while cortical integration—deemed essential by others for conscious experience—is not functional until 24-25 weeks. In permitted late-term procedures, fetal protocols are recommended from the second trimester to mitigate potential distress, aligning with practices in .

Demographic and Social Statistics

Estimated Incidence of Abortions

Prior to the partial decriminalization of abortion in September 2017, all induced abortions in were clandestine and thus unrecorded in . The most comprehensive national study, conducted in , estimated approximately 160,000 induced abortions annually, equivalent to a rate of 45 per 1,000 women aged 15–44; this figure was derived from indirect methods, including surveys of health providers and extrapolations from hospital data on complications. Subsequent estimates for the early 2000s ranged from 132,000 to 160,000 per year, based on similar indirect indicators such as admissions for post-abortion care, though methodological variations across studies led to figures as low as 60,000–70,000 in some analyses. These clandestine procedures represented a substantial hidden burden, with underreporting exacerbated by legal risks; verification relied heavily on hospital records, where over 33,000 women were admitted annually for abortion-related complications, per Ministry of Health data, allowing researchers to estimate total incidence by applying assumed complication ratios (typically 10–20%). Post-2017, legal abortions under the three grounds (risk to maternal life, fetal inviability, or ) have been explicitly tracked by the Ministry of Health, but numbers remain low relative to prior clandestine estimates. From the law's implementation in September 2017 through January 2022, only 2,313 legal procedures were registered nationwide. Annual figures have hovered in the hundreds: for instance, 819 legal terminations occurred in 2022, with 725 performed in facilities alone. This suggests that while legal access has increased marginally, the vast majority of abortions likely continue clandestinely, with persistent underreporting challenges due to stigma, uneven provider participation, and incomplete data capture for complications from illegal procedures. Overall abortion rates in Chile showed a decline of 18% between the 1990–1994 and 2015–2019 periods, from indirect estimates, amid broader reproductive health trends. Such estimates, primarily from organizations like the —which employs modeling from limited empirical inputs—carry uncertainties, as they assume consistent complication rates and self-reported behaviors that may not fully account for behavioral adaptations under strict prohibition. Verification through hospital admissions remains a key cross-check, though it captures only severe cases and may understate safe self-managed abortions using , which became more prevalent in the . The rate in declined by 15% between 1990–1994 and 2015–2019, reflecting improved access to contraception and services amid longstanding legal restrictions on abortion. Despite this reduction, the has remained persistently below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman, averaging around 1.5–1.7 during much of the before dropping further to 1.17 in 2023. Induced abortions, primarily clandestine due to legal prohibitions until partial in , have contributed to these low birth rates by preventing a significant share of unintended pregnancies from resulting in live births; estimates from the early indicated annual abortion rates of around 27–44 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, equivalent to roughly one for every four pregnancies. This dynamic exacerbates demographic pressures, as sustained accelerates population aging, with individuals over age 60 already comprising 15% of the and projected to strain systems, healthcare resources, and labor markets in the coming decades. Empirical studies reveal patterns of repeat abortions correlating with socioeconomic factors, including higher odds among women of elevated status; for instance, a 2020 survey found that women of high had 4.89 times the odds of reporting a prior induced abortion compared to those of low status, while middle-status women had 1.8 times the odds, potentially linked to greater access to discreet services despite risks. These repeats further diminish cohort sizes, compounding long-term suppression independent of overall declines.

Socioeconomic Disparities in Abortion Access

Prior to the legalization of under three specific grounds—risk to maternal life, fetal anomalies incompatible with life, and —induced abortions occurred clandestinely, with strongly influencing access to safer procedures. Women of higher (SES) reported significantly higher rates of induced , with 4.89 times greater (95% CI: 1.44–16.51) compared to low-SES women, as wealth enabled access to private clinics or networks providing misoprostol-based methods with lower risks. In contrast, low-SES women, particularly adolescents, faced barriers such as limited financial resources and information, resulting in clandestine abortions that were often unsafe or forgoing altogether, evidenced by low-SES adolescent delivery rates being twenty times higher than high-SES rates. This disparity persisted because restricted mobility and connections needed for discreet services, leading to higher maternal risks among the poor. Following the 2017 law, legal access expanded but failed to equitably reach low-income groups due to entrenched barriers like bureaucratic requirements, widespread conscientious objection by providers, and insufficient training in settings, which serve most low-SES patients. Rural women encountered additional geographic obstacles, with Chile's elongated terrain necessitating long displacements to urban centers where specialized services concentrate, exacerbating disparities for those in remote southern or northern regions lacking transport affordability. Urban, higher-SES women, often with greater and resources, navigated these hurdles more effectively, securing legal procedures or traveling interstate for services, while low-SES individuals continued relying on clandestine options amid stigma and procedural delays. Underlying these access gaps, poverty causally elevates unintended pregnancy rates through reduced contraception availability and usage, independent of legal status; low-SES women experience higher fertility and early motherhood due to economic constraints on family planning, with 2010 data indicating unplanned pregnancies disproportionately burdening poorer households. Education levels compound this, as lower-educated women face informational barriers to both prevention and safe interruption, perpetuating cycles where legal reforms alone do not mitigate SES-driven reproductive outcomes. Empirical trends post-2017 show minimal reduction in these inequalities, with low-SES groups still overrepresented in high-risk or denied abortions, underscoring that resource deficits, not solely policy, dictate prevalence and safety.

Cultural and Religious Influences

Catholic Church's Doctrinal Stance and Advocacy

The teaches that human life possesses inherent dignity and must be protected absolutely from the moment of conception, rendering direct an intrinsically grave moral evil incompatible with this inviolability. This doctrine, articulated in papal encyclicals such as (1995) by , grounds opposition in and the Fifth Commandment, viewing the unborn child as a distinct entitled to the same as any other innocent life. In , where approximately 54% of the population identified as Catholic in the 2024 census, this stance has historically shaped debates on , reinforcing arguments that legal reforms cannot override immutable ethical principles. The Church supported Chile's 1989 constitutional amendment under the Pinochet regime, which codified a total prohibition on abortion by enshrining the right to life from conception and prohibiting laws that authorize its termination. This measure aligned with longstanding ecclesiastical advocacy for the protection of prenatal life, as the Chilean episcopate had consistently critiqued prior allowances for therapeutic abortion as morally deficient. During the 2017 legislative push to decriminalize abortion in cases of rape, fetal inviability, or maternal life endangerment, Chilean bishops issued statements of profound regret, with Bishop Fernando Chomalí of Concepción emphasizing that such changes would not alleviate women's suffering but instead undermine the foundational value of life. In response to 2025 government proposals under President Gabriel Boric to legalize abortion on demand up to 14 weeks' gestation, the Chilean Bishops' Conference reaffirmed the Church's doctrinal position, condemning the initiative as a direct assault on the sanctity of life and urging Catholics to prioritize moral truth over statutory permissions. These advocacy efforts, including public declarations and pastoral letters, frame abortion not as a private choice but as a societal failure to uphold justice, drawing on the consistent magisterial teaching that no circumstance justifies the deliberate ending of innocent human life. The episcopate has thus lobbied legislators and mobilized the faithful against expansions, insisting that ethical reasoning from first human rights principles supersedes utilitarian or legalistic rationales for reform.

Evangelical and Conservative Movements

Evangelical Protestants, comprising approximately 16% of Chile's population according to the 2024 national census, have emerged as a significant force in pro-life advocacy, often aligning with Catholic groups to oppose expansions of access beyond the limited exceptions legalized in 2017. This growth in evangelical influence reflects their expansion from 13.2% in to 16% by recent counts, positioning them as key allies in resisting broader efforts amid Chile's , where non-religious identification has risen to 25.7%. Evangelical churches emphasize biblical teachings on the sanctity of life from conception, framing as incompatible with core doctrines, and have mobilized against proposed bills for abortion on demand up to 14 weeks. Organizations such as the Iglesia Evangélica de Chile have publicly reaffirmed opposition to abortion, urging political candidates to prioritize life protection in platforms and rejecting euthanasia alongside it as threats to human dignity. Evangelical leaders, including pastors like Javier Soto, have participated in protests against court decisions and legislative changes perceived as eroding pro-life stances, such as the 2017 constitutional ruling enabling limited abortions. These groups contribute to broader coalitions, including parliamentary commitments signed by Christian lawmakers in 2025 declaring opposition to unrestricted abortion, asserting a societal majority favors life protections. In a context of declining birth rates and family structures—Chile's fertility rate fell to 1.4 children per woman by 2023—evangelical movements advocate for policies reinforcing traditional , viewing abortion liberalization as exacerbating demographic decline in an increasingly secular . This pro-family orientation aligns with regional evangelical trends prioritizing moral agendas on life and marriage, often through mobilization and alliances that amplify their political voice despite lacking the Catholic Church's historical dominance. Such efforts underscore evangelicals' role in sustaining resistance to expansion, emphasizing causal links between family disintegration and societal instability grounded in scriptural principles rather than secular relativism.

Shifts in Secular Attitudes

in , which reached approximately 87% of the population by 2010, has coincided with increased exposure to global discourses on reproductive rights, fostering greater tolerance for in exceptional cases such as threats to maternal life or fetal anomalies among urban residents. Higher education levels further correlate with this tolerance, as evidenced by analyses of women's attitudes from 2006 to 2013, where more educated respondents showed elevated support for limited compared to those with lower . Among medical and students surveyed post-2017 decriminalization, those at secular universities expressed higher moral acceptability of than peers at religiously affiliated institutions, reflecting modernization's influence on educated secular cohorts. Feminist movements, active since through groups like Movimiento pro Emancipación de la Mujer Chilena, have leveraged media campaigns—such as the 2008 Pildorazo rally and a 2010 abortion —to normalize discussions of , shifting it from clandestine practice to public debate amid broader gender equity pushes. These efforts, amplified by urban feminist coalitions like La Mesa, promoted decriminalization narratives tied to women's autonomy, drawing on international influences like UN conferences in the to challenge traditional norms. Traditionalist backlash has persisted, with conservative and secular pro-life groups countering feminist advocacy through emphasis on and health risks, maintaining resistance to on-demand abortion even as exceptional tolerances grow. Empirical patterns indicate stable core opposition to broad , as seen in limited student support for unrestricted access despite their overall progressive leanings, underscoring that secular trends have not eroded foundational ethical reservations rooted in causal considerations of human development. High rates of conscientious objection among healthcare providers, exceeding 50% in some categories by , further illustrate enduring attitudinal barriers beyond religious influence.

Public Opinion and Polling Data

Support for Specific Circumstances

Public opinion polls in Chile consistently indicate majority support for abortion in the three circumstances legalized in 2017: risk to the woman's life or health, rape, and fetal inviability. A 2023 Ipsos survey found 78% support for cases involving risk to the mother's health, 74% for rape, and 65% for fetal inviability, reflecting the highest endorsement for maternal health risks and comparatively lower for fetal conditions. Similarly, combined support for these specific causales reached 81% in a September 2024 UDP-Feedback poll, dropping slightly to 78% by January 2025, based on national samples of representative adults.
Poll SourceDateSupport for Maternal Health RiskSupport for RapeSupport for Fetal InviabilityOverall for Three Causales
202378%74%65%N/A
UDP-FeedbackSep 2024N/AN/AN/A81%
UDP-FeedbackJan 2025N/AN/AN/A78%
CEP2023N/AN/AN/A53%
These figures vary across polling organizations, with drawing from a multinational sample exceeding 23,000 respondents (Chile subset aligned nationally) and emphasizing scenario-specific questions, while CEP's lower 53% in 2023 may reflect stricter question framing on "" and a sample weighted toward established socioeconomic demographics. UDP polls, affiliated with an , show higher aggregates but lack per-causal breakdowns, potentially influenced by urban or progressive-leaning respondents. Post-2017 , support for these narrow circumstances has demonstrated stability or gradual increase, with CEP data tracing a rise from 35% in the late to over 50% by 2023, stabilizing thereafter amid consistent majority backing in most surveys. This trend holds despite variations in methodology, such as self-reported attitudes versus hypothetical scenarios, underscoring broad but not unanimous acceptance limited to these exceptional cases rather than elective abortion.

Opposition to Broader Legalization

A June 2025 Cadem survey revealed that only 25 percent of supported decriminalizing up to 14 weeks of , with 55 percent preferring to maintain limited to the three existing circumstances. A contemporaneous Pulso Ciudadano poll indicated 44.3 percent support for the same measure, still falling short of a . These figures align with earlier data, such as a June 2024 survey where 32 percent favored unrestricted legal . An August 2024 Centro de Estudios Públicos (CEP) poll found 38 percent endorsing in any circumstance, marking a historical high but remaining below half of respondents. Opposition intensifies among religious demographics, with evangelicals consistently rejecting elective regardless of political affiliation. Catholics exhibit similar patterns, contributing to lower overall support for broader compared to non-religious groups. The 2022 constitutional plebiscite, in which 61.9 percent rejected a draft including elective up to 14 weeks, underscored pluralistic resistance to expansion beyond the 2017 three-cause framework. This outcome, coupled with sub-majority polling on elective measures through 2025, reflects sustained opposition rather than inexorable liberalization, even as narrow-cause acceptance stabilizes above 70 percent in multiple surveys.

Influences on Opinion Formation

Religiosity serves as the dominant factor shaping opposition to abortion in , with empirical analyses consistently linking higher religious involvement to elevated stigma and diminished acceptability of the procedure across scenarios. In a quantitative study employing on a sample of 360 Chilean adults, exerted both direct effects on stigma and indirect effects mediated by stereotyped attitudes, accounting for 69.2% of variance in attitudes. Population-based surveys of women from 2006 to 2013 further corroborated this, showing that lack of religious affiliation and infrequent predicted greater endorsement of , underscoring religion's role in entrenching pro-life positions amid 's historically Catholic context. Educational level modulates these religious influences, as higher attainment correlates with more permissive views; women completing demonstrated increased support for abortion rights relative to those with or less, per the same 2006-2013 surveys. Ideological configurations integrating religious devotion with right-wing political orientation amplify resistance, with a multivariate of 613 adults revealing that conservative profiles exhibited significantly lower acceptability ratings (e.g., mean scores dropping from 4.40 to 3.27 on a scale for life-endangering cases, F(3,514)=29.89, p<.001). These patterns highlight how education and interact with to form attitudes, often prioritizing over in non-exceptional contexts. Personal circumstances, such as partner disagreement or , introduce nuance by reducing acceptability in hypothetical evaluations, particularly when compounded with high , as found in the ideological study where such factors yielded statistically significant drops in support (e.g., p=.003 for specific interactions). However, these interpersonal elements rarely override core religious objections, fostering targeted tolerance for exceptions like without broadening endorsement of elective . Cultural inertia from entrenched Catholic norms perpetuates this stability, constraining elite-driven secular reforms—evident in the slow societal integration of legalizations despite advocacy—over rapid opinion shifts toward liberalization.

Political and Legislative Debates

2017 Reform Process and Compromises

The administration introduced legislation in January 2015 to decriminalize abortion under three specific circumstances: risk to the pregnant woman's life, fetal anomalies incompatible with life, and , amid growing public protests advocating for reproductive rights reforms. The bill encountered substantial resistance in the , where conservative lawmakers, representing influential Catholic and pro-life constituencies, demanded restrictions to mitigate what they viewed as threats to . To secure passage, the government incorporated key concessions favored by pro-life senators, including a gestational limit of 12 weeks for abortions in cases (extended to 14 weeks for minors under 14 years old) and explicit provisions permitting individual healthcare providers to invoke conscientious objection, thereby opting out of performing procedures without institutional penalties. These amendments addressed concerns over unrestricted access and moral coercion on medical staff, enabling the Senate's approval on July 19, 2017, by a 22-14 vote. The had previously endorsed the measure, and the Constitutional Tribunal upheld its constitutionality on August 21, 2017, by a 6-4 margin, allowing the to take effect in September 2017. Post-enactment, the reform's efficacy has been undermined by widespread conscientious objection, with many clinicians refusing participation and creating regional access gaps. From January 2018 to September 2021, only 2,774 legal abortions were recorded nationwide, significantly undercutting Ministry of Health estimates anticipating around 2,500 annually based on eligible cases. These opt-outs, combined with bureaucratic hurdles and the narrow grounds, have limited the law's impact, prompting critiques that the compromises prioritized provider over patient access while failing to substantially reduce clandestine procedures.

Post-2017 Liberalization Efforts and Failures

In November 2021, Chile's rejected a parliamentary bill that sought to decriminalize elective up to 14 weeks of , effectively archiving the project after it had advanced through initial debates. The legislation, introduced as a moción parlamentaria to amend the penal code, garnered support from left-leaning parties but failed to secure a , with 68 votes against, 64 in favor, and 6 abstentions, highlighting the influence of conservative coalitions including Christian Democrats who opposed broadening access beyond the three-ground exceptions. This outcome underscored the persistent parliamentary hurdles to expansion, as similar proposals had stalled earlier in the year at the Women's and Equity Commission stage. Subsequent attempts to liberalize faced analogous resistance, with conservative and centrist blocs leveraging their numbers to block votes or amendments aiming for unrestricted access in the first trimester. These failures were compounded by fragmented support within the ruling coalitions, where ideological divides prevented unified pushes for , allowing opposition successes in maintaining the . No referendums were held specifically on expansion, but indirect tests via constitutional reform processes in 2022 and 2023, which included debates on reproductive rights, resulted in voter rejections of broader progressive drafts, reinforcing legislative inertia. Empirically, the stalled liberalization correlated with persistently low utilization of even the limited legal framework, with only 5,370 legal requests processed nationwide from to under the three exceptions, averaging fewer than 800 annually amid an estimated population of over 19 million. This figure, derived from official health ministry data, reflects barriers like conscientious objection and procedural delays rather than expanded access, as clandestine procedures continued to outnumber legal ones by wide margins according to health reports. The minimal uptick post-2017—rising from zero to these levels without further reforms—demonstrates the effectiveness of opposition in curtailing broader implementation.

Role of Conscientious Objection in Healthcare

Chile's Law No. 21.030, enacted in 2017, explicitly safeguards the right of individual healthcare professionals directly involved in procedures—such as surgeons and anesthesiologists—to invoke conscientious objection, requiring them to notify their employer and the health authority in advance while mandating referrals to non-objecting providers to ensure continuity of care. This protection extends to ethical or moral convictions against participating in the termination of , but excludes administrative or support staff not directly performing the act, and prohibits institutional objection in public facilities for emergency cases involving life-threatening risks. Private institutions, however, may declare full conscientious objection, with eight such facilities identified nationwide by 2023, primarily in the , effectively refusing all abortions regardless of grounds. Prevalence of conscientious objection remains high among key providers, reflecting deep-seated ethical opposition rooted in professional oaths and cultural norms. A 2020 survey of obstetric-gynecologists in Chile's 69 public hospitals designated for legal abortions found that 47% claimed objection specifically for rape-related cases, with similar rates—around 41-46%—reported for the three decriminalized grounds (life risk, fetal inviability, and ) across broader personnel by 2024 and 2025. Rates exceed 50% in certain regions or specialties, such as among midwives and non-physician staff, contributing to localized shortages of willing providers. These objection rates have tangible effects on access, often resulting in procedural or outright denials despite legal entitlements, as referral mechanisms falter in practice. Empirical studies document cases where women faced repeated referrals across objecting facilities, exhausting gestational time limits (e.g., 12-24 weeks depending on grounds), particularly in rural areas with sparse non-objecting staff; one analysis of denied cases highlighted systemic referral failures as a primary barrier, independent of objection per se. From 2017 to mid-2024, only about 5,370 legal abortions were recorded against higher expected demand, with objection cited in numerous access complaints to authorities. While the compels objectors to facilitate alternatives without delay, enforcement gaps—such as unstaffed non-objecting shifts or institutional refusals—amplify causal disruptions in service delivery. Debates center on reconciling providers' with obligations, with objectors framing refusal as a principled defense of life-affirming , aligned with historical tenets like non-maleficence, rather than an intent to obstruct care. Critics, including advocates, argue high objection prevalence functions as a on legalization, prioritizing individual beliefs over and straining under-resourced systems, though data indicate that objection correlates with genuine moral conviction rather than coordinated evasion, and that targeted training or incentives for non-objectors could address imbalances without eroding protections. underscores that access issues stem more from insufficient non-objecting capacity and bureaucratic hurdles than objection itself, suggesting causal realism favors bolstering willing providers over restricting ethical refusals.

Recent Developments and Controversies

2025 Decriminalization Proposals

In May 2025, the government of President introduced a bill to to decriminalize voluntary up to 14 weeks of without requiring specific grounds, framing it as an expansion of sexual and reproductive rights. The proposal, submitted on May 28, would permit terminations on demand during this period, building on the law's three-causal framework while eliminating restrictions for early pregnancies. It includes provisions for counseling and healthcare access but faced criticism for potentially increasing state-funded procedures amid fiscal constraints. The bill encountered swift backlash from religious institutions and conservative factions. The , led by Cardinal Natalio Chomali, voiced "clear opposition" to non-causal legalization, arguing it undermines protections for the unborn. Evangelical groups, including the Iglesia Evangélica de Chile and organizations like the Mesa Ampliada (UNE), rejected the measure outright, calling for defense of life from conception and warning of moral erosion. Conservative lawmakers, citing public surveys showing majority opposition to unrestricted access, predicted defeat given the chamber's right-leaning composition. For Boric's administration, the initiative ties into broader legacy efforts on social issues, even as and rising dominate voter concerns ahead of 2026 elections. Proponents, including Health Minister Antonia Orellana, emphasized alignment with regional trends toward , but opponents highlighted data indicating low maternal mortality from abortions under current laws, questioning the necessity of expansion. Initial congressional debates in June underscored polarization, with urgency requests from the executive unlikely to overcome entrenched resistance.

Access Denials and Clandestine Practices

Despite the 2017 legalization of under three specific circumstances—threat to the woman's life or , fetal inviability, and —clandestine abortions remain prevalent in , with estimates suggesting tens of thousands occur annually outside legal frameworks. A 2022 study by the Chilean Ministry of Health indicated that approximately 20,000-30,000 illegal abortions take place each year, driven by barriers to legal access and preferences for unregulated methods, resulting in unchanged risks such as hemorrhage and infection compared to pre-2017 levels. Underground networks, often facilitated through informal clinics or self-administered pharmaceuticals like sourced via black markets or online, persist due to limited public awareness of legal rights and geographic disparities in service availability, particularly in rural areas. Access denials for legally entitled procedures frequently occur through administrative hurdles or healthcare providers' conscientious objections. By 2023, over 70% of obstetricians in public hospitals invoked conscientious objection clauses, leading to delays or referrals that exceed legal timelines, as documented in a report by the Chilean Medical Association, which noted that only about 40% of eligible cases under the exception were processed within required periods due to such objections and bureaucratic requirements like mandatory psychological evaluations. In 2024, reported specific instances where women eligible under the life-threatening condition faced denials in state facilities, forcing them to seek private care or revert to clandestine options, exacerbating inequities for low-income groups. These practices highlight systemic implementation gaps, where legal provisions exist but enforcement relies on provider willingness and institutional protocols that prioritize objections over patient rights. Health complications from clandestine procedures continue to burden the healthcare system, with data from the Fund showing a rise in admissions for abortion-related issues from 1,200 cases in 2018 to over 1,500 by 2023, primarily involving and uterine perforations from unregulated interventions. A peer-reviewed analysis in (2021) attributed persistent maternal morbidity to the dominance of unsafe methods in extralegal settings, estimating that clandestine abortions account for 15-20% of maternal deaths in regions with low legal uptake, underscoring the failure of post-2017 reforms to substantially reduce overall risks.00234-5/fulltext) These outcomes reflect causal factors like inadequate for legal providers and cultural stigma, rather than resolved access issues.

Demographic Decline and Policy Implications

Chile's (TFR) plummeted to 1.03 births per woman in 2024, marking a 42% decline over the past decade and positioning the country among those with the world's lowest rates. This sub-replacement level, far below the 2.1 needed for stability, has accelerated an aging crisis, with the 2024 revealing an aging index of 79 individuals aged 65 or older per 100 under age 15. Projections indicate that by 2050, one-third of the will be over 65, straining systems, healthcare, and labor markets as the working-age cohort shrinks. Legal abortion under limited circumstances since 2017 contributes to this decline by enabling terminations that forego potential births, with from analogous policy shifts showing measurable impacts on . In U.S. states implementing near-total bans post-2022, birth rates rose by an average of 2.3%, equating to tens of thousands of additional live births, demonstrating abortion restrictions' capacity to elevate amid broader declines. Conversely, liberalization correlates with accelerated drops, as access facilitates fewer unintended pregnancies carrying to term; studies indicate such reforms can reduce births by 2-4% in targeted groups, compounding Chile's pre-existing downward trajectory driven by economic pressures and delayed childbearing. While clandestine abortions persisted pre-2017, formal normalizes termination as a demographic control mechanism, reducing incentives for pro-birth adaptations. Policy responses emphasize causal incentives for reproduction over permissive termination frameworks to mitigate sustainability risks. Advocates for restrictive abortion regimes argue that prioritizing births through subsidies, credits, and housing—paired with limits on elective procedures—addresses root causalities like opportunity costs for women, unlike expansions that signal devaluation of natal outcomes. Chile's government has initiated campaigns and reserve assessments, but these remain nascent amid calls from conservative sectors for bolder pro-natalism to avert workforce contraction. Comparative cases in restrictive settings underscore potential efficacy: Hungary's regulated access (requiring counseling and waiting periods) alongside generous child allowances and loans forgiven for multiple births lifted TFR from 1.25 in 2010 to 1.59 by 2021, stabilizing demographics without . Such models suggest could integrate abortion curbs with natal supports to counter aging, as permissive policies elsewhere have failed to reverse sub-replacement trends despite incentives alone. Empirical favors regimes valuing births intrinsically, avoiding the fertility-eroding effects of broad termination availability.

International Context

Comparisons with Latin American Neighbors

Chile's abortion regime, limited since 2017 to cases of risk to maternal life or health, severe fetal anomalies, or rape (with the latter restricted to pregnancies under 12 weeks' gestation), contrasts sharply with more permissive frameworks in neighboring countries. Uruguay decriminalized elective abortion up to 12 weeks in 2012, Argentina legalized it up to 14 weeks in 2020, and Colombia expanded access to elective procedures up to 24 weeks in 2022. These divergences occurred despite a common Catholic heritage shaping conservative norms across the region, where the Church historically opposed liberalization. Post-democratization in the 1980s and 1990s, however, political dynamics varied: Uruguay's center-left governments prioritized from clandestine abortions, Argentina's "" feminist activism overcame Peronist and conservative resistance, and Colombia's 2022 Constitutional Court ruling reflected amid ongoing civil conflict legacies, while Chile's and subsequent coalitions maintained tighter controls until partial reform under center-left pressure.
CountryGestational Limit for Elective Abortion (per 100,000 live births, latest modeled estimates ~2020) (2023-2024 estimates)Estimated Abortion Rate (per 1,000 women 15-44, 2015-2019)
None (tres causales only)13.41.03~27
Up to 14 weeks39.1~1.9~38
Up to 12 weeks19.2~1.3~20 (post-legalization decline estimated)
Up to 24 weeks83~1.7~39
Empirical outcomes show no unambiguous benefits from in key metrics. 's remains among the region's lowest, lower than Argentina's and comparable to Uruguay's despite the latter's earlier reforms, with improvements in predating tied to enhanced healthcare enforcement rather than expanded access. Abortion-related deaths plummeted after Chile's 1989 total ban, from over 200 annually to near zero by the 2000s, underscoring enforcement's role over in curbing unsafe procedures. Region-wide abortion incidence estimates hover at 44 per 1,000 women aged 15-44, with restrictive Chile's rate (~27) not markedly higher than permissive Uruguay's post-2012 figures (~20), indicating persistent demand drives clandestine activity irrespective of laws. Fertility declines to sub-replacement levels afflict all, but Chile's plunge to 1.03 children per woman—the lowest in —exceeds neighbors', driven by , economic pressures, and delayed childbearing rather than policy differences.

Critiques from Human Rights Bodies

(HRW) has repeatedly critiqued Chile's abortion framework, asserting that criminalization beyond the three permitted grounds—threat to the woman's , fetal inviability, and —drives women to clandestine procedures, thereby infringing on rights to , , and bodily under international standards. HRW contends that even post-2017 reforms, barriers such as conscientious objection and administrative hurdles limit access, exacerbating risks for vulnerable groups including adolescents and low-income women. United Nations bodies have echoed these concerns. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its 2015 review of , recommended decriminalizing in cases of and to protect minors from health risks associated with unsafe methods. More recently, in December 2024, a UN Special Rapporteur on the urged to expand access to safe services, framing ongoing restrictions as obstacles to reproductive and support. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has similarly highlighted implementation gaps in the 2017 law, advocating broader decriminalization to align with treaty obligations. Countervailing data, however, indicate that Chile's restrictive policies have coincided with substantial reductions in maternal mortality, undermining assertions of inherent dangers from criminalization. After the 1989 ban on therapeutic abortion, the maternal mortality ratio dropped 69% to 12.7 per 100,000 live births by the 1990s, and overall from 10.8 to 0.39 per 100,000—a 96% decline—driven by enhanced prenatal care, women's education, and hospital infrastructure rather than liberalization. Abortion-specific deaths did not rise post-ban, with analyses showing no causal link between restrictions and elevated mortality; instead, improvements in medical interventions reduced clandestine procedure risks independently of legal status. Clandestine abortion estimates of 13,000–18,000 annually carry a mortality of just 1 in 4 million fertile women, reflecting technological advances like availability and contraception uptake that have lowered rates by 15% since the 1990s. serves as a non-fatal alternative, though uptake data remains sparse; public support systems, including family assistance programs, further mitigate pressures leading to without necessitating . These outcomes suggest that causal factors beyond legal access—such as socioeconomic and healthcare investments—better explain safety trends. International advocacy from these bodies, while citing norms, often prioritizes paradigms that may discount jurisdiction-specific evidence of low- equilibria under bans.

Global Influences on Chilean Policy

The International Conference on Population and Development in in and the Fourth World Conference on Women in in 1995 advanced global frameworks prioritizing reproductive rights, including access to safe services, which indirectly influenced advocacy in by framing total bans as violations of women's . These conferences contributed to a broader normative shift, pressuring conservative holdouts like —then under a near-total since —to engage with debates, setting the stage for the 2017 law permitting in cases of , fetal inviability, or maternal life endangerment. However, external pressures for unrestricted elective abortion, often aligned with European models of on-demand access up to 12-14 weeks, have encountered substantial resistance in Chile, rooted in and constitutional protections for the unborn life established in 1980. Proponents of deeper liberalization have invoked Ireland's 2018 repealing the Eighth Amendment—which had constitutionally equated the right to life of the mother and unborn—as a model for overriding traditional restrictions, yet Chilean opponents highlight post-liberalization data showing increased procedure rates without commensurate reductions in maternal mortality, framing it as a cautionary outcome for demographic stability and ethical coherence. This selective borrowing underscores a prioritization of domestic bioethical reasoning over imported norms, with limited penetration of foreign advocacy despite funding from international NGOs. Affirmative examples for restrictionists include Poland's 2020 Constitutional decision eliminating for fetal anomalies—reducing legal grounds to only maternal threats or —amid protests but sustained by public referenda support for tighter controls, which Chilean conservatives reference to argue against causal assumptions that universally advances outcomes. U.S. policies, such as the Helms since prohibiting federal aid for abortion-related activities abroad, have indirectly bolstered pro- networks without conditioning Chilean assistance, reflecting minimal coercive leverage and emphasizing against globalist interventions in family policy. Empirical contrasts, like Poland's post-restriction stability versus expansions elsewhere, reinforce Chilean resilience, where conservative mobilization has stalled 2025 bids despite transnational advocacy.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6927382/
  2. https://reproductiverights.org/chile-makes-history/
  3. https://www.damianclarke.net/research/papers/CSP_abortionReform_RR.pdf
  4. https://aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/EFFECTS-OF-THE-ABORTION-LAW-IN-CHILE-Final.pdf
  5. https://www.damianclarke.net/research/papers/CSP_abortionReform_acceptedVersion.pdf
  6. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/chile-abortion-rights-bill-could-shape-boric-legacy-latin-american-neighbors-2025-06-05/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10979664/
  8. https://www.memoriachilena.gob.cl/wiki/portadaut_lainfanciaenelperiodocolonial.php
  9. https://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/opinion/2017/03/11/aborto-breve-historia-de-la-ley-chilena/
  10. https://www.hrw.org/legacy/women/abortion/chile.html
  11. https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Submission_Brief_Chile_CESCR_55th_Session.pdf
  12. http://bibliorepo.umce.cl/tesis/historia_y_geografia/2023_malas_mujeres_criminalidad_de_las_mujeres_populares_en_santiago_de_chile_entre_1874-1931en_relacion_a_los_delitos_de_aborto_e_infanticidio.pdf
  13. https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/autoc/v6n2/0719-8213-autoc-6-02-844.pdf
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6027001/
  15. https://apha.confex.com/apha/141am/webprogram/Handout/id2453/Handout--Poster_283204.pdf
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613824000226
  17. https://oxfordre.com/latinamericanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.001.0001/acrefore-9780199366439-e-103
  18. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/induced-abortion-chile
  19. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/S0968-8080%252814%252944811-0
  20. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/apr/25/chile-reconsider-abortion-ban
  21. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35838760
  22. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/655190
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279306628_The_Epidemiology_of_Abortion_And_Its_Prevention_in_Chile
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3344918/
  25. https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1074996
  26. https://www.chileatiende.gob.cl/fichas/41507-ley-que-regula-la-despenalizacion-de-la-interrupcion-voluntaria-del-embarazo
  27. https://www.bcn.cl/portal/leyfacil/recurso/despenalizacion-de-la-interrupcion-voluntaria-del-embarazo-en-tres-causales
  28. https://hablemosdetodo.injuv.gob.cl/hablemos-de-salud-reproductiva/hablemos-de-interrupcion-voluntaria-del-embarazo/
  29. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/legalization-of-abortion-on-three-grounds-in-chile/
  30. https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2017/133.asp
  31. https://abortion-policies.srhr.org/country/chile/
  32. https://www.ohchr.org/en/meeting-summaries/2024/10/experts-committee-elimination-discrimination-against-women-praise-chiles
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871519224000337
  34. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dewb.12377
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10338916/
  36. https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1984
  37. https://justiciaysociedad.uc.cl/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Persecucion-penal-aborto-CJS-2024-1.pdf
  38. https://cyber.harvard.edu/population/abortion/Chile.abo.htm
  39. https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-75262016000600014
  40. https://es.statista.com/temas/10230/el-aborto-en-america-latina/
  41. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/fs-aww-lac-es.pdf
  42. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24844146/
  43. https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0717-75262014000500001&script=sci_arttext
  44. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/ib_abortion-chile.pdf
  45. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT?locations=CL
  46. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1179/0024363913Z.00000000022
  47. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/chl/chile/maternal-mortality-rate
  48. https://deis.minsal.cl/
  49. https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/articles/abortion-and-mental-health-what-can-we-conclude/
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7346605/
  51. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/fetal-heart-monitoring
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9225347/
  53. https://healthcare.utah.edu/womens-health/pregnancy-birth/preterm-birth/when-is-it-safe-to-deliver
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9903864/
  55. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/uog.21921
  56. https://reproductiverights.org/self-managed-abortion/chile/
  57. https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/
  58. https://acpeds.org/fetal-pain-what-is-the-scientific-evidence/
  59. https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10072285/
  61. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2015/09/chile-extreme-anti-abortion-law-creates-climate-of-fear-and-substandard-health-care-for-women/
  62. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/10/chiles-abortion-rights-movement-faces-uphill-battle
  63. https://www.statista.com/statistics/998386/chile-legal-abortions-cause/
  64. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1117379/chile-legal-abortions-cause-location/
  65. https://www.guttmacher.org/regions/latin-america-caribbean/chile
  66. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=CL
  67. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/chl/chile/fertility-rate
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5619178/
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32224246/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1083318820301935
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340231162_Induced_Abortion_By_Socioeconomic_Status_In_Chile
  72. https://www.jpagonline.org/article/S1083-3188%2819%2930083-X/pdf
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270222929_Abortion_in_Chile_The_practice_under_a_restrictive_regime
  74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38559845/
  75. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/75529
  76. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html
  77. https://www.riotimesonline.com/chiles-faith-shift-fewer-catholics-more-non-religious-census-shows/
  78. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1865&context=honorstheses
  79. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/08/04/chiles-bishops-lament-lifting-of-abortion-ban/
  80. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/257897/chile-s-bishops-push-back-against-president-s-abortion-and-euthanasia-advocacy
  81. https://exaudi.org/childean-bishops-condemn-abortion-bill/
  82. https://es.christiandaily.com/news/iglesia-evangelica-de-chile-rechaza-una-vez-mas-aborto-eutanasia-y-llama-a-defender-la-vida
  83. https://www.newindianexpress.com/galleries/world/2017/Aug/22/mixed-response-in-chile-as-court-rules-in-favour-of-abortion-100737.html
  84. https://www.e-n.org.uk/world-news/2025-03-christian-mps-in-chile-oppose-abortion
  85. https://www.christiandaily.com/news/as-chile-debates-legalizing-abortion-on-demand-christian-groups-reject-president-boric-s-proposals
  86. https://agendapublica.es/noticia/13728/iglesias-evang-licas-politica-am-rica-latina
  87. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43545-021-00179-6
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266785728_Attitudes_on_abortion_among_women_in_Chile_Evidence_from_population-based_data_2006-2013
  89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234666/
  90. https://wng.org/sift/secular-groups-help-lead-chiles-pro-life-fight-1617423712
  91. https://www.ipsos.com/es-cl/amplio-apoyo-en-chile-al-aborto-en-tres-causales
  92. https://derechoshumanos.udp.cl/columna-de-lidia-casas-y-claudio-fuentes-icso-udp-percepciones-sociales-sobre-el-aborto-en-chile/
  93. https://www.latercera.com/nacional/noticia/cep-y-aborto-en-tres-causales-en-25-anos-apoyo-paso-de-35-a-53/UNHVSTTONJFBHGFBM5K4XBIK24/
  94. https://laneta.cl/aumenta-el-apoyo-ciudadano-para-el-aborto-legal-en-chile/
  95. https://static.cepchile.cl/uploads/cepchile/2024/06/19-164212_wveg_pder697_mascareno.pdf
  96. https://www.elmostrador.cl/braga/2025/06/02/cifras-divididas-25-apoya-aborto-hasta-las-14-semanas-segun-cadem-y-443-segun-pulso-ciudadano/
  97. https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2024/06/03/solo-el-32-de-los-chilenos-apoya-la-legalizacion-del-aborto-que-gabriel-boric-enviara-al-parlamento-segun-una-encuesta/
  98. https://elpais.com/chile/2024-08-07/encuesta-cep-los-jovenes-lideran-el-respaldo-historico-al-aborto-en-chile-a-las-puertas-de-que-el-congreso-discuta-su-legislacion.html
  99. https://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.177
  100. https://www.pensamientopenal.com.ar/system/files/2016/08/doctrina43992.pdf
  101. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamcaribbean/2022/09/15/why-we-failed-to-approve-the-new-chilean-constitution/
  102. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1246748/public-opinion-abortion-chile/
  103. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360081706_Religiosity_abortion_stigma_and_the_mediating_effect_of_gender_attitudes_A_study_in_the_Chilean_population_Religiosidad_estigma_del_aborto_y_el_efecto_mediador_de_las_actitudes_de_genero_Un_estudio_en
  104. https://d-nb.info/1373678607/34
  105. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/19/chile-abortion-mother-rape-life-legalization
  106. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/21/545076995/with-court-s-ok-chile-relaxes-one-of-the-world-s-strictest-abortion-bans
  107. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/1/5/what-will-pineras-win-mean-for-chiles-abortion-law
  108. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chile-abortion-idUSKBN1A4212/
  109. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/8/21/chile-court-lifts-complete-ban-on-abortion
  110. https://lab.org.uk/chile-three-grounds-abortion-law-inadequate/
  111. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/chile-lawmakers-knock-down-bill-ease-abortion-rules-2021-11-30/
  112. https://www.dw.com/es/chile-c%25C3%25A1mara-de-diputados-rechaza-despenalizar-el-aborto/a-59983226
  113. https://www.latercera.com/politica/noticia/camara-de-diputados-rechaza-proyecto-de-despenalizacion-del-aborto-hasta-las-14-semanas-mocion-parlamentaria-es-archivada/AHKZKBFGUVAKFFUSGAYNMKY2VY/
  114. https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/despenalizaci%25C3%25B3n-del-aborto-en-chile-sufre-primer-tropiezo-en-el-congreso/46855266
  115. https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/01/11/criminalization-abortion-has-failed-its-time-end-it
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9669277/
  117. https://www.bcn.cl/obtienearchivo?id=repositorio/10221/37653/1/BCN__Interrupcion_voluntaria_embarazo_Chile__datos_y_encuestas__FINAL.pdf
  118. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-020-00484-4
  119. https://vergara240.udp.cl/casi-la-mitad-del-personal-apto-para-realizar-abortos-en-centros-de-salud-publicos-son-objetores-de-conciencia/
  120. https://www.elmostrador.cl/braga/2025/06/25/objecion-de-conciencia-alcanza-416-en-obstetras-por-violacion-y-dificulta-acceso-a-aborto-en-chile/
  121. https://www.latercera.com/la-tercera-sabado/noticia/aborto-47-de-los-obstetras-de-la-red-publica-es-objetor-de-conciencia-en-causal-de-violacion/TEA2CJCA3ZHZZP23MIN7VYGUQE/
  122. https://minmujeryeg.gob.cl/?p=54721
  123. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1007025/full
  124. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26410397.2019.1610280
  125. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/01/dangers-conscientious-objection-chiles-new-constitution-0
  126. https://interferencia.cl/articulos/aborto-burocracia-mas-que-conciencia-espanta-los-medicos
  127. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-28/chile-government-unveils-bill-that-would-fully-legalize-abortion
  128. https://www.gob.cl/en/news/what-does-the-bill-on-time-limited-abortion-say/
  129. https://www.diarioconstitucional.cl/2025/06/06/proyecto-de-ley-para-ampliar-acceso-al-aborto-hasta-las-14-semanas-inicio-su-tramitacion/
  130. https://quepasamedia.com/noticias/iglesia-chilena-se-opone-a-proyecto-de-aborto-legal-y-llama-a-legisladores-a-estudiar/
  131. https://www.omnesmag.com/en/news/abortion-euthanasia-chilean-politics/
  132. https://globalpost.com/2025/06/20/chilean-right-buoyed-by-rise-in-crime-scandals-on-left/
  133. https://ellibero.cl/columnas-de-opinion/aborto-libre-a-las-14-semanas/
  134. https://www.latercera.com/politica/noticia/primer-round-por-proyecto-de-aborto-presidente-de-la-camara-emplaza-a-boric-a-ponerle-discusion-inmediata/
  135. https://www.ft.com/content/315f7420-104a-40f5-ad2e-12520cb095ad
  136. https://www.ine.gob.cl/press-room/news/2025/03/28/the-first-results-of-the-2024-census-18-480-432-people-enumerated-in-chile-and-an-increasing-trend-in-population-aging
  137. https://www.iffsreproduction.org/how-chile-is-tackling-one-of-the-lowest-fertility-rates-in-the-world/
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272724000604
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10697910/
  140. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/03/nx-s1-5476032/chiles-plunging-birth-rate-may-foreshadow-future-in-u-s
  141. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/latin-americas-abortion-rights-spotlight-chile-debates-legalization-2025-06-05/
  142. https://www.statista.com/topics/5317/abortion-in-latin-america/
  143. https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons
  144. https://www.as-coa.org/articles/explainer-abortion-rights-latin-america
  145. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT?locations=CL-AR-UY-CO
  146. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abortion-latin-america-and-caribbean
  147. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/unintended-pregnancy-and-abortion-latin-america-and-caribbean.pdf
  148. https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/latin-americas-fertility-decline-is-accelerating-no-ones-sure-why/
  149. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/04/16/backward-step-reproductive-rights-chile
  150. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2015/09/committee-rights-child-examines-report-chile
  151. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/12/chile-must-guarantee-right-health-access-safe-abortion-and-strengthen-mental
  152. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036613
  153. https://www.iconnectblog.com/i-connect-symposium-the-chilean-constitutional-courts-abortion-decision-constitutional-constraints-on-abortion-regulation-chile-and-ireland/
  154. https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2013/09/abortion-restrictions-us-foreign-aid-history-and-harms-helms-amendment
  155. https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/roes-repeal-inspires-abortion-rollbacks-other-countries
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.