Outcry Against Far-Right Bill Requiring Fetal Heartbeat Listening Before Abortions

Original article: “Cruel y revictimizante”: críticas transversales a proyecto de ultraderecha que busca obligar a oír latidos del feto antes de abortar

The «Listen to Their Heart» bill, championed by far-right parliamentarians, has sparked widespread condemnation and criticism from various political groups, feminist organizations, and health experts. The proposal mandates that doctors offer women the chance to hear the heartbeat of the embryo or fetus prior to performing an abortion under the three legal grounds, and specifies that if the patient declines this condition, the medical professional must refuse to carry out the procedure. Organizations like Miles Chile have labeled the measure as «cruel and revictimizing,» while obstetric experts warn that it constitutes a form of obstetric violence, exacerbating the suffering of women already in critical situations.

The initiative amends Article 119 of the Health Code, specifically addressing the informed consent procedure that physicians must follow before conducting an abortion. It stipulates that the doctor is required to inform the woman, in advance and truthfully, about the cardiac activity of the embryo or fetus, and must offer «verbally and directly» the option to listen to the heartbeat using electronic instruments, along with an objective description of it.

According to the text put forward by deputies Cristóbal Urruticoechea (National Libertarian Party), Chiara Barchiesi (Republican Party), Catalina Del Real (Republican Party), Álvaro Jofré (National Libertarian Party), Ximena Ossandón (National Renewal), and Claudia Reyes (Republican Party), the existence of cardiac activity is considered «an objective and verifiable clinical fact» that, according to the project’s justification, «strengthens the quality of the informed consent of the woman seeking the abortion.»

However, the most controversial point establishes that if the woman declines to hear the heartbeat, the doctor must still refuse to perform the pregnancy termination, transforming what appears to be an option into a mandatory condition.

Bill Described as «Cruel, Revictimizing, and Against Any Logic of Autonomy and Dignity»

The organization Miles Chile was among the first to raise concerns about this initiative. Its executive director, Javiera Canales, emphasized that the three legal grounds for abortion in Chile already involve extreme vulnerability: risks to the mother’s life, fetal inviability, or pregnancies resulting from rape. «Now they want to add an additional step,» she stated, condemning the measure as a practice that attacks women’s autonomy and dignity.

Canales strongly asserted that «it is cruel, revictimizing, and contrary to any logic of autonomy and dignity,» as reported by Diario Usach.

Former Minister Orellana Denounces «Legislative Cruelty»

The former Minister of Women, Antonia Orellana, also expressed her opinion through a letter to the editor published in La Tercera, entitled «Legislative Cruelty», in which she harshly questioned the appropriateness of the bill and its impact on women facing complex medical decisions.

«Deputy Urruticoechea has presented a bill that pretends to require those attending to women and girls in the grounds for terminating pregnancies due to rape, inviability, or vital risk to propose they listen to the embryo’s heartbeat,» she stated.

«Is it really necessary to do that to someone who knows that the product of their pregnancy will not survive?» the former official questioned, adding that the measure is particularly inhumane in cases of vital risk where the procedure needs to be performed urgently.

The former minister went further by stating that «it is surprising that women would come forward with their signature in support of that action,» referring to the parliamentary support for the initiative from Barchiesi, Del Real, Ossandón, and Reyes.

Orellana concluded that the project, rather than being against abortion, «is against the very essence of humanity,» placing the discussion in an ethical context.

«It Is a Form of Obstetric Violence»

Marcelo Ahumada, a midwife, ultrasonographer, and head of the Obstetrics and Childcare School at the University of Santiago, provided a technical perspective that dismantles the alleged medical necessity of the project. «It is not necessary under any circumstances, for this evaluation, to listen to the heartbeat,» the professional asserted, explaining that there are multiple methods to assess fetal viability without resorting to the sound of the heart.

Ahumada criticized the initiative as «an aberrant and unnecessary measure,» particularly because it would apply in scenarios where women already know that the pregnancy will not come to term.

«Offering or forcing them to listen to the fetus’s heartbeat, especially in these three cases where individuals are already in a specific state where they know an abortion will take place or that the pregnancy will not reach its conclusion, is not only unnecessary but is an aberrant measure that only aggravates the clinical situation they are in,» the specialist emphasized in statements to Diario Usach.

From a medical perspective, the ultrasonographer firmly stated that «it is clearly a form of obstetric violence.» Additionally, he reminded that the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology explicitly states not to listen to the embryo’s heartbeat before 11 weeks of gestation, which adds a technical questioning to the far-right legislative proposal.

Featured image: Credit Jonnathan Oyarzun /Aton Chile.