The absence of clear legal safeguards and rights-based autonomy over reproductive decisions in a cisgender-heteronormative culture of India is hugely responsible for the psychological and emotional pain borne

The loss of bodily autonomy for women is painfully dichotomous in that, although it is externally imposed, it supersedes the threshold of physical assault by denying a person their fundamental rights. In this context, rights tied to their body’s biological responses are overruled by societal propaganda and cultural norms, not personal choice (Tarzia et al., 2020).

This article aims to critically supplement literature that pointedly identifies and argues the ultimate perpetuation of systematic oppression via heteronormative roles and existing stringent penal provisions governing coerced abortions of women and other marginalized communities. This forms the terminal wing of a substantially larger malpractice called ‘reproductive coercion’ (Grace & Anderson, 2016).

Complex Realities

The institution of abortion, in itself, is not to be trivialized as inherently right or wrong. But it does become the focal point for the inception of this argument. This is focused on the topic of free reproductive autonomy viewed through the lens of societal and legal exaction, not just personal affliction.

Prior research conducted by Reardon and his colleagues suggested the co-existence of negative and positive feelings surrounding the topic of abortion and the underlying lack of ‘freedom of choice’ in the majority of abortions experienced by women. To consolidate the validity of this argument, 70% of the female population who had a history with abortion were considered, of which a section (two-thirds, or 43% of the initial 70%,) agreed that their experiences were against their commiseration (in terms of their individual values), and the other (24%) succumbed to coercion (Reardon et al., 2023).

Matters of women’s health are almost entirely and conveniently redacted from conversation around male partners’ intentionality in behaviors controlling reproductive choices, which have been mentioned largely in gender-based violence literature without using explicit labels (Moulton et al., 2021). This is consistent with the findings of several studies that prominently indicate that three-fifths of women’s reasons to abort are a lack of support and financial security (Reardon et al., 2023).

Patriarchy, Intersectionality, and Structural Inequalities

Coercion is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women, especially in the Indian society structure, where women are historically coerced into taking a submissive stance and deprived of their autonomous rights, particularly those poorly recognized and portrayed such as that of reproductive autonomy (Tarzia & McKenzie, 2024).

Such structural inequalities are further reinforced by ‘Intersectionality theory’ which divulges the emphasis of patriarchal control and heteronormative norms of behavior on women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights (SHRHs) (Wood, 2020). However, patriarchy does not operate in isolation, and this interconnected system of marginalization of their identities—class, sexuality, and race-allows women to experience privilege and oppression simultaneously. This relatively “new” but effective phenomenon of pregnancy-preventing behaviors is still under deliberation to be explicitly considered a form of reproductive coercion and abuse (RCA) (Tarzia & McKenzie, 2024).

There is a clear correspondence between RCA and intimate partner violence (IPV), varying in its intensity ranging from 8 to 30%, prevalent in different interpersonal samples and settings (Tarzia & Hegarty, 2021). Hence, cohorts of females within which IPV was observed. These distinguished individuals were reported to bear the brunt of forced sexual intercourse and compromised decision-making in regard to “stealthing” (non-consensual condom removal) (Miller et al., 2010; Tarzia et al., 2020).

Legal Barriers and Systematic Oppression

Structural unfairness in the lack of access to abortion services and safeguarding policies has purposefully contributed to the significant increment of RCA activities (Tarzia & Hegarty, 2021). Usually undertaken in the fear of non-compliance consequences and loss of control via their right to make decisions regarding their reproductive conduct; a certain group of women experienced RCA behaviors once they were already pregnant and their perpetrator’s (partners’) motivation was solely self-interest (Tarzia & McKenzie, 2024). This is bolstered by government antics of approving policies that indirectly lead to the expungement of healthcare resources for a substantial section of women.

“When state policies make contraception and abortion care inaccessible to some people, they are, in effect, replicating reproductive coercion on a structural level” (Dejoy, n.d.).

The legalities of getting an abortion in India habitually follow the cisgender-heteronormative structure of a patriarchal society, where abortion services are normalized as “criminal” (Jain, 2024).

Section 312-318 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), a gender-neutral law to protect children from sexual abuse, and The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PCPNDT), which prohibits disclosing the sex of the fetus before or after conception, are all laws illustrating the “chilling effect” on women wanting to terminate their pregnancies and healthcare providers alike (Jain, 2024).

Due to the fear of no legal recourse, both parties are deterred from addressing structural barriers between the provision of protection and access, the negligence of which is truly the underlying feminist dilemma. This dilemma is posed through the inextricable consequences of outdated laws which only promote the continuation of violent behaviors towards the milieu of pregnant women and intimidation of healthcare staff (Jain, 2024).

Recent investigation regarding the removal of Section 313 from the IPC, that penalises forced miscarriage without consent, birthed a collective uproar of concern from women, leaving them without any avenues to seek justice within the Indian criminal judiciary system. This boils down to the perpetuation of systematic oppression when abortion is not “decriminalised” and the use of carceral approaches for penalisation are implemented.

Even presently, abortions are authorised as “legalised procedure” under conditional circumstances through the enactment of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971 (MTP), amended in 2021, which lengthened the legal time period within which an abortion was permissible (Jain, 2024). However, regardless of these amendments, there is still a dearth of a rights-based legislation granting pregnant persons complete reproductive decision autonomy, making them severely vulnerable to external coercion.

Need for Rights-Based Reform

The absence of clear legal safeguards and rights-based autonomy over reproductive decisions in a cisgender-heteronormative culture of India, where women’s bodies are regarded as communal property, is hugely responsible for the psychological and emotional pain borne.

Inevitably, they succumb to higher patriarchal structures and, eventually, restrictive laws that exacerbate their sense of societal devaluation and snowball into a widespread pattern of coerced abortions. For women to have power over systemic barriers, be able to access unlimited reproductive health services, determine their own autonomy, and feel backed by the law, equitability is elemental. The generational trend of entrapment in coercion must be broken.

Authors:  Maanya Gupta, Undergraduate Student, FLAME University & Prof. Moitrayee Das, Faculty of Psychology, FLAME University.