US Candidates Can Learn From “Uruguay Abortion Law” Debate
By Debbie Sharnak | 10/30/2012 | Elections 2012, Issues, Legislation, Movements, US Senate | 12 CommentsA central part of the 2012 election cycle has centered on debates about women— their role in the workplace and pay equality, the gender gap in voting patterns, and whether abortion should be legal.
In many ways, the debates over abortion appear to be anachronistic. It is 2012 and many politicians are arguing for completely reversing Roe v. Wade and criminalizing abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. Some of the justifications for this position seem bizarre and confounding for today’s day and age.
Todd Akin famously backed his viewpoint for criminalizing all abortion by making the argument that pregnancy rarely results from “legitimate rape.” More recently, Richard Mourdock explained that he opposes abortions with no exceptions because if a pregnancy results from rape, it is “something that God intended.”
The centrality of these arguments in the 2012 election must be placed in contrast to current debates in Uruguay, which just last week became the third nation in Latin America to decriminalize abortion.
Uruguay has always been progressive in its social policies dating back to the early twentieth century when Jose Batlle y Ordóñez assumed the presidency. During his two terms in office, Batlle instituted a series of bold social and political reforms which included legislation that created an urban minimum wage, social security, educational opportunities, labor rights, progressive taxation, and advances for women. As a result, Uruguay became known as the “Switzerland of Latin America” until the 1970s when a military regime stripped the nation of the reforms that set it apart from its regional neighbors.
In the past decade though, the country has been resuming its former mantel. Especially under its current president, José Mujica of the Frente Amplio, Uruguay has continued its experimental tradition in social policy to solve some of the nation’s most pressing problems. Particularly, Mujica has moved to legalize marijuana under a state monopoly to minimize the damage of illegal drugs in the nation. Uruguay has also moved to decriminalize abortion, which came to a head last week in the Senate, and Mujica has indicated he will sign the bill.
Most importantly and most starkly in contrast to the US, however, the debate surrounding the Uruguay abortion law has generally been held at an incredibly high level. The bill barely passed the Senate in Uruguay with the slimmest of margins, 17-14, but instead of platitudes, the discourse has centered on the role of legalizing abortion to stop high-risk terminations versus whether there are ways that the law could encourage adoption instead.
As a result, the Uruguay abortion law ended in a compromise, which left neither side in the debate completely thrilled, but also without any extreme outcomes. The bill decriminalized abortion (rather than fully legalizing it) in the first fourteen weeks of pregnancy– a semantic difference, but a compromise nonetheless. In addition, the bill still requires women to explain their desire to have an abortion with a gynecologist, social worker, and mental health professional, and to wait five days after meeting with the panel before the abortion can be performed.
Despite these significant barriers, the law is still a major step forward for Uruguayan women. Also important, however, is the level of discourse at which this debate took place. American voters and candidates can learn something from Uruguay.






Leave Your Comment →
12 Comments
Lucas Eaves
10.30.2012
@lucaseaves
I was reading this morning how in Northern Texas, there is one abortion clinic and the doctor who performs the abortions, lives in another state, come by plane , hide in the back of a car when getting to the and have his identity highly protected . What kind of situation is that? Are we really in the supposedly greatest country in the world? I am happy to see that other country, where this issue remain highly controversial are able to have a true discussion about it.
Blaz Gutierrez
10.30.2012
@blazgutierrez
The downside of the compromise is still worrying. A lot can happen in 5 days. It’s also disconcerting that the bill seems to give so much power to doctors. What’ makes for a valid explanation for example? Still much to be desired, but at least the level of discourse wasn’t focused on radical positions.
W. E. Messamore
10.30.2012
@W__E__Messamore
Sorry to digress, but President José Mujica– coolest looking head of state ever. Just seems so grandfatherly and kind.
Alex Gauthier
10.30.2012
@alexg
it looks like he’s having story time infront of a roaring fire in his mansion bungalow
Gus
10.30.2012
“it looks like he’s having story time infront of a roaring fire” That could be. But in his “mansion bungalow” that it’s impossible, the man doesn’t have a house of his own, he lives in a poor little house in the countryside belonging to his wife, planting potatos and flowers in his own time. He doesn’t have a bank account and his only asset is a VW Beattle of the 70s.
Roger Winkler
10.31.2012
Nothing central about it. The diversion was jaded and insincere from those with little left to talk about when the economy and foreign policy aren’t working in their favor.
Karen Weil
10.31.2012
And that applies to both major political parties.
Jacqueline Francisco
10.31.2012
I believe in abortion only for cases of rape, especially for young girls and teenagers (but something I wouldn’t personally do) or harm to the mother’s life. Mistakes don’t need to be aborted. Gendercide is killing our baby girls and boys too. I’m independent. A relative of mine had 6 abortions before having her daughter and son, and then had an abortion afterward. I think she was irresponsible and took advantage of the system. I dont look up to her as a role model, only someone who could of had 9 children. Birth control is necessary but it’s scary to think about side effects. Speaking for myself, its important to teach young boys and girls proper sex education, and be okay with the fact that it’s what we do naturally but be prepared for the miraculous consequence that may happen. You don’t have to agree, just felt like expressing my view.
Sheril Carey
10.31.2012
That was pretty poor. Naturally the author being in favor of more infanticide would focus on the worst possible arguments against it. But the article had zero credibility as a result. Very sad.
If a person believes it is the taking of a life unless that life resulted from a crime then there is an issue of logic and ethics that is worth addressing. And for all the young girls who have been convinced to take a life in order to put themselves first, have murdered and then had the strongest evidence of who raped them thrown away and gone on to suffer repeat crimes, my heart weeps. And yes this does happen. Incest may be taboo to speak of accept under the false flag of the sympathy that encourages murder, but it is a real problem that needs to be faced, not just brushed up against momentarily while pushing political agendas. And for those who truly view themselves or their society as “enlightened” I would think they might find it worthwhile to do away with such fallacies and really help people heal, and be protected from future incidents through real solutions rather than what we have now with this sad “using” of tragedy to do more harm.
Beth Weathers
10.31.2012
I’m sure the judges here consider themselves Christians and it’s really sad!
Every one has to face God for their own decisions, not you!
James Treu
10.31.2012
Where this was passed, and in a heavily Catholilc country, is interesting.
Debatepopular
05.09.2013
@debatepopular
The truth that a great example in the region but lack progress in other areas.