“How many times do Poland’s women have “The woman has the right to choose, and the state

to take to the streets before the government
and the political court finally realise that this
is not what women want? It is our body - it
must be our choice!” Evelyn Regner,
Women's Rights and Gender Equality
Committee chair
helps the woman regardless of this choice. The
Church teaches religion, and the citizen has the
right not to listen to it. The state is not a weapon
of religion” Magdalena Adamowicz, EPP

“For years, women in Poland have been going through hell when it comes to legal abortion … I
would like to live in the time when Polish women have the same rights as other European
women” Robert Biedroń, S&D
 INDEX
1.HYPOTHESIS
2.INTRODUCTION
3.GOVERNMENT LAWS AND POLICIES
4.UNDERMINING WOMEN’S LAWS AND POLICIES
5.MEDICAL CONSERVATISM
6.POLISH CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL 2020.
7.CASE STUDY -1
8.CASE STUDY -2
9.CRITICAL ANALYSIS
 HYPOTHESIS
On 7 January 1993, the Polish parliament passed the Law on Family Planning forbidding
abortion, except if (1) the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's life, (2) it is the result of a
crime, or (3) there is a foetal impairment. In 1997, the Constitutional Tribunal headed by
Andrzej Zoll ruled abortion on social grounds unconstitutional.
During the mid-2010s, about 80,000–200,000 Polish women carried out abortions
(whether legal or illegal) per year according to the Federation for Women and Family
Planning [pl], or 8,000–13,000 according to the Polish Association of Defenders of Human
Life. In the 2010s, about a quarter of all Polish women had terminated a pregnancy,
according to Public Opinion Research Center in 2013, and Federation for Women and Family
Planning in 2016. Abortion rates around the world ranged from about 10 to 40 per year per
1000 women aged 15–44 in the 2000s, "in all regions of the world, regardless of the status
of abortion laws", according to Sedgh, Singh, Henshaw and Bankole in The Lancet. The
number of legal abortions in Poland was about 1,000 legal abortions per year in the 2010s.
Because the Lower House elects constitutional judges, since the United Right took power in
Poland in 2015, PiS' domination has expanded onto the judicial branch. This domination led
to the 2015 Polish Constitutional Court crisis. The status of the tribunal continues to be
disputed in February 2020 by some of its former judges and presidents.
In 2016, a citizen initiative was launched by anti-abortion movements such as Stop Aborcji
[Stop Abortion] to tighten restrictions on abortions. It collected 830,000 signatures, forcing
the Polish Parliament to discuss it.
As the bill advanced further in parliamentary discussions, the All-Poland Women's Strike
launched a protest movement branded "Black Protest" that attracted international coverage.
After a few days, the PiS government let the bill die in committee.
The anti-abortion groups then started to oppose the constitutionality of the existing abortion
law.[47] Following the 2019 election, 119 members of the newly elected Sejm, coming from the
PiS, Confederation, and Polish Coalition parliamentary groups, submitted a referral[48] to the
Constitutional Tribunal on whether or not abortions of pregnancies unrelated to rape or not
threatening the mother's life, which they call "eugenic", are constitutional. In July 2018, a wave
of nonviolent demonstrations for 3 weeks against an abortion ban started and led to the
withdrawal of the bill. In December 2019, a muzzle law was created and sparked popular and
widespread street protests for 2–3 weeks until it was withdrawn.

The signatories argued that this provision violates Constitutional protections of human dignity
(Article 30), the right to life (Article 39) or the prohibition against discrimination (Article 32).[47]
During the year, the Constitutional Tribunal heard or received arguments and legal interventions
on the question, one of which the European branch of the American Center for Law and Justice
planned to submit.[47]

By 2020, fourteen of the Constitutional Tribunal's fifteen judges had been appointed by the Sejm
since the 2015 return of Law and Justice to power. Its domination over all branches of power has
created a political crisis that has led the European Commission to refer Poland to the European
Court of Justice.
 THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE BLOCKED
ROADS ACROSS POLAND ON THE FIFTH
CONSECUTIVE DAY OF PROTESTS AGAINST A
COURT'S NEAR-TOTAL BAN ON ABORTION.

A WOMAN TAKES PART IN AN ANTI-

GOVERNMENT, PRO-ABORTION
RIGHTS PROTEST IN WARSAW
 INTRODUCTION
On October 3, 2016, thousands of demonstrators filled streets across Poland to protest the
ruling Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) party’s attempt to enact a complete
abortion ban. #CzarnyProtest (Black Protest) and #StrajkKobiet (Women’s Strike) became
rallying cries for women’s reproductive freedom at marches broadcast worldwide. When
parliament rejected the ban on October 6, it felt like a triumph for women’s rights and
popular protestMore than two years later, women’s rights activists and organizations in Poland
remainunder attack. Since coming to power in 2015, the PiS government has targeted women’s
rights groups through raids and denial of funding, often with little warning and no clear
rationale. PiS leaders, politicians, and church-backed groups have publicly smeared
women’s rights organizations, mischaracterizing their work as dangerous to families and
traditional values
High-level PiS leaders and civil servants have championed retrogressive laws and policies, sought
to reinforce traditional gender roles, disparaged feminism, and publicly discouraged efforts to
combat violence against women. Polish women have long faced highly restrictive abortion laws,
limited access to sexual and reproductive health information and care, inadequate services and
support in the face of violence, and perpetuation of traditional and prescribed gender roles The
government’s open disdain of women’s rights and failure to counter misinformation campaigns
fosters a climate of fear for women human rights defenders.
Activists said it also deters women and girls from seeking help, including survivors of violence.
Sexual and reproductive health education and information and specialized services for women
and girl survivors of violence remain woefully inadequate in Poland, and well below
international and regional standards
Against a backdrop of historic reluctance to grant women and girls full reproductive rights, and
one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, the PiS government has worked to further
curb reproductive freedom, including through retrogressive action on emergency contraception
and support of bills that would virtually ban abortion. The government has also blocked
provision of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the leader of the governing Law and Women marching in Poznan on Friday. Poland
Justice Party, said in 2016 that it was his goal to “strive to currently allows abortion solely in cases of
make cases of even very difficult pregnancies, when the rape and irreparable damage to the fetus.
child is doomed to die because it is severely deformed,
finish with birth, so that the child can be baptized, buried,
given a name.”
 GOVERNMENT LAWS AND POLICIES
Against a backdrop of historic reluctance to grant women full reproductive rights and one
of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, PiS has worked to further curb reproductive
freedom, including through bills that would ban abortion.56 The government has also failed
to ensure comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education in schoolsThe government
has also failed to ensure comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education in schools.
The Act on Family Planning, the Protection of the Human Fetus, and the Conditions of
Admissibility of Abortion of 1993 (1993 Family Planning Act) permits abortion only in cases of
severe anomaly that threatens the fetus’s life, threat to the life or health of the pregnant
woman, or pregnancy as a result of illegal acts such as rape or incest. In the first two instances, a
physician other than the one to perform the abortion must certify the circumstances unless
the pregnancy “entails a direct threat” to the life of the woman.58 In cases of rape or incest
abortion is only legal until the twelfth week of pregnancy and a public prosecutor must
confirm the circumstances of the pregnancy. The law criminalizes anyone assisting to
procure or perform an abortion outside the designated circumstances, with a penalty of up
to three years’ imprisonment, or up to eight years if the fetus’s gestational age is deemed
to be past a vaguely defined point of viability. The 1993 Family Planning Act states that
life is protected from conception, and required an amendment to the Civil Code specifying
that “a conceived child” shall have legal capacity; this amendment was adopted, then
repealed under an August 1996 act.A 1997 Constitutional Tribunal judgment interprets
Poland’s constitution as protecting life from conception.62 The law establishing the
ombudsman for children also defines a child as “every person from the moment of
conception.
For women with disabilities, the Family Planning Act of 1993 provides that those deprived
of full legal capacity and under guardianship require the consent of their guardians—in
addition to their own—to obtain an abortion. If a woman under guardianship is deemed by
a court to be “unable to consent because of her mental state,” she can be given an
abortion on the basis of her guardian’s consent alone
Approximately 1,000 legal abortions are performed in Poland annually.65 In 2011, a man
pleaded guilty in Poland to urging his girlfriend to have an abortion and, due to his guilty
plea and lack of criminal record, received a suspended six-month prison sentence.66 In
May 2018, a judge issued a mother a suspended sentence of one year’s imprisonment, to be
served on probation, after she pleaded guilty to procuring a medical abortion for her 16-
year-old daughter
‘This judgment is the result of a
coordinated, systematic wave of
attacks on women’s human
rights by Polish lawmakers’ -
Esther Major
UNDERMINING WOMEN’S RIGHTS IN LAW AND POLICY

Since coming to power in October 2015, Poland’s ruling conservative Law and Justice party
(Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) has taken repeated steps to consolidate power and
undermine human rights. Alongside measures to hamper independence of the judiciary,
efforts to limit media freedom, and the adoption of overbroad counterterrorism laws, the
government has introduced legal and policy measures to target and stifle civil society.1
These measures include curtailing the right to freedom of assembly, restricting freedom of
expression, and centralizing funding of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).2 In
December 2017, the European Commission triggered Article 7 of the European Union treaty
over the risk of breach to the rule of law and EU values in Poland, following the adoption of
13 laws that undermined the country’s entire judiciary
Within this shrinking space for activists and NGOs, some groups—and the rights they
promote—are under concerted attack.4 Since PiS gained power, the government has
targeted women’s rights activists and organizations through raids, denial of funding, and
disciplinary action against public employees. High-level PiS leaders and politicians have
taken no action to counter smear campaigns vilifying women’s rights groups and activists
 MEDICAL CONSERVATISM

Even in circumstances where abortion is legal it remains largely unavailable. Lack of

guidance on legal circumstances for abortion, combined with threat of prosecution, limits
doctors’ willingness to provide it.68 Under Poland’s Act of 5 December 1996, on the
professions of doctor and dentist (Doctor and Dentist Professions Act), medical
professionals can invoke a “conscience clause,” or so-called conscientious objection,
refusing to perform abortion on grounds that it conflicts with personal values or beliefs.69
Broad use of the conscience clause often renders abortion inaccessible, especially in rural
areas or for those unable to travel abroad to procure an abortion.70 In a written response
to
a request for information from Human Rights Watch, the Ministry of Health states that
“doctors’ use of the so-called ‘conscience clause’ is regulated in a manner that ensures,
on the one hand, the doctors’ right to refrain from performing a service inconsistent with
his or her conscience and, on the other hand, enables patients to obtain the service to
which they are entitled.”
The ministry points to regulations on services guaranteed in
hospitals, including access to abortion, and the requirement that doctors inform the
medical facility of any refusal to perform a procedure because of the conscience clause.72
However, in October 2015 a Polish Constitutional Tribunal’s decision further diminished
abortion access by eliminating the obligation of health providers, should they invoke the
conscience clause, to refer women elsewhere for safe abortion care.73 Reproductive rights
activists said the judgment has reinforced doctors’ unwillingness to refer women
POLISH CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL ABORTION JUDGMENT
On 22 October 2020 the Polish Constitutional Tribunal declared one of the three exceptions
allowing legal abortion unconstitutional. Abortion where prenatal tests indicate a high
probability of severe and irreversible impairment of the foetus or an incurable life-threatening
disease is thus no longer allowed. Consequently, abortion is now only available in two instances:
where the pregnancy poses a threat to the life or health of a woman or when the pregnancy
resulted from a prohibited act such as rape or incest.
Furthermore, the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal potentially creates other inconsistency
in the current legal regulations. Where the termination of pregnancy due to irreversible
impairment of a foetus is considered contrary to the Constitution and unacceptable because it is
prejudicial to the absolutely protected life of a foetus, there is no logical justification for leaving
the remaining two reasons for termination of pregnancy.
This would for example lead to questions of whether a foetus conceived as a result of a
prohibited act deserves less protection than an irreversibly handicapped foetus? If the absolute
protection of the life of a foetus is the overriding consideration, it would mean that termination
of pregnancy resulting from a prohibited act should also be considered contrary to the Polish
Constitution. The judgment is concerning, and it seems to have paved the way for banning and
penalising abortion in the remaining two circumstances.
However, this is not the only problem and certainly not the end of controversies caused by the
decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal. The Polish government decided that it is best to
delay the publication of the judgment until the tension and public unrest caused by the decision
quiet down, despite recognising that the ruling would already be in force. This delay is causing
confusion and uncertainty as to what the abortion law is at present.
Nonetheless, the lack of official publication of the text of the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment,
contributes to increased chaos and legal uncertainty when it comes to abortion laws. It may be
assumed that the reason behind the delay is to ensure an appropriate majority support in the
lower house of the Parliament for an amendment introduced by the President of Poland,
Andrzej Duda, or for some other new law. However, it is doubtful whether this will lead to fewer
tensions.
CASE STUDY-1
ALICJA TYSIĄC VS POLAND
Alicja Tysiąc, a Polish woman, was suffering from severe myopia. Pregnant for the third time,
she consulted three ophthalmologists who concluded that carrying the pregnancy to term
constituted a serious risk to her eyesight. While they all refused to issue a referral for abortion,
which is required under Polish law, a general practitioner finally provided Ms.Tysiąc with such a
document. However, the head of gynecology and obstetrics department of a clinic in Warsaw
declined to terminate the pregnancy stating that there were no medical grounds for a therapeutic
abortion. No procedures were available to review the doctor’s decision and to provide Ms. Tysiąc
with a timely abortion.3 Ms. Tysiąc had no option but to carry her pregnancy to term. After the
delivery her eyesight seriously deteriorated, qualifying her as a significantly disabled person
under Poland’s social welfare system.
Failing to obtain redress in Poland against the doctors, Ms. Tysiąc subsequently filed a case at the
European Court of Human Rights alleging the following violations of the European Convention
on Human Rights:
• The State’s failure to provide her with a legal therapeutic abortion and to adopt a legal
framework that would resolve disputes between a pregnant woman and her doctors on the
need to terminate pregnancy amounted to a violation of her right to respect for her private life
(Art.8)
• Violation of her right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment (Art.3).
• Violated her right to effective domestic remedies (Art.13)
• Violated her right to be free from discrimination on the ground of disability in the enjoyment
of her right to private life (Art.14 + Art.8)
 Judgment

By 6 votes to 1, the court held that there was a violation of Article 8 ECHR (right
to private life), as "it is not the Court's task in the present case to examine
whether the Convention guarantees a right to have an abortion" and "it has not
been demonstrated that Polish law as applied to the applicant's case contained
any effective mechanisms capable of determining whether the conditions for
obtaining a lawful abortion had been met in her case.... the provisions of the
civil law on tort as applied by the Polish courts did not afford the applicant a
procedural instrument by which she could have vindicated her right to respect
for her private life.  The civil law remedy was solely of a retroactive and
compensatory character. It could only, and if the applicant had been successful,
have resulted in the courts granting damages to cover the irreparable damage
to her health which had come to light after the delivery.... Crucially, the
examination of the circumstances of the case in the context of criminal
investigations could not have prevented the damage to the applicant's health
from arising. The same applies to disciplinary proceedings before the organs of
the Chamber of Physicians."  
 QUESTIONNAIRE
1.Are you satisfied with the judgment? If not, why?
Ans.- NO I am not satisfied with the judgment for money cannot
compensate the life long severe short-sightedness that she has to
suffer.
2. How is the abortion law affecting the population?
Ans.- The stricter the laws, people would, I think be more cautious and
somewhat reluctant too, as there is “ no going back” kind of situation.
3. What should be the alternative of this law according to you?
Ans.- This violates the basic rights of women, that is the right to
control over her body. The reason of right to life of an unborn is not
very righteous for justifying their move.
4. Do you think that this law is being overly politicized than benefitting
the masses?
Ans.- The law is no where benefitting the masses whereas it is just
curbing their rights. Yes it is being politicized.
*Person Interviewed- Renu Pal ( Teacher)*
Case study-2
P. and S. v. Poland
P. and S. v. Poland is a decision by the European Court of Human Rights in which the court ruled that the
state of Poland had improperly hindered a 14-year-old girl in Lublin, P., from her right to an abortion. The
other plaintiff in the case was S., her mother, born in 1974.
P. had become pregnant in 2008. Polish law allows abortion if the pregnancy is the consequence of a criminal
act.[2] In accordance with the law, on 20 May 2008, P. received a certificate from the public prosecutor
attesting that she could get an abortion because she was fourteen, and sexual intercourse with minors below
the age of fifteen is a crime.[3][4] P. and S. went to two hospitals in Lublin to have an abortion performed, but
the hospitals refused.[5] A gynecologist at one of the hospitals brought her to see a Roman Catholic priest
without asking her permission, and the priest urged her not to have an abortion. Following an argument with
S., the gynecologist refused to perform the abortion. [1] Hospital officials issued a press release about the case,
following which P.'s situation was nationally debated. [6][5] After her case became publicly known, P. was
harassed by anti-abortion activists
P. and S. then went to a hospital in Warsaw. Doctors there expressed reluctance to perform the procedure,
stating that they were under pressure not to do so. [5] P. and S. were then taken in for police questioning, and S.
accused of attempting to force P. to have an abortion. P. was then placed in a juvenile shelter, and authorities
began proceedings to take custody of the girl away from S. After a complaint by S. to the Ministry of Health,
P. was allowed to have an abortion in Gdańsk

JUDGMENT
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Poland had violated Article 3 of the 
European Convention on Human Rights, the "prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment".[6].
 The court stated that P.'s difficulties increased due to "the lack of a clear legal
framework, procrastination of medical staff and also as result of harassment". The
decision went on to note that “the court was particularly struck that the
authorities started criminal proceedings for illicit sexual relations against the
adolescent who, according to the prosecutor and medical reports, should have
been considered the victim of sexual abuse". Poland was ordered to pay €15,000
to P. and €30,000 to S., and €16,000 to each for court costs
 QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What is your stand on this case?

Ans.- I am totally disagree with the judgment. The European Union
should have insured more staunch methods so that total abolition of
the law happened.
2. Why do you think the mother mentioned above didn’t report earlier ?
Ans.- I feel the prime reason being the fear of the going through the
difficult procedure in the government department and secondly the fear
of the judgment of the society as many members of Catholic church
supported the Anti-abortion law.
3. What should be the relief given to the victims of this law?
Ans. - Firstly, there can be only one alternative that is to abolish it.
Secondly, Constitutional Tribunal should be impartial.
4. What is your stand about the “black protest”?
Ans.- Black protest is a revolution for women’s rights which is always
taken for granted. In Poland this movement has attained international
attention and is gradually excelling.
*person interviewed - Shantesh Pal( B.A. students)*
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS
According to experts, with the court verdict, Poland has “effectively slammed the door shut” on legal abortion for
women in the country. It is estimated that currently 98% of legal abortions in the country are performed on the
grounds of severe and irreversible impairment of the fetus.
Poland has decided to sacrifice women’s human right to safe and legal health services for termination of
pregnancy, on account of protection of the right to life of the unborn, in violation of its international human rights
obligations.
The ruling will have devastating consequences for women and adolescent girls in need of such terminations,
especially those who are socio-economically disadvantaged and migrant women who are undocumented, who do
not have the means to go abroad for abortion services.
Before the ruling, Poland had already one of Europe’s most restrictive abortion laws, made even more restrictive
in practice with serious barriers and stigma, according to the right experts. Termination of pregnancy was
permitted in three circumstances only: risk to the life or health of the pregnant women; severe and irreversible
impairment of fetus; or pregnancy as a result of prohibited act.
International human rights mechanism recognize women’s right to access safe and legal abortion as necessary for
the protection of women’s dignity and equality and implicit in the right of equality, right to private life, right to
be free from inhuman treatment and the right to the highest attainable standards, they said, adding that the
decision of the Constitution Court “clearly goes against these standards”.
It cannot be justified by invoking the protection of right to life, as the right of life and all other human rights
under international human rights laws accorded to those who have been born.
The “instrumentalization” and “politicization” of women’s bodies and health leads to discrimination against
them, particularly in relation to their right to access health services and the resulting preventable ill health,
including maternal morality and morbidity