Talk:Abortion in Poland

"a substitute topic"?

These same circles of society named the abortion debate a substitute topic (pol. temat zastępczy).

What does this actually mean? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This means that abortion isn't really a very important question and that there are more urgent themes which should be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.220.191 (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion in Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bbc.news.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm#poland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830060806/http://www.rfsu.se/sv/Sex-och-politik/Fokus-SRHR/Ratten-till-abort/Polenaffaren/ to http://www.rfsu.se/sv/Sex-och-politik/Fokus-SRHR/Ratten-till-abort/Polenaffaren/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

#czarnyprotest

Currently, it could be said that the article is mildly NPOV as it leaves the impression as if the conservative turn in Polish society would have been unopposed. In that context, the Black Protest on Oct 3, 2016, clearly deserves a mention. Also, as the question is very much politicized and even the opposition is not united on it, the varying attitudes of different political parties and movements should be mentioned. Additionally, the section on "public opinion" should mention that not everyone agrees on the trustworthiness of CBOS polls (e.g., see CBOS). --Oop (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Oop: Agreed. I had a bit of time and added some information from the top sources I could find. Please do adjust the "public opinion" section as you see fit. I'd like to get back to that soon and will hopefully get a chance, especially since the viewership of this article has gone up significantly this week. Thanks! Jami430 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes

The article gives too much relevance to the protests of 30,000 people (at most) in a country of almost 40 million people. Also, as far as I know, most MPs in the government party were against the proposed bill before the protests because it included penalties to women aborting (a provisional proposal to be debated). So, it can't be assumed that the protests were the cause of the bill rejection. Also, something should be said about the George Soros massive funding to the "black protesters". And referring to abortion as "reproductive rights" is an expression used by abortion activists and isn't neutral. --37.133.216.10 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Same answer than at Talk:Reproductive rights#Multiple issues. —PaleoNeonate – 08:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

LifeSite News is hardly a NPOV source. 108.210.5.163 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(un)constitutionality

The article mentions the recent ruling of the Polish supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Polish abortion laws. But it doesn't explain the reasoning of the court and what was the legal basis in the Constitution to consider this law to be unconstitutional. I didn't find it in the article's sources and I don't speak Polish. Is there a source in English on this point to add this information in the article? A455bcd9 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Found the answer to my question :) I used Google translate on the communiqué of the Tribunal : "The Constitutional Tribunal ruled that Art. 4a sec. 1 point 2 of the Act of 7 January 1993 on family planning, protection of the human fetus and conditions for the admissibility of termination of pregnancy is inconsistent with Art. 38 in connection with Art. 30 in connection with Art. 31 sec. 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland." ("Trybunał Konstytucyjny orzekł, że art. 4a ust. 1 pkt 2 ustawy z dnia 7 stycznia 1993 r. o planowaniu rodziny, ochronie płodu ludzkiego i warunkach dopuszczalności przerywania ciąży jest niezgodny z art. 38 w związku z art. 30 w związku z art. 31 ust. 3 Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.") I found this English version of the Constitution:

Article 38: "The Republic of Poland shall ensure the legal protection of the life of every human being."

Article 30: "The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of freedoms and rights of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable. The respect and protection thereof shall be the obligation of public authorities."

Article 31-3: "Any limitation upon the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights may be imposed only by statute, and only when necessary in a democratic state for the protection of its security or public order, or to protect the natural environment, health or public morals, or the freedoms and rights of other persons. Such limitations shall not violate the essence of freedoms and rights."

A455bcd9 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good source (put through Google Translate): https://www.mp.pl/pacjent/ciaza/aktualnosci/249654,uposledzenie-lub-nieuleczalna-choroba-plodu-nie-moze-przesadzac-o-dopuszczalnosci-przerwania-ciazy they seem to step through the rationale of the court decision in quite good detail Elaborateshotput (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

New section on the October 22 2020 decision

This is a big change to the abortion law in Poland and it's important that the details of this are made available the public. I propose we use the following sources (please offer more as you find them) as a basis:

• Tribunal published decision: https://trybunal.gov.pl/postepowanie-i-orzeczenia/wyroki/art/11300-planowanie-rodziny-ochrona-plodu-ludzkiego-i-warunki-dopuszczalnosci-przerywania-ciazy
• The 1993 family planning law that was partially deemed unconstitutional: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19930170078
• The Polish Constitution: https://trybunal.gov.pl/en/about-the-tribunal/legal-basis/the-constitution-of-the-republic-of-poland/
• Medycyna Praktyczna's analysis of the ruling: https://www.mp.pl/pacjent/ciaza/aktualnosci/249654,uposledzenie-lub-nieuleczalna-choroba-plodu-nie-moze-przesadzac-o-dopuszczalnosci-przerwania-ciazy

Elaborateshotput (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the Abortion in Poland article should remain an overview article, and details of the ruling should go into their own article; otherwise, they'll dominate this overview. This article is about the real situation of abortion per reliable sources, not just the formal situation. Given the importance of the TK ruling in triggering the Oct-Nov protests, the biggest protest movement in Poland since martial law under the PRL, I would be surprised if anyone objected to having a separate article on the specific content of the ruling. The actual role of the ruling on abortion in Poland seems to make more sense in this article, it seems to me. This will need sources that cover what really happens, e.g. if 80-200,000 abortions by Polish women per year continue as before or not. Boud (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Constutional Tribunal Judgement October 22 2020

On October 22 2020, the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland ruled that the law allowing the abortion of a fetus with a severe deformity or incurable disease was unconstitutional.

The law in question

The Act of 7 January 1993 on family planning, protection of the human fetus and conditions for permitting termination of pregnancy defines when abortion is legal:

Art. 4a. 1. Pregnancy termination may only be performed by a doctor, if:

1) pregnancy poses a threat to the life or health of a pregnant woman,

2) prenatal tests or other medical indications indicate a high probability of severe and irreversible impairment of the fetus or an incurable life-threatening disease,

3) there is a justified suspicion that the pregnancy resulted from a prohibited act,

4) (expired)

2. In the cases specified in par. 1 point 2, termination of pregnancy is allowed until the fetus is able to live independently outside the body of the pregnant woman; in the case specified in sec. 1 point 3 or 4, if no more than 12 weeks have elapsed from the beginning of pregnancy.

The case was focused on Article 4a section 1, point 2, and Article 4a section 2, first sentence.

Conflict with the constitution

The Tribunal tested the above law against the following parts of the Polish Constitution :

Article 38 The Republic of Poland shall ensure the legal protection of the life of every human being.

Article 30 The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of freedoms and rights of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable. The respect and protection thereof shall be the obligation of public authorities.

Article 31

Freedom of the person shall receive legal protection.

1. Everyone shall respect the freedoms and rights of others.

2. No one shall be compelled to do that which is not required by law.

3. Any limitation upon the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights may be imposed only by statute, and only when necessary in a democratic state for the protection of its security or public order, or to protect the natural environment, health or public morals, or the freedoms and rights of other persons. Such limitations shall not violate the essence of freedoms and rights.

Conflict of goods

The Tribunal upheld its previous 1997 decision that human life is a constitutional value from conception. The Tribunal also referred to a 2008 case where it was found that limitation of the legal protection of human life can only be limited when "absolutely necessary". For example, abortion is legal when the pregnancy would cause a risk to the mother's life; this was deemed "absolutely necessary". The case of a deformed or incurably ill fetus was deemed to not justify the loss of its right to life.

Elaborateshotput (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Protest in Łódź, 25th October 2020 - 50.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)