There are decisions no woman would ever want to face. Discovering that the fetus is nonviable, learning that the pregnancy puts her own life at risk, or becoming pregnant as a result of rape are experiences that no society should trivialize. That is precisely why Chile passed a law allowing for the termination of pregnancy in these three exceptional cases.
It was not an easy decision. For years, the country debated the issue from deeply divergent religious, philosophical, legal, and medical perspectives. Ultimately, democracy did what it must do when conflicting views exist: it deliberated, sought a balance, and passed a law that recognizes that, in extraordinary circumstances, the final decision rests with the woman.
That is why Representative Cristián Urruticoechea’s bill—which seeks to force women to listen to the fetus’s heartbeat before exercising that right—is not merely a procedural change. It is an attempt to disrupt, through deliberate emotional manipulation, the balance that democracy has already achieved.
Listening to that heartbeat does not provide new medical information. It does not improve informed consent. Its objective is something else: to try to emotionally influence a decision that the law itself recognizes as legitimate.
And that is where the real problem lies.
It’s not the heartbeat. It’s sexism.
It’s the persistence of a culture that continues to believe women need guardianship to make decisions about their own bodies. It assumes that an adult woman—fully informed, supported by healthcare professionals, and protected by the law—is not capable enough to decide without the state intervening to emotionally steer her toward a certain course of action.
It is striking that these initiatives come, once again, from those who rarely champion with the same vigor projects to reduce the wage gap, facilitate the balance between motherhood and work, recognize the disproportionate burden of domestic labor, or combat violence against women. It seems that the female body remains a territory over which some believe they have the moral authority to legislate, even in the most painful circumstances.
It is easy to speak of heroism when the pregnancy will never occur in one’s own body. It is easy to demand sacrifices when the physical, psychological, and social consequences will always be borne by someone else.
Democracy exists precisely to resolve these conflicts—not to eliminate differences, but to allow people with different convictions to coexist under common rules. That is what the law on the three grounds for abortion did. No one was forced to renounce their beliefs. Those who believe that abortion is never morally acceptable retain their right to act in accordance with their conscience. But neither can they use the power of the state to impose that conviction on those who, in the exceptional circumstances provided for by law, make a different decision.
The state’s duty is to inform, support, and protect—not to manipulate people emotionally, not to substitute for people’s consciences, and not to treat women as if they were incapable of understanding the gravity of the decision they face.
Because the problem was never the heartbeat.
The real problem is that there are still many men who believe that women need permission, guardianship, or correction to exercise a right that democracy itself has already recognized for them.
