1

Abortion Politics and Religion in Brazil

Luis Felipe Miguel

Institute of Political Science – University of Brasilia

In recent years, the issue of abortion has gained prominence in Brazilian politics.

But not due to pressure from feminist movements; rather due to the strategy of religious

groups – mainly catholic and evangelical groups, but also Kardecist spiritists. The

“defense of life” flag ensures political influence and ascendancy over flocks that, for the

rest, seem disinclined to obey their pastors or clerics. Thus, the debate in Brazil took on

the form of a retrograde offensive. The fight against abortion is the platform of

innumerable candidates in parliamentary elections. In the national Congress, a partisan

front against abortion brings together 164 members (almost a third of the House) and 13

Senators. In the majoritarian elections, candidates find themselves constrained to

publicly state their opposition to women's right of choice, under penalty of being

banned by their religious leaders and suffer negative campaigning in their churches.

For advocates of women’s rights, the point is, in the first place, to prevent

backsliding under a legislation which is already quite restrictive. The Brazilian Criminal

Code typifies abortion as a crime, punishable by imprisonment. Legal abortion is

provided for only in case of pregnancy resulting from rape or life-threatening for the

woman. A third exception was added recently, in 2012, by decision of the Supreme

Court, allowing termination in cases of fetal anencephaly. This fact highlights the

existing disharmony in the different atmospheres in the three powers.

The Judiciary granted this last exception, which was the major breakthrough,

occurred in Brazil in decades, through a semantic maneuver, in which instead of

abortion, it was spoken of “anticipation of delivery”. In recent years, the executive

branch has taken initiatives to, at least, ensure women's access to abortion in cases

provided by law. However, such as it happens with other issues linked to the so called

“moral agenda” (fight against homophobia, campaigns to prevent HIV transmission

etc.), the reaction of religious groups immediately leads to a decline and the withdrawal

or repeal of the measures. It is clear that the government is vulnerable to the electoral

blackmail that the fundamentalist offensive promotes (Miguel, 2012).

2

It can be said that, in recent years, the Brazilian government has shown itself

cornered regarding this issue. In fact, in the Legislative branch, there is a glaring

mismatch between the “pro-life” activism front and the weak performance of a handful

of legislators who favor the right to abortion. The projects that broaden the cases of

legal abortion or decriminalization of the practice, once and for all, have been shelved

or barred in legislative committees.

Although, as yet, with no chance of becoming legal standards, projects

sponsored by the religious bench have been highlighted. These are proposals that:

repeal all exceptions to the prohibition on termination of pregnancy;

expand the penalties for cases of illegal abortion;

create a national registry of pregnant women, in order to facilitate the

prosecution of those who opt for abortion;

stimulate that pregnancy resulting from rape be not interrupted, with a

financial incentive for the victim who decides to have the child (called

“rape grant”); and / or

establish that the right to life is protected “from conception”, a

formulation which they are seeking to insert into the Brazilian

Constitution.

This paper presents the preliminary results of a wide research on the debate

regarding abortion rights in the Brazilian House of Representatives. All the speeches on

the subject between 1991 and 2013, identified by the presence of key words such as

“abort”, “abortion” or “voluntary termination of pregnancy”, were read and filed1. Each

speech was filed separately by two members of the team, in order to control

interpretation subjectivity of the variables and ensure greater uniformity when filling the

forms.

The focus in plenary speeches allows capturing an important aspect of

1 The research involves two projects financed by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e

Tecnológico (CNPq) (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development): “Direito ao

aborto e sentidos da maternidade: atores e posições em disputa no Brasil contemporâneo” (Right to

abortion and meanings of motherhood) coordinated by Dr. Flávia Biroli, and “Direitos das mulheres e

representação no Brasil” (Women’s rights and representation in Brazil), coordinated by myself. Data

collection gathered a team of students of the Grupo de Pesquisa sobre Democracia e Desigualdades

(Group of Research on Democracy and Inequalities) (Demodê): Amanda Seabra, Carolina Souto, Débora

Françolin, Juliana Góes, Luciana Keller, Isabella Rodrigues, Karine Farinha, Laura Sousa and Raquel

Labarrere. The data collection took place under the supervision of Rayani Mariano dos Santos and

Gabriela Dornelles. I record here my thanks to all of them.

3

parliamentary actions, which are the construction of meaning about the social world.

Thus, the research puts itself in the opposite direction of a good portion of the

perception about parliamentary work, even in academic literature, which judges that its

main product, if not the only one, is the law (see, for example, Arnold, 1990).

Parliamentary speech is aimed at a variety of audiences. It is, in the first place, a

moment of debate among peers. But frequently it is also – or even mainly – aimed for

the outside public, be it “public opinion” in general, be it a specific group. This is clear

when the pronouncement seeks to be broadcast by the commercial media or by the

“Voice of Brazil”, an official radio program transmitted nationwide, every day; to reach

the listeners and watchers of the House and Senate media vehicles, who broadcast

sessions live; or even to be disclosed by the own Congressman through his direct

mailing list. It is the responsibility of each congresswoman or congressman to define

which is his or her target (or targets) when speaking. The themes they choose also

indicate the priorities of their mandate. However, these priorities are not born only from

their convictions or inclinations; they are determined strategically, keeping in view the

open possibilities in the field and the expectations of the electorate.

In all, 917 speeches with the keywords were identified, a number that includes

both pronouncements entirely devoted to the subject or with mere side references. This

accounts for less than 1% of the total estimate of speeches in the plenary sessions of the

House, during the analyzed period. The distribution throughout time is rather irregular,

such as can be seen in Graph 1. The “peaks” of the graph refer, above all, to visits from

Popes to Brazil and the controversy over the case of anencephalic fetuses during the

trial by the Supreme Court.

Graph 1: Speeches themed "abortion" in the plenary of the Brazilian House of Representatives, by year (1991-2013)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: researches “Direito ao aborto e sentidos da maternidade: atores e posições em disputa no Brasil contemporâneo” and “Direitos das mulheres e representação no Brasil”

4

Female presence is particularly low in the Brazilian parliament. According to

data from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the country occupies the penultimate position

in Latin America in number of women in the low house. During the period under

analysis, female participation in the House oscillated around 8%. It is not surprising,

therefore, that even with women giving their opinion more often, the debate is

dominated by the male members: they are the deliverers of 86% of the speeches of the

basis. The picture looks worse when proved that the issue of abortion is the main focus

of 61% of male speeches and only 48% of female speeches. This means that, when

females participate in the discussion, abortion generally is just one more subject among

others that they approach within a same speech.

The Brazilian Parliament is very fragmented. In one same legislature, 17 or 18

parties can have representatives. There is a slight concentration of the speech in the

Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) (Workers Party), center-left wing, responsible for 22%

of the base, a little above what would be expected, due to its number of representatives.

But in PT coexist advocates and adversaries of abortion rights. Following in the list is

the Partido da Frente Liberal, later rechristened Democratas (PFL/DEM), right wing,

with 12% of the discourses. Predominantly against abortion, the PFL/DEM harbored,

however, one of the principal advocates of this right in the Brazilian Parliament,

Representative Dr. Pinotti, who balances a little the average position of its speeches.

And in the third place, the party that is heir to the legend of support of the military

dictatorship, which has changed name several times in the period, with 11% of

speeches, almost unanimously opposed to abortion rights.

The members of the House who most spoke about this issue are all men and

contrary to abortion rights. The first one is Luiz Bassuma, who used to belong to the PT

and later to the Partido Verde (PV) (Green Party), with 65 speeches. Bassuma, who is a

Kardecist leader, was one of the authors of the proposal of the “Statute of the Unborn”,

flagship campaign against abortion. The next is Severino Cavalcanti (PFL/DEM), also

contrary to women’s rights, with 42 speeches. Costa Ferreira, who participated as a

member of several right wing political parties, even the confessional Partido Social

Cristão (PSC) (Christian Social Party), and Lael Varella (PFL/DEM), both contrary to

abortion, close the group of representatives with more than 30 pronouncements in the

research base. The first representative favorable to the legalization of abortion appears

in the seventh position of the list, with 25 speeches (José Genoíno, of the PT); the first

5

woman, Marta Suplicy, also from the PT, appears in the ninth place, with 20 speeches.

Altogether, more than 270 representatives have spoken out on the topic sometime in the

years under review. The ranking of those who most spoke shows, however, that

opposition to abortion is a major priority, for some politicians, than its legalization is for

those who defend it.

Table 1 summarizes the data related to the position of the speeches. Some

categories demand an explanation. A small number of speeches, that were included in

the base because they contained one of the key words, but did not relate to the subject,

remained “unanswered” – for example, using the word “abortion” but just as a

metaphor. The larger group of discourses with “no position” consists, as a rule, in

statements in which abortion is only mentioned in passing, among, for example, a list of

causes of female mortality.

Speeches “against abortion (generically)” are those which echo the arguments

called “pro-life” but do not specifically indicate what changes should be introduced in

the legislation to prevent the practice. The category “for new punitive measures and/or

control measures” include the defense of proposals such as a registry of pregnant

women, monitoring or even banning medicines which have an abortive effect (such as

misoprostol) or the expansion of the penalties imposed on women who voluntarily

interrupt their pregnancy. Finally, the speeches in favor of sexual education, in many

occasions, bypass the confrontation of the issue, preferring to indicate ways in which

abortion, allegedly, would become unnecessary.

Sometimes, one category was combined with others, such as the defense of

punitive measures, often associated with a position against abortion or favorable to the

restriction of those cases allowed by law. That is why each speech could be included in

more than one category.

Table 1: Position on abortion rights in speeches delivered in the House of Representatives Brazil (1991-2013)

position speeches %

in favor of the broadening of legal abortion 144 15,7%

in favor of maintaining the Brazilian law 130 14,2%

In favor of restricting legal abortion 174 19,0%

against abortion (generically) 313 34,1%

for new punitive and / or control measures 116 12,6%

for sex education and / or family planning 123 13,4%

takes no position 72 7,9%

no answer 23 2,5%

Obs. It was possible to mark up to two answers Source: researches “Direito ao aborto e sentidos da maternidade: atores e posições em disputa no Brasil contemporâneo” and “Direitos das mulheres e representação no Brasil”

6

In the following analysis, the categories “in favor of restriction”, “against

abortion (generically)”, and “pro new punitive and/or control measures” will be grouped

as “positions contrary to the abortion right”. Such positions appear in 550 speeches; this

is 60% of the total. Graph 2 shows the evolution of the three main positions, year by

year.

Graph 2: Selected positions of speeches with the subject “abortion”, in the Plenary Sessions of the Brazilian House of Representatives, per year (1991-2013)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

in favor tobroadening legalabortion

in favor domainteningBrazilian law

against abortion

Source: researches “Direito ao aborto e sentidos da maternidade: atores e posições em disputa no Brasil contemporâneo” and “Direitos das mulheres e representação no Brasil”

There are two conclusions that arise from the observation of Graph 2. The first is

that even if the peaks and valleys are significant, there is a tendency to amplify the

preponderance of the positions against abortion. And the second is that, in more recent

years, the speeches favorable to the amplifying of legal abortion have made room to

speeches favorable to the maintenance of the law. This last category has an ambiguous

value: in polemic against "pro-life" positions, the defense of maintaining the law can

mean a commitment to abortion rights (and vice versa). It is possible that the enhanced

presence of this category indicates that the members of the House, favorable to the

rights of women, are trapped in the debate. But it is also necessary to remember that,

since the decision of the Supreme Federal Court, regarding the legality of aborting

fetuses bearers of anencephaly, in April 2012, there was an offensive to revoke or repeal

this advance through legislative decision. To defend the maintenance of the law is here,

too, the opposition to such maneuvers.

It should be noted that the gender of the representative proves to be a relevant

7

variable, as shown in Table 2. Almost half the speeches delivered by women present a

favorable position regarding the expansion of abortion rights in Brazil, either admitting

new exceptions to the forbidding law or decriminalizing the practice of abortion once

and for all. In the case of male speakers, only a little over a tenth of the speeches adopts

such a position. On the other hand, a position against abortion rights is shown in almost

two thirds of male speeches, but only a little over one fifth in women’s discourses.

Table 2: Position in relation to abortion rights in speeches in the Brazilian House of Representatives (1991-2013) by gender of the speaker

Position Men Women

In favor of the broadening of legal abortion 11,0% 46,0%

In favor of maintaining the Brazilian law 14,5% 12,1%

Positions against abortion rights 66,0% 21,8%

For sex education and/or family planning 13,0% 16,1%

Takes no position 6,7% 15,3%

No answer 2,4% 3,2%

n = 793 n = 124

Obs. It was possible to mark up to two answers Source: researches “Direito ao aborto e sentidos da maternidade: atores e posições em disputa no Brasil contemporâneo” and “Direitos das mulheres e representação no Brasil”

It is a contrast that can not be explained by the fact that women in the Brazilian

House of Representatives are more concentrated in the left wing parties. Grouping the

parties into “left”, “center” and “right”, according to the conventional classification of

Brazilian political science (cf. Krause, Dantas and Miguel, 2010), there is, yes, a

concentration of defending abortion rights in the left wing parties, but the contrast is

much smaller than that associated to the gender of the speaker. Positions against

abortion are the most frequent, even among speakers of leftist parties, reaching 48% of

their discourses (see Table 3). The defense of legal abortion, negligible among center

and right wing parties, is also a minority, with less than 30%, among the left wing

speakers.

Table 3: Position in relation to abortion rights in speeches in the Brazilian House of Representatives (1991-2013) by "ideological" party position of the speaker

Position Left wing Center Right wing

No political party

In favor of the broadening of legal abortion 28,4% 7,9% 6,2% 33,3%

In favor of maintaining the Brazilian law 11,4% 14,5% 16,9% -

Positions against abortion rights 48,0% 66,4% 69,4% 33,3%

For sex education and/or family planning 15,4% 7,9% 13,8% -

Takes no position 9,8% 9,9% 4,9$ 33,3%

No answer 2,1% 2,6% 2,9% -

n = 377 n = 152 n = 385 n = 3

Obs. It was possible to mark up to two answers Source: researches “Direito ao aborto e sentidos da maternidade: atores e posições em disputa no Brasil contemporâneo” and “Direitos das mulheres e representação no Brasil”

More important than that indication of the profile of the speakers, however, is to

understand the configuration of the debate in the Brazilian parliament. We understand

8

this debate not as a “deliberative exchange”, oriented for the presentation of reasons in

order to convince the other, the search for an enlightened consensus and expanding of

the epistemic quality of an eventual decision, but as a strategic dispute, concerning the

terms on which the discussion is placed. In fact, contrary to the idea of rational

deliberative exchange, more than two thirds of the speeches make no mention of the

opposing arguments, ignoring them altogether. For arguments against abortion rights,

this trend is even more pronounced. Thus, the debate is shaped as opposition to an

emphasis on the value of “life”, understood in a metaphysical and abstract way, and

another on women's rights and the affirmation of their capacity for autonomous moral

decision.

For the research, the arguments mobilized in the speeches, related to the

controversy on the abortion rights were classified in several categories that allow

observing the emphases of the debate. In the case of the defense of the right, the

arguments are concentrated in five categories:

The main argument is the idea that abortion, a major cause of hospital admission

and mortality in women of reproductive age in Brazil, should be treated as a

public health issue, present in 63% of the pro-abortion rights discourse.

The appeal to the individual freedom of women is also very present (in 51% of

those speeches) and, in a significant part of them (15%), there is an explicit

reference to the women’s autonomy in relation to their own body. There are 16

statements in which it appears, and, contrary to what one might expect, 11 of

them are from male speakers.

In the third place, an expressive contingent of speeches (40%) dwells upon the

fact that the prohibition of abortion is a factor of social discrimination. Rich

Brazilian women have access to safe means of pregnancy termination, while

poor women are at the mercy of clandestine clinics, home methods or even

trafficking of misoprostol, of dubious origin and taken incorrectly.

In 23% of speeches, legal arguments appear, in particular interpretations of the

Brazilian Constitution that guaranteed the right to abortion.

And in another 23% of speeches arguments appear tied to the value of the

secular state. Opposition to abortion rights is seen – correctly, in fact – as

evidence of inadequate religious influence over the Brazilian State.

9

The prevalence of public health arguments is not surprising. Before an adversary

that has appropriated the discourse of the defense of life, the most obvious strategy is to

point out the real effects, on human lives, of abortion prohibition. The social argument,

on the different impact of prohibitive law according to social class, is frequently

associated to it. But it is important to highlight the very significant presence of

arguments of a political nature that put the discussion in the terrain of rights, access to

citizenship and the link between secularism and democracy. It is also worth noting that

10% of speeches bring no argument, simply expressing a favorable position to the

expansion of legal abortion.

On the other hand, speeches against abortion rights rely mainly on very different

types of arguments:

A great majority (74% of these arguments) invoke the notion of a “right

to life” that would be inviolable and have absolute precedence over other

rights. But it is an argument that, in general terms, is dependent on

others. After all, it is necessary to determine what life is that and where

are founded the primacy and inviolability of this right.

They are founded, in the first place, on religious dogma. Religious

arguments are present in 42% of speeches against abortion rights. The

idea of life as a divine gift, the holy gospels or the notion that a soul is

insufflated in the zygote, at the moment of conception, are put into

motion to justify opposition to voluntary interruption of pregnancy.

Follows, being present in 33% of the discourses, moral arguments which,

although often echoing a religious type of morality, avoid using concepts

such as “soul” or the intervention of some supernatural being.

In 28% of discourses, the argument refers to the public opinion: abortion

must not be allowed because surveys show that a majority of the

Brazilian population is against the granting of the right.

There are an expressive percentage of juridical arguments (27%). In

general, a definition of “life” as beginning at the conception leads to a

statement that the constitutional protection of life must be extent to the

unborn.

Also, among these discourses, 11% do not present any argument. Arguments

that seek a scientific basis – determining, for instance, the moment in which a fetus or

10

embryo acquires the capacity of feeling sensations – are more present in speeches

against abortion rights (14% of cases) than in those in favor (only 4% of cases).

However, they are not a central question of the debate. The numbers are quite clear in

that the opposition to abortion rights has the core element of their argumentative

strategy in the religious appeal.

The controversy over abortion rights is, thus, one of the main arenas in which is

being waged the battle by State secularism in Brazil. This is a battle that throws into

question the very possibility of democracy. State secularism was signed historically in

Europe, not as a principle, but as a matter of fact, demanded by political realism. It was

only after a long process that necessity became virtue and the lay State imposed itself as

an intrinsically superior model, making the separation from religion a modern political

concept.

The legislation that established religious peace in Europe, from the sixteenth

century on, indicate a radical change in the relationship between State and faith. It is the

secular power that exercises authority and becomes the arbiter of religious dispute –

while in the medieval doctrine it was the Church that put itself the position of judge of

politics (Christin, 1997, p. 69). From this situation eventually emerges, as a positive

value, the freedom of belief, which now joins the cast of basic liberal rights – the area of

individual’s autonomy, over which the State should not possess any coercive power.

But there is a second movement, which also leads to the affirmation of the secular state

as a positive value in itself, and that is linked not to liberalism, but to democracy.

A decisive step, in the constitution of modern democracy, was the assertion that

political authority has its origin beneath, that is to say, in the people, not above, in

divine will. The medieval political order was determined by God and the absolute rulers

who replaced it also found in “divine right” the source of their legitimacy. The vision of

sovereignty residing in the people is incompatible with this framework. The contract

fiction breaks up with it: in it, sovereign power resided in the people and it was its

delegation that generated State authority.

Democracy demands a lay State as a logical consequence of the application of its

principles. If the people’s will must be sovereign, then it cannot be constrained a priori

to the need of observing dogmatic rules of any nature. The condition of uncertainty, of

openness, which are the characteristics of democracy – a society founded on a freely

expressed will, as Bronisław Baczko (1984, p. 81) says – are not compatible with any

form of religious tutelage.

11

The only limits that popular sovereignty has rightfully are those linked to the

preservation of the conditions of their own exercise – this is, the guarantee of equal

respect of the freedoms and rights of all. There is much controversy over what, in fact,

these limits should be, in concrete situations, but the general guidelines are clear.

Without freedom of thought, association and expression for all, there is no democratic

political participation. Any other restriction to popular sovereignty, which is not

logically linked to the universal conditions of its exercise, is against democracy as a

form of government.

Religious fundamentalists do not hesitate at this conclusion; in fact, they openly

claim a “Brazil under the command of the Lord” or similar slogans. It is then up to the

democrats to oppose this offensive and demarcate clearly the position in defense of the

secular State. Shyness in this response undermines democracy.

It is quite true that the question of the secular State has never been completely

resolved in Brazil. The invocation of God in the preamble of the Constitution, the

presence of crucifixes in public buildings, the existence of religious holidays in the

official calendar and the inscription “God be praised”, that President José Sarney

included on the Cruzado banknotes – and that still remains on them, despite the

numerous monetary reforms – are demonstrations of this. But they are symbolic

concessions, however much they may seem offensive and discriminatory towards non-

believers. Much more serious is that decisions relating to legislation and public policies

are subject to the dogmas of this or that religious sect (as well as the State providing

important material advantages to the various religious denominations).

As a larger portion of society acquires independence from the world views

determined by churches, conflicts become more apparent. The religious condemnation

of homosexuality is not something new; what is new is the fact that there is an active

LGBT movement with strong social impact, which is opposed to this condemnation and

claims the right to non-discrimination. The campaign against abortion is a bit newer,

since for many centuries Christian dogmas were more tolerant on the issue, but the

important point is also the great visibility of the opposite speech, which requires the

recognition of the right to abortion, and embedded in it, the right of women to control

their own body. Any referrals of these discussions which bypass the requirement of the

secular character of the State disrespect the functioning precepts of democracy.

This is because the recognition of freedom of religious belief, as a liberal law,

and the need of the secular State, as a democratic imperative, converge to a strict

12

separation between religion and politics that has a particularly important practical

consequence. It implies the abandonment, on the part of religion, of any pretense of

imposing itself coercively. The adequacy to norms of behavior determined by religion

should be voluntary, motivated only by proselytizing. This means that religious clerics

themselves, insofar as they wish to be incorporated into the democratic space, should

refrain from trying to exploit the State in favor of their particular beliefs. The use of the

electoral mechanism, as a form of blackmail that forces political decisions to bow to

religious precepts, harms, in this way, basic principles both of political liberalism and of

democracy. To sustain of the right to abortion we need not go beyond the philosophical

framework that is the basis of our political organization.

Bibliographical references

ARNOLD, R. Douglas (1990). The logic of congressional action. New Haven: Yale University

Press.

BACZKO, Bronisław (1984). Les imaginaires sociaux: mémoires et espoirs collectifs. Paris:

Payot.

CHRISTIN, Olivier (1997). La paix de religion: l’autonomisation de la raison politique au

XVIe siècle. Paris: Seuil.

KRAUSE, Silvana, Humberto DANTAS e MIGUEL, Luis Felipe (orgs.) (2010). Coligações

partidárias na nova democracia brasileira: perfis e tendências. São Paulo: Editora Unesp;

Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Konrad Adenauer.

MIGUEL, Luis Felipe (2012). “Aborto e democracia”. Revista Estudos Feministas, vol. 20, nº

3, pp. 657-72.