abortion politics and religion in brazil - ipsa …paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_36356.pdf ·...
Post on 27-Sep-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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.
top related