Unpacking Poland’s Late-Term Abortion Controversy

Colored map showing Poland Belarus and surrounding countries

Poland’s abortion controversy intensifies as a woman’s decision to abort her 37-week-old fetus with osteogenesis imperfecta sparks investigation and ethical debate nationwide.

Key Takeaways

Poland’s abortion laws were tightened in 2022, removing exceptions for fetal abnormalities while maintaining exceptions for maternal health risks.
The case of “Anita” highlights legal gray areas, as her late-term abortion was performed despite the fetus being viable, with doctors citing maternal health concerns.
The mother claimed her decision was to prevent her child’s suffering from osteogenesis imperfecta, while medical professionals presented conflicting justifications.
The controversy raises questions about Poland’s compliance with international human rights frameworks regarding reproductive rights.
The case exemplifies the intersection of maternal rights, disability ethics, and Poland’s conservative approach to abortion regulation.

Poland’s Shifting Abortion Landscape

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled in October 2020 that abortion due to fetal impairment was unconstitutional, further restricting the country’s already limited abortion access. This ruling formally took effect in 2022, eliminating a previously permitted exception while maintaining allowances only in cases where the mother’s life or health is threatened, or when pregnancy results from rape or incest. The decision represents a significant shift in Poland’s legal approach to reproductive rights and reflects the country’s conservative values regarding the sanctity of life from conception.

The abortion restriction is part of a broader transformation in Poland’s rule of law since 2015, with significant implications for how international human rights frameworks influence Polish jurisprudence. Legal experts note that the ruling has narrowed what they call the “jurisprudential horizon”—the range of valid sources and arguments in legal practice—limiting the role of international human rights considerations in Polish constitutional interpretation and enforcement.

The Case That Challenged The System

At the center of the current controversy is a woman identified as Anita, who underwent an abortion at 37 weeks gestation after her son was diagnosed with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), a bone disorder that causes extreme fragility. The procedure, performed by Dr. Gizela Jagielska, has triggered a criminal investigation into whether it violated Poland’s abortion laws. Media accounts and statements from those involved present conflicting narratives about the justification for the procedure, highlighting the complex legal and ethical questions at stake.

According to reports, while doctors officially cited maternal health risks to justify the procedure under current law, Anita herself stated in interviews that her primary motivation was preventing her child’s suffering. “I felt I was my son’s hero for not allowing him to suffer,” she reportedly said. The abortion was performed by injecting the fetus with potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest, followed by delivery—a method that has drawn particular scrutiny given the advanced stage of pregnancy.

Legal Ambiguities and International Context

Poland’s Family Planning Act of 1993, which forms the basis of current abortion regulation, contains language that some interpret as a loophole. The law does not explicitly require an immediate emergency to permit an abortion on maternal health grounds—only a threat that must be certified by a physician. This ambiguity stands at the heart of the current case, as detractors argue that a cesarean delivery could have been performed instead of terminating the pregnancy.

The case occurs against a backdrop of varying international approaches to abortion regulation. The UN Human Rights Committee recognizes circumstances where abortion should be accessible, though these are not uniformly accepted by all states. The European Court of Human Rights has historically been cautious in addressing abortion directly, often avoiding challenges to state discretion. Poland’s trajectory diverges from many European neighbors that have liberalized abortion laws in recent decades.

Disability Rights and Medical Ethics

The case has sparked debate about attitudes toward disability in Poland. Reports indicate that Anita and her husband were advised to consider adoption but refused. Their decision was allegedly influenced by insensitive remarks from medical students about the baby’s condition and fears about the impact of raising a child with severe disabilities. Critics argue that better support systems and resources for families of children with OI might have led to different decisions.

Pro-life advocates point to stories of individuals living with OI, suggesting that the condition, while serious, does not necessarily preclude a fulfilling life. Meanwhile, medical professionals are seeking clearer legal guidance, as the case has created uncertainty about when maternal health exceptions can be invoked. The controversy underscores the tension between Poland’s conservative position on protecting life and concerns about maternal autonomy and the quality of life for children born with severe disabilities.