AWARE is encouraged by the recent announcement that Parliament is reviewing the existing criteria for pre-abortion counselling, which denies some categories of women access to proper medical advice and is starkly discriminatory.

The recent debate on ‘Abortion vs Adoption’ was first triggered by an article in The Straits Times, ‘From Abortion to Adoption’ (19 March 2013), which brought to light various aspects of abortion policy that concerned citizens and civil society groups. Namely, the exclusion of certain categories of women from pre-abortion counselling, troubled AWARE and Human Rights group MARUAH, who wrote letters to the Straits Times Forum questioning the motivations behind this discrimination and decrying the institutionalisation of unequal access to healthcare. The Straits Times article stated:

“There is mandatory pre-abortion counselling if the women are Singapore citizens or permanent residents; have passed the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE); have at least some secondary education, and have fewer than three children.

There is no counselling for foreigners, rape victims or Singaporeans with three or more children, and those who have not passed the PSLE. If they seek an abortion, they get it right away.”

The issue has been getting a lot of attention, and spurred online journalists and members of the public to respond with their views. One letter, by Dr. John Hui Keem Peng (20 March 2013), called out the Home Ownership Plus Education Scheme (HOPE), which requires low-income families to stop at two children to qualify for financial assistance. A well-articulated piece by Kirsten Han (30 March 2013) compared the HOPE scheme to the exclusionary criteria for pre-abortion counselling, claiming that:

“Such policies reek of eugenicist logic, indicating that while Singapore’s government exhorts its citizens to get hitched and have babies, they are really only interested in babies from specific demographics.”

On 8 April 2013, Workers’ Party MP Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked Minister of Health Mr Gan Kim Yong to explain the criteria for pre-abortion counselling, and the Minister responded that the criteria is outdated and should be reviewed. He furthered added that Ministry had commenced a review of this in early March this year and will consult the public in due course.

AWARE hopes that the review of abortion policy will also ensure that pre-abortion counselling is standardised and regulated by the state to be patient-centred and neutral, whether in public or private practice. We call for healthcare decisions to be made by patients (in consultation with medical advisers) on the basis of their individual needs and aspirations, not judgments about their social status. All people should have equal access to patient-centred healthcare, including abortion services.

The Parliamentary question raised by MP Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, as found on the Ministry of Health website, is below:

8 April 2013

Question No. 476

Name of Person: Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song

Question

To ask the Minister for Health why women who have not passed the PSLE, have no secondary education, have three or more children, or are foreigners, are not required to undergo pre-abortion counselling by a trained abortion counsellor before undergoing an abortion.

Answer

Mandatory pre-abortion and post-abortion counselling was introduced in 1987 to provide information and support to women intending to undergo abortion.  The criteria reflected the main concern then.

Some of the criteria are no longer relevant and should be reviewed.  The Ministry had commenced a review of this in early March this year, and will consult the public in due course.