HUMAN rights doctors have thrown their weight behind the Medical Services Amendment Bill, which seeks to expand the grounds for abortion to safeguard women’s lives, dignity and health.
Commonly known as the Abortion Bill, the proposed legislation has drawn sharp opposition from church leaders, who warn lawmakers that it threatens the sanctity of life. Now awaiting a Senate vote, the Bill has sparked a deeply polarising national debate.
At the heart of the proposal are far-reaching changes to Zimbabwe’s abortion framework.
The Bill would allow termination on request up to 20 weeks, permit minors to access the procedure without parental consent, remove spousal notification requirements and authorise a single medical practitioner to approve a termination.
Critics argue this represents the most significant overhaul of abortion law since independence.
The Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights has endorsed clause 11 of the Bill, which deals with termination of pregnancy. The organisation says the reforms align with constitutional guarantees to healthcare, life, dignity and bodily integrity. It also argues that the current Termination of Pregnancy Act [Chapter 15:10] is outdated and difficult to implement. Enacted in 1977, the law permits abortion only in limited circumstances — when a woman’s life is at risk, in cases of serious foetal abnormality, or following rape or incest.
Keep Reading
- Little Mr & Miss Zimbabwe crowned
- ‘Nec wages hardly reach PDL’
- Mnangagwa regime on UN radar over abuses
- Stanbic voted best African bank
Proponents of reform point to the 2006 case of Mildred Mapingure as evidence of the law’s shortcomings.
After being raped, Mapingure was unable to access emergency preventive treatment within the required 72 hours due to bureaucratic delays. When she later sought a lawful termination, she faced further obstacles in obtaining a magisterial certificate.
By the time authorisation was granted, the procedure was deemed unsafe. Her case laid bare the procedural hurdles that critics say frustrate justice and undermine women’s rights.
Church leaders, however, view the proposed amendments as a direct assault on life and family values, warning that they amount to a de facto liberalisation of abortion.
Their concerns reflect deeply held moral and religious convictions that cannot simply be brushed aside.
This is precisely why the Abortion Bill demands sober minds. It is one of the most sensitive and consequential debates a society can confront. It touches on life, faith, women’s rights, public health and constitutional freedoms.
These are delicate issues that require careful thought, empathy and reason.
Life is sacred, and so too are women’s health and dignity.
Unsafe abortions remain a significant contributor to maternal mortality, and criminalisation alone has not eliminated the practice. Instead, it often drives it underground, where the risks are far greater.
Yet, reform must also include clear safeguards. Expanding access should not mean abandoning oversight or ethical considerations. The goal should be harm reduction, legal clarity and protection of rights — not the trivialisation of life.
Religious and cultural perspectives deserve respect, but they cannot override constitutional guarantees or medical realities.
In the same vein, advocates of reform must avoid dismissing moral objections as ignorance or backwardness.
Durable laws are forged through dialogue and compromise, not through triumphalism.
Parliament must rise above partisan politics and resist the temptation to turn this into a zero-sum contest. The measure of leadership now is not who shouts the loudest, but who listens most carefully.
Ultimately, the purpose of law is justice. If an existing statute causes preventable harm or proves impossible to implement fairly, it must be examined honestly. The Abortion Bill should seek to reduce harm, prevent tragedies and reflect both constitutional values and societal conscience.
Only compassionate and evidence-based debate will lead Zimbabwe to legislation it can live with — and live by.
There are no winners and losers.