WHEN it comes to women’s reproductive health, it seems everyone has an opinion.
From the pulpit to the dinner table, voices rise to cite religious doctrine, moral compass or "the love of humanity."
Yet, amid this clamour, the most critical voice is often silenced: that of the woman whose body is at the centre of the debate.
Since last year, Zimbabwean social media has been ablaze.
The catalyst was the proposed amendment to the Termination of Pregnancy Act, spearheaded by Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA) and the Safe Abortion Caucus.
This amendment, part of the Medical Services Bill, seeks to overhaul a restrictive legal framework that has remained virtually stagnant since 1977. While the National Assembly approved Clause 11 of the Bill in October 2025, it now awaits the Senate’s nod before it is sent to the President, who assents to it to become law.
The current 1977 Act is a colonial relic. It permits termination only under extreme circumstances: to save a mother’s life, in cases of serious foetal defects, or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest.
- ‘Govt hiding behind Ukraine-Russia war’
- No crisis in Zim: Ncube
- ED frets over shortages
- Zim@42: Zimbos bemoan shrinking democratic space, human rights abuses
Keep Reading
While these provisions exist on paper, the bureaucratic hurdles, requiring magistrate court orders and multiple medical certifications, often make legal abortion an impossible maze for the average woman.
The amendments represent a bold step towards modernising our public health needs and aligning them with the Zimbabwean Constitution:
For minors (under 18): Access to termination on demand up to 12 weeks, notably removing the requirement for parental consent and prioritising the child's own health and agency.
For adult women: Access up to 20 weeks based on health risks or severe foetal abnormalities.
Reduced bureaucracy: Streamlining the process to potentially require only the woman’s consent, removing unnecessary delays caused by the need for magistrate approval.
Last Friday, I attended a virtual strategy meeting hosted by WLSA and facilitated by Charity Chaturuka, a gender champion from Harare. The guest of honour, Edwin Mushoriwa, a Member of Parliament and a dedicated member of the Safe Abortion Caucus, dismantled the complexities of the Bill.
The discussion that followed was telling; the room was filled with concerns regarding mental health support and the sexual agency of minors. It was a sobering reminder that this isn’t just a legal technicality; it’s about the holistic well-being of girls and women.
Online, however, the rhetoric is far less nuanced.
"Netizens" have labelled termination as murder, arguing that a pregnancy must be carried to term regardless of the situation.
While I respect the religious and social roots of these views, we must confront a harsh reality: women bear the physical, economic and social consequences of pregnancy.
Maternal mortality, the challenges of single motherhood, and the derailment of education and careers fall squarely on their shoulders.
Moreover, this Bill doesn’t seek to open abortion to all women.
If a woman decides she cannot carry a pregnancy, why is her decision treated as a public crime rather than a private medical necessity? No one makes this choice lightly.
It is a difficult, life-altering decision and for many, it is a desperate one. Restricting abortion does not stop abortions; it only stops safe abortions. For decades, Zimbabwean women have sought "backstreet" procedures involving dangerous concoctions or unqualified practitioners. The results are permanent scars, infertility or death. By providing safe options, we are not "promoting" abortion; we are protecting lives.
I am reminded of a workshop hosted by Amnesty International in 2024. A traditional leader, whose name I will withhold, argued that it was better to bear a child of incest (even citing the biblical story of Lot) than to terminate.
This level of misinformation is dangerous. To suggest that a victim of incest should be forced to carry her trauma to term is not "pro-humanity" — it is a violation of human rights. This kind of illiteracy will not make Zimbabwe a better space for women and girls.
The Constitution promises the right to health and bodily integrity. We cannot claim to be a modern, progressive nation while shackling our women to laws written half a century ago.
The Medical Services Bill is not an attack on morality; it is a lifeline for the thousands of women currently suffering in silence.
The time for silent observation is over. As the Medical Services Bill moves to the Senate, your voice matters.
I urge you to reach out to your local Senator and advocate for the passing of Clause 11. Support organisations like WLSA and the Women’s Coalition of Zimbabwe by joining their awareness campaigns or attending their virtual town halls.
If we truly care about the "love of humanity," we must start by trusting women with their own lives.
Education begins with you — share the facts, dismantle the myths and help to make Zimbabwe a safer place for every woman and girl.
