Sabina is 16 years old and is in secondary education. She never had access to sexual and reproductive health services, no information about safe sexual behavior, and no opportunity to consult a gynecologist. After suspecting that she is pregnant, she, together with her mother, turned to the PHI University Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics on 05.01.2023, with the intention of determining the status and, if it is confirmed that she is pregnant, to request termination of the pregnancy.
Since we immediately indicated that we had come to terminate the pregnancy, after the first gynecological examination, because the specialist gynecologist was not sure which week of pregnancy it was, he referred us to a second gynecological examination for a second opinion from another specialist gynecologist, in another room in within the same hospital. At the second gynecological examination, we were told that they could not determine which week of pregnancy we were talking about certainty, that is, that “it is on the border between the 22nd and 23rd gestational weeks” and they instructed us to go again the next day for a gynecological examination and to contact the Commission for Termination of Pregnancy. The social worker who accompanied us told me at this “pray it’s less than 22 weeks”. Such a comment indicates that although the Law on Termination of Pregnancy presides over situations where termination of pregnancy is allowed even after the 22nd week of gestation, an anti-legal practice of refusing requests for termination of pregnancy that has exceeded the 22nd week of gestation has clearly been established.
The next day, we again went to the PHI University Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, where we first asked the social worker for the purpose of completing the necessary documentation for submitting the request to the Commission for Termination of Pregnancy. Before we addressed them, the social worker called Prof. Dr. Sci. for Sabina to undergo a gynecological examination once again. During the examination, she asked Sabina whether she knew when her last menstruation was, to which Sabina answered that it was in August but that she wasn’t sure which day it was To that, we got an answer from the doctor that “you can’t not know, you know the date, tell me”, to which Sabina said again that she didn’t know exactly. I thought that because she didn’t know the exact date, the doctors couldn’t determine which gestational week it was, but when I said it out loud and asked her if that was the reason, she replied “we don’t work on doubts, we work on examinations, measure the baby and conclude how old it is.” With at the end of the examination she told us “I don’t think the baby will be able to be aborted based on the measurements”. With all the reports completed, he directed me to contact the social worker and he would know what to do next.
After the Commission met and made the decision, they called us to enter the room and the president of it told us that they made a decision disapproving of abortion, telling us that “a morphologically healthy child of 500 g should be injected through the mother’s stomach” in my heart, I have no courage.’ He referred us to a second-level commission and that if the second-level commission for termination of pregnancy decides that the pregnancy is not approved, she will have to force the pregnancy, so when she gives birth, they could give her up for adoption. The social worker indicated to us that if they decide to refer to a second-level commission, I should go to the Ministry of Health.
According to the Law on Termination of Pregnancy, termination of pregnancy is a special medical intervention for which the pregnant woman freely decides, and in the case of a minor, the declaration is made by the legal guardian (Article 2, Law on termination of pregnancy). Termination of pregnancy can be carried out at any stage of pregnancy when it is determined that during pregnancy or after childbirth, the woman could face personal, family, material or other circumstances that will affect her health. In doing so, the legislator clarified what these circumstances include so that it would be easier for the authorities to make a correct and legal decision. Namely, as difficult, personal, family, material and other occasions are especially considered: more severely disturbed marital and family relations, the existence of antisocial phenomena in the family, difficult housing conditions, material insecurity, impairment of the health of family members and the number of children in the family.
From the evidence submitted to the first-instance commission, as well as from the clear and unequivocal attitude of the child Sabina and her mother, it is indisputable that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the mental and physical health of the child, will leave her without completing her education and the opportunity for personal and professional development and employment. The difficult material conditions in which they are finds the child and her family, without the possibility to take care of the baby, will tie Sabina to the home and limit any possibility for her development in the future. It is about a young girl who is having sex for the first time and who is uninformed about protection against unwanted pregnancy.
The lack of adequate sex education and access to adequate science-based information that will prevent unwanted pregnancy and safe behavior resulted in an unwanted pregnancy and only Sabina knows what is best for her in this case. When deciding, the secondary committee must take into account the cultural values of the Roma community and the environment in which Sabina lives, which is an additional barrier to acquiring information about sexual and reproductive health, which in this case resulted in Sabina not having a family gynecologist and no information about the degree of pregnancy.
But the most important thing is that, as can be seen from the reports of the examinations carried out, Sabina arbitrarily requests the termination of the pregnancy due to all above reasons. She perceives the very decision of the First-instance Commission for Termination of Pregnancy, which does not approve abortion, as forcing her to be a parent and fear for her future due to exclusion from the educational process.
The decision of the first instance commission was made based on a prejudice that it is normal for a Roma girl to give birth at the age of 16, not to continue it only role in life is to give birth and submit to the patriarchal society without the opportunity to express his voice and autonomously decide his life.
After the impossibility of performing an abortion, Sabina decides to enter into an extramarital union with the baby’s father and interrupts the educational process.
– This is the testimony of Sabina’s mother.
