The proposal to introduce mandatory consultations for women who wish to terminate a pregnancy raises serious human rights concerns, according to Ombudswoman Karina Palkova.
Through the Office of the Ombudsman, Palkova told LETA that although the initiative is presented as a measure of “support” and “protection of unborn life,” in reality, it affects women’s rights to autonomy, self-determination, and private and family life, and may amount to an indirect coercive mechanism that disproportionately restricts women’s freedom of choice.
Palkova explained that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly emphasized that the right to private life, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, includes a person’s right to make decisions about her own body, health, and reproductive life. The Court’s case law establishes that state interference in this area can only be legitimate if it is lawful, clearly defined by law, pursues a legitimate aim such as the protection of others’ rights or public interests, is necessary in a democratic society, and is proportionate to its objective.
While a consultation in itself is not prohibited, making it mandatory as a prerequisite for accessing a medical service could constitute unjustified interference with a woman’s autonomy.
This is a particularly sensitive area, in which the ECHR has consistently held that states enjoy a wide margin of appreciation, but
must always respect personal dignity and self-determination.
According to the ombudswoman, Latvian law already allows women to receive counseling if they wish, and this approach meets human rights standards, as it respects a woman’s individual situation and her capacity to make an informed decision.
However, she warned that making consultations mandatory as a condition for abortion would mean that a woman cannot exercise her legal rights without an additional state-imposed procedure.
“This could become an indirect barrier that delays or complicates access to abortion — and such situations have been explicitly criticized by the ECHR in its case law,” Palkova stressed.
She also emphasized that, from a human rights perspective, a woman’s body and her decision about pregnancy belong to her alone. Forcing her to attend a consultation — especially if its content includes “encouragement to continue the pregnancy” — could be perceived as a paternalistic approach that undermines a woman’s dignity, she said.
Moreover,
the proposal would require mandatory consultations for the prospective father.
Such a requirement could undermine or influence a woman’s decision, which is inconsistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing personal autonomy and private life, the ombudswoman noted.
She added that, in practice, such a rule might be impossible to implement — for instance, if the father is unknown, unidentified, or unavailable.
“In these cases, requiring both parents to attend a consultation becomes an obstacle to exercising reproductive rights and effectively restricts access to a lawful abortion,” Palkova said.
Such a requirement could also endanger women in abusive relationships,
if they were forced to involve someone they do not wish to contact, she added.
Palkova also pointed out that both the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have repeatedly urged states to refrain from mandatory counseling or waiting periods that could hinder women’s access to safe and legal abortions.
“The state has an obligation to protect both life and fundamental rights,” Palkova stated.
“However, in this case, introducing mandatory consultations would disproportionately restrict women’s rights to self-determination, privacy, and bodily integrity.”
She emphasized that support and information on reproductive health issues are essential, but they must remain voluntary.
“Only then can a woman’s true autonomy and dignity be ensured — as guaranteed by both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution of Latvia,” the ombudswoman concluded.
Earlier, opposition MPs from the National Alliance (NA) and Latvia First (LPV) — Jurgis Klotiņš (NA), Jānis Grasbergs (NA), and Ramona Petraviča (LPV) — submitted amendments to the Sexual and Reproductive Health Law,
proposing the introduction of mandatory consultations for women wishing to terminate a pregnancy by choice.
The MPs propose adding the concept of “unborn life” to the law, defined as “human life beginning at the moment of fertilization, when male and female reproductive cells merge.”
They suggest that a woman seeking an abortion, as well as the child’s prospective father, should be offered counseling by a trained specialist, with the Cabinet of Ministers determining the required qualifications, training content, and consultation procedures.
Currently, counseling may be provided by a family doctor, psychotherapist, gynecologist, or other medical professional, but the MPs propose to expand this circle to include psychotherapists, psychologists, doulas, and parental support specialists.
The authors of the proposal claim that
these consultations would take place “without preaching or patronizing attitudes”,
that the outcome would not be predetermined, and that the pregnant woman herself would make the final decision.
“The consultation would serve to support the pregnant woman and protect unborn life. It should be based on encouraging continuation of the pregnancy and presenting perspectives for life with a child,” the MPs stated.
They argue that consultations should discuss in detail the reasons for or against abortion, and provide information about available financial and childcare support, as well as the possibility of adoption. If necessary, women could still be informed about where and how abortions are performed.
Under the proposal, the specialist conducting the consultation would issue a certificate confirming participation, which would be required before authorization for abortion could be granted.
The amendments would define when such consultations are mandatory and when they are voluntary.
Currently, women may receive counseling if they wish, but the MPs argue that the law should place greater emphasis on protecting unborn life, meaning that consultations should be compulsory in certain cases.
Specifically, a woman would be required to attend a consultation if she seeks to terminate a pregnancy by her own choice.
In other cases of medically or legally justified terminations, women — including those under 16 years old — would have the right, but not the obligation, to receive counseling.
The prospective father would also be required to attend a consultation in cases of elective abortion, while in other cases he would have only the right to do so. Parents or guardians of patients under 16 would also be granted the right to attend.
Furthermore, an abortion referral could be issued only after receiving confirmation that the woman has attended the prescribed consultation.
The MPs propose that the amendments enter into force on the 1st of January, 2027, to allow sufficient time for the Cabinet of Ministers to develop and implement the necessary regulations.
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | The ideological battle over the Istanbul Convention – who uses it better?