Croatia: How Abortion Access is Hindered by the Right to Conscientiously Object

By Haley Tenelshof

Abortions have been legal in Croatia since 1978 until the 10th week of gestation.[1] However, a 2003 Amendment allowing physicians to refuse to perform the procedure on the grounds of conscience (the “conscientious objection”) has dramatically reduced access to abortions.[2] The limited access to abortions, and the social stigma surrounding abortions in Croatia, is negatively impacting the mental and physical health of women in Croatia, and imposing a financial burden on them.[3]

In 1978, the Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Croatia enacted the Act of Health Measures on the Exercise of the Right to Freedom of Decision-Making on Giving Birth.[4] The Act provided that “[t]ermination of pregnancy is a medical procedure. Termination of pregnancy may be performed only within 10 weeks of conception.”[5] Thus, the Act legalized abortions up to 10 weeks of gestation. However, since 1991, when Croatia declared its independence, religious organizations together with the Catholic Church have gained a strong influence.[6] The Catholic presence is overwhelmingly strong in Croatia with 87.97 percent of the population being Catholic in 2011.[7] This religious presence led to the 2003 Amendment which allows doctors to “conscientiously object” to performing abortions as long as the women’s life is not in danger.[8] Conscientious objection is defined as “the right of physicians to reject a practice or action that violates their ethical or moral principles.”[9]

Since the passage of this Amendment, the number of abortions, and access to abortions, has dramatically decreased. For example, prior to the conscientious objection, in 1985, there were 823 abortions per 1,000 live births in Croatia.[10] However, in 2016, this figure had fallen to 67 abortions per 1,000 live births.[11] This reduction is attributed to the fact that now only forty percent of doctors in Croatia are not conscientious objectors, and this number is reducing as well.[12] Doctors are not only conscientiously objecting for their own morals, but the social stigma surrounding abortions has led other doctors to opt out, citing the conscientious objection privilege, by the fear of being judged by their colleagues.[13]  

The option in Croatia to conscientiously object has led to poor and limited abortion services, misinformation surrounding contraceptives and abortion services, and stigmatization surrounding abortions, all of which has ultimately hindered Croatian women’s access to safe abortions.[14] By “being labelled as immoral for having become pregnant while not having the possibility of using contraceptives … women [are put] in a paradoxical situation, which negatively affects both their sexual and reproductive health and rights.”[15]

Furthermore, as a result of the reducing number of doctors willing to perform abortions, Croatian women are being forced to have an abortion at a private clinic, which is substantially more expensive than a public clinic, or women are forced to travel abroad at an extraordinary cost and danger to themselves.[16] Many Croatians go to neighboring Slovenia because only three percent of medical practitioners exercise the option to object, making abortions more widely available.[17] Due to the extraordinary measures a women must take to receive an abortion, the objection has put women in unequal situations because the access to abortion depends on their place of residence, socio-economic status, income, and ability to travel.[18] Therefore, the objection has had a stronger impact on women in lower-income areas and with lower socio-economic status.[19]

Even with extremely limited abortion access and the 2003 Amendment to allow doctors to conscientiously object, the fight to completely prohibit abortion services in Croatia is not over. The constitutionality of the Act legalizing abortion was challenged recently in the Constitutional Court of Croatia and the court rendered its decision in 2017.[20] The proponents included various religious groups, such as the Croatian Movement for Life and Family, the Croatian Catholic Association, and the group “In the Name of the Family”, which argued that the Act was unconstitutional due to Article 21 of Croatia’s Constitution guaranteeing “that each human being has the right to life”, among other reasons.[21] However, the Constitutional Court disagreed.[22] In its reasoning, the Constitutional Court explained:

The right to privacy guaranteed in Article 35 of the Constitution includes the right of each person to free decision-making and self-determination. Therefore, the right to privacy entails the right of a woman to her own mental and physical integrity, including the right to decide on conceiving a child and on the course of her pregnancy. … The right to life of an unborn being within this meaning is not protected to have an advantage over or greater protection than a woman’s right to privacy. [23] 

Therefore, the Constitutional Court found the Act, and the right to an abortion within 10 weeks of conception, constitutionally protected.[24] Even with this ruling, the fight to completely ban abortions is not over.[25] However, this continued fight to foreclose access to abortions will only propel women to obtain unsafe abortions and will continue to harm women mentally, physically, and financially. It has been noted that one’s beliefs should not endanger or preclude the rights of others, however, that is exactly what the “conscientious objection” is doing.[26]

[1] Bogdanic & Batisweiler, Is Croatia going the way of Poland on reproductive rights?, DW.com (Dec. 26, 2020), https://www.dw.com/en/is-croatia-going-the-way-of-poland-on-reproductive-rights/a-56044929.

[2] Id.

[3] See Anja Vladisavljevic, ‘Brave Sisters’ Tackle Croatia’s Growing Stigma Over Abortion, Balkaninsight.com (Dec. 1, 2020), https://balkaninsight.com/2020/12/01/brave-sisters-tackle-croatias-growing-stigma-over-abortion/.

[4] Official Gazette No. 18 of 4 May 1978 (hereinafter the “Act”).

[5] Official Gazette No. 18 of 4 May 1978, at art. 15.

[6] Hakansson, Ouis, and Ragnar, Navigating the Minefield: Women’s Experience of Abortion in a Country with a Conscience Clause – The Case of Croatia, 22(1) J. of Int’l Women’s Studies 166, 167 (Feb. 2021).

[7] Borovecki and Babic-Bosanac, Discourse, ethics, public health, abortion, and conscientious objection in Croatia, Croat. Med. J. 316, 317 (2017).

[8] Hakansson, Ouis, and Ragnar, supra note 6, at 167.

[9] Borovecki and Babic-Bosanac, supra note 7, at 316.

[10] Amanda Coakley, Amid Stigma in Croatia, Volunteers support women having Abortions, Aljazeera.com (May 27, 2021), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/27/amid-stigma-in-croatia-volunteers-support-women-having-abortions.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] [13] Hakansson, Ouis, and Ragnar, supra note 6, at 175.

[14] Id. at 167, 174.

[15] Id. at 175.

[16] Coakley, supra note 10.

[17] Bogdanic & Batisweiler, supra note 1.

[18] Id. at 167.

[19] Id. at 175.

[20] See Official Gazette 25/2017, Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia no. U-I-60/1991 et al. of 21 February 2017.

[21] See Official Gazette 25/2017, Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia no. U-I-60/1991 et al. of 21 February 2017.

[22] See Official Gazette 25/2017, Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia no. U-I-60/1991 et al. of 21 February 2017.

[23] Id. at para. 44 .1and 45.

[24] Id. at para 47.

[25] See Anja Vladisavljevic, supra note 3.

[26] See Borovecki and Babic-Bosanac, supra note 7, at 316.