Hungary

ABORTION POLICY

Grounds on which abortion is permitted:

To save the life of the woman Yes

To preserve physical health Yes
To preserve mental health Yes
Rape or incest Yes
Foetal impairment Yes
Economic or social reasons Yes
Available on request Yes

Additional requirements:

A consultation with a nurse is compulsory to inform the pregnant woman on issues of contraception, as
well as to provide assistance if the pregnancy is carried to term.

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONTEXT

Government view on fertility level: Too low

Government intervention concerning fertility level: To raise

Government policy on contraceptive use: Direct support provided

Percentage of currently married women using

modern contraception (aged 18-41, 1992/93): 68*

Total fertility rate (1995-2000): 1.4

Age-specific fertility rate (per 1,000 women aged 15-19, 1995-2000): 28

Government has expressed particular concern about:

Morbidity and mortality resulting from induced abortion No
Complications of childbearing and childbirth No

Maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births, 1990):

National 30
Developed countries 27

Female life expectancy at birth (1995-2000): 74.9

*
Including consensual unions.

Source: Population Policy Data Bank maintained by the Population Division of the Department for Economic and Social Affairs of the
United Nations Secretariat. For additional sources, see list of references.
51
Hungary

BACKGROUND

Prior to 1953, the performance of abortions in Hungary was illegal except for serious health reasons.
The restrictive nature of the law was due, in part, to the Government’s effort to counter falling birth rates.
However, two decrees, one issued in 1953 and the other in 1956, substantially liberalized the abortion law.
The first of these expanded the grounds for abortion to include justified family and social grounds and
instituted a committee to determine whether an abortion could be performed on medical grounds. The
second provided that the committee was required to approve abortions performed on health, personal and
family grounds if the pregnant woman insisted. Thus, abortions could be performed on request during the
first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

In 1973, abortion law was once more made restrictive. Although abortion remained legal on social
grounds, under a new decree, these grounds were limited to the following: (a) the woman was single,
divorced, or widowed; (b) the woman had been separated from her spouse for at least six months; (c) the
pregnancy was the result of a criminal act; (d) the woman had no available accommodation; (e) the woman
was over 40 years of age (lowered to 35 in 1982); (f) the woman had three children; (g) her husband was
serving in the armed forces; (h) either was serving a prison sentence of at least six months; and (i) other
exceptional social reasons. In the cases of (a) through (f) the committee was required to authorize the
abortion so long as the pregnancy was of no more than 12 weeks’ duration. In the cases of (g) through (i) it
was permitted to do so. In 1986, the law was again amended to require the authorization of abortions in
cases of foetal defect.

In November and December 1988, Government ministries issued new ordinances regulating abortion.
The conditions were largely the same as those listed above. However, committee approval was replaced by
the approval of a medical specialist for all abortions except those performed when justified on “other social
indications.” These were to be approved by a family and women’s protection counsellor. In effect, this
abolition of committee approval meant that abortions were much more easily obtainable than before since
the decision was left to the woman and either a medical specialist or a counsellor.

Shortly after their issuance, the constitutionality of these ordinances was challenged by anti-abortion
groups before the Constitutional Court of Hungary. They claimed that the regulations did not sufficiently
protect the right to life of the foetus, which they argued was protected by right-to-life provisions of the
Hungarian Constitution. Although the Court invalidated the regulations, it did so on other grounds. It held
that the regulations had not been properly approved because they were not enacted by the National
Assembly, but instead issued by the Council of Ministers. It pointed to article 8(2) of the Constitution,
which requires issues involving fundamental rights to be governed by parliamentary legislation, not
ministerial regulations, and concluded that, since the issue of abortion involved fundamental rights, any
legislation dealing with it must be approved by the National Assembly. Nonetheless, it left the regulations
intact for one year, giving the National Assembly that length of time to enact new legislation, which it
indicated would be valid only if it took a middle position between banning abortions completely and
permitting them with no restrictions.

In 1992, Parliament enacted a new abortion law. Although the law stressed respect for the life of the
foetus and emphasized that abortion was not to be considered a form of family planning, it nonetheless
allowed a woman to obtain an abortion on request during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy when she was
in a “situation of crisis” as long as she obtained counselling and waited three days after the submission of
her application for abortion before the abortion was performed. In addition, the law allowed abortions
later in pregnancy for health reasons, for reasons of foetal defect and for cases in which the pregnancy
was the result of a criminal act, as well as when the woman was suffering from partial or total disability,
when she had not recognized her pregnancy due to medical error, or when the period for legal abortions
had elapsed owing to the negligence of the hospital or administrative authority. If the pregnancy
endangered the life of the woman, or the foetus presented a malformation that rendered any form of
Source: Population Policy Data Bank maintained by the Population Division of the Department for Economic and Social Affairs of the
United Nations Secretariat. For additional sources, see list of references.
52
 Hungary
postnatal life impossible, the abortion could be performed at any time during pregnancy. A woman was
required to pay for abortions performed when she was in a “situation of crisis”.

Like the previous ordinances, the new law was challenged before the Constitutional Court by anti-
abortion groups, who again claimed that it did not sufficiently protect the life of the foetus. Again, in a 1998
decision, the Court rejected this argument. It did, however, find that the law was defective in that the phrase
“crisis situation” was not sufficiently well defined, allowing a woman to obtain an abortion on the basis of a
simple declaration without specification of her problems or a check on them. It gave the National Assembly
until 30 June 2000 to enact new legislation that defined “crisis situation” and the circumstances under which
an abortion could be obtained on this ground. As of the end of 1999, Parliament had not yet acted.

Source: Population Policy Data Bank maintained by the Population Division of the Department for Economic and Social Affairs of the
United Nations Secretariat. For additional sources, see list of references.
53