Sri Lanka continues to live with one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, rooted in sections of the Penal Code enacted in 1883. This colonial-era law criminalises abortion in almost all circumstances, allowing it only when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. Nearly 150 years later, the country is still governed by legal assumptions formed in a very different world. The cost of this inaction is borne by women and girl children, particularly survivors of rape, victims of incest, and those forced to carry pregnancies with fatal foetal abnormalities.

Calls to reform this law are not new, nor are they reckless. They have emerged repeatedly over decades, led by medical professionals, legal scholars and public health experts, who confront the human consequences of the law every day. Academic research published by the Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka and scholars writing in local medical and legal journals consistently show that criminalisation does not prevent abortion. It only pushes it underground, increasing the risk of physical harm, psychological trauma and death.

The first serious modern attempt to change the law came in the late 1970s, when a private member’s bill sought to legalise abortion. That effort failed in the face of intense opposition from religious communities. Nearly two decades later, in 1995, the Ministry of Justice introduced a proposed amendment to the Penal Code that would have allowed abortion in cases of rape, incest and lethal foetal abnormalities. The proposal was debated but ultimately withdrawn, once again stalled by strong resistance that made lawmakers reluctant to proceed.

In 2011, the National Action Plan for Human Rights formally acknowledged the problem. It recommended decriminalising abortion in cases of rape and serious congenital anomalies. This was not a radical proposal, but a cautious recognition that the law was failing women in extreme circumstances. Yet the recommendation was never translated into legislation. Two years later, in 2013, the Law Commission of Sri Lanka produced a detailed report proposing limited legal reform along the same lines. Drawing on comparative legal analysis and medical evidence, the Commission argued that compelling women to continue such pregnancies violated basic principles of justice and proportionality. That proposal too was shelved.

Further momentum emerged in 2017, when a special committee reviewing the Penal Code recommended allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, pregnancies involving girls under 16, and serious foetal impairments. These recommendations reflected realities that doctors, forensic specialists and child protection authorities encounter regularly. Still, no legal amendment followed. In March 2022, then Justice Minister publicly called for Parliament to begin a serious discussion on permitting abortion in cases of rape. The discussion never moved beyond words.

Throughout these decades, academic research has consistently warned of the consequences of delay. Studies published in international medical journals and cited by Sri Lankan researchers show that unsafe abortion is a significant contributor to maternal morbidity in countries with restrictive laws. Public health research demonstrates that women who are denied legal abortion do not stop seeking it. Instead, they turn to unsafe methods that place their lives at risk. This is not speculation. It is documented evidence.

Medical professionals have been among the most persistent voices calling for reform. Obstetricians and gynaecologists have described the trauma of treating girls who became pregnant after rape and were legally forced to carry the pregnancy to term. For a minor, pregnancy is not only a medical risk but a lifelong psychological burden. For women carrying foetuses with fatal abnormalities, the law demands endurance rather than compassion. Research in medical ethics literature stresses that forcing women to continue such pregnancies exacerbates grief and mental distress without serving any medical purpose.

Re-evaluating the Penal Code is not about abandoning moral values. It is about recognising that a law written in the 19th century cannot adequately respond to the realities of the 21st. Limited legal reform to permit abortion under clearly defined circumstances such as rape, especially involving minors, incest, and fatal foetal abnormalities would not open the door to unrestricted abortion. It would simply prevent further harm in situations where harm is already unavoidable.

At its core, this debate is about whether the law protects women and girl children, or whether it punishes them for circumstances beyond their control. The repeated calls from doctors make one thing clear. This is not a political demand, but a medical and humanitarian one. We have studied this issue, debated it and deferred it for decades. The evidence is already there. What remains is the courage to act.