The anti-abortion law of South Korea was made during the Japanese occupation. After independence and the Korean War, when the first members of the National Assembly made Criminal Law in 1953, they decided to keep the criminal provision on abortion made by the Japanese government.

According to the Criminal Act of South Korea, women who get an abortion can spend up to a year in prison or be fined up to 2 million won (about 1,850 dollars). Doctors, midwives, and any healthcare workers who provide abortions can face up to two years in prison.

However, during the 1970s, a dictatorial government drove national family planning policy with an economic development plan, and the government enacted the Mother and Child Health Law to push population control. This law defines five exceptions to illegal abortion. The grounds are eugenic disease of parents or disability of parents, pregnancy by rape or incest, and critical health problems by pregnancy. Also, this law requires the consent of male spouses even on these grounds.

During the 1970s–1980s, the South Korean government established family planning clinics nationwide that provided abortion services under the name of menstrual regulation, and the government offered strong incentives such as public housing and health insurance benefits to families who had fewer than two children.

On the other hand, pregnant disabled people, single mothers, poor mothers, and women who gave birth to children with foreigners were often subjected to forced abortions, or forced to give up their children for international adoption. Some family planning staff forced women to get sterilization or abortion surgery.

Due to the government’s ambivalent stance, abortion was virtually widespread and even promoted by the government, but at the same time, due to the constant risk of punishment, women found themselves in a position where they could be penalized at any moment. While healthcare providers were informally earning money in such a medical environment, women were inevitably in vulnerable positions within the healthcare system.

In 2009, the first anti-rights doctors’ group sued doctors and hospitals for performing an abortion. It was very effective to make doctors refuse abortion services for fear of punishment. Many women were sued by their partners or husbands. During this period, women went abroad for an abortion and the cost increased very highly. Abortion pills were introduced to women through black markets.

In response to the anti-abortion campaigns in South Korea, the Network for Women’s Right to Decide Pregnancy and Delivery was organized in 2010, which was comprised of feminist organizations, social justice organizations, workers’ unions, and other progressive groups. In the same year, one case in which a man sued his partner and a midwife went to the Constitutional Court. But in 2012, the Constitutional Court ruled the provisions were constitutional. Unfortunately, in November of the year, an 18-year-old woman died during an abortion procedure. She was 23 weeks pregnant. But under the influence of the decision of the Constitutional Court, it was very hard to find a hospital. Finally, they found one hospital after 3 times of failures, but she died from perforation of the uterus.

In 2016, the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare announced an amendment that would double jeopardize doctors who performed to terminate a pregnancy by listing surgical abortions as an “unethical” medical practice. More than 235,000 people signed a Blue House petition calling for the repeal of the anti-abortion act and the legalization of mifepristone. Women who gathered through online communities and on social media held rallies around the country.

In 2017, the Joint Action for Reproductive Justice was launched. In the same year, activists and attorneys brought a case that a doctor accused of violation of the criminal provision on abortion to the Constitutional Court.

On April 11, 2019, the Constitutional Court ruled the criminal provisions on abortion in the Criminal Act were inconsistent with the Constitution.

NA

NA

Even though the termination of abortion has been decriminalized, the government and health authorities are delaying the progress of policies that ensure health and rights. As of December 2023, the National Health Insurance covers just cases that are accordant with the grounds of Article 14 of the Mother and Child Health Act which had been defined as ‘legal abortion’ when the criminal provisions had been effective. The process to approve medical abortion also has been under consideration since 2021.

During the anti-natalist population control period, a prevailing unofficial practice of performing pregnancy termination procedures persisted in most hospitals and clinics.

Even medical schools do not provide accurate education, so not many people are familiar with the latest safe abortion guidelines and medical ethics. While there was a vague fear of side effects or risks, many hospitals and clinics only performed the procedure unofficially to make money.

Such circumstances made it difficult to explore safer and patient-centered medical support and awareness. Meanwhile, only the methods to avoid or bypass punishment have been increased.

Due to the effects of the years that abortion was a criminal, those kinds of erroneous practices such as demanding approval and confirmation from third parties rather than considering the individual’s situation and decision-making, and negotiating medical expenses are still going on.

As passing 3 years of decriminalization, hospitals and clinics that provide abortion services openly have been increasing. However, it's still not easy to find proper
hospitals that provide comprehensive abortion care.

Following the research of the Korean Institute for Health and Social Affairs that was released in June 2022, the artificial abortion rate in 2020 was 3.3%, with an estimated number of artificial abortions at around 32,000.

However, this study was conducted through online surveys, and may not accurately reflect precise figures.

Only obstetricians/gynocologist

No data

As of December 2023, Ob/Gyns can prescript misoprostol as ‘off-label’ and can not provide Mifepristone officially.

SHARE, the center for Sexual rigHts And Reproductive justicE released a draft of ‘the Framework Act on Assurance of Sexual and Reproductive Rights’, which emphasizes the importance of the total decriminalization of abortion and the need to guarantee SRHR in all areas of life including medical care, education, work, and social welfare. And we proposed the bill to members of the National Assembly. The proposed bill includes not only the responsibility of the government and local authorities but also specifies the responsibilities of experts in the fields of healthcare, labor, education, and social welfare, as well as individual institutions, in ensuring these rights.

SHARE has an affiliated clinic, the SDR (Supporting Diversity and Reproductive Health) Clinic, and pro-choice ob/Gyn members who can provide comprehensive abortion services. And we published <Safe Abortion Guidebook for Counselors and Medical Professionals ‘Together, by Your Side’>. <Together, by Your Side> proposes that we should be together with everyone who needs pregnancy termination at their side and reflects the intention that this guidebook likewise will be together with counselors and medical professionals who practice that invaluable change, by your side. The guidebook is structured so that professionals in field counseling and support organizations and agencies and clinical practice can refer to practical and detailed guidelines. In addition, not only counselors and medical and healthcare professionals but also activists in diverse organizations and teachers/instructors can refer to such materials at hand.

In addition, SHARE provides those kinds of information through an interactive web page https://www.byyourside-share.org/ so that anyone who wishes to find out accurate information and support direction regarding pregnancy termination either for themselves or someone around them can refer to these materials.

We are focused on expanding our network by building our narratives. We aim to elaborate our own story more concretely and foster the growth of a community. Our strategy is to communicate the fact that we are working towards the expansion of rights for more people and more proactive engagement.

In Korean society, due to the longstanding focus on preventive measures and selective support, there has been a limited range of policies. Therefore, raising awareness among people about the multitude and diversity of rights in areas SRHR and accessibility issues has a significant impact on garnering public interest and support.

For example, creating medical practices that provide accessible and understanding care to individuals with disabilities, immigrants, adolescents, transgender people, and sex workers from a more inclusive perspective has received positive responses. We are exploring strategies to foster a sense of pride among healthcare professionals in sharing and building this direction. And, now, we are demanding that abortion be addressed not as a separate issue, but as a problem interconnected with the life cycles and socio-economic circumstances of diverse individuals, including class, disability, age, immigration status, and gender identity.