• Proceedings of the KHMA Conference
• /
• 2011.11a
• /
• pp.270-270
• /
• 2011

• Journal of Families and Better Life
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of attitudes toward reasons for which abortion is permitted on needs for abortion prevention policies among 232 unmarried female students at the middle schools, high schools, and universities located in Seoul. The respondents were requested to complete the self-administered questionnaire, and the principal component analysis, t-tests, Pearson's correlations, and hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed for analyzing data. The major findings of this study were as follows: First, the principal component analysis identified three reasons for which abortion is permitted. These are reasons under the maternal & child health law, socioeconomic reasons, and normatively unqualified reasons. Second, the female students showed permissive attitudes toward reasons for abortion under the maternal & child health law, disapproval attitudes toward socioeconomic reasons for abortion, and neutral attitudes toward abortion by normatively unqualified reasons. Students also showed high levels of needs for abortion prevention policies. Finally, hierarchical regression analyses revealed that female students' attitudes toward reasons for which abortion is permitted significantly predicted levels of needs for abortion prevention policies, after controlling their sciodemographic characteristics. The implications of the study results are discussed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2019

Even after the Constitutional Court decided on August 23, 2012 that the provisions of abortion were constitutional, discussions on the abolition of abortion continued. The controversy about abortion is not only happening recently, but it has already existed since the time when the Penal Code was enacted, and it shares the history of modern legislation with the Republic of Korea. Legislators whom submitted amendment while insisting upon the eradication of abortion in the process of enacting criminal law at that time, presented social and economic adaptation reasons as the core reason. From then on, the abolition of abortion has been discussed during the development dictatorship, but this was not intended to guarantee women's human rights, but it was closely connected to the national policy projects of "Contraception" and "Family Planning" of the Park's dictatorship. Since then, the enactment of the Mother and Child Health Law, which restrictively allow artificial abortion, was held on February 8, 1973, in an emergency cabinet meeting that replaced the legislative power after the National Assembly was disbanded. It became effected May 10th. The reason behind the Mother and Child Health Law that included legalization of abortion in part was that the Revitalizing Reform at that time did not allow any opinion, so it seem to be it was difficult for the religious to express opposition. The "Maternal and Child Health Law" enacted in this way has been maintained through several amendments. It can be seen that the question of maintenance of abortion has been running on parallel lines without any significant difference from the time when the Penal Code was enacted. On August 23, 2012, the Constitutional Court decided that the Constitutional Opinion and the unonstitutional Opinion were 4: 4. However, it was decided by the Constitution without satisfying the quorum for unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court. This argument about abolition of abortion is settled for the the time being with the decision of the constitutional inconsistency of the Constitutional Court, and now, the National Assembly bears the issue of new legislation. In other words, the improved legislation must be executed until December 31, 2020, and if the previous improved legislation is not implemented, the crime of abortion (Article 269, Paragraph 1, Article 270 of the Criminal Code) Article 1 (1) will cease to be effective from 1 January 2021. Therefore, in the following, we will look into the reason of the Constitutional Court's constitutional discordance adjudication on criminal abortion(II), and how it structurally differs from the previous Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. After considering key issues arised from the constitutional discordance adjudication(III), the legislative direction and within the scope of legislative discretion in accordance with the criteria presented by the Constitutional Court We reviewed the proposed revisions to the Penal Code and the Mather and Child Health Act of Korea(IV).