모자보건법 제14조(인공임신중절수술의 허용한계)의 역사 : 인구정책변화에 따른 의미 변화와 ‘사회경제적 이유’ 포함 논쟁을 중심으로

신유나(Yu Na Shin),최규진(Kyu Jin Choi) 비판과 대안을 위한 사회복지학회 2020 비판사회정책 Vol.- No.66

본 연구는 인공임신중절 허용사유 중 하나로 논의되었던 ‘사회경제적 이유’ 포함 논쟁을 중심으로 모자보건법 제14조의 역사를 정리한 것이다. 모자보건법은 인구정책의 변화에 따라 제 · 개정되었다. 특히, 이 과정에서 제14조의 ‘사회경제적 이유’를 포함하려는 목적도 변화되었다. 1960년대부터 1980년대까지는 ‘경제개발’을 위해 인구를 억제시켜야 한다는 이유로 모자보건법 인공임신중절수술의 허용한계에 사회경제적 이유를 포함시키려 했다. 그러나 장기집권을 위해 보수층의 눈치를 봐야 했던 박정희 정권은 이를 포함시키지 못한 채 낙태죄를 단속하지 않는 방식을 취했고, 이러한 방향은 전두환, 노태우 정권까지 이어졌다. 그러나 군사정권을 벗어난 이후에도 모자보건법 인공임신중절수술의 허용한계에 사회경제적 이유는 포함되지 못했다. 이는 1990년대에 인구정책 기조가 바뀌기 시작해, 2000년대에 인구증가정책이 대두된 배경이 크게 작용했다. 즉, 진보적인 정부하에서조차 인구증가정책이라는 국가주의적 틀에 갇혀 피임 강화와 캠페인 등 우회적인 방법으로 낙태를 예방하는 데 급급했다. 그러나 2010년 진오비(프로라이프 의사회) 사건을 필두로 보수정권의 퇴행적 정책에 대한 사회운동의 대응이 이루어지며 낙태죄 폐지와 인공임신중절수술의 허용한계에 사회경제적 이유를 포함시켜야 한다는 목소리가 높아져왔다. 하지만 국제적 흐름은 인공임신중절 허용사유에 사회경제적 이유를 포함시키는 논의를 훨씬 넘어서고 있다. 따라서 이 인공임신중절 허용사유의 사회경제적 이유 포함 여부를 둘러싼 논쟁의 역사를 보다 비판적으로 고찰할 필요가 있다. 다시 말해, 헌법재판소의 낙태죄 헌법불합치 판결 이후의 논의에서 인공임신중절 허용사유의 사회경제적 이유 포함 여부가 논의의 핵심이 되어선 안 된다. 오히려 모자보건법 제14조의 탄생과 그것이 활용되온 역사가 절대적으로 국가주의적인 틀 속에서 이루어졌음을 인식하고, 보다 근본적인 논의를 진행할 필요가 있다. This study summarized the history of Article 14 of the Mother and Child Health Law, focusing on “socioeconomic reasons” discussed as one of the grounds for permissible induced abortion. As a result, the Mother and Child Health Law was enacted and revised according to the change of the population policy. Especially, in this process, the purpose of the intended inclusion of ‘socioeconomic reasons” in Article 14 also changed. From the 1960s through the 1980s, the government would include socioeconomic reasons in the Mother and Child Health Law for the reason that it is necessary to control the population for ‘economic development.’ However, the Park Chung-hee regime that had to read the conservative class for a prolonged rule adopted the way of not cracking down on criminal abortion operation, without including them. This direction continued until the 1980s. Even after leaving the military regime, the socioeconomic reasons were not included in Article 14. This was largely attributed to the rise of population growth policies in the 2000s. In other words, even under progressive government, they were locked in the nationalistic framework of population growth policy. In 2010, the Pro-Life Medical Association event triggered a response from the social movement. And it has been reiterated that socioeconomic reasons should be included in reasons for allowing abortions However, the international trend goes far beyond the discussion of including socioeconomic reasons in reasons for allowing abortions. Therefore, it is necessary to consider more critically the history of the debate over whether to include the socioeconomic reasons for allowing abortions. In other words, in the recent discussions after the Korean Constitutional Court"s decision about the abortion, whether to include the socioeconomic reasons for allowing abortions should not be at the heart of the debate. Rather, it is necessary to recognize that the birth of Article 14 of the Maternal and Child Health Act and the history of its use have taken place within an absolutely nationalistic framework, and to proceed with more fundamental discussions. The international trend goes far beyond the discussion of incorporating socioeconomic reasons into the reasons for abortion. Thus, in the discussions after the Korean Constitutional Court"s decision about abortion, the inclusion of socio-economic reasons for abortion should not be at the heart of the debate. Rather, it is necessary to recognize that the birth of Article 14 of the Maternal and Child Health Act and the history of its use have taken place in an absolutely nationalist framework, and to proceed with more open and fundamental discussions.

낙태 비범죄화론

조국 ( Kuk Cho ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2013 서울대학교 법학 Vol.54 No.3

Abortion in Korea is regulated by the Mother and Child Health Act rather than by the Penal Code for the former is a special criminal act. The requirements of legitimate abortion in the Act are much stricter than those in other OECD countries. First, a doctor may conduct an abortion operation with the consent of both pregnant woman herself and her spouse including a person having a de facto marital relation. Second, legal abortions are strictly limited only to the following cases; Where she or her spouse suffers from any eugenic or genetic mental handicap or physical disease as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; Where she or her spouse suffers from any infectious disease as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; Where she is impregnated by rape or “quasi-rape”; Where pregnancy is taken place between blood relatives or matrimonial relatives who are legally unable to marry; and where the maintenance of pregnancy injures or might injure the health of pregnant woman for health or medical reasons. Social or economic grounds for abortion are not available. In this context, abortion is strictly prohibited. However, these strict legal requirements are deceiving for abortion has been barely investigated and prosecuted in reality, that is, the Mother and Child Health Act is a de facto dead law. This Article starts with reviewing arguments for the decriminalization of abortion, emphasizing the separation between criminal law and religious/moral belief and focusing on the self-determination right and reproductive right of women. Second, it reviews the abortion law and policy of the major OECD countries. Third, it make legislative proposals to revise the Mother and Child Health Act: (i) The requirement of spouse` agreement should be repealed; (ii) The eugenic and criminal justifications for abortion in the Act should be extended; (iii) The socio-economic justification for abortion should be newly added; (iv) Abortion within 12 weeks of pregnancy should be decriminalized only after both medical and social counseling; and (v) Non-criminal policies to prevent abortion should be implemented such as systematic education of contraception, socio-economic support for unmarried mother, and revitalization for domestic adoption.

낙태죄 헌법불합치 결정에 따른 관련법개정 방향에 관한 연구

김학태 ( Haktai Kim ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2021 외법논집 Vol.45 No.1

For the past 70 years, the abortion norm in Korean society has not solved the problem of reality, but rather amplified the conflict, and has even taken the stigma of becoming a symbolic norm. Fortunately, it was late, but I think the Constitutional Court decision in 2019 was a decisive opportunity to resolve the gap between the abortion crime norms and reality that had not been resolved. With the Constitutional Court’s decision, the abortion rule now faces new changes. The abortion regulation should be revised in the direction of harmonizing the fetus’s right to life and the woman’s right to self-determination. Therefore, the question of how long abortion can be allowed, the question of what criteria can be judged if an abortion is allowed for ‘social and economic reasons’, consultation with a doctor and introduction of a period of consideration, etc. The question of whether the regulations on abortion are regulated by the Criminal Law or the other Law can be examined. Therefore, it is reasonable to limit the allowable period of abortion to 14 weeks of pregnancy, like legislation in various countries. Abortions are allowed from 14 weeks of pregnancy to 22 weeks of pregnancy only if there are legitimate reasons for abortion including social and economic reasons. In addition, it is necessary to consult a doctor before abortion and to decide on an abortion after a meditation period of at least 3 days. In conclusion, it is desirable to abolish the provisions of self-abortion and consent abortion in the Criminal Law, and to stipulate the period of abortion allowance and procedure regulations in the Maternal and Child Health Act.