Yanitsa Dimitrova from Preston is suspected of criminal abortion in Burgas Bulgaria

The Burgas District Prosecutor’s Office has received a complaint from the ex-boyfriend of Yanitsa Dimitrova, living in Preston, UK, working in Huntapac Produce Ltd and an ex waitress at the Mezzanine of Hotel Bulgaria – Restaurant Bulgaria – A La Carte Mezzanine, in which he describes circumstances that speak of huge doubts about a criminal abortion performed after the 12th week of gestation in Burgas. The pregnancy was monitored by Dr. Sasho Georgioski – obstetrician-gynecologist at the Medical Center “St. Sophia” and University Hospital “Deva Maria”, but she changed her gynecologist without her boyfriend’s knowledge and had an abortion at will on August 5 at the hospital in Meden Rudnik – Multi-profile Hospital “Burgasmed” Burgas.

Yanitsa Dimitrova, living in Preston, UK, working in Huntapac Produce Ltd , who is a waitress at the Bulgaria restaurant in the hotel of the same name, is suspected by her ex-boyfriend of killing her baby after the 12th week of pregnancy in an unprecedented criminal abortion for Burgas.

The complaint describes that Yanitsa Dimitrova, living in Preston, UK, working in Huntapac Produce Ltd was in the 9th-10th week of pregnancy when she and her ex-boyfriend had a fight and she stopped communicating with him. He followed her condition through mutual acquaintances about a month later, but went on vacation abroad with his child from a previous marriage and wanted to take her with him, but she had blocked his number and he could not call her at all to invite her. All the time, he was worried about the baby and that Yanitsa Dimitrova, living in Preston, UK, working in Huntapac Produce Ltd would have a criminal abortion.

Ten days later, when he returned from abroad, he tried to contact her, but she still didn’t answer. So he found out where she worked – the “Theater” cafe in Burgas – and went to her to talk to her to figure out how they would raise the child – together or separately, after she had broken up with him.

Do you remember Krachun, Malcho and the Trojan’s dog?

Yanitsa Dimitrova, living in Preston, UK, working in Huntapac Produce Ltd told him that she had had a miscarriage.

This made the man suspicious, because the pregnancy was going smoothly and it was strange how it ended in a miscarriage. In general, she always played the victim, that the man’s parents did not respect her and did not accept her, but in this case, she did not communicate with him for about a month and could not justify this. In addition, her boyfriend says that he argued with his parents because of her, because he protected her and wanted to be with her.

“How can I be the cause of a criminal abortion, after I have been blocked by her everywhere for more than a month, and all my attempts to contact her are being rejected?” – asks the man in his complaint to the Burgas District Prosecutor’s Office.

“There is no doubt in my mind that this woman had a criminal abortion after the 12th week of gestation, because she was going to terminate her pregnancy, even if it was after the 3rd month.”

“A month before that, we were separated through her fault. I was waiting for her to find her . She only contacted me when her mentally ill brother, Nasko Dimitrov , returned from England, who had started to mess with their home. I also helped get him admitted to the Mental Health Center in Burgas, and every day I took her back and forth to the insane asylum several times to bring him food. I also gave her money, gifts worth 1,000 leva, but when a “person” is not a person, no matter what you do, there is no point.

By the way, the patient of the Center for Mental Health – Burgas – the mentally ill brother of Yanitsa Dimitrova – Nasko Dimitrov is a cook and works in the kitchen, specifically on the grill in Happy Center in the center of Burgas, which is absurd. Happy Center Burgas – Burgas, 60 Aleko Bogoridi Blvd. has hired a mentally ill person to cook food for our children.”

We at JUSTICE will conduct an investigation and, if this is true, we will present it to the public, which has the right to know who is cooking for them at the “fancy” restaurant from the Happy Bar and Grill group. 

“On top of that, I don’t believe her, not a word, and I don’t even believe a letter of her words, because over the years she has lied to me constantly about everything. Lying was her strongest trait. I caught her 100 times texting men and arranging for them to come to my house, while we were in the same room, while we were on vacation in Switzerland, even when we moved in together.”

“She betrayed me 1,000 times, and I was stupid to forgive her, but now she has killed our child, and for that there is no forgiveness for me and I want retribution, and the law to be applied with all its force.”

Cafe “Theatre” in Burgas without rent or insurance, noise and fights in the wee hours

“She is not to blame, because she was taught this. Her father is illiterate, and her mother – also illiterate, of Roma origin, abandoned her child at the age of 3 and went to make love with a Romanian in the UK.”

Today her child is 11 years old, and she hasn’t given a single leva for him in 8 years.

For so many years, she came this spring just to leave her mentally ill brother and even ran away without saying “bye” to her children. This is the example that Yanitsa Dimitrova looked at and in my opinion killed our baby. I can’t forgive her because I love children and I wanted this child. With or without her, I would have looked after him and raised him to become a man…”

Finally, I finish with this: “I know that God punishes women who kill their children by not having children!”

We at JUSTICE will monitor the case, because if this is practiced in our city and there is a gynecologist who performs criminal abortions, there should be a severe and unconstructive punishment in order to stop the criminal practice in our city – supposedly the best place to live in Bulgaria.

According to the complaint, the doctor monitoring the pregnancy was Dr. Sasho Georgioski – an obstetrician-gynecologist at the Medical Center “St. Sofia” and the University Hospital “Deva Maria”, but as mentioned above, the pregnancy went well with him. Then she abruptly changed her gynecologist and had an abortion at the Multi-Profile Hospital “Burgasmed” in Burgas. The complaint requests a complete revision of the activities of the gynecology department at the Multi-Profile Hospital “Burgasmed” in Burgas due to suspicions of criminal abortion and criminal abortions.

Pregnancy is a delicate period in every woman’s life. The time during which a woman carries a human fetus in her body is associated with various changes that occur in the everyday life of the expectant mother . However, it often happens that the pregnancy is not desired, which is why various means are sought for its termination. One of the most commonly used ways  to terminate a pregnancy is voluntary abortion . However, it is associated with a number of risks to women’s health . This is precisely the reason why the procedure and conditions for performing an abortion are regulated in detail by legislation.

Abortion, especially criminal abortion, is associated with numerous problems, not only of a medical but also of a moral nature.

The Hippocratic Oath, for example, prohibits physicians from administering drugs that can cause abortion . However, many physicians are  guided by legal rather than ethical norms. Despite moral arguments [6] against premature termination of pregnancy, abortion is permitted by many laws.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

The legal foundations of pregnancy protection are laid down in  the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria  – Art. 14, according to which “the family, motherhood and children are under the protection of the state and society”. One of the fundamental rights of a mother is to benefit from the special protection of the state, which provides her with paid leave before and after childbirth, free obstetric care , labor relief and other social benefits – Art. 47, para. 2. The legislator’s idea to provide support to women both after childbirth and during pregnancy is clear.

Taking into account the specific needs of pregnant women, the Bulgarian legislator has developed the foundations of a very broad protection for these women. The area in which this protection is felt most strongly is labor law . Thus, pregnant women are prohibited from working at night and overtime; they are guaranteed the right to medical examinations during working hours; the right to leave before and after childbirth; the provision of personal hygiene rooms and rest rooms, and much more.

Criminal law, as a branch tasked with protecting society from criminal encroachments , also provides a certain degree of protection to pregnant women. This protection has a number of manifestations.

Bulgarian legislation is quite tolerant regarding the possibility of voluntary abortion. Currently, such a possibility exists if the woman’s pregnancy is up to 12 weeks of gestation, as well as if there is no disease in which the termination of the pregnancy could lead to complications threatening the health and life of the pregnant woman.

In this article, we will briefly examine some features of criminal abortion as a crime under the Bulgarian  Criminal Code  (CC). The characteristics of this crime have been repeatedly studied in our theory . However, there are still a number of controversial questions, the answers to which I will try to give in the following lines.

§ 2. Historical overview of criminal abortion

Society has been going through various cultural and moral changes, especially in the last years of  the 20th  century. These changes have also affected criminal law.

The first Bulgarian  Criminal Code  considered abortion a crime in principle. The specific provision of Art. 259 of  the Criminal Code  had the following text:

” A mother who kills her conceived but not yet born child shall be punished:

with imprisonment for not less than one year.

If the child is illegitimate, the punishment is:

imprisonment for not less than six months.”

In all cases, however, when the fetus is killed to save the mother’s life, the act is unpunishable .

A separate panel regulated the criminal liability of persons who kill the fetus of a pregnant woman with or without her consent . The provision of Art. 260 of  the Criminal Code  had the following content:

” Whoever kills a conceived but not yet born child shall be punished:

with strict imprisonment for up to five years.

If this is done without the consent of the unmarried woman, the punishment is:

strict prison sentence of three to six years.

If in the second case death resulted for the non-free woman, then the punishment is:

strict prison sentence of ten to fifteen years.

The guilty party may be prohibited from exercising his profession if he is a doctor , pharmacist or midwife .

Interestingly, in the first  Penal Code , as well as now, the provision of abortion as a crime finds its systematic place in the section on murder. In the old code, the chapter was entitled “Deprivation of Life”.

The practice under our first  Criminal Code  is quite interesting. For example, in  Decision No. 421/1920  of the First  Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation,  it is assumed that when assisting the mother to kill her unborn child, one is liable for aiding and abetting murder, committed at the express request of the murdered person . In  Decision No. 986/1935  of the First  Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation , as well as in  Decision No. 739/1936  of the First  Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation,  it is assumed that the killing of the fetus will be consensual even when the fetus is not formed with strictly defined organs – head and extremities, but it is sufficient that there is only conception.

It is accepted that Art. 260 of  the Criminal Code  protects the fetus from fertilization until the beginning of life outside the mother’s womb.  Decision No. 331/1932  of the First  Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation  accepted that for the act to be considered a crime, the unborn child must have been alive at the time of the manipulation, but it is not necessary for the manipulation to be carried out directly “on the child itself”. The practice clearly shares the idea set forth by the legislator, that the fetus should be considered a person, and the attack on it should be considered murder .

The  Criminal Code  of 1951  abolished the responsibility of the pregnant woman for killing the fetus. The regulation of criminal abortion in Art. 135 of the previous Criminal Code is similar to that of the current one, therefore I will not dwell in detail on the specifics of the crime here.

§ 3. Composition of the crime ” criminal abortion” in the current Criminal Code

The elements of criminal abortion  are contained in Art. 126 of the Criminal Code. The specific text of the provision is as follows:

” Art. 126. (1) Whoever, with the consent of a pregnant woman, kills her fetus outside an accredited medical facility or in violation of established medical standards and the rules of good medical practice, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to five years.

(2) If the perpetrator does not have a higher medical education or has killed the fetus of two or more women, the punishment shall be imprisonment for up to eight years.

(3) If the act under the preceding paragraphs is committed repeatedly, the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term of two to eight years.

(4) The pregnant woman shall not bear criminal liability under the preceding paragraphs, including for incitement and aiding and abetting.

(5) If the killing of the fetus is carried out without the consent of the pregnant woman, the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term of three to eight years.

(6) If in the latter case the death of the pregnant woman ensues, the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term of five to twelve years.”

The crime of criminal abortion differs from most crimes in a number of features. On the one hand, its commission requires the cooperation of the pregnant woman, and on the other, it damages the woman’s fetus.  In essence, criminal abortion is not murder in the sense used for the crime under Art. 115 of the Criminal Code. There are several reasons for this conclusion, which necessitates their detailed examination.

Art. 126, para. 1 of the Criminal Code outlines the main elements of the crime. Two propositions can be found in this element : 1) killing the fetus of a pregnant woman outside an accredited medical institution and 2) killing the fetus of a pregnant woman in violation of established medical standards and the rules of good medical practice. Under both propositions, it is necessary that the pregnant woman has given her consent to the killing of the fetus.

§ 4. Systematic place of criminal abortion

The crime under Art. 126 is located in Chapter Two, Section  I  of the Special Part of the Criminal Code – “Murder”. However, this legislative decision is not precise. In the absence of an explicit text that would criminalize the commission of criminal abortion, such an act would be qualified as intentionally inflicted bodily harm ^. Therefore, it is not justified to call the crime under Art. 126 of the Criminal Code murder . The same arguments can be put forward against the systematic location of the crime in Section  I of the Criminal Code . By its nature, criminal abortion is directed against the body of a pregnant woman, which is why the systematic location of the crime is in Section  II – “ Bodily harm”.

§ 5. Immediate object of criminal abortion

Traditionally, in Bulgarian theory, it is assumed that the object of criminal abortion is the social relations that ensure the inviolability of both the life of the human fetus and the life and health of the pregnant woman [25] . However, it seems to me that this opinion is not very well-founded. The life of the human fetus is not inviolable [26] .

The human fetus is not a subject of law. In the specific crime, the perpetrator affects the body of a pregnant woman, part of which is the human fetus [27] . Our legislation has long had the possibility of artificial termination of pregnancy [28] , therefore, by performing a criminal abortion (and not only in the hypothesis when this is done with the consent of the pregnant woman) the social relations that ensure the inviolability of the human fetus are not affected . Therefore, I accept that the object of criminal abortion can be the social relations that ensure the inviolability of the life  and health of the pregnant woman . It is correct to state that the crime under Art. 126 of the Criminal Code also affects the established procedure for the normal termination of pregnancy by artificial means .

Considering that, according to the main composition, criminal abortion is carried out with the consent of the pregnant woman, the question may be raised whether the social relations that ensure the inviolability of the life and health of the pregnant woman are affected at all. Indeed, the pregnant woman gives her consent to the killing of her fetus, but this does not happen according to the procedure provided for in the legislation. In this way, her life and health are endangered, which is why the crime affects precisely these social relations that protect the most basic human rights.

The confusion that is allowed regarding the immediate object of criminal abortion results from the notion that human life begins at conception [33] .

Here, an important clarification should be made. Art. 7, item 1 of  Regulation No. 2  provides that an abortion at will is performed at the request of any pregnant woman if her pregnancy is up to 12 weeks of gestation. The question of whether the inviolability of the fetus exists after the expiration of the period allowing for an abortion at will is debatable. It seems to me that the answer to this question is negative, since an abortion can be performed for medical reasons at any time during pregnancy [34] , which in turn excludes any inviolability of the human fetus [35] .

§ 6. Subject of the crime ” criminal abortion”

The basic concept, accepted by both theory and practice , is that the object of the crime is a “viable human embryo”. However, this opinion is not precise. The object of the crime is “a separate element of the social relationship, which is the immediate object of the infringement, or a material prerequisite for the existence of this object, on which the subject influences” . Precisely for this reason, the object of criminal abortion can only be a female person  and only during the period of pregnancy. A woman can be defined as “pregnant” from the moment of conception until the end of the pregnancy – regardless of whether the end occurs due to childbirth, or natural or artificial termination of pregnancy .

In the hypothesis where the human embryo is dead, the perpetrator targets an unfit object – a female person who does not meet the requirement of pregnancy, as the latter has been terminated. In the case under consideration, the perpetrator will be liable for the bodily harm caused .

§ 7. Executive act of criminal abortion

To denote the executive act of criminal abortion, the Criminal Code uses the term “kill”. This executive act can be carried out both by action and by inaction . Abortion by inaction will be present when the perpetrator is aware that without his intervention, when it is mandatory, the death of the fetus of a pregnant woman will inevitably occur and, nevertheless, does not carry out active behavior. The impact on the body of the pregnant woman can be done in many different ways: by administering medications (abortive agents) or by using external mechanical actions [44] .

Here, another important question should be examined. For which abortions is criminal liability incurred under Art. 126 of the Criminal Code? According to Bulgarian legislation, there are two types of abortions: voluntary and medical. Both types of termination of pregnancy can be performed outside an accredited medical facility or in violation of established medical standards and the rules of good medical practice, therefore it can be concluded that criminal liability will be incurred when performing the composition of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code, regardless of the type of abortion.

§ 8. Consent of the pregnant woman in the event of a criminal abortion

The consent of the pregnant woman to have her fetus killed is directly related to her irresponsibility. Indeed, for the commission of the crime in question, two persons are required – the subject of the crime and the victim . However, in this case, it is not a question of the so-called “necessary complicity”, since the law does not declare the behavior of the pregnant woman punishable . It seems to me that the only relevant consent given could be that of the victim.

Here it is necessary to pay attention to one important feature. The Criminal Code speaks of “the consent of the pregnant woman”, but it is permissible to perform an abortion without her consent. This possibility is regulated in Art. 4 of  Regulation No. 2 , according to which “an abortion of women who are incapacitated shall be performed with the consent of their legal representatives or guardians”. The consent given by the legal representatives and guardians has no bearing on the composition of the crime. The Criminal Code speaks of the consent only of the pregnant woman. Indeed, consent is an expression of will [47] , and not a legal transaction . Even if the legal representatives of the pregnant woman have expressed their consent, however, it should not be assumed that there is “the consent of the pregnant woman”. This conclusion also applies in the event that the consent is given by both a legal representative and an incapacitated woman .

It is true that Art. 87 of  the Health Act  (HA) explicitly allows the possibility, when the patient is a minor or is placed under limited guardianship, for the performance of medical activities, for consent to be given by him/herself and by his/her parent or guardian. When the patient is a minor or legally incapacitated, informed consent is expressed by his/her parent or guardian. However, the HA regulates the permissible interferences in the legal sphere of patients. We can hardly assume that the subject of a criminal abortion can avoid criminal liability under the qualified composition of Art. 126, para. 5 of the Criminal Code, when we have consent, for example, from the guardian of the pregnant woman.

Legally valid consent should not be identified with the consent referred to in the Criminal Code. The impunity of a pregnant woman has its social and even medical arguments, which, however, are relevant only to her, and not to other persons. Therefore, whether there is consent in criminal law should be assessed for each specific case, without using the age of the person as the only criterion.

The fact that the legislation expressly excludes the pregnant woman as a direct and indirect perpetrator of a criminal abortion only shows that she is never liable if she herself kills her fetus . [51] This conclusion is true even when the woman kills her fetus immediately before birth. The question of the subjective side of her act is also irrelevant.

Consent will not be present when the pregnant woman authorizes the performance of another intervention, not specifically an abortion.  Consent must be given before the commencement of the executive act .

§ 9. Subject of criminal abortion

Criminal abortion is a crime with a special subject – a person with higher medical education . The argument for this conclusion is contained in the qualified composition under para. 2 of Art. 126 of the Criminal Code, which provides for a more severe punishment when the act is committed by a person without such education. The subject of the crime under the qualified compositions can be any criminally liable person.

It is interesting to note that in practice it is much more common for the direct perpetrator of the crime to be a female. In fact, criminal abortion is one of the most common crimes committed by women [54] .

§ 10. Subjective side in criminal abortion

In criminal abortion, the doctor (or another person) consciously aims to kill the fetus of a pregnant woman. His goal is precisely the occurrence of the constituent result. The subject is aware of the socially dangerous nature and is aware of the specific socially dangerous consequences and they are his direct goal. Therefore, I accept that the illegal termination of pregnancy can only be carried out with direct intent . This conclusion is conditioned by the peculiarity of the victim’s consent. She gives the explicit permission to kill the fetus, to which goal, precisely, the subject directs his action.

The subjective side of the crime is by no means an undisputed issue. However, I could hardly imagine the commission of this crime with any possible intent.

§ 11. Punishability of criminal abortion 

Under the main elements of the crime, the punishment is up to 5 years of imprisonment [56] . When the act is committed by a person without a higher medical education, the punishment is up to 8 years of imprisonment. Under the other qualified elements, a special minimum is also provided, such as in the case of killing the fetus of a pregnant woman without her consent, which resulted in her death, the punishment is imprisonment from five to twelve years.

In all cases, the court may also impose the penalties of deprivation of the right to hold a certain state or public office or deprivation of the right to exercise a certain profession or activity. This possibility is regulated in the additional provision of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code. Of course, the perpetrator must have acquired the relevant right before the verdict was passed.

§ 12. Qualified criminal abortion squads 

Art. 126 of the Criminal Code contains several qualified elements . Art. 126, para. 2 of the Criminal Code constitutes a qualified element of criminal abortion with regard to the subject or with regard to the commission of multiple crimes – a real aggregate .

In the first proposal of para. 2, the act can be committed by any criminally liable person without higher medical education. It is precisely the lack of the necessary education that increases the public danger of committing such an act, because the risks to the health and life of the pregnant woman increase.

The second proposal of para. 2 provides for punishment for a person who kills the fetus of two or more women. Here, the subject of the crime can be any criminally liable person, regardless of the education he or she possesses. If such an act is committed by a person without a higher medical education, the crime will be qualified under both proposals of art. 126, para. 2 of the Criminal Code. A significant legislative omission is the impossibility of imposing a punishment under the qualified composition for a person who has performed a criminal abortion more than once in relation to the same woman.  De lege lata ,  only the number of women whose fetus was killed matters.

Art. 126, para. 3 of the Criminal Code is a qualified composition, where the penalty provided for already establishes a special minimum – 2 years of imprisonment. In order for there to be a repeated act, it is necessary that the perpetrator has been convicted with a final judgment for another such crime. Here it is irrelevant whether the committed crimes constitute separate components of the same crime. Crimes of the same type are generally provided for in the same chapter or section of the Criminal Code .

The Criminal Code also establishes in a qualified composition the act that is committed without the consent of the pregnant woman. In this case, the crime affects the woman’s right to exercise her choice whether to keep the fetus, and the act also affects the dignity of the victim. When the act is committed without the consent or despite the victim’s disagreement, her right to found a family is also affected [60] . Under certain circumstances, the committed act also affects the right to family of the pregnant woman’s husband or partner . The penalty provided in this case is imprisonment for three to eight years.

If in the latter case the death of the pregnant woman results, the punishment is imprisonment for five to twelve years .

Here, attention should be paid to one particularity: when, with the consent of a pregnant woman, her fetus is killed outside a health facility and complications follow that lead to her death, the person who committed the abortion will be held liable in the ideal aggregate for both crimes – under Art. 123 of the Criminal Code and Art. 126 of the Criminal Code, and not only under Art. 126, para. 6 of the Criminal Code .

Causing death by negligence, through actions that fall within an occupation or activity that represents a source of increased danger, which the perpetrator does not have the right to exercise, does not exclude the crime under Art. 126, para. 2 of the Criminal Code, but there is an ideal combination of the two crimes, which should be punished separately. Only if the abortion was performed without the consent of the pregnant woman and she dies as a result, there will be only one crime – under Art. 126, para. 6 of the Criminal Code . This is so because in the last paragraph the legislator refers only to the qualified composition under Art. 126, para. 5 of the Criminal Code – carrying out a criminal abortion without the consent of the pregnant woman.

§ 13. Features of criminal abortion

Criminal abortion should be distinguished from the crime under Art. 116, para. 1, item 4, first sentence (intentional murder of a pregnant woman), in the hypothesis when the death of the fetus has occurred. The distinguishing criterion in this case will be the intent of the perpetrator. When the perpetrator aims for the death of the pregnant woman, but only the death of her fetus follows, there will be an attempted murder, not a criminal abortion without the consent of the pregnant woman.

In cases where the killing occurs after birth, liability will be incurred for intentional murder, since the act of birth is the initial moment from which the existence of a person as a legal subject begins . In this case, the perpetrator will direct his act towards a living person, and not towards a part of the pregnant woman’s body. The perpetrator should be liable for attempted crime under Art. 126 and for intentional murder .

Practice shows that often the activity of carrying out criminal abortion is also related to the commission of other crimes – bribery, false documentation, etc. Often, the crime under Article 126 of the Criminal Code is committed in complicity, in all its forms .

An interesting hypothesis could be that the pregnant woman explicitly refuses to have an abortion, but the medical evidence clearly indicates that it is necessary to save the mother’s life. Should liability be incurred in this case for performing a criminal abortion without the pregnant woman’s consent?

The answer to this question is negative. Indeed, a person has the freedom to dispose of his own body, health and life [68] . However, Bulgarian legislation and practice consider that  the right to life, understood as the right to the protection of life and health, is a constitutional right of the highest order. The Constitutional Court considers it indisputable that the right to life has supremacy and priority over other rights, which, in order to be protected, it is permissible to be violated . In view of this, the termination of pregnancy in the hypothesis under consideration would not be socially dangerous, since the act would constitute an extreme necessity..

§ 14. Some features of criminal abortion in foreign legislation

Bulgarian legislation is no exception to the global trend of criminalizing abortion in violation of the rules adopted for this purpose. Here I will briefly examine the criminal offenses provided for in various criminal legislations.

14.1. Criminal abortion in the Republic of Azerbaijan

Criminal abortion in the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan does not constitute a separate criminal offense. Art. 126, para. 1 of the local  Criminal Code  explicitly states that termination of pregnancy constitutes intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm.

14.2. Criminal abortion in Estonia

Estonian law contains a separate criminal offence for the performance of criminal abortion. Article 120 of the Estonian  Criminal Code is entitled “Illegal termination of pregnancy and illegal sterilization”.

The main element of the crime provides for criminal liability for termination of pregnancy at the will of the pregnant woman, carried out by a gynecologist later than permitted by law. The penalty provided is a fine or deprivation of the right to exercise a certain activity.

There are several qualified categories. First of all, termination of pregnancy at the will of the pregnant woman, carried out by a person who by law does not have the right to terminate the pregnancy, is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for a term of up to two years. Here, the act is qualified in view of the subject of the crime.

Next, termination of pregnancy, when it is over 21 weeks, at the will of the pregnant woman, by a person who is not legally entitled to terminate the pregnancy is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to four years.

The most severely qualified composition regulates criminal liability for termination of pregnancy against the will of the pregnant woman. In this case, the perpetrator is punished with imprisonment for a term of two to six years.

Estonian legislation shows an original approach by providing for a significant difference in the degree of public danger, depending on the subject who commits the act.

14.3. Criminal abortion in Uzbekistan

The Criminal Code  of Uzbekistan contains explicit text (Article 114) entitled “Criminal Abortion”.

The main body provides for criminal liability for the performance of an artificial termination of pregnancy (abortion) by an obstetrician or gynecologist outside a medical institution or in the presence of medical contraindications. In this case, the penalty provided is a fine in the amount of up to twenty-five minimum wages or deprivation of certain rights for up to three years or corrective labor for up to one year.

In the legislation of Uzbekistan, we again find a qualified composition with regard to the subject. In the local Criminal Code, the subject is designated as “a person who does not have the right to perform an abortion”. The punishment provided in this case is a fine in the amount of twenty-five to fifty minimum wages or corrective labor for one to two years or arrest  for up to three months.

When the acts under the main or qualified composition lead through negligence to the death of the victim or other serious consequences, the prescribed punishment is corrective labor for two to three years or imprisonment for up to five years.

The legislation of Uzbekistan also provides for criminal liability for incitement to abortion. The provision of Art. 115 is entitled “Incitement of a woman to have an abortion”. The specific composition regulates criminal liability for incitement to perform an artificial termination of pregnancy, when the abortion has been performed. The person who is incited in this case can only be the pregnant woman, and not the subject of the criminal abortion. The penalty provided for in this case is a fine in the amount of up to fifty minimum wages or corrective labor for up to two years or arrest for up to six months.

14.4. Criminal abortion in France

The French  Penal Code also criminalizes performing an abortion without following the relevant rules.

Article 223-10 provides for a penalty of up to 5 years in prison and a fine of 75,000 Euros for anyone who terminates a woman’s pregnancy without her express consent.

Article 223-11 of  the Criminal Code  regulates the criminal liability of a person who terminates the pregnancy of another person in any of the following cases:

1. after the expiration of the period during which the performance of an abortion is permitted by law, except when this is done for medical reasons;

2. when it is carried out by a person who is not a doctor of medicine;

3. in a room outside a public or private hospital, subject to compliance with the requirements established in the legislation. The penalty under this text is imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine of 30,000 Euros.

14.5. Criminal abortion in the USA

Most criminal codes of the various states define a human being as a person who is born and alive. However, not only the killing of a born person is recognized as murder, but also the actions of killing the fetus of a pregnant woman when it has reached 24 weeks ( “ Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks ” ) .  Such is, for example, the regulation according to art. 125.00 of  the Penal Code of the State of New York.

As for the criminal liability for performing an abortion, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court is also of great importance. Thus, in the 1960s  ,  abortion was prohibited in all states, with very few exceptions. The solution to the problem came with the decision in the case of  Roe v. Wade  [410 US 113 (1973)] , which allowed women to seek help from a doctor to perform an abortion, as before this decision, the only permissible abortion was one performed independently by the pregnant woman . According to the decision in the case of  Planned Parenthood v. Casey  [ 505  US 833 (1993)],  a fetus can be killed by surgery only before it becomes viable . [79] However, a pregnant woman is not liable if she kills her own fetus, no matter what stage of pregnancy she is in. , since she is recognized as having the right to terminate her pregnancy independently .

14.6. Criminal abortion in Moldova

The Criminal Code of Moldova regulates the illegal performance of abortion in a separate text – Article 159:

Termination of pregnancy by any means is punishable when it occurs:

1. outside medical institutions or medical offices that have the relevant permit;

2. by a person without higher medical education;

3. with a pregnancy period of less than 12 weeks;

4. if the victim has medical contraindications for performing such an operation;

5. in unsanitary conditions.

The penalty provided is a fine of 200 to 500 conditional units or imprisonment for a term of up to two years.

The same act:

1. repeated;

2. negligently caused serious or moderate bodily injury;

3. has caused through negligence the death of the victim, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of 5 to 10 years and with or without deprivation of the right to hold a certain position or to exercise a certain activity for a term of 5 years.

§ 15. Proposals  of the Lege Ferenda

Criminal abortion is a crime that has existed in our criminal law for more than a century. However, it is not as significantly bound by the legislative dynamics that other crimes have gone through. It seems to me that social relations have changed, which necessitates brief but significant amendments to the current regulations.

Criminal abortion is a special crime that is committed against a victim, who in most cases has consented to be harmed. My personal opinion is that, in view of the various features of this crime, its criminalization in a separate criminal category is justified. However, this crime should not be located in the “Murder” section, but in the “Bodily Injury” section, since this systematic location would fully correspond to the essence of the crime.

The provision of Art. 126, para. 1 of the Criminal Code contains two proposals that are implemented as a result of violating the established procedure for artificial termination of pregnancy. In view of this, the following wording of Art. 126, para. 1 of the Criminal Code could be proposed: “Whoever, with the consent of a pregnant woman, kills her fetus in violation of the established procedure for artificial termination of pregnancy, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to five years.”

It is also necessary to amend the second proposal of Art. 126, para. 2 of the Criminal Code, since at the moment, a qualified panel cannot convict a person who has performed more than one criminal abortion on the same woman .  The proposed wording of Art. 126, para. 2 of the Criminal Code is as follows: “If the guilty party does not have a higher medical education or has killed more than one fetus in violation of the established procedure for artificial termination of pregnancy, the punishment is imprisonment for up to eight years.”

Yanitsa Dimitrova criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion criminal abortion Dr. Sasho Georgioski Hotel Bulgaria – Restaurant Bulgaria – A La Carte Mezzanine Yanitsa Dimitrova criminal abortion Dr. Sasho Georgioski Hotel Bulgaria – Restaurant Bulgaria – A La Carte Mezzanine Yanitsa Dimitrova criminal abortion Dr. Sasho Georgioski Hotel Bulgaria – Restaurant Bulgaria – A La Carte Mezzanine Yanitsa Dimitrova criminal abortion Dr. Sasho Georgioski Hotel Bulgaria – Restaurant Bulgaria – A La Carte Mezzanine Yanitsa Dimitrova criminal abortion Dr. Sasho Georgioski Hotel Bulgaria – Restaurant Bulgaria – A La Carte Mezzanine Yanitsa Dimitrova criminal abortion