[Women’s Forum] Contributed Opinion
January 15, 2025
[Women’s Forum] The Protected Birth Bill: What AI Understands, but We Ignore
by Hee Jung Kwon
Director, Unwed Mothers Initiative for Archiving and Advocacy (UMI4AA)
On July 19 of last year, South Korea implemented the Special Act on Crisis Pregnancy and Protected Childbirth Support and Child Protection, ostensibly aimed at preventing infant abandonment and infanticide among so-called "pregnant woman [in crisis] facing difficulties giving birth and raising due to economic, psychological, physical, or other reasons." Under this law, a woman opting for a protected birth can give birth anonymously, leave the hospital without the child, and face no legal repercussions for relinquishing parental rights. The government covers all medical costs, and the child is placed under the care of local authorities before being sent for adoption or institutionalized.
Despite concerns that the law could exacerbate child abandonment while violating children's rights to know and be raised by their biological families, the legislation passed. Proponents argued that anonymous birth policies in countries like France protect women's right to anonymity while also saving children's lives. What they failed to acknowledge was the stark contrast between the levels of state support in France and South Korea.
In South Korea, the financial assistance available to a pregnant woman amounts to a mere one million KRW. In France, every pregnancy-related medical cost is fully covered. A woman who chooses anonymous birth can still register her name on the child’s birth certificate, securing legal recognition of their parent-child relationship. She has the right to care for the child until an adoption decision is made, and even if she initially consents to adoption, she has two months to change her mind and resume parental rights. If she does, both mother and child receive three years of state-supported follow-up care. Abortion services are also provided anonymously and free of charge for those who seek them. South Korea’s Protected Birth Bill, by contrast, gives a mother just seven days to reconsider before she permanently loses all parental rights once a court finalizes the adoption. After that, the law provides no avenue for restoring parental rights.
Without comprehensive support for pregnancy, childbirth, and early child-rearing, more women are pushed toward anonymous birth and forced to relinquish their children. Even if a woman is "persuaded to raise her baby," she faces an unrelenting cycle of economic precarity. Yet, the Ministry of Health and Welfare continues to present the Protected Birth Bill as a success, insisting that it “achieves its objective of saving lives while supporting biological families to raise their children.” But does it really? Government statistics tell a different story.
By August 2024, just one month after the bill’s implementation, 16 women had opted for protected birth. Within six months, that number had risen to 52. If the bill's stated objective is to promote biological family care, the increasing number of women choosing anonymous birth raises critical questions about its effectiveness. This detached rhetoric serves as little more than a strategic maneuver to deflect criticism of the Protected Birth Bill. Compounding these concerns, on January 10, the Ministry announced the creation of a new emergency care fund, allocating 1 million KRW per month for three months to support newborns awaiting placement in an institution or adoptive home. Meanwhile, financial assistance for pregnant women remains stagnant at 1 million KRW in total.
"Yes, state intervention ensures that children’s right to life is respected. However, the right to life extends beyond mere survival. It includes protection from hunger, disease, violence, and other threats, as well as the right to conditions that ensure a dignified existence. The right to identity is also tied to human dignity. If a child grows up unable to access information about their origins, their right to a full and dignified life is only partially upheld. The current system appears reactive rather than preventive. Providing comprehensive support to women in crisis would be a more equitable and effective approach."
How is it that AI, learning from humans, sees these issues so clearly while actual humans remain blind? The Ministry of Health and Welfare must move beyond self-congratulatory rhetoric and promotional campaigns for the Protected Birth Bill and instead confront the root causes of crisis pregnancies to uphold genuine respect for the right to life. ----------------------------------------------------------------- This column, written by Hee Jung Kwon, director of UMI4AA, was adapted from an article published on Women News on January 15, 2025
"[Women’s Forum] The Protected Birth Bill: What AI Understands, but We Ignore" – Women News (www.womennews.co.kr) The English summary and translation of this article is provided by UMI4AA. |
