The president of the (Supreme Federal Court), leaves office on Monday (29) frustrating sectors of feminist movements that expected him to advance the action that intends to decriminalize the up to the first 12 weeks of gestation in Brazil.
Barroso is considered a guaranteed vote in favor of the relaxation of criminal laws on the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, and even acted as a lawyer in the action that released abortion in cases of anencephaly in 2012.
Nevertheless, the minister has been repeating that the country would not be prepared to vote the ADPF (Argument for Fundamental Precept) 442, proposed by PSOL. Behind the scenes, the understanding is that Barroso believes there is not enough votes in the court for decriminalization, and, moreover, the political climate would be even more tensioned by the resumption of trial.
Feminist groups that work on the lobby for decriminalization, but have become frustrated by Barroso’s speech. In the evaluation of these organizations, the STF president loses a window of opportunity to guide the action and comment, as new court configurations may be even more conservative.
There is also a dispute around the counting of the ministers behind the scenes. An wing, for example, accounts for Minister Alexandre de Moraes as a probable vote for decriminalization – because of his recent decisions in actions related to measures taken by medical councils to restrict legal abortion.
ADPF 442 today has only one vote in favor of decriminalization. The then minister began the analysis of the lawsuit in September 2023, before leaving the presidency of the court (which passed on to Barroso) and retire.
Rosa voted in favor of decriminalization, arguing that the restrictive law on abortion in Brazil does not consider “the equal protection of women’s fundamental rights, giving absolute prevalence to the protection of potential (fetus) life”.
The rapporteur raised questions about body autonomy, gender equality and state role in the regulation of aspects of reproductive life. She criticized the criminalization of the procedure and stressed that this perspective to deal with problems involving abortion is not the proper state policy.
The minister decided to open the trial before retirement as a way of marking a position, and to guarantee at least one vote in favor of decriminalization – the current rule, at least, the substitutes do not redo the positions left by the previous minister, although there are discussions about changing this dynamic in court.
The decision proved to be right from the point of view of the defenders of legal abortion, as the new occupant of the chair that was Rosa, Flávio Dino, is known to be fervently Catholic.
Shortly after Rosa’s vote, in motion combined with the rapporteur, Barroso asked for prominence. This movement interrupts the judgment and leads him to the present -day plenary to be restarted, from the oral support of the lawyers. To be resumed, however, it needs to be guided by the president of the Supreme Court.
After frustration with Barroso, feminist groups intend to articulate with the new president, the progress of the action.
In 2016, when the first class of the court understood that the decision was made with the votes of Barroso, Fachin and Rosa. The decision was made in a specific case, without general repercussion. But encouraged feminist sectors to articulate the construction of ADPF 442, presented on March 8, 2017.
The fear is that, even with doubts about the final score at this time, a possible government on the right that assumes in 2027 could further complicate the scenario.
This is because the next president of the Republic will have the prerogative to appoint three ministers to the Court, with the retirements of Luiz Fux, Cármen Lúcia and Gilmar Mendes, who will turn 75 during this presidential cycle.
The votes of the three are considered uncertain. Fux is seen more likely to vote against the action, while Carmen and Gilmar divide opinions.
