In June, the Federal Senate approved Legislative Decree Bill (PDL) 3, which suspends the effects of CONANDA Resolution 258—a major victory for the abortion rights movement in Brazil that had been under attack even before its approval in late 2024. Once again, the federal government failed to defend this regulation—which had been approved despite the government’s “no” votes. This was in line with the conduct adopted by the current Lula administration on abortion rights. Even so, the media and public opinion remain engaged with the issue, and feminists continue to resist these setbacks.
To discuss the process that led to the approval of PDL 3, as well as to assess the political landscape following the vote and the future challenges facing the movement for abortion rights in Brazil, we interviewed Laura Molinari, co-coordinator of the “Neither Imprisoned Nor Dead” Campaign. The interview, conducted by Nana Soares, canvasses the challenges already at played when the Resolution 258 was adopted by the National Council on Children´s and Adolescent´s Rights (CONANDA) in 2024, which have since then intensified not only because of the ultra-conservative composition of Congress but also by the inaction of allies ate the state level.
SPW: What were the main developments regarding abortion rights, which culminated in the Senate’s approval of PDL 3/2025 in June? And what is the significance of this PDL, among the many opposition initiatives that erupted since the approval of CONANDA Resolution 258 in 2024?
Laura Molinari: It’s important to note that the CONANDA resolution was proposed in the aftermath of Bill 1904, which was approved on an urgent basis—though not on its merits—in the first half of 2024. This was the bill that aimed at redefining abortion as homicide, at the time, there was a political climate conducive to advancing the protection of abortion legal rights. It took three or four months for draft CONANDA Resolution to be drafted, and in this process, we from the “Children Are Not Mothers” [Campaign] worked with ministries representatives to revise the text. In other words, the Resolution was not presented without having been worked on and debated; it was not a text to which the ministries had not previous access. The first significant event in that dynamics was a leak of the draft resolution to the ultra-right news portal Gazeta do Povo, which published dozens of articles opposing it based on that leaked document, between October and December, while the resolution was still being drafted.
As the Resolution neared approval, the Chief of Staff’s Office attempted to disengage civil society from CONANDA by calling on the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to block or vote against the Resolution. We know—and it was even reported in the press—that the Chief of Staff’s Office took action to ensure the ministries voted against the resolution. Our final assessment is that this had been a highly damaging maneuver for them. The Executive Branch could simply chose not to attend the voting session, which would have resulted in a lack of quorum, the year would have ended shortly thereafter, and the draft would be archived. But they opted for a different route, even though the government intention was to restrict the visibility of the debate, alleging that the timing was not right, that more time was needed to reach consensus. They attended the session and voted against it, but even so, civil society approved the resolution.
The very next day after approval, the ultra-conservative Senator Damares Alves, acting in her personal capacity, obtained a preliminary injunction in court to overturn the resolution on the grounds that Conanda had exceeded its authority. We filed a judicial appeal, and the case was dismissed because Damares, as a private citizen and a senator, could not go to court to prevent this Executive Branch regulation from being published. Also following the approval and prior to publication in the Official Gazette, the Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship (MDHC) issued a statement opposing the resolution, stating that it needed more time to be refined, which would now become one of the arguments brandished by Damares in the Senate debate PDL 3.
In February 2025, PDL 3 and PDL 5 were introduced—two identical bills, one at the Chamber of Deputies and the other at the Senate—along with four or five additional law provisions, which have not moved forward to date. What did move forward in late 2025 was PDL 3, because an urgency motion was approved and the texts was subsequently passed on its merits at the Chamber of Deputies. At that time, our mobilization was even greater than what it would be now for the Senate debate, as we managed to mobilize larger street protests. However we had a narrative setback. Part of the progressive camp started claiming that the right to legal abortion for children and adolescents had been abolished. This is, in fact, the intention of the sectors that proposed PDL 3—but this is not what is written in the text of the bill, which merely suspends the CONANDA regulation about route of health and judicial care for children and adolescents who are victims of violence. The PDL 3 did not change the existing abortion law. But to create regulatory confusion—which puts health and psychosocial professionals in difficult situations when performing abortions within the law—is another intention of groups opposing legal abortion. Consequently, after the PDL’s approval in the Chamber of Deputies, far-right figures (such as the PL Mulher and some federal deputies) began propelling this same narrative.
SPW: And how were the advocacy efforts done in Brasília? What were the responses like?
Laura Molinari: We conducted several advocacy efforts in Congress. Since the beginning of 2025, the “Children Are Not Mothers” Campaign has made at least four visits to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate to discuss the PDLs. Everyone said they didn’t like approving PDLs because they are “too ideological”; we have also heard that “we don’t like holding up resolutions issued by state agencies.” In other words, there was resistance to approving the PDLs because they were seen as having a more political nature. There are several PDLs blocking Executive Branch regulations that stall and are never voted. So, we anticipated that this PDL might not move forward, especially in an electoral year. But since early 2026, Senator Damares urged the Senate President, David Alcolumbre to include it in the voting agenda but he did not respond directly. At times, he said he would leave it to the leadership committee to reach a minimal consensus on whether or not to put it on the agenda (because it is a controversial issue). But the fact is that, today, everything goes through the leadership committee with very little transparency. When we attended the Brazilian Congress on Combating Sexual Violence Against Children and Adolescents on May 18, 2026, in Brasília, we spoke with 18 offices, and all of them said that, if the PDL 5 would be placed on the Senate’s plenary agenda, we would lose the battle. Our goal was to prevent it from entering the agenda. It should be said that were also some efforts by the Executive branch in this same direction. In 2025, when PDL 3 was approved in the Chamber of Deputies, the Ministry of Women and MDHC issued public statements opposing the bill, and even the Ministry of Health sent a similar statement to lawmakers. To be fair, when the Senate push began, National Council on Women’s Rights asked all ministries to send statements opposing the bill, and the MDHC convened a meeting with senators to presenting technical reports and opinions against the proposal. But this meeting was largely a letdown. To summarize: there was an attempt at coordination, but we do not know to what extent government leaders made themselves politically available to help blocking this PDL.
In our advocacy efforts, we felt that this was and effect of Damares’s strategic moves. She is highly respected by everyone, including the left. Nearly all the congressional staff members we spoke to suggested that we should talk to Damares, They said she would be open and receptive, that she has a well-prepared staff. For our part, we responded emphasizing that she has always been an opponent of legal abortion, and since the resolution addressed legal abortion, she wanted to overturn it. But the fact is that she does wield a great deal of influence; she’s a skilled negotiator, and many people are close to her, including government officials. We decided not to speak with Damares because given that our agenda on legal abortion has been one of her main targets, engaging with her would expose us, and she could even use this contact against us.
In short, what we did was to present arguments and statements opposing the resolution, refuting the fake news that Damares was spreading—and that was also being repeated by her offices team and advisors. All these people was saying that because of the resolution “police investigations into the rape of vulnerable individuals will be waived,” or that “now a child will be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent.” We had to keep repeating that fewer than 4% of municipalities have legal abortion services, and that a ten-year-old pregnant child won’t recognize her own pregnancy on her own, nor will she go alone to the corner health clinic to have an abortion without a guardian. It’s entirely unrealistic—but everyone had been swayed by the senator’s false arguments and insisted that we should speak with her.
Another important point is that, even many Senate cabinet officers had Damares’ arguments at the tip of their tongues, once again there expressed resistance regarding whether or not to put the PDL on the agenda. Furthermore, everyone understood our arguments. Only one office told us it wouldn’t take a position, because he was studying matter after Isabel Institute [1] had lobbied his office in favor of the bill. But otherwise, everyone claimed to be against the bill, so it came as something of a surprise that no one attempted to filibuster it. Senator Paim from the PT tried, in the Human Rights Committee, to request a review and was granted a one-hour review period after which the PDL proceeded directly to the plenary session to be voted, with no obstruction. There were no speeches, no requests for a roll call vote. Alcolumbre himself commented: “Where is the government that did not come to talk to us?” As I said the government was having conversations so we do not understand what he was referring to. Perhaps he expected more intense political behind-the-scenes maneuvering, which apparently did not happen.
SPW: When Bill 1904 was approved in 2024, the social mobilization strong and managed to partially limit the damage and raise public awareness. But anti-abortion forces have not stopped working over the past two years. What is your assessment of what led to the the passage of PDL 3/2025? What was the deciding factor?
Laura Molinari: There’s an element of political timing, but I wonder if the approval of the CONANDA Resolution was not in fact, a real defeat for anti abortion forces: it was the first time that we managed to pass a substantive norm addressing legal abortion, despite a hyper-conservative Congress—and even though the Ministry of Health has failed to embraced this agenda as it should have done since, the beginning of the Lula administration, in 2023.
The CONANDA Resolution is a policy measure that does not change any existing law, so from the point of view of anti-abortion forces it does not have any major concrete impact. But it had a significant symbolic impact, because we had managed to pass the resolution against the government’s guidance, against all odds. But now they have managed to overturn the resolution. They didn’t change the law; they didn’t create a new barrier to access—such as requiring a police report—but they turned the PDL5 into a symbolic victory, which may potentially impact legal abortion services because there is no clear guidelines for proper patient care, in the case of children and adolescents.
And this will not stop there. A bill on early childhood policy is being processes at the Senate (PL 1924/2025) in which anti-abortion parliamentarians aim to locate early childhood in pregnancy—that is, at the embryo stage. We have heard that they tried to locate it at conception, but that proposal did not have much acceptance. As a whole, bill PL 1924 remains as a legal aberration: pregnancy losses may be considered infanticide, given that the text portray 6-week-old fetuses as children? Who stands to gain from legally equating embryos, fetuses, and children? To what extent does this increase the protections that already exist in law? The provision basically aims to create legal confusion and provide legal grounds for denying care. Having said that, perhaps this is as far as anti-abortion forces in Congress can go today. It is really bad, considering that legal abortions are almost never performed in Brazil, but this is not a total ban, which is their realm aim.
The legislative strategies of anti-abortion forces is to keep opening loopholes that may impair access to abortion, while they fail to fully change abortion law. They are busy creating regulatory confusion around the protocols, procedures, and rules authorizing the termination of pregnancy in cases permitted by law. In practice, this hinders access not only because it creates legal uncertainty for healthcare professionals, but also because it contributes to misinformation among patients. In Brazil, there is broad social consensus concerning the support to legal abortion in general and especially for minors. And, this is why these actors are unable to move toward a total ban on abortion. But, even so the PDL was a defeat, because Resolution 258 had established a pathway to access. It is no exaggeration to say that, for the first time since democratization, anti-abortion forces have managed to pass a bill fully based on their arguments.
SPW: To what extent other recent events—such as Messias’s anti-abortion statements during his Senate confirmation hearing and the Attorney General’s Office’s (PGR) endorsement of the CFM’s resolution on fetal asystole—have added fuel to this fire?
Laura Molinari: Our allies are saying things like, do not care so much, “this is just a resolution.” But this is very bad policy, because little by little, we may lose even the bare minimum. What will happen, for example, at the end of the year, when the Chamber of Deputies is expected to vote on a bill to establish “Unborn Child Day” to raise awareness about the “risks of abortion”? The PT and their allies seem to be calculating that it is worth letting go these agendas `because other more important matters need to be voted, such as ending the 6×1 labor schedule and even the Federal Budget. They are giving in. What we hear most often from the the government’s allies in Congress are questions such as: “Where’s Luana Piovani? Where’s the civil society?” For two years, Luana Piovani has been campaigning for the issue years through “Criança Não é Mãe”. We’ve managed to spark many public debates and protest, but that’s never enough. We need solid backing from our institutional allies. They must also take action, but they usually don’t, and often place the responsibility on us for failing to prevent setbacks.
SPW: And how do you assess the current situation?
Laura: Publicly, the government has been very passive. We asked ourselves to what extent it was worth making a fuss to defend the PDL, or whether making a big deal out of the fact that we “lost” would just mean falling into the disinformation trap set by those who oppose abortion. They managed to pass a bill that doesn’t change any legislation. But at the same time, our allies are pressuring us to do more and more to defend the right to abortion because, if we don’t, they will not move on.
Anti-abortion forces have tabled several bills that neither create a barrier nor change a law, but will hinder access to abortion rights and services. There is no institutional policy to guarantee access, the CONANDA Resolution was that policy. Nothing else has been done by this government to guarantee access. It is a very poor institutional performance. At the front lines of the health system, there are professionals—especially doctors—who are uninformed and politically disorganized, and who buy into fake news. They are bot at the right and left side of the spectrum. Many people who do not search information and are mobilized by fear. This is true even if, since the early 2020´s, media coverage has improved and expanded its outereach. Especially in the case of the PDL in the Senate, the coverage was very decent.
But on its part, the government remains inactive. On the contrary, since the 2024 debate over the CONANDA Resolution, it has, in fact, provided ammunition to Damares and the broader anti-abortion camp when it made public that all ministries would vote against the text. That is why it was so important to make a big fuss about the PDL’s approval, as this may clarify for the wider public that the political agenda of those who opposed the resolution is, in fact, to end legal abortion. In this struggle there is no way of avoiding polarization, it is crucial to expose what lies behind a seemingly harmless bill that doesn’t bring about major changes. But, on the other hand, it’s also essential to make it clear that this shallow laws is all they’re able to pass right now because there is broad support for legal abortion in society. In other words, society is on our side.
SPW: What are the challenges for mobilization moving forward, especially considering that this is an election year?
Laura Molinari: The challenge is to get better organized as to curb the spread of fake news. We’ve heard people on the progressive side saying that legal abortion is over. The polarizing dynamics of social media are a huge obstacle, as they fuel negative narratives. Although the anti-abortion camp’s intention is to abolish legal abortion, we must distinguish between what is their intention and the concrete result of the PDL’s passage, which is to hinder access to the right to abortion. While acknowledging the intention, it is a mistake to claim that the PDL has ended the right to abortion. The subtlety of the “Criança Não É Mãe” campaign against the PDL was to denounce this intention without playing into the game of misinformation and narrative polarization. We need to take advantage of this moment when the issue is in the public eye, as to produce and disseminate more and more information, and to engage well known spokespersons—even though this is difficult, in part because there is a significant imbalance of resources and financial power between us and anti-abortion groups.
Regarding the PDL 5, specifically, its approval will be challenged in the Supreme Federal Court (STF), but since the approved legislative decree has not yet been published in the Official Gazette, the lawsuit cannot be filed. Taking the case to court is also a challenge because the STF is under a great deal of pressure and demoralized by scandals involving justices and their families. In this climate, the votes of Justices Barroso and Rosa Weber supporting ADPF 442 have been openly questioned. The Court is facing a difficult period regarding these polarizing issues, especially in an election year. Even so, we believe we have a chance, because the PDL’s justification contains claims that are simply untrue—such as that the Brazilian Constitution protects life from the moment of conception or that CONANDA created new legislation. Technically, our chances of winning are high. The main problem is, as usual, the political conditions.
[1] Instituto Isabel is a recently established anti-abortion and anti-gender advovacy and litigation NGO, which has open connections with Opus Dei and parthers with Alliance Defending Freedom International