Inside India’s March for Life (2025): A March Against Choice
On August 9, 2025, the Family Commission of the Archdiocese of Bangalore organized the fourth consecutive annual National March for Life at St. Francis Xavier’s Cathedral, centered on the theme “Every life is present, precious, and has a purpose”. The March for Life is a public demonstration organized annually on 10th August by the Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Services (CHARIS) India, coinciding with the anniversary of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. It is positioned as a campaign to “advocate for the right of the unborn to live” and to “commemorate the memory of children in the womb ever since abortion was legalized in India through the enactment of the MTP Act.” Through this march, organizers seek to build public support for the repeal of the MTP Act.
Around 500 individuals gathered to voice anti-abortion messages. This event drew participation from young school students, accompanied by their school contingents, young adults, pregnant women, young couples, and members of the religious community. Participants from reputable universities across Bangalore, as well as youth groups from various social and religious backgrounds were represented.
The participation of school children accompanied by youth from ‘pro-life’ organizations who loudly repeated anti-abortion slogans with energy and enthusiasm was an alarming sight. It reflected a concerning strategy targeting children and young people to promote an anti-abortion stance. CommonHealth’s anti-choice mapping studies conducted in 2024 revealed at least eight anti-choice organisations, predominantly led by religious organisations, with some of these having overseas connections. In the research, it emerged that one of the organisations situated in Karnataka, working to prevent ‘genocide of female babies’, conducted ‘moral awareness programmes’ in colleges, reaching out to over 1,86,000 students in 11 districts of South India. The research highlighted such entities co-opting women’s rights and disability rights framework to bolster their agenda, framing abortion as a violation of foetal rights.
The event also framed the reproductive choice to seek abortion as a moral failing. They actively promoted the event on social media to reach a wider audience using reels with trending and catchy songs. In the plenary session leading to the march, there were remarks from leaders of other religious communities who endorsed the anti-abortion message of the march and registered their support for the organisation that was leading this effort. This gave the impression of a shared collective stance against abortion and women’s reproductive rights. The remarks echoed the life begins at conception sentiment and invoked how caste or creed should not be used as a means to perpetuate a pro-abortion stance, co-opting the language of equality, and discrimination. It also highlighted the need to prioritize the social and cultural aspect of the ‘pro-life’ stance and undermine the legality of permissible abortion – a direct attack on the existing Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and the guarantees it provides.
While the March for Life centers itself around anti-abortion messaging, it became clear that its ideological stance extends much further. The exhibition featured visuals like baby clothes cutouts and emotional placards, but some displays revealed a broader conservative agenda. One banner stood out “Love is not Love,” written in rainbow colors, followed by “Love is willing the ultimate of the other.” This appeared to be a subtle framing against LGBTQ+ rights, suggesting a broader ideological stance beyond abortion. Another Instagram post from March included a photo of a banner stating “God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.” These messages suggest that the organizers are not only opposing abortion but also homosexuality, promoting a narrative that sexual relationships are solely for reproduction. Their Instagram page also features posts opposing contraception, indicating a deeper ideological opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) as a whole.
Glorifying motherhood and ignoring choice
The event also featured a Life Conference where medical professionals and speakers shared personal testimonies. A practicing gynaecologist from Kerala opened the session by sharing stories of women who were advised to terminate high-risk pregnancies but ultimately delivered safely under his care. He expressed concern that doctors often recommend abortion due to fear of legal consequences when a child might be born with disabilities. His message appeared to encourage fellow medical professionals to “stand for life”.
These stories ignored the complex realities of pregnancy. Not every high-risk case ends well, and not everyone can physically, emotionally or financially continue such pregnancies. Claims about health benefits from multiple pregnancies were shared without addressing the risks or with supported unreliable evidence. Most importantly, reproductive choices should be personal and not driven by ideology or generalizations
In the plenary, a woman working as a domestic help shared her experience of undergoing multiple abortions, describing how she felt unsupported and unaware of her options at the time. After being exposed to “pro-life” narratives, she expressed regret over those decisions and spoke about raising eleven children. Her story was framed to suggest that abortion rights messaging is harmful to women’s emotional and physical well-being and that women are being “manipulated” in the name of rights.
Feminist perspectives, however, emphasize that reproductive rights are about choice and autonomy including the right to have children, or not and to decide when and how many. In India, around 77% of unintended pregnancies end in abortion, but only 22% of these are considered safe. Unsafe abortion contributes to remain a serious public health concern contributing to approximately 8% of maternal deaths with an estimated eight women dying every day due to complications from unsafe abortion.
Religious framing and the normalization of anti-abortion messaging
Throughout the Life Conference, prayers and references to divine purpose were constant. Abortion was not simply discussed as a moral concern but it was framed as an absolute sin. Motherhood was portrayed not just as a personal choice but as a sacred duty, divinely assigned. This kind of framing is not just personal belief, it is a deliberate strategy used by many anti-choice and conservative groups to oppose SRHR (sexual and reproductive health and rights) and they continue to push this message in increasingly organized ways.
CommonHealth study on anti-choice narratives in India observed this trend as well, documenting how such groups are strategically using religious morality and emotional storytelling to undermine reproductive rights. The scenario at the conference was a clear reflection of this.
This kind of messaging is not confined to events like the Life Conference. A firsthand example comes from the author’s nursing graduation at a Christian missionary–run college. Over four years, we attended multiple “pro-life” seminars. Even in regular classes some doctors went out of their way to emphasize that, as future health professionals we should “stand against abortion.” During one community visit, we met a family with six children struggling to make ends meet who were provided with small incentives for avoiding contraception and abortion. This pro-natalist ideology, which glorifies motherhood and pushes women to produce more children makes it harder to uphold bodily autonomy and resist hetero-patriarchal values.
We see these ideas reinforced in mainstream media as well. Popular mainstream films have long portrayed abortion-seeking women negatively, career-oriented women shown as selfish (Aitraaz, 2004), young women characterized as immature or naive (Kya Kehna, Salaam Namaste), sexual freedom depicted as a moral error, and abortion framed as ruining one’s future opportunities (Zeher, Aitraaz). These narratives reinforce stigma and limit reproductive freedom.
Yet, evidence shows that abortion can be life-affirming. For many marginalised individuals, especially transmasculine people and trans men experiencing dysphoria, abortion is a life-saving intervention. My Abortion Lifeline by CommonHealth documents 29 narratives of young people, mothers, migrant workers, rural women, widows, and supportive allies. These stories show how reproductive justice is inseparable from dignity and freedom.
Even though such marches and mobilizations have brought together multi-religious, intergenerational participation and have articulated strong critiques of existing laws, they often trigger intensified lobbying from anti-choice groups, legal challenges, and renewed public debates. This makes it all the more important to continue resisting by centering the lived experiences of diverse abortion seekers and pregnant people who still face stigma and systemic barriers to accessing dignified, safe services.
Authored by: Megha Sethu, Commonhealth
(With inputs from Kruthika R, Center for Reproductive Rights)