On October 15, 2025, Costa Rica’s President Rodrigo Chaves announced a sweeping change to the country’s abortion policy, narrowing legal access to the procedure to only those cases where a mother’s life is in immediate danger. The decision, implemented through the Health Ministry without the need for legislative approval, has set off a firestorm of reaction across the nation and beyond, drawing praise from conservative and religious groups while igniting fierce criticism from advocates for women’s rights and political observers.
Previously, Costa Rican law permitted abortion not just in life-threatening scenarios, but also in cases where a pregnancy posed a threat to the mother’s health. This broader exception, established by a 2019 regulation, had been seen as a small but significant step forward in a region where abortion remains largely outlawed. According to the Associated Press, the new rule now means that “the only reason for which an abortion can be done without penalty is when there are only two options: the mother’s life or the life of the being that is inside,” as President Chaves stated during a press conference.
The change was not a surprise to close observers of Costa Rican politics. Earlier this month, Chaves made a public commitment to religious conservatives at the Evangelical Alliance, promising to tighten abortion rules if given the chance. By following through on this pledge, Chaves has delivered a major policy win to these groups—just months before the country’s next presidential election, scheduled for February 2026.
Reactions were swift. The Evangelical Alliance, a powerful force in Costa Rican civil society, celebrated the move. “This is an opportunity to unite around a universal principle: the value of all human life,” declared Pastor Ronald Vargas, the alliance’s president, in a statement reported by AP. The group’s embrace of the new policy was echoed by many conservative leaders, who have long argued that even the previous health exception was too broad and open to abuse.
Yet for supporters of abortion access, the timing and substance of the change were deeply troubling. Many saw it as a calculated political maneuver designed to shore up conservative support ahead of the looming election. Laura Valenciano, a human rights advocate with the Citizen Association ACCEDER, was unequivocal in her criticism. “Unfortunately, once again it’s the women and people with the ability to bear children who have to carry the weight that they negotiate our rights in exchange for obtaining votes or appealing to conservative groups,” she told reporters, as quoted by AP and other outlets. Valenciano’s organization, whose name stands for Strategic Actions for Human Rights, has been at the forefront of efforts to defend and expand reproductive rights in Costa Rica.
Valenciano also questioned the practical impact of the previous, more permissive rule. She pointed out that, to her knowledge, no abortions had actually been performed under the health exception during Chaves’ presidency. “The people would see they’re making a smoke screen and distracting us from very important issues,” she said, calling on Chaves to release data that might clarify the real-world consequences of the policy change.
Costa Rica’s abortion laws have long been among the strictest in Latin America, a region where access to the procedure remains highly contested. While some of the continent’s largest countries—such as Mexico and Argentina—have moved to liberalize abortion in recent years, Central American nations have largely held firm or even tightened restrictions. Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, for example, maintain total bans, with no exceptions even for rape, incest, or threats to the mother’s life. Guatemala, Costa Rica’s neighbor to the north, allows abortion only when a mother’s life is at risk, mirroring the new Costa Rican standard.
The political context of Chaves’ decision cannot be ignored. Although he is barred from seeking reelection due to constitutional term limits, Chaves is actively supporting his party’s candidate in the upcoming February vote. Many analysts see the abortion rule change as an attempt to energize the conservative base and secure the Evangelical Alliance’s backing for his chosen successor. The move also comes at a time when Chaves’ own reputation remains clouded by controversy. During his 2022 presidential campaign, he faced skepticism from many women after reports surfaced that the World Bank had found him guilty of sexually harassing several female employees during his tenure there. The institution ultimately sanctioned him for misconduct, demoted him, and forced his departure—allegations Chaves has repeatedly denied.
For Costa Rican women and those capable of becoming pregnant, the new rules mark a significant rollback of reproductive autonomy. The country’s 2019 regulation, which allowed abortion if a pregnancy threatened a woman’s health, was seen as a rare concession in an otherwise restrictive legal landscape. Yet as Valenciano and other activists have pointed out, the lack of clear procedures and guidelines meant that, in practice, very few—if any—women were able to access legal abortions under this exception, particularly during Chaves’ time in office.
International observers have also taken note. The Associated Press and other global news agencies have reported on the broader trend of tightening abortion restrictions across Central America, even as parts of Latin America move in the opposite direction. The contrast between places like Argentina, where abortion was legalized in 2020, and Costa Rica, where the window for legal termination has now been narrowed to a single, life-or-death scenario, could hardly be starker.
Supporters of the new restrictions argue that they reflect the deeply held values of Costa Rican society and the sanctity of human life. Pastor Ronald Vargas, speaking for the Evangelical Alliance, framed the issue as a matter of national unity and moral clarity. For many religious Costa Ricans, the idea of permitting abortion for reasons other than immediate danger to the mother’s life is simply unacceptable.
Opponents, meanwhile, see the change as a dangerous step backward for human rights and women’s health. They warn that limiting abortion to such narrow circumstances will inevitably lead some women to seek unsafe, clandestine procedures, putting lives at risk. They also argue that the timing of the announcement—so close to a pivotal election—suggests that the well-being of women has been subordinated to the demands of political expediency.
As the February 2026 election approaches, the debate over abortion is likely to remain front and center in Costa Rican politics. The outcome will not only shape the country’s immediate future but could also serve as a bellwether for the broader region, where questions of reproductive rights, religious values, and political calculation continue to collide with profound consequences for millions of people.
This latest move by President Chaves has thrown a spotlight on the enduring tensions between tradition and change, faith and freedom, and the personal and the political. For Costa Rica, the struggle over abortion is far from settled, and the coming months promise to be as contentious as any in recent memory.
