Catholic President of Chile Will Not Support Pro-Life Bill Requiring Women to Hear Baby’s Heartbeat Before Undergoing An Abortion
Chilean President José Antonio Kast said he will not support the bill that requires pregnant women to hear the baby’s heartbeat before abortion. The proposed “Listen to Its Heart” bill would mandate physicians to inform women and offer them the opportunity to hear fetal cardiac activity. Kast acknowledged the motion as a legitimate parliamentary initiative but rejected it. His remarks were made in an interview with T13 Radio on August 20, 2026.
about 1 month ago
The Chilean government will not advance the “Listen to Its Heart” bill, which would require women seeking an abortion to hear the fetal heartbeat before the procedure, despite the proposal’s backing from the president’s own party. President José Antonio Kast said the measure is a legitimate parliamentary motion but will not be pursued, emphasizing his administration’s focus on security and the economy rather than socially divisive legislation. 1
The proposal mandates that, before a woman expresses intent to terminate a pregnancy, the physician must determine whether cardiac activity is detectable and, if so, verbally offer the woman the chance to listen to the heartbeat using technical means. Although the woman may “freely decline” the offer, the bill requires the physician to refuse to perform the abortion if she does not listen. 1
In an interview with T13 Radio, President Kast described the bill as a legitimate motion but announced that his administration will not move forward with it. He explained that during his campaign he pledged to prioritize security and economic issues and to avoid measures that generate “tension in certain aspects of social life.” Kast also noted that in other countries the heartbeat‑listening requirement is voluntary, whereas the Chilean version would be mandatory. 1
Deputy Urruticoechea, the bill’s sponsor, defended the proposal, stating that the president is free to pursue policies that “partially rebuild what the administration of former President Boric destroyed.” He reiterated the view that a nation should protect life from conception to natural death. The deputy also warned that the National Liberal Party would continue to prioritize its own agenda regardless of the president’s stance. 1
If enacted, the bill would create a legal barrier to abortion by linking the procedure to a mandatory hearing of the fetal heartbeat, a departure from practices in other jurisdictions where such listening is optional. Kast’s refusal to support the bill signals that, for now, Chile’s abortion regulations will remain unchanged, and the issue will likely continue to be debated within the legislature and among civil society groups. 1*
Catholic leadership’s stance on fetal heartbeat legislation
Catholic teaching supports legal protection for unborn human life from conception, but the sources available do not document a specific statement by Chilean bishops or the Holy See on the proposed “Listen to Its Heart” bill. They do, however, provide a clear framework for evaluating both the bill and President José Antonio Kast’s reported opposition.
The Church’s starting point is not the detection of a heartbeat but the dignity and right to life of the unborn child from the beginning of human existence. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states that “true justice demands the right to life” for every child “from conception onward,” and that no person or government may take the life of an innocent human being because of the child’s developmental stage.
Accordingly, Catholic leadership would not regard a fetal-heartbeat law as the fullest expression of the Church’s position. Such legislation protects unborn children only at a particular stage or through a particular requirement, whereas Catholic moral teaching grounds protection in the child’s humanity from conception.
The USCCB likewise supports laws and policies that protect human life “to the maximum degree possible,” including efforts to end abortion, while also supporting programs that encourage childbirth and adoption and assist pregnant women, children, and families.
A law requiring a woman to hear the baby’s heartbeat before an abortion could be viewed as having a potentially valuable but limited purpose:
The Church’s public advocacy has similarly appealed to scientific evidence concerning unborn children’s development and capacity to respond to stimuli. In supporting federal legislation protecting unborn children from abortions after fifteen weeks, the USCCB pointed to evidence concerning fetal development and pain perception.
Nevertheless, the sources do not establish that making a woman listen to a heartbeat is itself a required Catholic policy. The moral imperative is the protection of innocent human life; the particular legislative mechanism remains a matter of prudential judgment—that is, a judgment about which legal and pastoral means are most effective and just in a given society.
Catholic leadership would also evaluate the proposal in light of the circumstances that lead women to consider abortion. The USCCB emphasizes that defending unborn life must be accompanied by “life-affirming solutions” addressing the real problems faced by women and families.
This means that a heartbeat requirement should not be presented as though the woman were the only moral subject in the situation. A genuinely Catholic approach would seek to protect both:
The same principle appears in the USCCB’s support for assistance with poverty, health care, childbirth, adoption, and the needs of children and families.
A law that merely requires an ultrasound or the hearing of a heartbeat, without offering meaningful support, would therefore be incomplete from a Catholic perspective. It could communicate the child’s humanity while leaving unresolved the pressures that may be driving the woman toward abortion.
Catholic teaching does not identify political action with a single legislative tactic. Pope Francis told Catholic legislators that their vocation is service to the common good, placing the welfare of the community above personal advantage.
He also urged lawmakers to address social inequality, poverty, unemployment, education, and the needs of the weakest and most disadvantaged. Applied to abortion policy, this means Catholic political leadership should ask not only, “Does this bill restrict abortion?” but also:
Pope Francis further stressed that social conflicts should be addressed through dialogue, sensitivity to the reasons of others, and a shared commitment to justice and the common good. This is especially relevant in Chile, where abortion legislation is politically and socially divisive.
On the information available, President Kast’s refusal to support the proposed bill should not automatically be interpreted as a rejection of the Catholic principle that unborn life deserves legal protection. The sources do not provide his reasons, and they do not establish whether he favors stronger, weaker, or different pro-life measures.
Catholic evaluation would distinguish between:
Thus, Catholic leaders could criticize opposition to the bill if it reflects indifference to unborn children or acceptance of abortion. But they could also acknowledge that opposition to one specific bill does not, by itself, prove opposition to every legal protection for unborn life.
The available Catholic sources support the following conclusion:
Catholic leadership should favor strong legal protection for unborn children from conception, while also demanding compassionate and concrete support for mothers and families.
A fetal-heartbeat bill may be compatible with that objective, but it is not equivalent to the Church’s full position. Its value would depend on whether it genuinely protects life, respects the dignity of women, avoids coercion, and forms part of a wider social commitment to accompany mothers in need.
The central Catholic concern is therefore broader than whether a woman hears a heartbeat. It is whether Chilean law and public policy recognize the unborn child as a human person whose life deserves protection, and whether society accepts responsibility for ensuring that mothers are not left alone in circumstances that make abortion appear to be their only option.