RECONSTRUCTION OF JUDGES’ CONSIDERATION IN ABORTION CASES DUE TO COERCION THROUGH THE LENS OF FEMINIST LEGAL THEORY

Purpose: It is essential to reconstruct judges' consideration of abortion cases due to coercion through the lens of feminist legal theory. This reconstruction will help ensure that judges' decisions promote a more gender-affirmative and just legal framework for women defendants. Theoretical Framework: The author analyzes the judge's consideration using Feminist Legal Theory and the Principles of Judging Cases of Women in Conflict with the Law. Method: This research utilizes statutory and conceptual approaches described as legal-normative within legal philosophy. The study data comprises literature including court decisions, legal regulations and feminist legal theory. Results and Discussion: The judge in case number 05/Pid.Sus-Anak/2018/PN.Mbn had no empathy for a woman accused of abortion under coercion. The judge failed to recognize the defendant's vulnerabilities. This highlights the need for a more empathetic and gender-sensitive legal system that can make fair decisions for women in similar situations. The reconstructions needed to improve the judiciary: (1) adopt a gender-sensitive paradigm aligned with feminist legal values in decision-making; (2) integrate the principles of PERMA No. 3 of 2017, which protect women's rights; (3) implement a feminist legal reconstruction to reinterpret the legal principles, ensuring gender equality and serving as a reference for judges dealing with coercive abortion cases involving women. Research Implications: The outcome of this research will contribute to the legal literature on the consideration of criminal law based on feminist legal theory. Originality/Value: This research encourages judges to apply PERMA No. 3 of 2017 in adjudicating cases of women in conflict with the law.