Public Consultation on Re-Emerging “Heartbeat Law” in Hungary

The resurfacing of the controversial “heartbeat law” for pregnancy interruptions in Hungary gave the newly elected government an opportunity to consult civil and expert opinion before a legislative decision. Understanding the chain of events and the arguments of the different actors involved in the public discourse is crucial for evaluating the successes and failures of the public consultation and drawing conclusions for future citizen involvement.

Policies on abortion in Hungary in 2022 became stricter with the introduction of the now infamous “heartbeat law”, requiring pregnant women to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus before deciding to interrupt pregnancy[1]. However, this year, after the change in government, the law was revisited in the form of a public consultation, and new legislation is projected to follow based on expert and civil opinions. How this process unfolded, and the lessons we can learn from it in terms of the involvement of non-governmental actors in the decision-making requires a thoughtful inspection of the actors involved and their positions.

Legislation in 2022

In Hungary, medical abortion is legal up to the 12^th week of pregnancy in the cases of

the woman’s or the fetus’ health being in danger,
the pregnancy being the result of a crime,
or the woman being in a severe crisis situation.

The 29/2022. (IX. 12.) BM decree modified the abortion request form to include that the healthcare provider presents to the pregnant woman the functioning of the fetus’s vital functions[2]. This the decree of the Ministry of Internal Affairs became famous as the “heartbeat law”.

A modification like this pertaining to the implementation of practices only requires the authorization of the competent Minister. Thus, even though this inclusion deeply affects the woman, the fetus and the doctor involved, the law was seemingly signed without any prior consultation of the public. The far-right opposition party Mi Hazánk (Our Homeland) has been advocating for similar legislation before. After the law became public, civil organizations organized petitions and protests against it with thousands attending[3].

Debate in 2026

Soon after the 16-year incumbent Fidesz-KDNP lost the recent elections, the controversial 2022 law resurfaced, and a consultation of the public followed. Although the process was not entirely smooth and the heartbeat law is still in place, it is safe to say that the range of actors involved, and the process of their involvement is an overall positive development, and something that the Hungarian public has not seen in a long time.

Tisza Government and Opposition Parties

Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of plans to revisit the heartbeat decree in the lengthy electoral program of Tisza neither under the chapter on healthcare nor under the one on women’s equality[4]. During the campaign the party steered clear of overly controversial topics, and so-called “culture war” themes, such as LGBTQ issues and abortion. This was probably done not to divide their voter-base and to avoid a possible smear campaign against them by the incumbent Fidesz through its vast media empire.

The topic first resurfaced in May at the ministerial hearing of Zsolt Hegedűs the Minister of Health in the Tisza government (who got Internet-famous for his celebratory dance-moves). Hegedűs, being a surgeon himself, said regarding the heartbeat law that “the (medical) profession was raped by politics”, and that an “extensive public consultation” is needed when handling questions like abortion and euthanasia[5]. Over the summer, opposition brought the topic up multiple times in parliament, with Hegedűs standing his ground in the debate[6]. On the 6^th July the far-right opposition party Mi Hazánk even put plastic fetuses on the desks of MPs as visual aid, which were removed by the house before the sitting[7].

Medical Professionals

The representatives of obstetricians and gynecologists from the College of Healthcare Professionals turned to the minister at the end of May answering his questions about the heartbeat decree. Their letter was shared publicly on the Facebook page of Hegedűs[8]. In it the medical professionals express that they never supported or initiated the practice set out by the heartbeat decree. Thus, it seems that the political decision was made first and then fitted in the medical guidelines. This gave way for an important technicality in practice: in the case of contraindication doctors were allowed not to carry out the Doppler-test (the procedure by which fetal heartbeat is made audible).

There is no way to know then, how often or whether the heartbeat law was enforced. It is similarly hard to pinpoint its exact effect on the declining birthrates of Hungary which it was set out to improve upon. In 2025 a major independent newspaper investigated data from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office. The data shows no clear effect of the law neither in the number of abortions per 100 live births nor in the number of abortions per 1000 fertile women[9].

Civil Society

After the plastic fetus-action of Mi Hazánk the Minister of Health announced in Parliament that he invited the representatives of the medical profession for a (ministerial) consultation on the 30^th July on the topic of the heartbeat law. Soon after the announcement, 18 civil society organizations expressed in an open letter their interest in joining the discussion at hand and being involved in the following steps of the decision-making concerning the heartbeat decree[10]. Because these organizations are mostly concerned with women’s reproductive health and rights, they argued that their involvement is crucial for bringing the perspectives of the women affected by the law to the table.

In the end a total of 38 professional and civil organizations were represented at the first discussion regarding “ethical decisions at the beginning of life”[11]. The title of the meeting shared by the ministry calls back to the starting position of Hegedűs shared at his ministerial hearing. However, the topics listed by the official summary suggest the broadening of the discussion: heartbeat law, emergency contraception and medical abortion[12].

Emergency contraception is only available in Hungary with a doctor’s prescription, making it harder to access and, with time passing, lowering its effectiveness. The less invasive medical abortion is illegal, only surgical procedures are allowed. Bringing these related limiting reproductive regulations in the discussion, most of the invitees agreed on the abolition of the heartbeat law, making emergency contraception more accessible and allowing regulated access to medical abortions. It is easy to learn the exact positions and ideas of these organizations on the issue, since the ministry published a report made using the received documents and audio recordings of the meeting. The report includes the names and positions of all organizations and their representatives, who were present that day.

Already on the day of the first meeting, 21 pro-life organizations turned to the minister with an open letter and expressed their disappointment in not being able to join the debate[13]. A few days later an additional 6 organizations joined them, including one led by pastor Zsuzsanna Mészárosné Hegedűs, the sister of Hegedűs. Her association carries the pro-life legacy of Loránt Hegedűs, a reformed/Calvinist bishop, the late father of the minister. (The minister himself is also a member of the Reformed/Calvinist Church in Hungary and has another sibling who is also a pastor.)

These pro-life organizations were invited for a second round of discussions on 11^th September. Based on a group picture shared by one of the organizations a fact-checking online newspaper was able to identify some of the participants as signatories of the open letter[14]. However, unlike as in the case of the first meeting, details about the attendees, their positions and their additions to the debate were not published as of now on official government channels.

Church

On the same day, Hegedűs also held a meeting with a handful of leaders of the bigger Hungarian churches. While the list of attendees was published on Hegedűs’ Facebook[15], similarly to the other discussion that day, transparency about their exact positions on the issue is lacking compared to those of the first meeting on official sites.

The aforementioned Facebook post highlights “proper information and enough time for the decision”, offering real help to someone making a difficult decision” and “sex education reaching the periphery of society” as the topics being discussed. However, official websites of the Reformed/Calvinist and Evangelical/Lutheran Churches for example place emphasis on different arguments compared to the Minister. These are the maintenance of the human dignity and freedom of conscience of all actors (mother, father, doctors and pharmacists), considering the different life situations and the role of education[16].

Evaluation and Following Steps

As the reader can now see, the public consultation about the revision of the 2022 heartbeat law in Hungary is far from perfect. The spirit of wider and more direct democratic discussions before legislation is to be welcomed and now sets a precedent for the future. However, certain aspects of the consultation fell short, which makes for a great opportunity for the new government to learn and adapt for similar situations in the future.

The lack of transparency surrounding certain actors and their positions is one of the most visible weaknesses of the process. It is unclear why the first discussion, with the participation of largely medical professionals and women’s rights organizations, was treated in a different manner in terms of transparency compared to the rest. It would be desirable for the public to learn the positions held by pro-life organizations and churches attending the second round of discussions and to have access to a similar summary of the meetings as in the first case. One can still hope for the promised summary of the positions and arguments of all participants on the website of the ministry[17].

Related to transparency, the overreliance on the social media sites of Hegedűs instead of official Ministry channels for communication makes official government information harder to access. On one hand voters/followers can comfortably engage with the topic at hand, making communication feel more personal. On the other hand, using the personal pages of a politician instead of official channels can be problematic. It is worth noting that this question not only applies to Hegedűs, but so far seems to be the communication style that most ministers in the Tisza government embrace. Viral moments and catchphrases dominated PM Péter Magyar’s electoral campaign too, and lead to “influencer-governance” and “absolute cinema parliament” after the elections[18].

Another area for future improvement is the hurried and reactionary manner of the Ministry regarding the invitations to the discussions. Repeatedly, stakeholders who wanted to have their voices heard had to reach out to the Ministry in open letters in order to get noticed. Of course, the “job” of civil society and professional representatives is exactly that, to try and have a say in the legislation that will have an effect on the people they speak for. But the question inevitably arises: who did the Ministry originally plan to hear out and who got added as an afterthought? This could have been averted by a thorough initial mapping of the actors and stakeholders related to the issue, and a clear and public plan of the process of the consultations.

Regarding the following steps in the process public knowledge and official information is scarce. The Health Ministry is said to develop its opinion in the weeks following the discussions based on the discussions, policy and ethical guidelines. Additionally, according to the plan of Hegedűs, we can expect the proposed new legislation before the end of the year.

Conclusions

The 2026 re-emergence and public consultation about the 2022 “heartbeat law” in Hungary marks an important case study for citizen involvement. With meaningful involvement, more comprehensive legislation can be made, and public consultations are a way in which the perception of legitimacy around such laws can be increased. However – as the case study suggests – careful planning and transparency is needed about which voices of society the government hears out, and in what direction they influence the final regulations.