The abuser is often the parent. Removing the child's voice removes her only protection.
No Brasil, a Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria levantou sua voz contra um decreto legislativo que suspenderia normas protetoras para crianças e adolescentes vítimas de violência sexual — normas que garantem a escuta dessas vítimas e o acesso ao aborto legal sem exigência de boletim de ocorrência. O PDL 3/2025, aprovado na Câmara em novembro de 2025, ignora o que os dados epidemiológicos confirmam: que o abuso sexual intrafamiliar é uma realidade disseminada, e que silenciar a voz da criança no momento mais vulnerável de sua vida é, em si, uma forma de violência. O Senado agora carrega o peso dessa decisão — e com ela, a responsabilidade de ouvir antes de legislar.
- O PDL 3/2025 ameaça suspender uma resolução do Conanda que protegia vítimas de estupro menores de idade, retirando delas o direito de serem ouvidas nas decisões médicas sobre sua própria saúde.
- Pediatras alertam que a maioria dos agressores sexuais de adolescentes são familiares — e que silenciar a vítima em favor do responsável legal pode significar entregar a decisão ao próprio abusador.
- Organizações da sociedade civil levaram o caso à ONU no dia seguinte à aprovação na Câmara, enquanto ministérios das Mulheres e dos Direitos Humanos manifestaram oposição ao decreto.
- O Ministério da Saúde ainda não se pronunciou, e a SBP exige que o Senado realize ampla consulta pública com profissionais de saúde e representantes da sociedade antes de votar.
- Sem as salvaguardas da resolução suspensa, crianças vítimas de estupro enfrentariam novamente barreiras burocráticas — como a exigência de boletim de ocorrência — para acessar um direito que a lei já lhes garante.
A Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria (SBP) entrou em alerta esta semana diante de um decreto legislativo que, se aprovado pelo Senado, suspenderia normas criadas para proteger crianças e adolescentes vítimas de violência sexual. O PDL 3/2025, aprovado pela Câmara dos Deputados em 6 de novembro, revogaria uma resolução do Conanda que orientava hospitais e clínicas sobre como atender essas vítimas — garantindo que suas vozes fossem ouvidas e que pudessem acessar o aborto legal sem precisar apresentar boletim de ocorrência ou ordem judicial.
A resolução não alterou a legislação sobre o aborto no Brasil. Ela apenas reforçou como a lei já existente deveria ser aplicada na prática — e, sobretudo, assegurou que a própria criança ou adolescente tivesse voz no processo, e não apenas seus pais ou responsáveis. Esse ponto é central: segundo Maria Tereza Fonseca da Costa, secretária-geral da SBP, os dados epidemiológicos mostram que os agressores sexuais de adolescentes são, na maioria dos casos, membros da própria família. Retirar a voz da vítima e devolvê-la ao guardião pode significar, na prática, entregá-la ao abusador.
A SBP também destacou dados sobre gestações decorrentes de estupro de menores vulneráveis e sobre o uso de uniões informais para encobrir abusos sexuais crônicos contra meninas. Não se trata de abstrações: são realidades vividas por crianças cujos corpos e futuros estão em jogo. Ao suspender a resolução do Conanda, o decreto apagaria as garantias procedimentais que permitem a essas jovens acessar os cuidados médicos que a lei já lhes assegura.
No dia 7 de novembro, organizações da sociedade civil formalizaram uma denúncia junto à ONU. Os ministérios das Mulheres e dos Direitos Humanos e da Cidadania manifestaram preocupação e defenderam a manutenção da resolução. A SBP agora pede ao Senado que realize uma ampla consulta pública — com profissionais de saúde, famílias e representantes da sociedade civil — antes de qualquer votação final. A sociedade alertou que aprovar o decreto seria um retrocesso na proteção da infância, um estreitamento de direitos para quem já carrega o peso maior da desigualdade.
Brazil's pediatric society sounded an alarm this week over a legislative proposal that would strip away protections for children and teenagers who have been sexually assaulted. The Brazilian Society of Pediatrics (SBP) is fighting against a decree that would suspend guidelines established just last year—rules designed to ensure that young rape victims receive compassionate medical care and retain the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy resulting from that violence.
The legislative decree, known as PDL 3/2025, passed the Chamber of Deputies on Thursday, November 6, and now moves to the Senate. If enacted, it would eliminate a resolution from the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents (Conanda) that laid out how hospitals and clinics should treat these victims. That resolution did not change Brazil's abortion laws—it simply reinforced how those laws should be applied in practice. It required that the child or teenager's own wishes be heard and respected, not just those of their parents or guardians. It also removed bureaucratic obstacles: victims would no longer need a police report or a court order to access a legal abortion in cases of rape.
Maria Tereza Fonseca da Costa, the general secretary of the pediatric society, explained in an interview why this matters so much. The decree ignores a hard reality that epidemiological data makes clear: the people who sexually abuse adolescents are most often family members—parents, stepparents, relatives in positions of trust. When a child cannot speak for herself because her abuser is her own guardian, removing her voice from the medical decision becomes a form of erasure. The resolution that the decree would eliminate was designed precisely to protect children in those situations. It acknowledged that intrafamilial sexual abuse, though difficult to confront, is a widespread plague that demands visibility and intervention across all social contexts.
The pediatric society also pointed to data on pregnancies resulting from rape of vulnerable minors, and on the use of informal unions to conceal chronic sexual abuse of girls. These are not abstract policy questions. They are the lived realities of children whose bodies and futures hang in the balance. By suspending the Conanda resolution, the decree would erase the procedural safeguards that ensure these young people can access the medical care the law already permits them to have.
On Friday, November 7, civil society organizations filed a complaint with the United Nations about the decree. The Ministry of Women and the Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship have both expressed concern and called for the resolution to remain in place. The Ministry of Health has not yet commented. The pediatric society is now urging senators to hold a broad public consultation before any final vote—to hear from health professionals, families, and civil society representatives, not to decide the matter in isolation within Congress walls.
In a statement, the SBP emphasized that this is not a question to be settled without listening to the full range of voices affected by it. The issue touches on values, culture, law, and history. It is also one of the most serious public health crises facing the country: sexual violence against children and adolescents. The society warned that accepting this decree would represent a step backward in child protection—a narrowing of rights for those who already suffer most from inequality. The Senate now holds the next decision.
Notable Quotes
The project disregards the statistics showing that the main aggressors of adolescents are people from the family itself, including parents and legal guardians.— Maria Tereza Fonseca da Costa, general secretary of the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics
This is not a matter to be decided without broad public consultation, as it involves values, cultural aspects, legal and historical dimensions, and relates to one of the most serious public health crises: sexual violence against children and adolescents.— Brazilian Society of Pediatrics
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a pediatric society care about abortion law? Isn't that a political question?
Because pediatricians treat the children. They see what happens when a twelve-year-old is pregnant from rape and cannot access the care the law allows. The resolution they're defending isn't about changing abortion law—it's about making sure the law actually works for the most vulnerable.
The decree just suspends a resolution, right? It doesn't change the actual abortion law.
Correct. But suspending the resolution removes the guardrails. Without it, a child needs a police report, a court order, parental permission. When the abuser is the parent, that becomes impossible. The resolution made the legal right real.
Who are these abusers, typically?
Family members. Fathers, stepfathers, uncles. That's what the epidemiological data shows. So when you require parental consent or a police report, you're asking the victim to report her own father. The resolution understood that.
What happens in the Senate now?
The pediatric society is asking senators to listen—to health experts, to families, to civil society. Not to vote in isolation. They're warning that this is a public health crisis, not just a political debate.
Why did the Chamber pass it if pediatricians and human rights ministries oppose it?
That's the question the society is raising. They're saying the debate happened too fast, too narrowly. They want it opened up before the Senate votes.
What's at stake for the children?
Their agency. Their health. Their dignity. A child who is raped loses control of her own body. The resolution gave her back one small piece of that control—the right to decide about her own pregnancy. This decree takes that back.