Despite having some of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the world, it is estimated that in Chile 35% of all pregnancies are terminated illegally.
The good news is that the country has done something to address the issue by approving the morning after pill for women 14 and older. Children would not need the consent of a parent to receive the drug. Why is it that a country described as having some of the "most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the world" would also have a more lenient law governing the morning after pill than the U.S.? Would it have something to do with Chile's president being a physician? Would it have something to do with Chile's president being a woman? Likely, both. Of course, opponents of this new decree use the same tired argument that this pill amounts to abortion. Wrong. This pill acts in every way like a regular birth control pill (I know - the opponents are anti-birth control as well, but they rarely state that fact). As the article notes:
It works by stopping or delaying ovulation, or by stopping an egg settling in the womb.