Roxana Badaloni
05/06/2021 9:30
Clarín.com
Society
Updated 05/06/2021 9:30 AM
The judicial presentation of a man against the decision of his ex-partner to have an abortion, led to several days of debate on the scope of the rule that legalized the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (IVE).
However, the practice of abortion had been carried out a week before in a public hospital
at the will of the woman and in compliance with legal and health regulations.
In the end, the precautionary measure was without effect.
The IVE law 27610 establishes the principle of autonomy of the pregnant person,
therefore, proposals such as the one that arose in San Juan should not be endorsed.
But, Chamber III of the Chamber of Appeals in Civil, Commercial and Mining of the province of San Juan accepted at first the precautionary measure of the man.
On Saturday, May 1,
judges Juan Carlos Noguera Ramos, Sergio Orlando Rodríguez, and Juan Carlos Pérez
, ruled in favor of Franco's request - the name of the man who initiated the lawsuit - on the grounds that “since they are still married, the spouses are they committed to developing a life project in common ”.
And, they argued, it was necessary for "both to come together in the will" of the practice of abortion.
In the precautionary measure, the
court asked the woman to refrain from carrying out any practice
of interrupting the pregnancy
for a period of 72 hours
until the
substantive
issue was resolved.
It gave the man a legal time so that, given the presumption of paternity, he can analyze "if he is in a position to prevent IVE and protect his rights as a father."
Right
On Tuesday the 4th, the woman's lawyer Reinaldo Bedini informed the court that
her client had already agreed to her right
to interrupt the pregnancy at the end of April, at the Federico Cantoni public hospital in the town of Pocito.
The Chamber sent an official letter to the Cantoni hospital to explain when and how the abortion was carried out.
And a few hours later the answer came
confirming the practice according to law,
based on the woman's desire to interrupt the pregnancy at week 9 of gestation.
"The request was granted and assistance was given according to the Ministry of Health," was the response of the hospital's management to the judges.
As the injunction for the man was issued and notified on May 1, after the abortion was legally carried out,
the judges of Chamber III of the Appeals Chamber resolved to nullify the judicial measure.
The judges argued that
"it is impossible to comply with the measure
- suspend the abortion - because" the precautionary measures subsist for the duration of the circumstances that determined them. "
And in relation to the request for unconstitutionality of the abortion law and other claims that the plaintiff intended for his case, the ruling says: “It does not correspond to issue on them, since the proposed issues have become abstract, since
the precautionary measure has been terminated
. "
Critical voices
The Bureau for Legal, Safe and Free Abortion of San Juan issued a statement in which it pointed to the Provincial Social Work awarding it to
delay the time
for the request for Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (IVE) to be finalized.
He recalled that people who are less than 14 weeks pregnant and who do not wish to continue,
can decide to terminate that pregnancy voluntarily
and only have to request it at any public or private health establishment.
"Once an abortion has been requested, the health system has a period of ten days to resolve the request: social works that take longer than this time to provide services may be subject to legal claims with their corresponding financial compensation," the statement said. .
In its statement, the Board also demanded that the decree prohibiting the sale of misoprostol in San Juan pharmacies be repealed and that the provincial government implement the Law in all public health establishments in the province.
The Minister of Women, Gender and Diversity of the Nation, Elizabeth Gómez Alcorta, expressed in dialogue with Radio La Red, that
what happened in San Juan is "a terrible precedent"
and that "cases like this there are not nor were there in all the country".
The minister insisted that the law makes it clear that
the only consent required to carry out the practice is that of the pregnant woman.
And he expressed: "If the proposal was the other way around, that a woman does not want to have an abortion and her partner does; that woman should be obliged to have an abortion because her partner wants it?".
ME