Supreme Court eliminates abortion deadlines in rape cases

A feminist march in favor of abortion, in Mexico City in September 2019.Graciela López / Cuartoscuro

The Supreme Court of Justice has declared unconstitutional the existence of a specific term to abort in the case of rape, as established in the Chiapas Penal Code, by virtue of which a girl was prevented from interrupting a pregnancy in 2018 17-year-old with cerebral palsy. The gestation had already completed the 90 days dictated for it. The Supreme Court, whose first Chamber has voted unanimously, reproaches the previous court for not having taken into account the superior good of the minor, nor the special circumstances of disability of the case in question. In addition, they recall the need to establish justice with a gender perspective, that is, taking into account the circumstances of inferiority in which women find themselves in these cases.Reparation of all kinds of difficulties that the plaintiffs have had to face is ordered.

This case generates jurisprudence, that is, it forces to sentence similar matters with the same criteria.

Before the reform of the judiciary, five identical cases were needed to set a precedent, but now it is enough to vote one unanimously.

More information

• López Obrador and his Government avoid legislating on abortion

• The Mexican state of Hidalgo approves the decriminalization of abortion

Abortion is legal in Mexico in the event of rape, but there are several States that impose as a condition that said intervention occurs within a specified period of time, as in the case of Chiapas, which establishes it before 90 days after conception. . The Court has ruled that "the temporary limitation" in the event of rape "constitutes an act of violence against women that violates their right to free development of the personality and to mental health," it explains in a statement. For this reason, the requested protection has been granted and that time limit has been declared unconstitutional. The girl had cerebral palsy and was living in poverty and marginalization when she was a victim of rape, but the director of the General Hospital of Tapachula (Chiapas) denied her the possibility of interrupting the pregnancy.

The Supreme Court understands that a case like this requires "to adopt reinforced measures." And it considers that the establishment of a term for abortion in these cases "implies a total ignorance of human dignity and the free development of the personality of pregnant women, whose pregnancy is not the product of a free and consensual decision, but the result of arbitrary and violent conduct criminally classified and reprehensible by the State ”. Therefore, the actions of the doctors, says the Chamber, resulted "in a series of serious violations of the human rights of the victim and his mother," the plaintiffs. Measures of restitution, rehabilitation, compensation, satisfaction and non-repetition are ordered. And to the Chiapas health authority "to evaluate the current state of health of the victim and provide timely treatment."

The pro-abortion organization Gire celebrates this ruling because "it recognizes the importance of studying cases with a gender perspective, considering the rights of people with disabilities and the best interests of the minor."

And they are also pleased that the reform of the judiciary benefits rapid jurisprudence in this matter, the organization's Litigation Coordinator, Melissa Ayala, has told this newspaper.

Turn has accompanied this case in court.

The Court's project urges the health authorities to attend “efficiently and immediately” to women who have undergone rape, in order not to extend over time the physical, psychological and other consequences that derive from it. That entails, they say, not only medical care, but the termination of pregnancy.

More information

• A judge orders the release of a woman sentenced to 30 years after a miscarriage in El Salvador

The girl was five months old when medical services were required.

Despite this, the Court understands that these cases are complicated, because the victims are not always in a position to report what happened or tell about it in private due to the trauma caused by a violation, especially in these cases of special vulnerability of the victim.

Doctors limited themselves to describing the circumstances at that time of the pregnant woman, "inappropriate" and "high risk" for a surgical intervention.

But they did not take into account the “physical, mental or social” risks that could be generated precisely by their state of health if the pregnancy were carried to term and “the complications that could arise at the time of delivery due to cerebral palsy”, says the protection of review of the Court.

Subscribe here

to the

newsletter

of EL PAÍS México and receive all the informative keys of the current situation of this country