Diverse positions continue on the issues of temporality, requirements and conscientious objection included in the bill.
The Justice Commission of the National Assembly, on December 13, began to process the observations presented by 24 legislators who intervened during the first debate on the bill that guarantees the interruption of pregnancy in the event of rape.
The legislators reviewed and began the analysis of the contributions and observations presented in the first debate of this bill, which arises from a constitutional opinion that determined that numeral 2 of article 150 of the Comprehensive Organic Penal Code (COIP) is unconstitutional, regarding to decriminalize abortion for rape of women with disabilities. The first debate on this bill was held on December 9.
Three critical issues marked the first debate on the abortion-for-rape bill
This Tuesday, December 14, the commission will meet again to receive contributions and criteria from experts on the issue of temporality with respect to the bill under debate. The following day there will also be a meeting of the commission to receive observations on the requirements for the termination of pregnancy in cases of rape.
From December 16 to 22 there will be a technical work by the team of advisers to the commission and advisers to the assembly members of the table in order to prepare the draft report for the second and final debate.
The analysis of the draft at the level of legislators is scheduled for January 3, 2022; and two days later, the vote on the document. And according to the work schedule, the final report of the second debate for the plenary session would be on January 11.
The temporality of the interruption of pregnancy due to rape is one of the three controversial points of this bill, so the legislative table will put emphasis on this issue, taking into account that there were antagonistic positions on the matter in the debate. Some speak of five weeks and others of leaving open the decision to terminate the pregnancy, in case of rape. All this, they pointed out in the debate, must be accompanied by the complaint against the rapist for the Prosecutor’s Office to act.
The legislator Ricardo Vanegas, of the Pachakutik movement, during the debate said that it was pro-life, but that he cannot deny a fact that it is a social problem, the product of a fight for women. That it is important that the law determines the time in which the pregnancy can be interrupted; This issue must be approached in a technical and objective way.
The UNES legislator, José Agualsaca, in the session of this December 13, commented that there should be no temporality in the interruption of pregnancy due to rape, because it would restrict the exercise of the right and prevent women, especially raped girls, from using this mechanism. (I)
Paul is a talented author and journalist with a passion for entertainment and general news. He currently works as a writer at the 247 News Agency, where he has established herself as a respected voice in the industry.
