The Justice Commission began, on March 19, the process of partial veto of the bill that guarantees the voluntary interruption of pregnancy for girls, adolescents and women in case of rape, where the guests questioned the constitutionality of the observations regarding considering abortion as an exception and not a right.
The session was installed at 3:20 p.m. and the first thing that was determined is that the table will have up to eight days to present a non-binding report on the objected text. On this first day of analysis, four constitutionalists were received.
Constitutionalist Stalin Raza affirmed that the Executive’s partial veto transgresses the Constitution and violates what was established by the Constitutional Court ruling, and recommended to the table that it present a report to the plenary suggesting its insistence.
Regarding the semantic and conceptual confrontation that exists in the veto regarding whether the interruption of pregnancy in case of rape corresponds to a right or a punitive exceptionsaid that it is not an exception to the punishability, since the act of provoking a consented abortion is a typical act, it is not unlawful.
That the criminal point of view, abortion, was already dealt with by the Constitutional Court when it said that it was discriminatory to differentiate between women who have intellectual disabilities and women who do not; and what the Court ordered to the Assembly was to elaborate a non-punitive law, and not a law that regulates the punitive exception, but a law designed in the language of protection of rights.
Raza commented that women’s right to choose about their sexual and reproductive lives should be discussed. That there should be no doubt that the decision to terminate pregnancy in cases of rape is the exercise of a righttherefore, the constitutionalist recommended to the legislators to change the approach that crosses the entire presidential veto, since the Executive suggests changing the name of the law.
Regarding the terms, the constitutionalist stated that establishing a single term, that is, twelve weeks for abortion due to rape, does not consider that there is a wide sociocultural, economic and geographic diversity in Ecuador, since a person is not the same a pregnant woman from a middle-class city, than a pregnant woman who is in the Amazon, who does not have access to services and who has a different sociocultural level of understanding. Therefore, he said that the Assembly did well to set two deadlines.
Regarding the requirements contemplated in the veto, Raza commented that what is established by the Assembly is the most recommendable, because a form that becomes a crime notice is required, therefore, insisting on a complaint is redundant and re-victimizing, as well as the forensic medical examination, suggested by the President of the Republic in the objection.
Angélica Porras Velasco, a specialist in constitutional law, also questioned the presidential veto Regarding conceptualizing that the interruption of pregnancy is an exception and not a right.
“The non-recognition as a right of the possibility of voluntarily interrupting pregnancy in women supposes the violation of autonomy, supposes the violation of the free development of the personality, among other things that are essential for the consideration of the human being”, he affirmed. .
He considered that the Assembly must ratify the initial text and enforce the action for non-compliance with the sentence, so that the Constitutional Court requires the President of the Republic to comply with the standards indicated in the sentence.
That the presidential veto is regressive in rights, since it archives the right of girls, adolescents and women who have been raped to decide on the interruption of pregnancy, to decide on their bodies.
It recommended that the commission file an action for non-compliance with the judgment of the Constitutional Court against the President of the Republicbut the healthiest thing would be for the plenary to ratify the approved text.
He insisted that the veto criminalizes women who have been raped and who want to voluntarily interrupt the pregnancy. In addition to criminalizing women, it deepens revictimization and also discriminates against their status as women. And it hinders access to a right, she insisted.
Ximena Ron Erráez, constitutional adviser, referred to conscientious objection to the project and pointed out that the Constitutional Court did not make any express reference to freedom of conscience. That is a kind of resistance right.
That in the project approved by the National Assembly, it establishes five limitations to conscientious objection; Of these, the veto refers to the fact that there is only one doctor in the rural area; the project stated that she could not refuse an interruption of pregnancy due to rape; On the other hand, in the veto, it weights in favor of the objection and the doctor is obliged to refer to a place that is attended by his request.
Regarding the limitation of collective and institutional conscientious objection, the presidential veto establishes that private institutions that offer health services can object for reasons of conscience, when there are countries where conscientious objection does not fit into institutions; but he stressed that in the Ecuadorian Constitution in article 10, where it is determined that all natural and legal persons are holders of rights, it could cover this possibility of institutional conscientious objection, however, it would be revealing that the Constitutional Court makes a pronouncement about it, he noted.
Soledad Angus, a specialist in constitutional law, also questioned the objections raised by the president, but clarified that this does not mean that he is in agreement with what was approved by the legislature, where it did not observe all international standards on this subject.
He noted that the Executive expresses criteria of unconstitutionality, arguing a better interpretation of the ruling of the Constitutional Court. It does not accept the interpretation of the Court and gives the category of person and subject of rights to the unborn and treats it as the right to protection of life from conception. This, she added, conditions the bill and relegates the rights of girls, adolescents and women to interrupt a pregnancy in case of rape.
He questioned that in the veto the Executive eliminates all references from the title to guarantee access to the voluntary interruption of pregnancy due to rape and modifies all the texts that place the victim as the center.
The president of the Justice Commission, Alejandro Jaramillo, insisted that the Executive’s veto includes the personal criteria of the President of the Republic, but that as assembly members they will legislate for all Ecuadorians, where individual criteria cannot be put before. (I)
Source: Eluniverso
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.
