Tag Archive for: Abortion Not Punishable

This Wednesday, an opinion signed by Juan Manuel Delgado, Attorney General of Córdoba, was published in the press within the framework of the judicial case promoted by former legislator Aurelio García Elorrio that seeks to suspend in the provincial territory the effective implementation of Law 27,610 of Voluntary termination of pregnancy.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

The opinion arises in the framework of the appeal that García Elorrio presented after the Administrative Litigation Chamber rejected the precautionary measure requested in the amparo that seeks to suspend Law 27,610 in Córdoba. To resolve, the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) must notify all parties and also the Attorney General in order to issue an opinion on the matter, but it is in no way binding and may even be rejected.

It is not less than the letter has also been signed by the deputy prosecutor Pablo Bustos Fierro, with the explicit intention of avoiding that at the time of ruling, it is still pending to resolve its separation requested by the intervening associations. It is also worrying that the resolution is public before being available for the view of those who intervene in the judicial case. The TSJ has not yet issued on the matter, that is to say that the opinion was presented irregularly without being resolved the recusal of the prosecutor.

From Catholics for the Right to Decide (CDD), Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policies (Fundeps) and Legal Clinic of Public Interest Córdoba (CLIP) we express our concern about such untidiness that we consider is not innocent and confirms our concern in relation to the suitability of said official to act with the objectivity and respect for the legality required by said function.

Prior to their appointment, Fundeps and the Institute for Comparative Studies in Criminal and Social Sciences (INECIP) participated in the public hearing at the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Justice and Agreement of the Córdoba Legislature, which evaluated their specifications to warn about their lack of suitability and its position contrary to the human rights of women and people with childbearing capacity. In the letter that we signed together with more than 40 civil society organizations, we spoke out against his appointment for publicly advancing a position against abortion, an issue on which he should decide later.

The suspension of the right to access the IVE through a precautionary measure and would imply a setback and irreparable damage for women and pregnant people in Córdoba who would be unable to access a basic human right such as health. It should be remembered that the Provincial Justice has already issued on these issues in the action filed by Portal de Belén against the provincial Protocol of Non-Punishable Abortion in 2019, where the amparo was rejected for lack of a specific case.

In the same way, we point out that this type of filings against the IVE Law have been raised throughout the country and most of them have already been rejected by virtue of their inadmissibility. Access to the legal and voluntary interruption of pregnancy is fully valid in the province of Córdoba, as in the entire national territory, despite attempts to obstruct its access through abusive and openly inappropriate prosecutions.

This law represents an advance in the guarantee of the right to life, physical and mental integrity, health, autonomy, freedom and equality of women and people with the capacity to bear children. We are not going to allow undemocratic actions that violate human rights carried out by anti-rights groups to harm it. We continue to work together for our rights.

Contact:

Clínica de Litigio de Interés Público Córdoba
Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir

Fundeps
3513251601 – 3513294497

Since its enactment at the end of last year, the IVE law is in full force and its first effects are already being verified in access to practice in health centers throughout the country. Meanwhile, in court, conservative sectors continue to try actions to postpone it.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

The Law of Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy No. 27,610, sanctioned at the end of 2020 and in force since January 24, 2021, implied an important deepening of human rights for women and pregnant persons.

Half a year later, access to abortion is making its way into all health subsystems across the country. In Córdoba, there are more than 100 health establishments that already guarantee this right. On May 28, International Day of Action for Women’s Health, the Ministry of Health of the Nation presented the update of the protocol for the comprehensive care of people with the right to Voluntary and Legal Interruption of Pregnancy.

The new protocol

The protocol constitutes an instrument that aims to offer guidance to health teams, providing them with a regulatory framework and clinical guidelines for precise and clear care that allows them to carry out the termination of pregnancy. Compliance with the highest standards of care is contemplated, that is, those that imply respect for quality, accessibility, confidentiality, technical competence, range of available options and updated scientific information.

From a clinical point of view, the protocol incorporates international recommendations on procedures for the legal termination of pregnancy – drug dose and manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) – and reinforces the importance of rapid access to comprehensive care, reinforcing the need resolution in the first level of care and in drug treatments.

In other words, it implies reinsurance so that girls, adolescents, women and people with the capacity to carry a child receive dignified treatment and quality care, thus guaranteeing IVE until week 14 of the gestational process inclusive and the ILE when appropriate.

As it is a document that sets out certain references on how to carry out the procedure, it is not necessary for the provinces to adhere to it in order to make the implementation of National Law 27,610 effective. In other words, the law is operative regardless of the adherence or validity of the protocol.

The judicialization here and there

In different parts of the country, legal actions were initiated that marked from the first minute a strong sense of legal insecurity for those who have the right to access the practice. There are already more than 30 actions filed against the law. Most of them have been rejected without further proceedings, but excessive judicialization creates obstacles to access and confusion among users.

In Córdoba, at the beginning of April, Aurelio García Elorrio, a reference for the civil association Portal de Belén, filed an amparo against the province requesting the unconstitutionality of the law, and in turn, requested a precautionary measure to suspend the validity of the law, the which was rejected immediately. Faced with this, he filed an appeal that is currently being processed before the Superior Court of Justice.

In this case, the Public Interest Litigation Clinic, Catholics for the Right to Decide and Fundeps present ourselves as interested third parties in order to protect the rights of the group of women and pregnant persons of Córdoba. It is important to clarify that this process does not alter the validity of the law, which continues to be applicable and enforceable throughout the provincial territory.

Meanwhile, in Mar del Plata, at the beginning of June, Federal Court No. 4 in charge of First Instance Judge Alfredo Eugenio Lopez, issued a precautionary measure suspending the effects of the law, the protocol and other resolutions.

The National State immediately appeared in the file, challenging the judge for cause and appealing the precautionary measure. Thus, the case was left in the hands of the surrogate judge, Santiago José Martín, who granted the appeal with suspensive effect of the measure. This means that the injunction granted no longer has effect until the Chamber of Mar del Plata is issued on the appeal.

Faced with this panorama and by virtue of the importance of the case, from Fundeps we present ourselves in the file as “friends of the court”, with the aim of providing human rights arguments, specifically on the right to health and sexual and reproductive rights. and non-reproductive.

It is elementary to think of Law 27,610 as a public health policy representative of fundamental human rights standards. These lawsuits are not mere isolated events, but constitute a form of activism that hinders and limits a basic health practice of sexual health. In Córdoba we already know the effects of the judicialization of the provincial guide for the care of non-punishable abortions that Portal de Belén began in 2012. This case had the consequence that women and pregnant people of Córdoba who were in qualified situations by the Penal Code to access the practice of non-punishable abortion could not do so in this jurisdiction during all the years in which the amparo was pending resolution, resulting in a serious impact on their most basic human rights, despite the fact that later it was The action was rejected due to lack of case and lack of standing.

Faced with this scenario, the competent courts in cases where the law is under discussion have the opportunity to establish clear guidelines regarding the protection of fundamental rights such as sexual and (non) reproductive rights. A solution that respects these rights is simply to maintain the validity of Law 27,610 on Access to Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy, not giving rise to the requested precautionary measures.

 

Authors:

Agostina Copetti

Sofia Mongi

Contact: 

Mayca Balaguer

Civil society organizations demand, after the precautionary measure decided by a Chaco fair judge, that access to the voluntary interruption of pregnancy be guaranteed in that province. It is a right won in a democratic process, after a long debate in Congress.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

Law 27610, which regulates access to voluntary interruption of pregnancy and post-abortion care, must be fully applied throughout Argentina. After the precautionary measure resolved by the fair judge, Marta Beatriz Aucar de Trotti, in charge of the Civil and Commercial Court No. 19 of the city of Resistencia, which suspended the application of the law in the territory of Chaco, we demand that no Zones of discrimination are created for the rights to health and autonomy of women and other people with the ability to gestate based on the domicile set in one or another province.

The action was filed by six people, who argued an alleged contradiction between the Provincial Constitution and national law and asked that the law be suspended throughout the territory. The judge omits to rule on the inadmissibility of such requests in our legal system and is unaware that no judge can suspend the validity of a law with general effects. In addition, she does not warn that the fact that the Chaco Constitution protects life from conception is not an obstacle to the application of the law, neither in Chaco nor in any of the other provinces that provide that type of protection. This evaluation of the constitutionality of the abortion legislation was already carried out by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the “FAL” ruling in 2012.

Amnesty International, CELS, the Latin American Justice and Gender Team (ELA), Mujeres x Mujeres and Fundeps emphasize the importance of both the provinces and the national State upholding the law and questioning judicial decisions that put the right to abortion in crisis , particularly when they do so in violation of the principle of constitutional supremacy, the division of powers and distort the democratic debate.

The Supreme Court of the Nation has already said, within the framework of a precautionary measure that suspended throughout the country the application of the audiovisual communication services law, that a precautionary measure that suspends the validity of an entire law with general effects for the entire population, is incompatible with the concrete control of constitutionality of the laws, the division of powers and reasonableness.

Beyond the differences with this case, when issuing a precautionary measure, judges must take into account the credibility of the rights affected and the danger of delaying a decision on the case. To do so, it must analyze the consequences of the issuance of its measure in a broad way, taking into account the interest of society as a whole and the impact on the rights enshrined.

In the precautionary measure issued, the existence of an infringed right to the plaintiffs, nor the danger of delay, are not proven. And what is very serious, the measure puts at risk at the local level the right to health of women, girls and people with childbearing capacity.

Decisions of this type only undermine the use of legal tools, so important for the guarantee of rights such as precautionary measures, and the legislative process carried out with a wide debate in December, supported by strong social support and with the transversal accompaniment of the main political forces.

It is important that the users of these services and with the right to access the voluntary interruption of pregnancy as established by Law 27,610 know that the national State and the provinces must guarantee their access throughout the country. Until the Chaco justice reverses this precautionary measure, we must emphasize that the right to legal abortions in force in Argentina for a hundred years (that is, if the pregnancy was the result of rape, if the pregnancy affects the health of the person or if it puts your life at risk) is in force in Chaco as in the entire national territory, and health personnel must provide those services.

Faced with attacks of this type on existing rights, we insist that the provinces and the national State question the judicial decisions that deprive women, girls and people with the capacity to gestate in the exercise of their sexual and reproductive rights, including the right to abortion. We must continue to take care of everyone’s health.

Amnistía Internacional Argentina

CELS

ELA

Fundeps

Mujeres x Mujeres

After the plenary meeting of the General Legislation, Criminal Legislation, Social Action and Public Health, and Women and Diversity commissions, an agreement was finally reached on the bill for the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy that will be voted on tomorrow at the venue. of the Chamber of Deputies. What modifications does it have with respect to the project that the Executive Power had presented in November? What can we expect from today’s session? We tell you here.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

As planned in the legislative agenda, this Wednesday, December 9, the committee meeting was held to rule on the IVE bill. With 77 votes in favor, 30 rejection and 4 abstentions, an agreement was reached on the text of the project. The same thing had happened hours before in the plenary session of the Budget and Social Action and Public Health committees, which had discussed the First 1000 Days bill. Both projects will be discussed at the venue this Thursday, December 10.

What is the agenda for the day?

The call for the session was set at 11 in the morning, and the order of treatment of the projects will be first that of IVE and then that of Attention and comprehensive health care during pregnancy and early childhood, known as the program of the First 1000 days.

Throughout the day, the Campaign for Legal, Safe and Free Abortion called to accompany the vote in public spaces throughout the country. In Buenos Aires, the vigil will begin at 10 am in the vicinity of Congress, with activities throughout the day and until the law is voted. In Córdoba, the call is in the former Plaza Vélez Sarsfield from 6:00 p.m. As the right to abortion is a matter of public health, and taking care of ourselves as well, we reinforce the recommendations to participate in the vigil:

  • We wear a nose mask at all times.
  • We wash our hands with alcohol gel.
  • We keep the distance of 2 meters.
  • We take care of the sun with sunscreen, light clothing and a hat.
  • We bring fresh water to stay hydrated.
  • We do not respond to anti-rights provocations and we try to always be accompanied and attentive.

As the two bills will be discussed, the session is expected to last several hours. On IVE, a total of 170 deputies would speak, so the vote on the law would be in the early morning hours.

What does the opinion say? What modifications do you propose?
A few weeks ago we published this analysis with a systematization of the bills that would serve as the basis for this debate: the one presented by the Executive Power in November and the one presented by the Campaign in 2019, contrasting with the opinion approved by the Chamber of Deputies in 2018.

Yesterday a new opinion was approved, which foresees some modifications in the project presented by the Executive Power. What are they about?

In Art. 8, which regulates cases where the person requiring the practice is a minor, now a reference is made directly to art. 26 of the CCyC. Before the amendment, it was specified that those between 13 and 16 years of age have sufficient aptitude and maturity to decide on the practice and give due consent, unless a procedure that involves a serious risk to their health or life must be used. The reference to the applicable legal framework for these cases is maintained, as proposed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Law No. 26.061 on the Comprehensive Protection of Boys, Girls and Adolescents, which always provides that their best interests are protected and their rights guaranteed. to be heard.

On the other hand, the new Art. 11 is added, which indicates:

CONSCIOUS OBJECTION. OBLIGATIONS OF HEALTH ESTABLISHMENTS. Those health effectors of the Private Subsector or Social Security that do not have professionals to carry out the interruption of pregnancy due to the exercise of the right to conscientious objection in accordance with the previous article, must foresee and order the referral to an effector actually perform the service and that it is of similar characteristics to the person requesting the benefit consulted. In all cases, the practice must be guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of this law. The procedures and costs associated with the referral and the transfer of the patient will be the responsibility of the effector who performs the referral. All referrals contemplated in this article must be billed according to the coverage in favor of the effector performing the practice.

This new article provides a solution for the cases of private health or social security institutions where there is no non-objector professional, indicating that they must arrange the referral to another institution that does carry out the practice, guaranteeing that it is done in accordance with the law , and taking charge of all the procedures and costs associated with the referral and transfer.

At the same time, the wording of Article 10 is maintained, which recognizes the right to conscientious objection, with some limitations, such as that whoever objects must uphold their decision in all areas, public and private, in which they exercise their profession; She must also refer the patient in good faith to be attended by another professional in a temporary and timely manner, without delay; You must adopt all the necessary measures to guarantee access to the practice and finally you must comply with the rest of your professional duties and legal obligations.

It is also prohibited for cases in which the life or health of the pregnant person is in danger and requires immediate and urgent attention, and for cases that require post-abortion health care. This article also provides that non-compliance may give rise to disciplinary, administrative, criminal and civil sanctions, as appropriate.

However, this wording does not contemplate limitations that did arise in the opinion of the Deputies of 2018, such as that the objection had to be previously expressed individually and in writing, and communicated to the highest authority of the health establishment.

Another important point of that opinion is that it obliged the health establishments to keep a record of the professional objectors, having to inform the health authority of their jurisdiction, and explicitly prohibited institutional conscientious objection and / or ideology.

What does the inclusion of articles that admit the assumption of individual conscientious objection, and assumptions of institutions where there is no non-objector professional, mean?

We know that conscientious objection is a legal institute used to obstruct or delay access to sexual and (non) reproductive health services, as we have seen in cases of contraception and legal interruption of pregnancy. Recognizing it within the law, with the legal status of “right”, does nothing other than enable non-compliance with the law itself, seriously jeopardizing its effectiveness.

Conscientious objection is a legal institute that allows certain persons to be exempted from complying with a legal obligation, in cases where the action ordered by the norms contradicts their deepest religious, ethical or moral convictions; provided that this does not cause harm to third parties.

We understand that the incorporation of individual conscientious objection for direct intervention in the practice of IVE is based on respect for this freedom of conscience or religion, as long as it is exceptionally allowed and with all the limits mentioned. But recognizing the claim of private institutions to exempt themselves from the provision of pregnancy termination services is unthinkable. We fear that this may happen in the event that all the health professionals of an institution declare themselves as objectors. Even if it is not the institution that denies the service, if all its professionals are objectors, it becomes a disguised institutional conscientious objection.

A solution of this type violates the freedom and right to health of patients, and increases costs and problems for the public health system, which will be burdened by having to resolve the situations that the private subsystem derives. We are also concerned that as a consequence of this recognition, the situation in Uruguay will be repeated, where high levels of objection are identified, and there are even jurisdictions with 100% professional objectors. This exacerbates the difficulties that affect rural areas or areas far from large cities, where access to health services is more limited and there are fewer public institutions.

The private institutions that provide health services perform essential public functions: the provision of health services to the population. The fact that these functions are carried out for profit and through a private contract does not detract from the nature of the service. Therefore, the social function that these private companies fulfill is different from that of others that are not committed to guaranteeing people’s fundamental rights. In this sense, the social and legal requirement that is made to companies or entities that provide health services is much greater. Not only should they guarantee non-discrimination in access to services, but they are also subject to greater control and surveillance by the State.

In this sense, admitting that an entire institution can be exempted from the provision of IVE services is unjustified and would disproportionately put at risk the access to health of the people associated with them.

In any case, the opinion obliges these establishments to guarantee the referral, in a place with similar characteristics to the one that the person requesting the benefit consulted, where the practice must be guaranteed in accordance with the law. Then it indicates that the procedures and costs associated with the referral and transfer will be the responsibility of the institution that referred, providing that it will always be invoiced in favor of the effector who actually performs the practice.

It will be law

Despite these controversial points, we welcome the approval of the majority opinion and await treatment in both Houses before the end of the year. We recognize that reaching this instance was the result of the struggles of the human rights movement that has been promoting this law for so many years.

The National Congress now has the duty to give the legislative discussion with responsibility that a public health problem of this magnitude deserves, in this new opportunity to enact the law and mark progress in the protection of the rights of women and individuals. pregnant women in our country.

We hope that those who legislate put aside their personal convictions and private morals when tackling this project. They are legislating on our future, on our health and on our lives. We demand that you do so responsibly, supporting this bill with your positive vote, because it is a bill that expands rights and saves lives.

This afternoon, we go for the half penalty. And before the end of 2020, for the conquest of the right to legal, safe and free abortion.

This is the case of “María Magdalena”, a woman who came to the guard of a hospital with an abortion in progress and suffered torture, inhuman treatment and obstetric violence when she was treated, and later was unable to access justice in the province of Tucumán.

In 2012, María Magdalena (name used to preserve her anonymity) arrived at the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes Maternity guard with a miscarriage in progress. The gynecologists who treated her, Claudia Callejas and Alejandra Bereguer, performed a curettage without anesthesia and later reported her to the police, accusing her of having caused the abortion.

María Magdalena was dismissed in 2015 and has been trying to get justice ever since. She denounced these doctors for gender violence and violation of professional secrecy, but in all the judicial instances of Tucumán they refused to investigate, and they filed the case.

The case reached the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and in February of this year it was resolved that the Judicial Power of Tucumán should investigate the medical actions of the gynecologists and rule on the denounced facts, since these signify a flagrant violation of the Women rights.

From Fundeps, we present an Amicus Curiae presenting a series of arguments to substantiate the human rights violations suffered by María Magdalena, and thus demand that justice be done. Among them, we highlight the right to a life free of violence in the framework of health care, compliance with the medical obligations of health professionals (derived from the Law on the Rights of the Patient in their Relationship with Professionals and Health Institutions) and the right to access justice.

We demand that the Judicial Power of Tucumán comply with its duty to guarantee women the full enjoyment of their rights and that it punish those who attempt against them, doing justice for María Magdalena and all women who see obstacles hindering access to essential services under conditions. safe and affordable.

Author

Sofia Armando

Contact

Mayca Balaguer, maycabalaguer@fundeps.org

On Friday, August 21, the first virtual discussion on Legal Interruption of Pregnancy, Pandemic and Telemedicine was held together with the Network of Health Professionals for the Right to Decide. This meeting aimed to review the current regulations, socialize the different challenges that arise when implementing the ILE during the pandemic, the limitations that health professionals face and the advantages of Telemedicine.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

In the current context of the pandemic, the WHO has ruled that different health practices are “essential services”, such as systematic vaccination, treatment of chronic diseases, and sexual, reproductive and non-reproductive health services, among which includes care during pregnancy, childbirth and the Legal Termination of Pregnancy. The national health authorities and various specialized health institutions did the same. However, the lack of information and measures by the competent authorities, together with the absence of a clear legal framework, make it difficult for health professionals to be able to effectively comply with ILE practices, and for pregnant people to exercise rights that, in the current health situation, require special attention in order to avoid their subjugation.

In the meeting, in which a total of 40 health professionals participated, they spoke about the legal framework under which the practice of Telemedicine is governed in Córdoba and Argentina in general, in the particular context of the pandemic and independent of it, practical examples and parallels with international regulations were given. The instance also served to share different experiences experienced by professionals, who highlighted the importance and need of spaces for the exchange of tools, information and updating of regulatory knowledge for the exercise of practices in a safe way, both for patients and professionals of the intervening health.

Presentation of the booklet “Aborting with rights during the pandemic: Legal Interruption of Pregnancy as an essential service”

Fundeps presented at the meeting a document that develops the technical and legal aspects that must be considered when guaranteeing the Legal Interruption of Pregnancy during the crisis generated by the coronavirus, with references to protocols and recommendations prepared by the World Health Organization and other health institutions. It also contains a section on the use of telecare to attend to these practices, considering the modifications recently promoted by the pandemic. The document is a synthesis of the updated information for the attention of the ILE, following the principles of risk reduction and resource optimization.

Knowledge exchange as a fundamental tool

We celebrate these instances of training and exchange with different actors involved in the realization of human rights, as in this case, health professionals. Meetings like this are essential for these health practices to be carried out without risk or fear and in a complete, informed and safe way.

Authors

Irene Aguirre

Luz Baretta

Contact

Mayca Balaguer, maycabalaguer@fundeps.org

The following primer develops the technical and legal aspects that must be considered when guaranteeing the Legal Interruption of Pregnancy during the crisis generated by the coronavirus, with references to protocols and recommendations drawn up by the World Health Organization and other health institutions. It also contains a section on the use of telemedicine to attend to these practices.

With the assumption of the new president Alberto Fernández on December 10, and after recovering his category of Ministry the health area, the third update of the National Protocol for the comprehensive care of people entitled to health was published in the Official Gazette legal termination of pregnancy. Update that a little less than a month ago was vetoed by former President Mauricio Macri, after his own Secretary of Health Adolfo Rubinstein gave him momentum.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

After the comings and goings of the previous government regarding the publication and after the repeal of the update of said Protocol, the current Minister of Health Ginés González García, a day after taking office, held a press conference at Casa Rosada in which announced that the update of the Protocol would be published in the next few hours. So it was.

Through Resolution No. 1/2019 published on December 13, what González González García had already anticipated was reflected: this protocol is an imperative of the national health policy on sexual and reproductive health.

It is nothing more than a procedural guide to guarantee the rights already stipulated by law. It also provides support to professionals who must comply with it, due to the intimidation suffered in recent times by anti-rights groups.

The update of the Protocol has few variants with respect to the previous one, resolved by Secretary Adolfo Rubinstein. One of the most relevant is the flexibility regarding conscientious objection to ensure that it does not prevent the legal interruption of pregnancy. On this issue, González García said, “we are respectful of conscientious objection, but it cannot be an institutional cut so that the law is not fulfilled.”

It is important to highlight this issue, due to what happened this year in the Province of Tucumán with the Lucia case, in which health officials hindered the realization of the ILE, waiting at 7 months of gestation to perform a caesarean section against The will of the girl. All kinds of pressure was exerted against her and her family, in addition to the violation of her rights.

In this regard, the Minister also spoke, trusting the accession of the Provinces to the Protocol so that, in this way, the rights of those who can and wish to access an ILE, and professionals who have the duty to comply with the law.

It is important to highlight that the first Protocol was prepared in 2007 during the first administration of the current Minister, and then it was updated in 2010 and 2015, when the provisions made by the Supreme Court were incorporated in the FAL Judgment of 2012 .

On this occasion and in line with the recently repealed Protocol, the update was carried out in accordance with the new Civil and Commercial Code sanctioned in 2015, and with the latest recommendations made in this regard by the World Health Organization (WHO).

One of the relevant issues in this regard is that according to the Argentine Civil and Commercial Code, a pregnant person from 16 years of age is considered an adult. Therefore, your informed consent is sufficient when requesting the application of an ILE.

Main topics

Due to the short time elapsed between the update of the Protocol by Secretary Rubinstein and the current one, the central points continue to be basically the same, as explained by Fundeps before.

It is important to continue emphasizing that the Protocol aims to “guarantee the dignity and rights of every person capable of gestating and, therefore, potential subject to the right to ILE, when their life or health is in danger, or they are taking a pregnancy product of a violation, regardless of whether it is a person with or without a disability ”.

Therefore, its main points are:

  • Reaffirms the ILE as the right of women and pregnant people.
  • The consent is adapted to the new Civil and Commercial Code, respecting the progressive autonomy of children and adolescents and people with disabilities and capacity constraints.
  • According to the CCyC of the Nation, from the age of 16 the pregnant person is considered adult.
  • Between 13 and 16, you can autonomously request an ILE when it does not involve a serious risk to your health or life.
  • It recognizes the possibility of conscientious objection, but states that it cannot be an obstacle to access to the ILE.
  • It guarantees the speed. The deadline between the request of the ILE and its completion must not exceed 10 calendar days. If a doctor is a conscientious objector, he must refer one who is in less than 24 hours.
  • It gives security to health workers to carry out the practice.

The situation in the provinces

On this issue, the new Minister was also issued by saying that “in a federal country, much depends on the adhesion of the provinces. There are already many that are attached, but unfortunately some large provinces, such as Buenos Aires for example, did not approve the protocol. ”

Recall that in 2012, the FAL ruling urged the national State and the provinces to provide the necessary conditions to carry out legal interruptions of pregnancies quickly, easily and safely.

Until today, still 7 provinces unfortunately did not have their own regulations or adhere to the protocol of the Nation. Santiago del Estero, Tucumán, Corrientes, Mendoza, San Juan, Catamarca and Formosa, were part of this number.

The good news is that after the announcement of the Ministry of Health of the Nation, the Undersecretariat of Human Development of the province of Formosa, declared in a local environment that the province adheres to the Protocol since 2015 “always preserving the victim, point by which the adhesion in the province was not announced ”.

Beyond the reading that can be made of this statement, the important thing is that finally one more province pronounced itself publicly regarding its adherence.

The words of the Minister stating that “we do not believe that it is easy or that the protocol itself changes history, but we are willing to change history far beyond the protocol”, is a halo of hope that brings this new government, in The fact that the advancement of recognition of rights, the decriminalization of abortion and the legalization of voluntary termination of pregnancy no longer seem as distant or difficult to achieve, and we hope that they will soon be a reality.

Author

Valentina Montero

Contact

Mayca Balaguer, maycabalaguer@fundeps.org

Within the framework of our work for access to sexual and reproductive rights from a public health perspective and respect for human rights, we request the National Administration of Medicines, Food and Medical Technology (ANMAT) to update its list of authorized medications in the country, according to the medicines that appear in the Model List of Essential Medicines of the World Health Organization. In addition, we ask that you create a national list of essential drugs for primary care.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The World Health Organization has a Model List of Essential Medicines (LMME), which consists of those medications that cover the population’s priority health care needs. Their selection is made according to the prevalence of diseases and their safety, efficacy and comparative cost-effectiveness.

Within the LMME of 2019 are certain medications, which are used for treatments in sexual and reproductive health, which are not in the National Vademecum of Medicines of Argentina. However, its incorporation is essential to guarantee the right to enjoy the highest possible level of physical and mental health, and the right to enjoy and benefit from scientific and technological advances.

Based on all the norms that protect these rights, locally and internationally, fundamentally the National Program of Sexual Health and Responsible Procreation, created by National Law No. 25.673, Law No. 26529 on Patient Rights, Law No. 26.743 of Gender Identity and the National Law No. 23.798 of AIDS, among others, we ask the Administration to incorporate, and guarantee the availability and access, of medicines for the treatment of the Legal Interruption of Pregnancy, treatments for HIV, medication for treatments of hormonal replacement, contraceptive methods and medications for the treatment of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs).

We also request that a national list of essential medicines for primary care be created, to follow, as far as possible, the guidelines established by the World Health Organization. The Special Rapporteur on the right of every person to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, in his 2006 report, indicated that “every State has to prepare a national list of essential medicines using a participatory process. […] A State has the basic obligation of immediate effect to make essential medicines available and accessible throughout its jurisdiction”

We believe that it is necessary to have medications that, in their necessary and appropriate doses, are in accordance with our national and international regulatory framework, while being essential to guarantee the health of people who require these practices and services, in a safe and accessible to the entire population, without discrimination.

Contact

Mayca Balaguer, maycabalaguer@fundeps.org

The judge in the Federal Administrative Litigation No. 11, Cecilia Gilardi de Negre, issued on Thursday a precautionary resolution within the framework of the collective protection initiated by the Association for the Promotion of Civil Rights and by the Civil Association Portal de Belén.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

In the case, initiated in 2018, organizations question the constitutionality of the Protocol for the comprehensive care of people entitled to the Legal Interruption of Pregnancy of the Ministry of Health and Social Development, and Provision No. 946/2018 of the National Administration of Medicines, Food and Technology (ANMAT), issued on 12/10/2018, while authorizing Laboratorios Domínguez SA a new condition of sale (under archived prescription).

Suspension of sale in pharmacies

The precautionary measure orders the suspension of article 2 of the provision, and is based on the reading of the MISOP 200 leaflet, as it indicates that its improper use or outside of the recommended indications may be harmful to health.

However, as indicated by the Ministry of Health and Social Development when appearing before the Court in the context of the case, Misoprostol presents security for ambulatory use with medical follow-up, without risks for the person entitled to access the interruption if It is done during the first trimester of pregnancy. Likewise, the availability of the drug in pharmacies, under an archived prescription, allows the pregnant person, together with their doctor, to decide how and where to carry out the termination of pregnancy in the cases allowed by law, without the need to attend the system Health public

Likewise, as we affirmed in our amicus, access to the medicines necessary for the termination of pregnancy, classified as essential by the World Health Organization, is part of the fundamental human rights in health matters to which the Argentine State is bound by Your international commitments. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its General Comment No. 22, on the right to sexual and reproductive health, establishes access to essential medicines as a standard for States parties. In this regard, when describing the elements of sexual and reproductive rights, and developing the concept of availability, the Committee states that: “Essential medicines must also be available, including a wide range of contraceptive methods, such as condoms and contraceptives emergency, medications for assistance in cases of abortion and after abortion, and medications, including generic drugs, for the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and HIV ”.

The attack attacked, and now suspended, aimed at ensuring the rights of people who require access to this medicine for the practice of legal termination of pregnancy. There are no technical, medical or therapeutic reasons to prevent the pharmaceutical circulation of misoprostol in its presentation of 200 mcg pills, and, consequently, restrict this medication only to hospital use as intended.

Soup again

The protection presented by these organizations is only another attempt to impede rights. We recall that there is a systematic practice by these groups to prosecute each of the advances that are achieved in our country in terms of sexual, reproductive and non-reproductive health. They already did it locally: Portal de Belén got the local protocol for the care of non-punishable abortions to be suspended for more than 7 years. In that case, Prodeci had introduced himself as amicus curiae. Now, their efforts are focused on the federal order.

ILE is still right

It is important to clarify that the resolution only suspends the application of article 2 of Provision No. 946/18 of ANMAT, which authorized the sale of MISOP 200 of Domínguez Laboratories in pharmacies, under archived prescription. The precautionary request of organizations to suspend the national protocol was rejected, so its application remains in force.

Nor does the availability of MISOP 200 change for gynecological use in hospitals and health centers, nor the availability in pharmacies of misoprostol in its other commercial form, Oxaprost, from Beta Laboratory.

It is unfortunate a resolution of these characteristics, taking into account that in our country the legal abortion due to causes is a right since 1921, and the Argentine State has been repeatedly recommended to facilitate access to the practice in safe conditions.

In addition to the pending resolution of the merits, the legislative treatment of the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy is imminent, for which the discussion on the availability of essential medicines for practice should be resumed.

Contact

Mayca Balaguer, maycabalaguer@fundeps.org

We present an amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) in the case before the Federal Administrative Contentious Court No. 11, for an amparo presented by the Civil Association Portal de Belén and by the Association for the Promotion of Civil Rights (ProDeCi), where they question the constitutionality of the Protocol for the comprehensive care of people entitled to the Legal Interruption of Pregnancy of the Ministry of Health and Social Development, and of Provision No. 946/2018 of the National Administration of Medicines, Food and Technology (ANMAT).

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

All against the ILE

At the end of last year, the Civil Association Portal de Belén presented an amparo before the federal justice of Río Cuarto requesting that “the absolute and inadmissible nullity of the“ Protocol for the Comprehensive Attention of Persons with the Right to Legal Interruption of Pregnancy be declared ”, For violation of the right of collective incidence to life, and that the absolute and insanity nullity be declared for unconstitutionality of Provision No. 946/2018 of the ANMAT, issued on 10/12/2018, while authorizing the firm Laboratorios Domínguez SAa new condition of sale (under archived prescription). ”In addition, they requested a precautionary measure to suspend the effects of both resolutions.

However, the federal judge of Río Cuarto declared himself incompetent. Although the cause is of federal competence because of the people, because the National State is being sued (through its ministry and one of its dependencies), it was appropriate to refer the proceedings to the Federal Court in Administrative Litigation in turn of the Autonomous City from Buenos Aires, which turned out to be No. 11.

Meanwhile, a similar case was filed before the Federal Contentious Administrative Court No. 7, initiated almost simultaneously by the Association for the Promotion of Civil Rights (PRODECI). PRODECI is an organization “constituted with the purpose of promoting family, life and values, from the law, justice, communication, citizen participation and dissemination”, as can be seen on its website. However, there is no information on who makes it up or how it is financed, although its website details the activities carried out against sexual and reproductive rights, such as Integral Sexual Education. This organization had presented itself as a “friend of the court” in the case that Portal de Belén initiated in the Province of Córdoba against the local protocol.

Thus, by indication of the Federal Prosecutor, and having the same purpose, both cases were accumulated in Court No. 11, as well as the Benefit to Litigate Without Expenses requested by PRODECI. At this time the file is in the office, waiting to resolve the request for the precautionary measure.

#ILEYaEsRight

In the document presented, we accompany fundamentals based on the local legal system, its norms and principles, international human rights treaties with constitutional hierarchy, the pronouncements of international organizations created to monitor their validity and the recommendations of the institutions with the highest authority in the matter health, such as the World Health Organization, with the aim of defending the validity of both the national protocol and the provision of ANMAT that allows the sale of misoprostol in pharmacies.

In addition, we express that reversing any of the two provisions would be contrary to the principle of progressivity and not regressive of human rights, and that it could irreparably injure the human right to health of women and pregnant people in our country. Both provisions are nothing more than the expression of a public health policy that aims to facilitate access to the provision of an essential service that must be guaranteed by the State.

Finally, we consider that the action presented is just another attempt by these organizations to impede the right to access to legal termination of pregnancy, as they did already at the local level. It is worth remembering that the protection attempted by Portal de Belén in our province was rejected by the TSJ last year.

It will be law

It is hard to believe that at this point we have to continue defending such basic rights in court. Access to legal abortion for reasons has been a right since 1921. International human rights organizations have repeatedly recommended that the State of Argentina facilitate access to practice in safety, and have even instructed it to review its regulation, approving the bill concerning the voluntary termination of pregnancy.

However, all forecasts indicate that next year the bill on Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy will have legislative treatment again. After so many years of struggle, the abortion of the Criminal Code is imminent.

The enactment of an IVE law will mean an advance in the recognition of the human rights of women and pregnant people, fundamentally of the rights related to sexual and reproductive health and the recognition of their freedom and autonomy. Sooner rather than later, it will be law.

More information

Contact

Mayca Balguer, maycabalaguer@fundeps.org

As every November 25, this Monday marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Date that calls us to review and rethink some data and measures taken by the last management.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

This date and its corresponding march close the “feminist calendar” and like every end of the year it is an opportunity to take stock, in addition to this on the occasion of the early change of government, which invites us to extend the analysis to management four years of President Mauricio Macri.

Thus, for example, at the beginning of the current month the Minister of Security Patricia Bullrich shared in her networks the data on femicides relieved by the portfolio she is in charge of, together with the phrase, in a festive tone like who celebrates an achievement, “We lower the femicides 12.1%! ” This statement, which refers to the amount of femicides of the year 2018 compared to that of 2017 (according to that information, 281 and 292, respectively), in addition to being factually incorrect, is an image of an erroneous perspective on the macho violence that explains largely the action (or lack of action) in gender policy of the outgoing government.

First, the numbers presented by Bullrich differ from those registered by the Women’s Office of the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the latter, the figures are 278 for 2018 and 273 for 2017, so it would be the opposite of the alleged reduction alleged by the minister.

According to Chequeado, the difference between the two statistics would be that in the case of the Ministry “as with other types of crimes, their figures come from police records. That is to say that it is the first post-crime analysis, before the start of the judicial investigation. ” Instead, the Women’s Office relieves information on the legal cases in process. This disparity of data should not be a problem for those corresponding to the current year, since the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Security and the Attorney General’s Office have signed an agreement to unify femicide statistics. However, we will have to wait until 2020 for the report to be published.

Meanwhile, although the official data is not possessed, the work of some feminist organizations that, as part of their militancy and without receiving any compensation, do a thorough monthly survey based on the information obtained in the media Communication. In this regard, the Mumalá National Observatory has registered 226 femicides between January 1 and October 31, 2019, not counting 38 cases under investigation, which means at least one victim every 32 hours. Broken down, this number includes 192 direct femicides, 18 linked and 6 trans / transvestites. Another relevant indicator is that 68% of the murders were perpetrated by either the couple (40%) or the former partner (28%) of the victims. Considering that 18% of them had made prior complaints, the question that arises immediately after reading these data is where the State is and what is the true scope of the policies that it has been implementing regarding gender violence.

A success of the year 2019 was undoubtedly the approval of the Micaela Law, which according to its article 1 stipulates “mandatory training in the subject of gender and violence against women for all people who work in the public service at all levels and hierarchies in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Nation ”.

However, if we look more closely at the work of the INAM (National Women’s Institute), a body designated as the authority for the application of that law and in charge of other gender policies, the balance has not been positive. Despite having been ranked in 2017 acquiring the rank of Secretary of State within the Ministry of Social Development, this did not translate into an appropriate budget and in fact this was cut annually.

The gender specialist journalist, Mariana Carbajal, says in her note on Page 12 that, “after the complaint of human rights organizations and women, Congress increased the items assigned to it by the Executive Branch, but those increases did not cover inflation: in 2018 the INAM budget was 15 percent lower in real terms than in 2017 and in 2019, the reduction (also in real terms) compared to last year was 16 percent ”. As logically the budget deficit hinders the execution, it is understandable that, as the note reports, of the 36 shelters for women survivors of gender-based violence that Macri had promised, only 9 have been completed and equipped, of which 8 had begun to be built during the previous government.

All this allows us to affirm that, although during these four years there was some progress, such as the explicit inclusion of gender in the national budget, they were not enough. This is because, fundamentally, it is still necessary for the State to take a stand against this type of violence as a structural problem.

Far from functioning as any crime, the security and punitive approach is inadequate and, despite what Bullrich has said, the figures for femicides have not dropped. Assuming that there had been about ten fewer victims between one year and another, isn’t it alarming that they still exceed 200 annually? Obviously, much remains to be done, not only from the Ministry of Security, but entirely from the entire state apparatus.

Just as gender is transversal and inequality is reproduced in all social spheres (in politics, in the economy, etc.), gender violence is not limited to femicide or physical violence, but, for example, Criminalization of abortion is also a form of violence against pregnant people. In this sense,the latest news regarding the update of the protocol for the Legal Interruption of Pregnancy (ILE) was another attack on sexual and reproductive rights. In turn, it served as a reminder of the unfortunate decision that the government made this year to transform the Ministry of Health into a Secretariat, taking away the margin of decision (in fact, the reason used to justify the cancellation was the lack of consultation of the secretary to his superior). Since we are talking about cabinet portfolios, the promise of President-elect Alberto Fernández to inaugurate the Ministry of Gender Equality is at least hopeful. We also hope that the new administration that will assume this December 10 can redirect strategies against sexist violence to give reins to the profound cultural change that is necessary to really end it.

Of course, the claim to the State for answers is not a simple wait with crossed arms: the feminist movement remains active in the streets and the slogan Ni Una menos remains more current than ever, because beyond the number of victims of femicide and of the percentages in which they vary, as long as there is at least one dead there will be nothing to celebrate.

Author

Mariana Barrios Glanzmann
Contact
Cecilia Bustos Moreschi, cecilia.bustos.moreschi@fundeps.org