A group of feminist activists filed a non-compliance action before the Constitutional Court of Ecuador against President Guillermo Lasso for failing to comply with the Court's rulings, which in April 2021 decriminalized abortion in cases of rape and called for the development of regulations that guarantee the termination of pregnancy in these cases. Although the National Assembly passed a law on that, President Lasso partially vetoed it and submitted 60 objections to the text, calling it unconstitutional. The action presented by the activists also includes the name of the president of the Ecuadorian Congress, Guadalupe Llori.
Lasso's objections modify about 90% of the draft termination of pregnancy in cases of rape. The president has stated that the law presented by the Assembly went beyond what was decided by the Constitutional Court and that it contradicted the principles of the Ecuadorian Constitution.
Among the president's objections is that the National Assembly defines the procedure for the termination of pregnancy in cases of rape as a right, this conceptualization would be contrary to the legal order. According to Lasso's partial veto, abortion cannot be considered a constitutional right and ensures that recognizing it as such would violate article 45 of the Constitution which mandates that “the State shall recognize and guarantee life, including care and protection from conception”.
The activists request that the Constitutional Court implement precautionary measures to allow the suspension of the legislative process that is under way. They also ask that the Court order Congress to return Lasso's partial veto so that he can review it and send new observations within 30 days: “those that must be removed from his personal interest and belief and, in effect, observe the provisions of the Constitutional Court,” as the plaintiffs explained. Feminists who presented the action ask that there are no deadlines for a woman who has been raped to agree to termination of pregnancy.
The original text provided that abortions due to rape in Ecuador could be performed up to 12 weeks, with the exception of girls, adolescents and women from rural and indigenous areas, because for them the deadline was extended to 18 weeks. The argument used by advocates for the right to decide has been that, among these segments of the women's population, access to sexual health institutions is limited. The response to the presidential objection suggests that the deadline refers to the viability of the fetus and not to the pregnant woman. In this case, the viability of the fetus, as an autonomous organism of its pregnant woman, says the objection, should be the same for all women regardless of age or origin.
Among the questions about Lasso's veto are that requirements are imposed for rape victims to have access to abortion, that conscientious objection is collective or institutional and not just personal, and that “infanticides” can be reported by the Cantonal Boards for the Protection of Children's Rights.
This week, the Ecuadorian Congressional Justice Commission has also recommended to the Legislature that President Guillermo Lasso's partial veto of the law for the termination of pregnancy in cases of rape be referred to the Constitutional Court, since presidential observations on the law are justified in alleged cases unconstitutionalities. The legislators of the commission consider that the highest constitutional authority must resolve whether or not the objections raised by Lasso violate the precepts established in the Ecuadorian Constitution.
By raising the rule to the Constitutional Court to issue an opinion, the 30-day period for the processing of the law in congress following the presidential veto would be suspended and counted again as soon as the Court notifies the Assembly of its resolution.
KEEP READING:
Ga href="https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2022/03/28/guillermo-lasso-revelo-los-nombres-de-5-asambleistas-que-pidieron-dinero-al-gobierno-a-cambio-de-votar-una-ley/" rel="noopener noreferrer" uillermo Lasso revealed the names of 5 assembly members who asked the government for money in exchange for voting on a law