Here we return to an issue that Senator alluded Mrs. Xavier: opinion polls. I have in mind that the first term there was much talk that this issue should be submitted to the popular will. I think it was Washington Abdala then Senator who proposed this subject it to a consultative referendum, a legal innovation that does not exist in our legal system, but which, indirectly, could be seen. I think that it is not so here we are to legislate based on our personal convictions. I agree with the well-founded claim of Mr. Senator Solari, in the sense that here not legislate according to the polls, but what we consider best, our own standards and goals we want to achieve through legislation we are approving.
The bill we have to regulate consideration, as well as the lady said member informant, the decriminalization of abortion in the first twelve weeks of gestation, and establishes a series of exceptions that have to do with the following: at risk if the health or life of women and congenital malformations if any, make it impossible extrauterine life.
On the occasion of the appearance and presentation of Dr. Mariana Blengio, which was cited by Ms. informant member majority, before the Committee on Public Health last week, I posed a question regarding the time period of twelve weeks. In this regard, Dr. spoke of life-threatening, but not what the bill says about "if you were at risk the health or life of women." On this point I have doubts, because within the Commission defined the term health in a very generic and broad. We talk about health as a welfare issue bio-psycho-social. This seems too comprehensive, because if you say you are at risk the lives of women, we could be absolutely agree, but I think that conceiving of health as a state of bio-psycho-social is very generic.
It is said that the 1938 Act "is unfair because it does not consider women in the full exercise of the right to health and decide autonomously; understood health, not absence of disease, but the welfare state bio-psycho-social ". "The consequences that may result from a pregnancy affect the life, health and welfare of women, so their choice prevails over the opinions of others. Welfare standards are individual and is the woman who recognizes what are yours, when it comes to 'health risks of women' it must have the right to abortion as a measure to protect its interest in preserving health and welfare. " I repeat that this is too generic and comprehensive, nay, think it was a period of twelve weeks, any woman can say that this will affect their welfare bio-psycho-social and would be exempt from the limit of twelve weeks. I disagree with the term health is defined so generic and that latitude, it would be admitting any argument by the woman who says that this will affect their welfare state. I think such a thing is set too.
Moreover, Dr. Mariana Blengio addressed the issue of rape, enshrined in Article 2 of the bill, saying: "If the pregnancy was the result of a violation of judicial charges will not apply the term laid down in Article before. " On this point, made the observation that the arrivals after 20 or 22 weeks when the fetus is viable outside the womb, should not be admitted, even in the case of rape, a hypothesis of this nature. While I do not share many of the criteria of Dr. Mariana Blengio, this was the remark he made about this point and yet still remains in the text of the bill. On this basis, we could terminate a pregnancy of a fetus of 20, 21 or 22 weeks, which is viable after birth, if it is the result of rape. I understand that this is a very delicate and must be seen, since he was in the previous legislation. Anyway, I insist that this observation was made by a specialist, and as such I want to sit here, beyond not share the other arguments that she gave, which were taken from the Organic Law of Spain. Dr. Mariana Blengio, modeled on the legislation, weighted to protect the legal interests and rights are at stake. In this regard, said that in this case, also alluded to this informant Mrs. member majority, with a time criterion, chronological, it must prevail some rights over others, based on the premise that there was no absolute rights. He expressed that there must be a "model of gradual protection throughout pregnancy." This is to support women as the main protagonist of a decision in the first stage of gestational life, that is, in the twelve weeks. So the decision should prevail of women in this early stage of pregnancy, as well as its free decision on the potential of a life that is not yet scientifically feasible.
I remember asking: "Can you prove it is feasible?". Honestly, I have a right to prevail over another. So if I have to choose between making prevail sexual and reproductive freedom, the right of autonomy of women to decide over her own body, and the existence of a new life, forgive me Dr. Mariana Blengio, but I do prevail the existence of a new life! I assume that from the moment of conception a new life there. Precisely who has spoken with absolute and total flatly I quote it because we wanted to run parallel to the Commission to give us their opinion, has been the president Tabaré Vazquez to veto the bill because earlier sexual and reproductive health said " There is consensus that abortion is a social evil to be avoided. However, in countries where abortion has been liberalized, they have increased. In the United States in the first ten years tripled, and the figure remains: the practice was installed. The same happened in Spain. "This is not me talking, but Dr. Vázquez, who imagine that it must know to be a professor, a specialist and a very able man, do not think he's saying one thing for another. I have also heard and read about the realities in specific countries, like Cuba, Russia, Spain and the United States. The latter is set as a paradigmatic example, for there the abortion has been liberalized since 1973. Furthermore, this issue has been part of real foreign policies of the United States, which has tried to encourage this practice in other states through organizations like the Rockefeller, Ford and MacArthur. The fear of population explosion in the world led the United States had as one of its foreign policy promoting abortion in other countries.
Indeed, I think when the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica uses the term "general" refers mostly to the vote of the United States, which already had this legislation to decriminalize abortion since 1973. I think that was one reason, even other countries also had this legislation. That was a way to support the diversity of laws.
For our part, we had a rule that criminalized abortion, a controversial issue ever since. I reiterate that we had an existing standard that penalizes and all previous attempts, which I was about seven, failed. The last one failed because Dr. Vázquez said: "The law can not ignore the reality of the existence of human life in its gestation period, so evident as revealed by science." So with all the letters said Mr. Senator Solari, who said that all the biological process from fertilization to birth is the development and continuity. Even Dr. Vázquez said: "revolutionary discoveries, such as in vitro fertilization, and DNA sequencing of the human genome, clearly indicated that from the moment of conception there is a new human life, a new being." So if we have to choose which law prevail in this case we stand by the new being, that of new life. We have no doubt! Not only do the provisions of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica, but so clearly stated in Article 7 of the Constitution when making the enumeration of individual rights. There is expressed at the outset that "The people of the Republic have the right to be protected in the enjoyment of his life." This is the first of rights, without which no others. This is absolutely a right inherent to the human person, pre-existing constitutional recognition, which can not be restricted even for reasons of general interest. Then, this right can not be restricted by law because I believe, may have different opinions, it would violate Article 7 of the Constitution.
Even I am very concerned when I read about the laws that liberalize these practices. In this case, make absolutely accessible to all, because health care providers is imposed to provide this care for free, can not refuse them and admitting only conscientious objection to the attending physician. I wonder if in this way will not be encouraging the increased number of abortions, especially when compared to the real world shows us that these practices have increased where they have been liberalized. Does this not seem a contradiction, when Mr. Mujica, President of the Republic expresses its concern at the results-not yet confirmed, the latest census and states that the Uruguayans are less than before? Instead of analyzing this legislation seeking to increase the birth rate, for the birth of most Uruguayans, so as to protect expectant mothers and to give them financial assistance, we are talking about sexual and reproductive freedom to terminate a life.HEBER LORD. - Supported.MOREIRA Lord (Charles). - Then, we will be less than before. We are fewer and fewer people every day and older. And this initiative is aimed in that direction. In this state of affairs, it seems a real contradiction that we are engaged in a project like this.Bordaberry LORD. - Supported.MOREIRA Lord (Charles). - Previously cited Dr. Gros Espiell who, referring to Article 7 of the Constitution, has spoken strongly against the decriminalization of abortion.
Moreover, Article 41 of the Charter refers to the protection of the family, but the initiative on sexual and reproductive freedom was not a single reference to it. Indeed, the second paragraph of Article 41 begins by stating that "The law shall determine the measures necessary for children and youth are protected against bodily neglect," and the second paragraph of Article 42 states that "Motherhood, whatever the condition or status of women, is entitled to protection by society and their assistance in case of need. " This is illustrated another principle of the Constitution, which speaks of the family as the foundation of society. So I think this goes in the opposite direction.
While admitting that there are reasons to raise a woman's freedom to dispose of his body, the face of this contradiction between the rights that women's right to dispose of his body and the living being, I prevail on the living, because women can not have another person, and the fetus is another.
At this point I agree with Mr. Senator Solari. Here it is said that this prevents all forms of discrimination against women-principle with which I fundamentally agree, but also implies a discrimination against the man, the father, because procreation part two. The father asked an opinion not to interrupt a gestational process, but can give it, because even if the being is not in your body, involved in having and then will be responsible and liable for all obligations that arise from its status as a parent , and want to assume. Sometimes demonize the man when we say that the "blame for this lies with the man." No! There are many men who want to exercise responsible parenthood! As we are responsible motherhood, parenthood intend and believe that most of the Uruguayans are willing to make that commitment. Why are we going to have a look of distrust of this? We think that the father's opinion should be required, because the two people involved procreation.
Moreover, I found very interesting what you said Deputy Secretary of Public Health, Doctor Briozzo when she went to this area and referred to all programs of technical assistance, advice, methods, advice and monitoring of pregnant women. In 2004, when Dr. Conrado Bonilla was Minister of Public Health, was issued Order No. 369/04, through which stipulated a series of measures of counseling for unwanted pregnancies. Dr. Briozzo said, the plan is producing excellent results because it seems that there are 40 locations across the country that provides such assistance to pregnant women and give some pointers. First, suppose that will be recommended to maintain the pregnancy and then, if you decide to go ahead with its decision will be given information about how to stop it without risking your life, what I understand right. Then, the Advisory Committee, in accordance with what is said, does not allow termination of pregnancy but is given by aware of the case without approving this procedure. Besides talking about drugs that are for abortion, the doctor said something very important Briozzo linked to what Mrs. Senator informant majority announced in the treatment of last bill. I mean a series of numbers associated with the evolution of the relationship between illegal abortion and maternal mortality. Indeed, this was always one of the strongest arguments in favor of the legalization of abortion, since the idea was to prevent the woman he perform abortions in unsanitary conditions without the presence of a physician, using procedures quite rudimentary. That foundation undoubtedly had an enormous weight because it was achieved through the legalization of abortion, pregnant women, especially those of more modest means, could access the procedures that do not submit to a situation of inequity because wealthier women had access to clinics that were the best aseptic conditions. The reality is trying to change was the humble women who had to resort to procedures antediluvian often compromised their health and lives. But now I can rejoice and feel proud of what Dr. Briozzo said emphatically, in the sense that in Uruguay 4 years ago that no woman dies from an abortion illegal. Therefore, this argument is already outdated and wish to remain so, keep it running the Advisory Committee and continue to improve the conditions in that area. I think the first chapter of the Law on Sexual and Reproductive Health is very appropriate, is performing well and so I voted, but did not do the same with the second. I remember the reporting member of that bill was Senator Mr. Da Rosa, who gave a eulogy on the provisions of that rule, I believe, is working very well. I'm glad they do, but I disagree with move to another stage, because they committed some aspects that are too high. Has committed a right which, in my opinion, is intangible and can not be infringing. I am convinced that life begins at conception. On this point has been cited Korzeniak the doctor's opinion, who shared with us the previous Legislature but not here today. Indeed, he said that from the biological point of view the right to life implies the right to be born, to exist, to survive, this law allows of no limitation, not by law even in the case of general interest. We speak of the right to be born, the right to exist, the right to survive. This has no time limit, there is a gradual process but begins with the moment of conception, as established the Pact of San José de Costa Rica and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, incorporated by Law No. 16,137. The Preamble of the Convention states: "Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as after birth". This provision does not speak of 12, 20, 22 and 40 weeks, but says "both before and after birth". The Act speaks of the right to life originated at conception. Honestly, with a deep respect for those who think differently, in light of what emerges from our own reality, I mean the absence of maternal mortality due to induced abortions, and also what the demographics of our country I think we're giving a very bad sign, we are violating the Constitution, international treaties and we are going against the grain, as we aim to grow but not to decrease. In short, unless we are affecting a fundamental right.
For these reasons, I vote, convinced against this bill.