21 abr. 2012


The whole world, especially to all Uruguayans, it is worth, take a few minutes to get to know the thinking of proponents of "Voluntary Interruption of EMBARAZAO", these are the words of the informant in a minority member in the discussion in the Senate of Uruguay the project you want to devote an EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF WOMEN TO ABORT AT ANY TIME OF PREGNANCY.

Read the text means to know in depth the thinking of each of the legislators who participated in the discussion and are about and others who represent us and who we have our vote.

It's really to stop and think. Today the "EPIPHANY OF OUR LORD" which has been recognized by those who have nothing and those who wield great power but in his heart are "humble" and have "made room for the Love of God" in each of them.

And for those who do not, it's good to stop to read beautifully the project to be enshrined as law, is not only legislate on abortion. It is much deeper than that, and in the words of legislators for and against shows the most important thought to exist: their feelings about the rights of LIFE and those who have and those without.

Now I leave reading their own words.

TREATMENT PROCESS BILL Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy


CHAIRMAN. - Corresponds to listen to informants in the minority members.
I call on Mr. Senator Solari.

SOLARI LORD. - In the analysis of this issue is so complex and controversial, I thank the member reporting the recognition he made about the collaboration would gladly pay, the Pubic Health Commission, most of the ruling party in the wording of some items, although we disagree with the proposed fund. Although this collaboration was the concrete expression of a constructive spirit, we would have liked to have been greater, more positive instances, above all that we had been unable to agree on a project concerned, not the subject of women's rights, but to the unwanted pregnancy, which is the health problem behind the claim that right. Unintended pregnancy is very common in Uruguay and we had been willing to assist in forecasting and mitigation both during and after pregnancy.

Unfortunately it was not, only emphasized the theme of the right of pregnant women and, consequently, our cooperation was limited to a few suggestions on drafting, so that the bill was not considered as incomplete or not given rise to various interpretations that ultimately complicate the matter further.

I refer to two aspects of the majority report with which I have a very important discrepancy. Clarify all the Senators in the minority report is divided into two parts: one legal, procedural, international law, which shall, with his characteristic brilliance and knowledge Moreira Mr. Senator, representing the National Party, and a biological part, bioethics , social and health, which will develop the speaker. But before you start with these considerations, I refer to an issue that the member raised informant during much of their exposure, and specifically in the beginning, in relation to what the state of public opinion today in Uruguay.

It would be very bad thing to legislate on Human Rights on the basis of public opinion. Certainly, those are red, Batllists and applaud the initiative of José Batlle y Ordóñez to abolish the death penalty, we are guided by public opinion but by the conviction that an affront to humanity, the civilizing nature of society we were building. I think in this case we must do the same, and the meeting we had in the bank yesterday said it explicitly. We do not care about winning or losing votes nay, surely we will lose more votes we will win, but this is what we believe-no matter what I think most public opinion, and respect to our beliefs we consider essential.

In addition, I have another important detail regarding a statement made by the reporting member in that in the last ten years the nature of induced abortion in Uruguay, has changed dramatically: today there are more clinics, is made in the pregnant woman's house, and it probably is. I'm not sure there is data to confirm it is likely, but then to be desirable is another matter. Our country has no record of misoprostol as an abortifacient drug, but all countries that do have registered for the purpose of inducing abortions, put two conditions. First, it is prescribed and administered by a doctor in a care facility and, second, to be administered before eight weeks, because it is the time it takes fewer risks and more effectively. None of both is set here, here defined abortion for the sole will of the woman until the twelfth week.

Having made these clarifications, I would go on to develop some of the arguments that I think is very important that the Corps could take them into consideration.

First, this bill discriminates against male parent. Everyone knows that even in vitro fertilization required for pregnancy, for the production of an embryo and then a fetus and a newborn, the participation of a man and a woman. The product of that pregnancy, which is another non-human being is neither the father nor the mother, but a third party identity-property can not be held freely available either by the father or the mother, or before birth or after birth. Why? Because it is a being with its own identity, distinct and unique. Then, on the basis of the difference of opinion we have with most of it is this fact. From conception, we are talking about a unique and different that will keep that identity biological, psychological and social to the end of his days, and then I will argue in more depth.

So how can be established by law that the termination of pregnancy may be at the sole discretion of the woman? What about the man, who contributed, who has an expectation with respect to pregnancy, who has current and future obligations with respect to the product of that pregnancy? Not intervene at all, is not consulted, its opinion is not taken into account, has no right to claim and apparently does not have any obligation. We believe this is a defect very important because we can not leave a discriminatory to create another. I think this is important for two reasons. First because, as I said, the embryo-even of one week or a few days, is not part of her body, it is a different being that arises from the union of two people: a man and a woman . Second, and it took two people to conceive and bring it into being, is also going to need two people or more to raise, and who have children know that this is absolutely the case. Then, from the programming standpoint, social, health and culture, we are taking exactly the opposite message than we would like because, instead of promoting responsible fatherhood, say that if man is not and is not consultation , all well, the woman decides for itself. We do not think that this is a good policy.

Second, when the reporting member referred to the report of Dr. Cassinelli Muñoz, said the fact that an act ceases to be a crime not necessarily made it a law, although a crime was not unlawful. But what is said here is precisely what today was a crime, after the passage of this bill is not only a crime but is a right which must be respected by all levels of society The family and person.

Within the Commission raised the possibility of studying such alternatives that allow us to identify more clearly the different circumstances that arise, avoiding transform, sweeping, an offense in law. Aimed to establish rankings and illegal situations, which were virtually absent from the latter in cases of health risk for women, malformations incompatible or rape, to those where you can really see that there is a crime because it acted with total irresponsibility and because the conduct is punishable by the rest of society. Given this idea, we said that the topic was laudado, which had been presented in various legislatures and had to keep going because I had to be approved before year end.

Unfortunately, we were unable to resume the path of compromise that was what led Irureta Goyena and Terra Arocena in 1938 to try to find a solution that would satisfy the principles of both parties. That was not taken into account, and we got to this bill that transforms, half, an offense in law. Why do I say that is half done? For the woman which is not within the period of twelve weeks and that to not apply any of the exceptions, continue to commit a crime, such as Article 325 of the Penal Code. Clearly what is amending the penalty for that offense, but its design still exists. In addition, maintaining the Articles 325 bis, 325 ter, 326 and 327 and Article 325 regarding establishing a relatively attenuated version. In turn, repealing Article 328 which, in the current legislation provides the counterweight, it provides that all abortions are a crime, but clarifies that in cases of hardship, of desertion, and others, the judge may reduce punishment and even in some of these circumstances, can be totally neglected. We believe, therefore, that this is not the best solution, not the best signal we can pass on to society.

Third, in what has to do with the presence or absence of a human being from conception, I must say that we all know know legislators, population and better than anyone who have dedicated our lives to medicine and biology-that scientific knowledge of biology is advancing rapidly in utero and continuously, confirming unequivocally that the life cycle, ranging from the design and formation of the egg cell to the extinction of life, has no jumps and is a continuum. It is proven that there is a certain moment the egg cell becomes a person and a complete human being, but is a continuum and that in all the minutes and hours are added elements. Besides, we know from the latest scientific information, that this process, in the early weeks of gestation, is much more advanced than we thought until very recently. Based on these data, the third week of gestation, the embryo has a brain divided into three main components, which continue until the end of his life. Also, are developing the respiratory and digestive systems, have formed blood vessels and the heart has begun beating and do not stop until that embryo, fetus subsequent newborn, young or adult die. We are talking about the heart of a human being who does not stop beating until he dies, and that is the heart will stop beating if the mother, if the pregnant woman undergoes an abortion.

I turn now to more important things, and for that I care to remember that when the Secretary of Health attended the Commission asked why he established a period of twelve weeks and not nine, eight or six, to which he replied that the most accepted theory stated that not until the twelfth week is beginning to produce some type of nervous system function, it is important to define the beginning and end of life. However, specifically the eighth week of pregnancy, at the end of the embryonic stage, the brain is highly complex and constitutes almost half the weight. In turn, and then 75% of the embryos, the three-quarters shows that are skilled, ie preferably used his right arm. The other 25%, half are left-handed and they will for the rest of his life and only 12.5% ​​is not defined whether they will be right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous, as the case of Forlan. At that time, the nerve receptors in the face, palms of hands and soles of the feet are developed enough to feel and trigger a motor reaction to the touch, which will also be maintained for the rest of their lives . Both in male fetuses and in the female reproductive cells and is secreted by male and female hormone, which gives sexual identification. Therefore, we conclude that at the end of the embryonic stage the fetus is developing a basic level of bio-psycho-social that is characteristic of human beings will not incorporating new fabrics and what will occur there hereinafter is an increase in cell mass in each of them. It means that 90% of its structures are already established and working.

On this subject and about bioethics, we can say that both the Bioethics Committee of the Ministry of Health as the Medical Union of Uruguay who visited us for different reasons and in their internal dissent, expressed their inability to reach a conclusion ultimately could guide us. Therefore, anyone who says otherwise is untruthful. In the context of Uruguay, the two most important Bioethics Committees, also had cited the Bioethics Committee of PEF, but the rush to pull this off not allow us to receive them, concluded that they could not be issued because they had not reached consensus.

However, the Bioethics Committee of the Medical Union of Uruguay, after saying that the primary obligation of physicians is to protect life and health of people, concludes by saying: "As doctors we are aware that we must deepen thinking and approach to the problem, first assisting in the analysis of this coupling '. Then express-I quote-"With respect to Article 1" which, in my opinion, is the most important provision of the bill because it defines what it is about the initiative, which it does is create the right of women to choose and decide, "there are two different positions in the members of the Commission. Some respect the existence of a right to choose termination of pregnancy in women, for others, that right does not exceed the right to life of the embryo and fetus. "

I wonder if those in the Committees on Bioethics argued for women's right to choose and decide, they did so on the basis of two principles of bioethics: the empowerment of women and of justice for women. Now, is that if we study bioethics, we see that these two are not the only principles that exist. In fact, this branch is based on four principles, as well as autonomy and justice, are the principle of doing good and not to cause harm. However, nothing is said about these other two principles, nor on the four principles in relation to the fetus or the father. So here we are accepting as good a very biased analysis, say, made through the keyhole, for a problem that obviously is very complex because it makes the ethics of society and the reproduction of life, for therefore has to be analyzed further.

The fifth point I want to mention relates to how the pregnancy from the biological point of view, that is the case of a single person until you get to the viability of the fetus, in the twentieth week of pregnancy, or if two people different from the start. In the study of the subject turned to a German bioethicist connected with the French School of Bioethics, who raises a question, I believe, should be the focus of analysis and concern all of Uruguayan society as a whole. This German bioethicist, M. Suarez, questions whether the human embryo is or not a person, and analyzes the issue from very different angles. First, states that the following statements are valid. The embryos are very young adults and adults are developed embryos, but both are the same, belong to the same being, which is one and the same. Notes that during the embryonic stage are developed tissues and organs that have the adult, and from the eighth week, from then on, there is metabolic growth, increased number of cells, but not development of new tissues. Therefore said that a physiological interaction does not induce cell differentiation and further reducing metabolism exclusively, it causes the appearance of a new person, the same being. He then states that the embryonic, fetal and post-birth, is guided by a set of instructions, instructions, mandates, which are contained in the genome of the embryo. Not that the mother developing the embryo and fetus, it is the fetus which develops itself according to its genetic code and the instruction manual on how to get, first, into a fetus, and second, a viable fetus, then a young and, finally, an adult, it is he who commands the development in the environment of the womb and not the mother who gives the instructions.

Then, the biological reality of two different beings living and exchange during pregnancy is not considered by this bill. Here it is said that during the first twelve weeks and in certain other circumstances this is a tissue of the mother and she can do with it whatever you want, including killing or abortion, which is certainly kill him, cut his life.

The other point I wanted to address is the use of abortion as a method of family planning.

According to reliable estimates, Uruguay has a rate of about 44 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age. Does this rate is high or low? I would say a high intermediate rate. The more developed countries from the point of view of health and cultural, and where abortion is legal, have rates between 11 and 20 per 1,000 women of childbearing age. Some others, who have much more developed, have managed to lower rates to the level of 6 or 5 per 1,000. We, who have 44 per 1,000, we are not so well. In terms of infant mortality, for example, if we are much closer to the developed countries. Why is this so? Because of its historical development in the twentieth century and early twenty-first, Uruguay did not have strong family planning programs and contraceptive distribution. Then, having no programmatic aspects of those two, in fact, abortion was the method of family planning. A very bad thing, but part of our history. These were the elements of "prevention" of unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, induced abortion. It should be added that studies on the prevalence of abortion that have been made indicate that all countries that are in our situation, ie without strong family planning programs and sex education and reproductive health, with high rates and in the If legalized abortion, these rates increase, depending on your point of departure and of the grounds.

CHAIRMAN. - It has come to the table a motion to extend the term available to the speaker.
(You vote :)
-15 In 17. Affirmative.
You can continue Mr. Senator Solari.

SOLARI LORD. - Mr. Chairman, may argue that the Law of Defense of the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health, adopted in 2008, will change this scenario in our country sincerely hope that so and make this happen as quickly possible. But we can not ignore today's reality. We do not have an education program for sexual and reproductive health stronger in all schools, nor have an education system that works well, properly, or we have a program that allows distribution of contraceptives to all women of childbearing age, which need contraception, know which one best fits your situation, access it and use it in a timely manner. We do not. And yet, we should have it if we want to avoid further up-and down-finally getting the high rate of abortions we have.

This brings me to my next point: I think the goal of this initiative is to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies. That goal would have been a fully sharable by all of society, regardless of religious beliefs, political affiliations and so on. I think if we had a bill designed to seriously reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies, conceived an initiative would have much better than this. Why say this? Because I think that's something that Uruguay can be achieved.

If you look at the mortality figures of the year 1963-not yet fifty years ago, published by the CIDE, found that mortality in Montevideo was just over forty per thousand live births, while inside the rate stood at twice. Today is seven per thousand live births, and in various departments inside the figure is lower than that recorded in Montevideo. The truth is that different governments before, during and especially after the dictatorship had successive programs to lower infant mortality, both in Montevideo and the interior.

But as I said, the reduction and elimination of unwanted pregnancy is not the purpose of this bill. His goal, as stated in Article 1 º - is to establish the right of all adult women to decide the voluntary interruption of pregnancy during the first twelve weeks of gestational process. Period. This is the purpose of this bill. No other.
Is this what we want from the health point of view?
Do what we want from the social point of view?
Do what we want from the demographic point of view?
Do we as a civilization which defending the weakest, as well as the president said when he vetoed Vázquez this Chapter in the bill of sexual and reproductive health? "The real degree of civilization of a nation is measured by how it protects the poor. So you should better protect the weak. Because the criterion is no longer the value of the subject based on the emotions it arouses in others, or the utility it provides, but the value resulting from its mere existence "

(Occupies the Presidency Mr. Senator Baráibar.)

- What does this mean? The resulting value of being human. The basic human right, first of all: the right to life, because if there is no right to life, there is none of the other human rights.

This bill does not have a broader objective to establish the right of the pregnant woman to choose and decide for themselves, and having such limited objectives, important falls into contradictions.

Article 135 of the Code of Children and Adolescents, as amended by Article 3 of Law No. 18,590, relates to this issue. For those not familiar with this, the Law No. 18,590 was the norm rather than the previous Legislature established new forms of adoption, and go that adoption is a very important mechanism in this issue of unwanted pregnancies! Ideally one can think of other countries that have established policies concerning women with unwanted pregnancies, so not take her life to the product of her pregnancy, but immediately after birth is adopted by another person, what to live and grow, form their family, and so on.

But ultimately, what is laid down in Article 135 of the Code of Children and Adolescents? That the adoption consent given by a pregnant woman or the mother of a newborn is not valid until thirty days after birth.

So I will summarize in a very graphic and raw that the approval of this bill will mean: the pregnant woman will be entitled to vote and decide to kill, but it will not be able to choose or decide to give your child up for adoption .

I want no part of that country, Mr. President. I-and so I raised it within the Public Health Commission, to be part of a country that respects life more and takes into account the considerations of all people, of all people involved, not just the tiny vision, through the keyhole, of what may be a gain electoral electorate today with a feminist, because that was the argument outlined by the reporting member when he spoke of the public, and so on. I'd rather have a broader view, which were referred to the rights and duties of all.

This incongruity of that, who can decide to kill, can not decide to give up for adoption, would reverse the Aristotelian logical principle that he who can do more can do less. According to Aristotle's logic, if you can terminate a pregnancy, should be released for adoption, consent should be able to give the child up for adoption.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my speech I announced I was going to refer exclusively to the social, health and cultural. I tried to be brief because this is a complex issue for which we are all going to want to intervene, but undoubtedly there will be other considerations to make in the remainder of the session.
Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT (Carlos Baráibar.) - Following consideration of the matter, I call Mr. Moreira as Rapporteur Member Senator in the minority.

MOREIRA Lord (Charles). - Mr. Chairman, I assume from the same commitment and dispatch, and noted that there are eleven Senators to discuss a topic that is really profound. First of all, I mean that this discussion is taking place in terms of mutual respect.

This is the second time I participate in a debate on this issue. The bill under consideration have striking similarities, at least in one of his chapters, we dealt with in the previous period, where there was also a split vote. I think there is even a cross-section of political communities, in the sense that within each there are legislators who think differently. I think that's totally acceptable in a case such as this, which has many different connotations that go through ethics, customs, at law, on the religious and the health sector.

We, therefore, an extremely complex issue and we wanted, so we propose in the minority report-that this debate does not take place today. We felt it was urgent consideration, in turn, were delegations who requested to be received and the fact is we could not gather opinions from professional associations such as the Bar Association of Uruguay or the Magistrates' Association of Uruguay, or Some experts in criminal law. But like most so decided, abide by and here we are giving our opinion on the subject.

We are talking about the amendment or at least the partial repeal of an old standard, the Act No. 9763, 1938.

(Occupies the Presidency Mr. Astori.)

As early as 1934, when it passed the Criminal Code drafted by Irureta Goyena, there was a very thorough discussion, with connotations of various kinds: journalistic, political, and so on. This debate was reissued later in 1938 at a time when the law criminalizing abortion was presented. This flow has always been done that the law had a very flexible, but from 1938 to date were few prosecutions that were issued by the competent Court, because the behavior of women, medical staff or fit within their forecasts. It would appear, and it has been said that justice has not looked to the side, but has had a special indulgence in different situations generated from the application of the law. As also noted above, Article 328, which today would repeal as contrary to the provisions of the bill that we have under consideration, lists a number of mitigating causes and defenses. Indeed, within the mitigation is the honor. And defenses, it is considered that the pregnancy is the result of rape, too, that there is serious health risk. In this bill, these cases are taken as an exception. Even in the 1938 Act spoke of economic distress. Note that the law provided extreme flexibility. It was not draconian rigor, on the contrary, it contained a wealth of mitigating and defenses which made it very difficult to apply in practice. Therefore we say that the facts did not apply too much, but in cases of malpractice, we know from our career-ending in abortions and that caused serious injury and even death of women.

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.

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario en la entrada

Todos tus comentarios son bienvenidos, las opiniones más divergentes expuestas con respeto siempre pueden encontrar un común enriquecimiento.