VOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PREGNANCYDecriminalization of Abortion
VOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY
N o r m s
I n f o r m e
Appendix, provisions relatingSpecial Committee for the purpose oftreat related projectsvoluntary terminationpregnancy
1. - INTRODUCTIONDuring the last three decades, Uruguay has discussed and finally shelved every project presented aimed at providing a legal framework for abortion. With slight shades of difference in content, projects that commanded a majority of parliamentary support, always aroused the same kind of controversy, characterized by a tense polarization between two extreme positions defended so.Meanwhile, many nations of the world have processed the argument with a more pragmatic approach, more attentive to the teaching experience, and although they have not settled the question of substance, saturated elements philosophical, religious and scientific, it can be argued that the strategies who have sought to focus the phenomenon with a more comprehensive, have achieved some success Comparative-both in terms of better prospects for women, and from the point of view of abortions averted.This bill takes into account the strategies adopted by other nations, designed a proposal tailored to national problems and mainly aims to provide new bases, different from those traditionally put forward, in order to find a more comprehensive and humane solution to the question induced abortion.Supporters of the current system, as well as those who oppose abortion in all circumstances imaginable, invoke human life, including life of the unborn, as an absolute. On the other side, supporters of freedom of choice for women, in turn, appeal to their autonomy also with the character of an absolute.This bill, however, midway between the two poles, is the problem from the angle of a conflict of values. Accept therefore the value of the unborn, without delving into the nuances-or-deep differences with every ethical or religious tradition defends him, but complements the look in response to certain circumstances that require the government to also ensure rights of women.In essence, the key lies in the foundation choose a middle path, the path of lesser evil to conflicting values, and remembering that the output civilized humanity when facing situations of this nature, has always been to appeal to the participation of third parties that take into account all the aspects involved.This bill aims to preserve, wherever possible, all the rights and values at stake: the right to be born of the unborn, the rights of women, and the rights of society to build a more dignified for all citizens. Hence the inclusion of an interdisciplinary team to inform, advise and support the decision of the woman, and the requirement of a mandatory cooling-off period of five days for the interested ratify your request.Other important aspects that the legislature must address many issues related to, that make possible unintended effects of the rule. By way of example, the legislator should prevent a permissive rule on voluntary abortion leads to an increase of the practice and even their trivialization, which would be inconsistent with the State's duty to design and implement policies that promote responsible fatherhood and defense family.The legislature should also prevent the mechanisms under the law burocraticen and become a mere formality. In particular, the consultation procedure for women with an interdisciplinary team, even with all the advantages they have, just run that risk. So to avoid this, we require the professionals in the interdisciplinary team meet the protocol for that purpose provided the Ministry of Health (article 4 letter d) as a counterweight. And besides, the institutions of the National Integrated Health, should ensure that there is no discrimination of any kind to prevent the participation of professionals who wish to integrate these devices (Article 5, paragraph f). In turn, requires that the interdisciplinary be controlled, in order to maintain fairness advisory and equilibrium situation. Therefore, to avoid undue pressure, the project raises the requirement for these professionals to refrain from denying or authorizing the termination of a pregnancy. Finally, notwithstanding the existing provisions and other available to the Ministry of Public Health, technical directors of such institutions provide regular checks on strict compliance with the provisions of Articles 3, 4 and 5 (final paragraph of Article 5 ).First, the bill would end the essential contradiction that brings with current regulations. The current law has failed to defend the life of the unborn or the, or the mothers. But in addition, often forgotten, that the majesty of the law has been offended and undermined by its failure, passively allowed their terrible sequel-dangerously-generalizable, demoralization, and skepticism for all citizens.It is common to find in favor of keeping the current legislation, expressing their opposition to this project, which state that in no case should decreed prison for woman who cut her pregnancy. If so, if the penalty now established three to nine months in prison to be replaced by alternative measures to custody (power that has been given to the judges by Law No. 17,726, of December 26, 2003), the contradiction would be even more obvious because there would be no penalty for the crime, and there would be no opportunity for the woman's decision takes into account the information, advice and containment of the interdisciplinary team.Here are the legal, medical, psychological and gender based and provide broad new base to the bill.
2. - LEGALUruguay ratified (Law No. 15,737, dated 1 March 1985) the American Convention on Human Rights (OAS, 1969) known as the Pact of San José de Costa Rica. Under Article 4th, subsection 1: "Everyone has the right to respect for his life. This right shall be protected by law, in general, from the moment of conception. Nobody can be deprived of life arbitrarily" (. ..)This article has sparked numerous debates, with focus on the words highlighted in bold here, "general". Opponents of legalization have invoked this clause to maintain the ban. Supporters of voluntary abortion, in turn, have interpreted it to support his own position. However, the interpretation can not be other than a third option, that is, one that points to the character of exceptionality. So much so, that even exegesis can be found in the literature of the supporters of voluntary abortion, reaffirming that spirit.For example, in the following comments repárese, which only serve to support the interpretation in terms of the exception that the new project aims to collect from its title:"In the opinion of one of our most distinguished jurists, public law specialist and professor at the Faculty of Law, University of the Republic, Prof. Dr. Horacio Cassinelli Muñoz, the inclusion of the term 'general' between commas the text was just anticipating the possibility that national regulate voluntary termination of pregnancy, which certainly must be understood as an exception to the general principle, supported by the text of the Convention. "
"Moreover, in all legal provisions exist for cases of protected legal showdown in general, admitting certain particular circumstances, such as self-defense or necessity, for example, the prevalence of one over the legitimate another "oneYou can not substantiate, from the above explanations, nor total prohibition or total permissiveness. Meanwhile, those two paragraphs clearly emerges that Article 4, subsection 1, "must be understood as an exception to the general principle," we must admit that we are faced with a conflict of values ("cases protected legal showdown in general "), and corresponds only the" legitimate prevalence of one over another "in" especially certain circumstances. " That is precisely the spirit of this bill. A future standard on this issue can not be permissive, nor should encourage the widespread practice. The Pact of San José de Costa Rica says exactly the opposite. The "general" refers to the right to life and not to its disruption. The right to life "is protected by law, in general, from the moment of conception." If that is "generally" only "in particular", that is, only in exceptional circumstances, narrowly defined, is allowed the termination of a pregnancy.The analysis is inconclusive IACHR similarly, as explained by the inclusion of the phrase "in general" was the result of a consensus that would allow states that have laws authorizing the abortion to ratify the American Convention.Referring to the American Convention, the IACHR stated:"21. The Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the OAS, held in Santiago de Chile in 1959, instructed the Council of Jurists preparing a draft convention on human rights by the American States sign from the Conference of Mexico, 1945.22. The project, prepared by the Council in two weeks, was the origin of the American Declaration of Bogotá, but also received contributions from other sources, including the work at the United Nations. Contains 88 items, start with a definition of the right to life (Article 2), which reintroduced the concept that "This right shall be protected by law from the moment of conception." American Yearbook on Human Rights, 1968 - Organization of American States, Washington, DC, 1973, p. 67 and 237).23. The Second Special Conference of American States (Rio de Janeiro, 1965)) considered the Council's draft and two other drafts submitted by governments of Chile and Uruguay, respectively, and requested that the Council of the OAS, cooperation with the Commission, prepare a draft convention for submission to the diplomatic conference should be convened for that purpose.24. The Council of the OAS, to consider the Commission Opinion on the Draft Convention prepared for the Council of Jurists, instructed the Commission to examine the text and prepare a final one to transmit it as a working paper to the Conference of San Jose (Yearbook, 1968, p.73-93).25. To reconcile the views that insisted on the concept of "from the moment of conception", with the objections raised from the Bogota Conference on the basis of the law of the American states that permitted abortion, inter-alia, to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape, the IACHR, rewritten Article 2 (right to life) and decided by majority vote entered before that concept, the words "in general". That arrangement was the origin of the new text of Article 2 "Everyone has the right to respect for his life. This right shall be protected by law, in general, from the moment of conception" (Yearbook 1968, p. 321) .26. He proposed, in this second opportunity for discussion of the definition of the right to life, remove the entire final phrase "... in general, from the moment of conception." Repeated the reasoning of his dissent, ie, it was based on existing abortion laws in most American States, with the next addiction: "to avoid any possible conflict with Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant United Nations on Civil and Political Rights, which states this right only in general "(Yearbook 1968, p.97).27. However, most members of the Commission believed that, for reasons of principle, it was fundamental to the provision on the protection of the right to life as recommended by the Council of the OAS in its review (first part). It was therefore decided to maintain the text of paragraph 1, unchanged (Yearbook, 1968, p.97).28. In the diplomatic conference that adopted the American Convention, the delegations of Brazil and the Dominican Republic had separate amendments to delete the last sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 3 (right to life), that is: "in general, from the moment of conception. " The U.S. delegation supported the position of Brazil (American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, Minutes and Documents, Washington, DC, 1978, p. 57, 121 and 160).29. The Delegation of Ecuador supported, however, the removal of the words "in general". Finally, by majority vote, the conference adopted the draft text submitted by the Commission and approved by the Council of the OAS which continues to the present text of Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention (Proceedings and Documents , p. 160 and 481).30. In light of these antecedents, it is clear that the petitioners awarded interpretation of the definition of the right to life made by the American Convention is incorrect. The addition of the phrase "in general, from the moment of conception" does not mean that the drafters of the Convention intended to modify the concept of right to life which prevailed in Bogota, when they adopted the American Declaration. The legal implications of the clause "in general, from the moment of conception" are substantially different from those of the shortest clause "from the moment of conception," which appears repeatedly in the document of the petitioners. "
So far some of the comments provided by the Commission, as stated in the Resolution No. 23/81 of the Commission on Human Rights, adopted on March 6, 1981 in the case 2141, on the United States of America (the " If Baby Boy ").Also Dr. Cecilia Medina Quiroga, who was Judge and President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has been expressed in the same vein: "... it is clear from the history of the treaty that" in general "was added to original text with the precise aim of reconciling the possibility that national laws allow abortion, and that the proposal was not accepted delete, so that, based on the interpretation of a provision is not clear in the preparatory work should be conclude that paragraph 1 of Article 4 does not preclude the right of states to allow abortion in circumstances determined by them. "In his appearance before the Special Commission, Dr. Martin Risso Ferrand said in reference to Article 7 of the Constitution: "This article says that the people have a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life. Again the solution principle, which is called the principle of protection of human rights, the protection of life, although the Constitution allows that by law can establish some exemptions based on reasons of general interest ".And later explains question: "What are the reasons of general interest in the strict sense, following the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the best national doctrine started with Jimenez Aréchaga? First of all, we must reasons to stress; interest is secondary, what matters are the reasons.'s general interest is a vague legal concept that is extracted from the Constitution, international law of human rights, of the general principles of the values, the unique system of human rights. Reasons interest imply those reasons that are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the whole system of human rights.'s not a concept to enable arbitrarily decide to limit a right or another, but the horizon must always be the protection of the unique and indivisible. "Continuing his presentation Dr. Risso Ferrand is explained how to analyze when the general interest and when not. In this regard said:"Here are two very old principles that analyze these issues. Creation are two principles of jurisprudence, they also have something interesting. One appeared in the United States and one in Germany, two in the nineteenth century, and are intended concern for controlling the decision space government authorities against human rights. Both are born with the aim of protecting human rights against acts of authority.The principle of reasonableness has its first consecration in the minority, in discord, in the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1872, and in 1902 began to be the majority view of the Supreme Court of the United States in a very curious case, the Lochner, who is remembered as one of the three anti precedents, ie one of the three examples of what a Supreme Court should not do. However, despite the atrocity which meant that case, the formulation of the principle of reasonableness is there and is the first time it appeared.The reasonableness principle says that any limitation or restriction of human rights must be justified, can not be arbitrary, must be fair and not be disproportionate. From 1902, with swings and other criteria, the U.S. Supreme Court it has been using.The principle of proportionality was born in Germany in the late nineteenth century. This principle has the same goal as the other, that is, determine how far they can get the government authorities in limiting human rights. The Germans are far more accurate-and often are-this principle of proportionality structured in three steps. First, we must analyze the appropriateness of the measure, then the necesariedad and if we can pass these first two stages, ends on a weight strictly.These two principles of reasonableness and proportionality, which are first cousins, in Latin America are being used interchangeably, and sometimes merged. It is common in Latin America than to define the principle of reasonableness recourse to proportionality components, and to define proportionality, recourse to the components of reasonableness.The constitutional status of these two principles in Uruguay has never been questioned, derives from the notion of rule of law. Under the rule of law, no authority can act against or outside the law, and no authority can act in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution or by law, arbitrarily or disproportionately.Also mentioned as the basis of these principles, Article 7 of the Constitution because, precisely, when referring to the general interest, we are talking of reasonableness.There is a third reason that contributes to the above, it is Article 72. These two principles, while ensuring human rights, constitutional status as inherent in the human personality or be derived from the republican form of government.In short, the most practical way to analyze if it meets the requirements of the American Convention and the Uruguayan Constitution on the limitation of a human right is to apply the principle of proportionality. "In our country there are an unknown number of abortions. Some estimates put them at more than 30,000 annually. Other estimates reduce that number to 20,000. The truth is that our country has no record to substantiate these figures. A revealing fact of ignorance that Uruguayan society discuss. In any case, in a country with 46,706 births a year in February, the figures should move us to consider. For almost 75 years they ruled the legislation, since its approval in 1938, has been successful existing legislation to reduce abortions? How many have been penalized? By way of example, on May 8, 2008, the Public Prosecutor's Office issued a resolution which called for the prosecution and imprisonment against two doctors for committing the crime of abortion repeatedly, but nevertheless decided not to press criminal charges merit which is "a highly debated issue of deep moral and philosophical connotations, with starkly contrasting views within society" .3Maybe if we find criminal records in some prosecutions for this reason. But surely the criminal provisions of Articles 325 and 325 bis of the Penal Code fail the first test of the principle of proportionality. The legislative measure provided in Act No. 9763 is not ideal. If the penalty is sought to reduce abortions, was unsuccessful. As was said, failed to defend the lives of the unborn and the mothers.Here for the general interest underlying this law in light of the principle of proportionality, examining the suitability, necesariedad and weighting projected law.Those who propose this project believe that this law will be suitable to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country, because the right of the unborn to be born will be present in the reflection of the woman. It will be ideal for your decision to terminate a pregnancy is assumed free, conscious, and responsibly with the guarantees of adequate health field. In other words, the means established by law are fit for the purpose intended.Those who propose this project believe that this law is necessary, indispensable to reverse the current situation in terms of induced abortions in a country like ours has a low fertility rate and an aging age structure. It is necessary because it is far more moderate since the time when "the interdisciplinary team must become a field of psychological and social support to women, to help overcome the causes that can induce a termination of pregnancy (Article 3, subsection fourth). " In other words, the means by which this law is the least restrictive on the fundamental right in question, which is the right to be born.Those who propose this project believe that this law is weighted as deriving more benefits of this general interest in the abortions that were avoided as a result of the advice, information and emotional support of participation of an interdisciplinary team. Is weighted as well in restoring fairness in access to reproductive health services for all women without them having to resort to the illegal market in drugs sold that allow medical abortion. Consequently, the results are broadly beneficial to society as a whole.As for the period of reflection that introduces this project can be found many antecedents in Comparative Law. You just mentioned:- Italy (Act 1978): Art 5th. If it is not an emergency, "After 7 days, the woman may present for termination of pregnancy."- France (1975 Act): Article L.162-5: "If she confirms, after consultations under Articles L.162-3 and L-162-4, your request for termination of pregnancy, the physician must request a written confirmation and can not accept this confirmation until after the expiration of the term of a week following the first lawsuit of woman. "- Spain: Draft Law on the Regulation of the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (PSOE proposal, 1998). The conditions for exercising the right to abortion in Article 1 establishes:Article 1, paragraph d: "That once advised and informed in terms of this Act no longer be a minimum period of three days to mature their final judgment."As for the professional advice and support:- France (1975 Act): Section 162-4. "This consultation involves a private interview during which provides assistance and advice appropriate to your situation and the means to resolve social issues raised".- Iceland (1975 Act). The Section 11 refers to the necessary presence and action of a ginecotocólogo, home visitor, surgeon, and, where the case of a psychiatrist in pregnancy interruptions authorized by law.- Spain: Draft Law on the Regulation of the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (PSOE proposal, 1998):Article 1, paragraph b: "That women who want to terminate their pregnancies go to some centers accredited assistance and advice before carrying it out."Article 1, paragraph c: "That woman, after being properly heard in interview and listened to her reasons for attending the State protect life, to be informed of how many family support, social and economic utility may be available and legal and medical aspects of the intervention, all of which are issued by the appropriate certification. "
3. - MEDICAL GROUNDS
A strong empirical support for the proposed changes is the methodology expressed in the book "Health Initiatives against abortion in unsafe conditions. Clinical, epidemiological, medical and legal, bioethical and legal", coordinated by Dr. Leonel Briozzo ( SMU edition, Montevideo, 2002). Without taking sides regarding the legalization of abortion, the whole team approach that health professionals, focuses on supporting women "before" and "after" abortion.If this group of doctors, supported by the Faculty of Medicine, Society and the SMU Ginecotocología, insists on accompanying women covering these two areas, and also argues that this is already possible to reduce mortality and morbidity, then it is necessary deepen and continue the same line, and accompany women in the hardest time, ie, in the "for", while processing the decision. Chapter I of the bill introduced professional counselors given this pragmatic and inspiring experience.Remember some of its recommendations: "To implement this legislation requires the establishment of a multidisciplinary team consisting ginecotocólogo, obstetrician-midwife, mental health professional, social worker, medical examiner, sociologist, among others" ("health initiatives ... "p. 79). If you can order as much, and if you can do more (as physicians appear to raise Pereira Rossell Hospital), then you can also at least: the modified project requires only three professionals, and going in the same direction of the strategy defended extensive direct experience in the field, and supported by the Faculty of Medicine, the Medical Union of Uruguay and the Uruguay Ginecotología society.4. - PSYCHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONSIn many of the pages of "health initiatives against abortion in unsafe conditions," reiterates the need to accompany the woman, given the circumstances in which it is.In particular, on page 63, Dr. Graciela Lopez Machin-lawyer, former Director of Crime Prevention, said: "The methods that women tend to use in trying to solve your problem should be seen as a reflection of desperation . way, those with access to information and resources professionals using safe techniques and ease the physical and emotional pain. Instead, they have often not provocárselo themselves or with the assistance of a person with no training and no material resources. "Chapter I of the Bill seeks precisely to provide all women, and especially poor women, rather than a mere facility for hygienic abortion, a medical, psychological and social surrounds of the continent and older decision elements.Also in "health initiatives ...", the report of the psychologist Denisse Defey, entitled "Induced abortion: psychosocial dimension", includes many statements that can be used as strong arguments in favor of introducing counseling, medical, psychological and social, and add a reflection period for women to process it properly. In this work emphasizes the ambivalence of desire of women, both abortion as being mother and the fragility of the circumstances surrounding any pregnancy. According Defey, there is not exactly unique decisions, but processes. In any case, she is not the best time to decide alone. In his words: "The desire appears as a changing phenomenon that should-in any case-described as a process rather than as a category present or absent. This is dramatically demonstrated by the fact that in France, even though abortion is performed by one woman's will, you are required a week of reflection and in that time half of women withdrawing its original intent "(p. 35). And further: "The woman who is in deep doubt about the abortion is another indication for specialized interview, which aims to help clarify their motivations both for and against abortion, seeking a decision more free and more accurately rooted in its internal and external situation. " (P. 45).5. - GENDERThe proposal contained in Chapter I of the bill addresses the undeniable fact that the gender connotation of abortion and, consequently, excludes the possibility that the male parent can force the decision of the woman terminate her pregnancy or continue it.Thus, it is recognized that it is women who suffer the painful circumstances of an unwanted pregnancy, with anxiety and even panic. It will weigh on his conscience that decision and, bearing in mind the different ways in which men and women face parenthood, we see that is the life of the woman who will change forever, if you decide to continue the pregnancy or stop .This does not mean sharing conceived idea that is part of a woman's body, or that the male parent should be excluded from the instances of reflection, counseling and consultation leading up to the final decision about the continuation or discontinuation of pregnancy. In this sense, it is proposed that the parent involved, provided the woman expresses its consent, a mechanism that fits all situations that may arise: partner or lack thereof; couples in crisis or working properly.6. - SOME FINAL THOUGHTSTo end this majority report, it seems appropriate to incorporate some testimonies of Priest Luis Perez Aguirre, collected in the book published by the House of Representatives."It occurs to me that the right way is more resolutely fight laws that address the social causes of abortion. Laws that address family planning, health care for women, to combat poverty at, that address the protection of people born with disabilities.It would be great that legislators propose laws to defend: 1) a family planning program, 2) the elimination of discrimination and helping single mothers and son, 3) social protection to married or unmarried mother, 4 ) a rigid employment protection legislation and protection of the pregnant woman; 5) laws that facilitate the adoption, 6) social life for children under delayed; 7) maternal wage; 8) multiplication nurseries; 9) medical centers preventive.It is absurd to simplify locating the controversy ends in two irreconcilable camps: those who say that to save embryos and / or fetuses must execute, delete or socially punish mothers and those who believe, however, that to defend mothers can be accepted or justify the destruction of embryos or fetuses. In this tragic dilemma iron put to death is that the victims are always the same, because overwhelmingly from the numerical point of view are the weakest and the poorest, who can not or do not have the means to defend themselves or escape given law. (...)Sure, it is always much easier to avoid this conflict by threatening to jail if aborted. It will always be easier to eliminate fetuses and women to fight the real social causes of abortion. The paradox is that neither has taken positions never deter anyone or ending abortions but usually the victims of these distressing situations. Although they may reassure some consciences, these positions will always pseudo-solutions. While the causes that corral persist and require most women to have abortions, they continue aborting ".Finally, in the weekly "gap" of March 2, 2001 expressed about Justice:"For the purpose of focusing the debate seems clear that it is essential to do justice. The first way to understand how to set or repair is ajusticiando justice (according to law) guilty of a crime. This righteousness, ours, ends up in jail or equivalent according to the seriousness of the fraud.The second way to understand what it is to do justice, to significantly reverse the above, says that just find a law or moral tradition (and authority) to explain or endorsement, to justify our behavior, that we have complied with the law .Well, I think that neither position has nothing to do with the right solution. So just be a third way of understanding justice. I think it would help us here use the term set. For a human, do justice is (should be) make-creatively and responsibly-the survival of all life in the cosmos: that reality and living things (species and individuals) fit so harmoniously possible survival all.It should focus the debate on finding out what steps to take to avoid, realistically and effectively, which continue to perform abortions, or better, to prevent a woman has to raise the abortion as the only alternative, or as the least threatening at a particular time of your life. "In virtue of the above, the purpose of this law is an appropriate means to change the current situation and reduce abortions, advise the Body to approve the following bill.Division of the Commission on September 10, 2012.
Article 9. (Medical Act.) - Interruptions of pregnancy to be practiced under the terms established by this law shall be considered medical act without commercial value.Article 10. (Obligation of health services). - All institutions of National Integrated Health System will be required to comply with the provisions of the present law. For this purpose, shall establish the technical-professional and administrative measures to enable their users access to such procedures within the deadlines.The institutions referred to in the preceding paragraph, that objections have ideas, existed prior to the enactment of this Act, with respect to the procedures of abortion that are regulated in the preceding articles, may agree with the Ministry of Public Health, in the regulatory framework for the National Integrated Health System, the way your users will access to such procedures.Article 11. (Conscientious objection). - The gynecologists and health personnel who have conscientious objections to intervene in proceedings referred to by the fifth paragraph of Article 3 and Article 6 of this Act, shall make known to the authorities of the institutions to which they belong.Conscientious objection may be expressed explicitly or revoked at any time, it being sufficient communication to the authorities of the institution in which he serves. It is understood that it has been tacitly revoked if the professional is involved in the procedures referred to in the preceding paragraph, except for the situation described in the last paragraph of this article.Conscientious objection and revocation, made before an institution determine identical decision on all public and private institutions in which the practitioner provides services.Those who have not expressed conscientious objection shall not decline to perform the procedures mentioned in the first paragraph of this article.The provisions of this Article shall not apply to the case referred to in paragraph a) of Article 6 of this law.Article 12. (Statistical Register.) - The Ministry of Health shall keep a statistical record of: i) the consultations in the manner prescribed in Article 3, ii) procedures for medical abortion performed iii) the procedures referred to in subparagraphs a ), b) and c) of Article 6 iv) the number of women who then conducted the interview with the interdisciplinary team decided to continue the pregnancy, v) births and any other relevant sociodemographic deemed pertinent to assess annually the purposes of this Act.Institutions of National Integrated Health System must keep their own records in accordance with the provisions of this Article. The Government shall regulate the data that include such records, the form and frequency in which these institutions communicate the information to the Ministry of Public Health.CHAPTER III
Article 13. (Additional requirement.) - Only invoke the provisions of this law the natural Uruguayan citizen or foreign law or providing convincing evidence of their habitual residence in the territory of the Republic for a period not less than one year.Article 14. (Repeals). - Derogate all provisions contrary to the provisions of this Act.Article 15. (Regulation and Effective). - Mindful committed to State responsibility and the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the provisions of this Act, it shall enter into force thirty days after its enactment, period within which the Executive Branch regulate.Division of the Commission on September 10, 2012.
DEFENSE OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTSThe defense of human rights must always and in all circumstances unrestricted. Fully defend means defending the first of them, the right to life, without which it is not possible the existence of others. It is a blatant contradiction proclaimed defender of human rights but do not like about the first, which gives rise to all others. That is to defend "almost" all human rights.So we have a proactive vision of what it means and we approach this issue from a progressive and advanced, from a comprehensive conception of the rights of individuals. Even and first of all, of this right, that of life, where the subjects of law are not able to express themselves and demand respect. The adult can do, can claim and demand, can be enforced, but not the unborn, which is capable of absolute dependence and weakness with respect to the defense of his own right to life, your first right.No one can dispute the existence of life from the moment of conception. The argument so often used in the past which established the existence of the same from certain week of gestation has collapsed irretrievably. No one is encouraged to repeat it. The scientific and especially those related to genetics not leave any doubt: from the moment of conception there is a human being alive and possessing a unique identity in the world. The sequencing of the human genome is verified without discussion.Thus, those who advocate this progressive and comprehensive conception of the rights of women and man, we have not changed our arguments, but not those with a partial defense of adults forget the child and therefore the weak. The alleged contradiction between the right to life and the right to liberty is not so, it can never be. Always the first to prevails. The exercise of freedom is about what you can have, but not at the cost of freedom and the life of the "other", which is different and it is someone else. With Dr. Gross Espiell agree when he said that human error is a legal claim that the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy for reasons of sheer will. The woman in this case being disposed of another life that is in the making, but that is different from yours.So on abortion advocates and those calling for legalization / decriminalization, have mutated the storyline after the collapse successive arguments and scientific evidence. He argued with unexplained certainties that practice in Uruguay amounted to almost equaled numbers of births in the country. Reality was so overwhelming that he had to yield to their practice, they suggested. Today, and in the commission recognized, it is impossible to know the number of abortions. Never knew, indeed, but with "violence statistics" is wanted substantiate with numbers so you could not tell in numbers, no one knows. Yes, obviously, of their existence, but not its magnitude: low, high or regular. Another argument was on the way. Then he said that it was necessary under legalization that abortion was the leading cause of maternal mortality. MSP Reports say how wrong this statement and that for many years, the last record I say, there were no maternal deaths from this cause, as reported by official statistics. Moreover, one can not just claim that the legalization of the practice or the new way is the same as decriminalization, have some connection with the decline in maternal mortality. Countries that have legalized the practice of abortion maternal mortality figures are more than double those of Uruguay where to date is not legal.Thus, the evidence made it clear that the debate goes through other lifts. We are facing the defense of fundamental rights or otherwise the limitation and denial of these, this is the center of the debate.We are not against the case where for medical reasons and to save the mother's life should be interrupted pregnancy, circumstances as required by law for many years.We we join the defense of the two lives, that of the mother and the child. We think it was due to begin the discussion at the end opposite to that made necessary by promoting social coverage for pregnant women in case of need. Certain ideologicismos prevent this by making a rights prevail over others.During the commission's work was recognized latter with clarity and also with intellectual honesty and story we highlighted. The organization "Health Initiatives", founded by the current Secretary of Health Dr. Leonel Briozzo, while appearing very precisely said this project commenting that "Just the mention of the protection of human life is inconvenient, because all legislation recognize the legality of abortion is definitely being resolved a conflict between the interests of the mother and the embryo's interest. "It is of great honesty this definition, which translates without camouflage options. Naked options that run through this debate.CURRENT legal status, constitution, treaties and laws and the beginning of lifeLegal aspects and international commitments that have ratified the Uruguay national, deserve a separate chapter.Uruguay, freely and democratically, has built a normative architecture defender of life and human rights, starting with the first one and from the moment of conception. Here despite doubts that some might have in the past, never had discrepancies from when it had to be protected and since when was the holder of rights. It is a rich tradition of national social protection of the weak. The Constitution, laws and treaties ratified and transformed by it in its own legislation so determine. As stated by Dr. Martin Risso Commission "a law is unconstitutional, is invalid, but can also be unconventional and be invalid". And in case the practitioner asks: "Since when is life protectable?" "Currently, the solution is extremely simple, much more than in other disciplines, as paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica, ratified by our country by Law No. 15,737, of March 8, 1985, says that there is life protectable from the moment of conception. This is the most protective standard in the art and is therefore necessarily we use. " "What is called the principle of protection in the field of Human Rights, is the protection of life," says Risso.This Convention provides in Article 4 that "Everyone has the right to respect for his life. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception."We are facing the consecration of rules that guarantee the protection of Human Rights and the "First Law", the right to life, without which it makes no sense to protect everyone else, and especially in humans most vulnerable, the most vulnerable, those who are still in the womb.As a matter within the scope of human rights, is a matter governed legally, simultaneously, in a coordinated and autonomous by international law and constitutional law.We assume that our Constitution guarantees the right to life of every human being because he does not depend on the will of the electorate or the nation, much less the state, but that is inherent in the human personality. What we must enshrine in our legal system are the elements necessary for the enjoyment of this right is effective and the time of initiation of such protection.The bill in question is contrary to constitutional provisions expressly stated in our Constitution, more specifically those set out in Articles 7, 8, 36, 40, 41, 42, 44, 72 and 332. So this project is contrary to the Constitution and the American Convention, is unconstitutional and unconventional.But it also faces other standards that exist in our legal protections clearly established rights of human beings from conception itself.In our Civil Code, Article 21 states that "all persons are individuals of the human species ...." and then in Title IV of Book One, by regulating the paternity and filiation, in Articles 215-220 establish different time limits within which you consider the time of conception, qualifying it for the purpose of establishing the legitimacy, filiation and legal actions that may or may not start as these deadlines.In the same direction at the time of establishing inheritance rights, the same law in Article 835, establishes the inability to acquire by will not conceived of and designed for those who are begotten not viable, concluding clearly conceived the legitimacy of succession in his capacity as an individual of the human species as determined in Article 21 above.In another rule newly consecrated Law No. 17,823, dated 7 September 2004, called the Code of Children and Adolescents are also recognized rights of the unborn and Article 1, which states the scope of the law itself to humans younger than 18 years old.In Article 46, included in the chapter regulating food allowances, guarantees the right to food from the very conception.Code also establishes the right Children conceived in relation to the investigation of paternity since Article 198 stipulates that since the pregnancy notes can initiate appropriate legal action.Law No. 15977 of 14 September 1988 establishing the National Children's Institute, later known INAU by Law No. 17,823, dated 7 September 2004, establishes the Institute's tasks including in Article 2 that should "assist and protect children abandoned morally or materially, from conception to adulthood."Moreover, there are a number of rules originating international commitments which protect or recognize rights from conception itself, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Law No. 16137 of 28 September 1990, particularly Articles 6 and 24, the Protocol of San Salvador, in addition to the American Convention on Human Rights, ratified by Law No. 16,519, of July 22, 1994, in particular Article 15.CONCLUSIONThis is a project then via the change in nomenclature decriminalization calling what really is legalization, validates a social evil. Not valid argument that the mere existence of a circumstance repeatedly validate their legitimacy. It is also a deeply denier project on human rights and anti solidarity that prohíja rights of the strong at the expense of the weak and carenciado. It must have been the will of its proponents, but its consequence is undeniable.We leave room for discussion in other analyzes, but none of them will be in the center of the values that are defended by those who believe that the protection of human rights unrestricted should be done in a comprehensive manner, and for all human beings and if of choosing always starting with those rights of those who can not by his helplessness and weakness, to assert his.For these reasons the National Party representatives reaffirm a positive expression of overall defense of all human rights without exception, we affirm respect for the Constitution of the Republic, international treaties ratified by our country, especially the American Convention on Human Rights called the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica and laws. Consequently we do not vote the bill submitted by the Senate nor the substitute bill that was introduced within the Special Commission thwart FA and Deputy Ivan Posada, the Corps recommending rejection of the bill in discussion of abortion.Division of the Commission on September 10, 2012.
The abortion bill (under the name of abortion) to study the House of Representatives, should not be approved. Well, beyond the objective pursued (not very clear), involves a dramatic transformation Uruguayan legal system, the values on which this rests and their own ethical, moral and philosophical underpinning the consensus from which is organized life of our society.Under a bombastic (but wrong) label "abortion" under very questionable arguments and wielding a mastery of the will of the people that the legislature does not apply, against nature, against science and against the law, the project boasts, if not contempt for human life, at least give it a life of a higher value than the other (Bill then clearly discriminatory, unconstitutional and inconsistent with a system of values and rules conduct which is the prohibition of discrimination).No development is necessary to account for the value that represents human life is sufficient to note that only the first element, the essence, the primary substance of social life and the entire legal system, a fact that alone explains the priority location, in the order of Fundamental Rights of Man, assigns our charter, as explained further that the constitution has prohibited the application of the death penalty.The ethical, moral, philosophical, religious, biological and legal lies not in determining the value of human life, in what seems that everyone agrees, but: 1) what is the moment that human life is present and, 2nd) what is the legal status of being there from pregnancy, conception or fertilization.It has been said in defense of the idea that embodies the project discussion "The supporters of the current regime, as well as those who oppose abortion in all circumstances imaginable, invoke human life, including life of the unborn, as an absolute . On the other side, supporters of freedom of choice for the mother, in turn, appeal to their autonomy also with the character of an absolute. This bill, however, midway between the two poles, the problem is from the angle of a conflict of values. Accept therefore the value of the unborn, without delving into the nuances or even profound differences with every ethical or religious tradition defends him, but complements the look in response to certain circumstances that require the State to also ensure the rights of women.In essence, the key lies in the foundation choose the path of lesser evil to conflicting values, and remembering that the output civilized humanity when facing situations of this nature has always been to appeal to the participation of third parties involved in account all the aspects involved.All amendments proposed by this bill aim to preserve, wherever possible, all the rights and values at stake: the right to be born of the unborn, the rights of women, and the rights of society to build a community more dignity for all citizens. Hence the inclusion of professional counselors to accompany the woman's decision, the requirement of a reflection period of five days for the interested ratifies its application, the possibility of annual renewal of the list of health with conscientious objections , and the requirement to perform and disclose annual statistics for periodically evaluating the effects of the rule. "The statement is a real fallacy, as there is nothing but an argument aimed at defending or persuade what is false. Because it is not true that preserves the rights of the unborn, nor is true that abortion serves to build a more dignity for all citizens.It is not true that protects the rights of the unborn, because not just authorizing the destruction of a right, if not that the guy who is held (even worse), and it is not true that a community is built more dignified when authorizing someone to dispose of the lives of others and, even without the participation of those who contributed to her pregnancy. In either case, the statement is simply a fallacy or a request or principles, as the former is denied because it is authorized to destroy the life of the unborn and as the latter is to be demonstrated.The existence of a certainty and doubt can not be ignored when considering the depth it deserves a topic of so much importance. The certainty that human life is a becoming, a biological process continued, the question: when the process begins and when, moreover, that human life is individualized.John R. Lacadena, Member of the International Society of Bioethics, analyzing the two issues, saying that "from the standpoint of genetic and biological nobody doubts that the new life, as a new human life, appear at the time of fertilization, and of" moment "I would have to say in quotes so I said to the continuity of the process, in the sense that, that's when the zygote meets genetic information is the product of two separate entities, which were both gametes and that there is a third entity, the tercium, ... in which there is a genetic information that is specifically human in the sense that if allowed to develop will not lead or an apple, or an elephant, but it will lead to a human organism. But having said that, the question is what happens next. What happens next is that two phenomena may occur, we would say biological, developmental, challenging the individuality of the zygote and the embryo which has just begun development. properties are uniqueness, ie the property of being unique and unrepeatable from the genetic point of view and the property unit, which is the property of being one. "and further stated." When does that moment in time, limit the possibility of fusion?, for approximately fourteen days from the moment of fertilization which also coincides with the time when the nesting ends. The same could be said with above the other property, the uniqueness and occurs spontaneously when monozygotic twins zygotic embryo division, that division of an embryo to give rise to two or three or more if necessary, monozygotic twins, it may also occur until the same time, the same stage (fourteen days after fertilization) that is when it starts to form the neural crest. would mean that from the genetic point of view, the uniqueness and unity are not defined until the fourteenth day of after fertilization. And I think when everybody talks about those fourteen days everywhere what is coming is accepting these facts regarding the two properties of oneness and unity that define an individual's individuality. "These findings, which come from the empirical evidence, and not a matter of profession of faith, are the cause of very serious discussions and have resulted in comparative law to a careful regulatory environment to the possibility of manipulation of embryos scientific purposes and the individual artificial fertilization process: o have been ignored by the bill or, without being ignored, disguised by hiding under the employ of a terminology that seeks to mitigate the impact that means adopting the practice of abortion , freely and by the will of the woman alone.And, what is worse: the emphasis on only one of the beings that are part of the construction process of human life, as if one did not tell you, because you are totally ignoring, either as an embryo, conceived either as except-casually for the case when it comes to abortion that could be reached by a justification (the disease or rape).In free abortion-that the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 - the embryo (human beings, whose existence as such no doubt) does not count, only care for pregnant women throughout the course of the long article 2, in which remarkably, the reference to another being, only appears when the birth and spoke of the child for adoption.The whole world discusses the legal status of the embryo, the embryo are there relatively duties of conduct obliging care or, alternatively, existing alone with this project-some rights of a third party (the woman who gives birth) to have freely of it as if it were a thing? Is the human embryo, for the project-a piece of property on which rests the right to enjoy and use it as you like to the point of destruction?Such are the questions to answer. And the answer is yes, because the mother, may make your child or the unborn child (the unborn) which will, mood, emotion or circumstances better directed. Whereupon the legal status of the unborn child, embryo-none other than one thing.Therefore, from the standpoint of moral, philosophical and legal can not merit approval.When the interpreter stands before the Constitution, Article 26 and looks is that it prohibits the death penalty and then moves the view to the bill and see that it is pro child the possibility of destruction of life by single human subjective circumstances of one of those who helped their training, the interpreter is perplexed by the contradiction that implies, on the one hand, prohibit the destruction of a human life unless (as the offender) is guilty and other, allowing the destruction of the life of a being (conceived) is quintessential is completely innocent of any pain of the mother who kills.Seeking to avoid the symbolic expression that involves abortion, the bill speaks of abortion, this, however, is not enough to take effect the procedure: the elimination of human life.Such an effect-or human fact and, as such, constitutes a legal act notorious aggression to the existing law. Well, even though the project conceived avoid speaking, conception and embryo, the different stages that appear in the process of gestation of the new human being, rather than try to avoid what is a complex phenomenon as that of motherhood, which is not only the existence of a pregnant woman, because she is also part of the begotten son, the project can not avoid aggression to a system-as expressed by Martin Risso-Ferrand: "You're scientific arguments worth over from when there is life, and it seems clear from the design that has clearly begun the process that leads normally to birth, and it is from that moment that corresponds to speak and protect life, imposed by the Constitution as a legal paramount. To this must be added that it would be permissible to determine the ownership of constitutional rights, were used concepts used by the legal lower such as the concept of person the Civil Code, since the Constitution can not be interpreted in accordance with, law inferior without denaturing the hierarchy principle governing our right and the very supremacy of the Constitution. Contextual interpretation of the rules relating (Articles 7 and 72) fully confirms this when we notice that the second paragraph of Article 42 provides that motherhood, whatever the condition or status of women, is entitled to protection by society and their assistance in case of need. maternity The concept refers not only to the mother , but an entire process that goes from conception and even after the delivery end. At the same time it is clear that this protection refers not only to the mother but also the unborn. And still can not forget that the Pact San Jose, Costa Rica-ratified by our country by Law No. 15,737 of March 1985 - provides in Article 4, section 1, that everyone has the right to respect for his life. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. Nobody can be deprived of life arbitrarily. ". When the bill left to the will of a subject that exposes what they are without doubt its subjective conditions, without any finding of perimundo-no doubt that we are in presence of an arbitrary act.There is no doubt that abortion is a social problem. But the problem can not be solved with another problem (being both, moral, ethical and legal), generates an antinomy that threatens the legal system as a whole; antinomy that puts a strain on the system as a key point support, such as human life, because the right to life, and particularly to the enjoyment of life, has been placed at exactly the same level as the right to their destruction by abortion free, and determining the pregnant woman's right to require of all who make up the NHS that have the technical, professional and administrative measures to make it possible to access the procedures established by law, and to aggravate the issue, none of organizations that integrate the system may refuse to fulfill the right to abortion for any reason relating to the purposes philosophical, moral and religious motive are foundational institution required generating event and not a real contradiction within the legal only in its set (since it attacks the freedom of conscience in general, Article 7) but within the very heart of the law, as it is denied the right to choose the institution, while allowing that if you do the professional who , unfettered can oppose its "conscientious objection".And yet, if the bill becomes law and comes alive after enactment, personal circumstance shall forward that the executive branch is different from the previous person who vetoed by his personal convictions, thereby there will be a higher law by personal circumstances for the imposition of the facts to which the law is directed regulation and, yet, it is a true expression of social consensus that an issue of magnitude as that of the right to life deserves.Moreover: the bill paves the way to the precipice of what is one of the keys to any social and legal system: individual responsibility. No responsibility is no freedom, because freedom involves the exercise of responsible acts and then: 1) or can not admit that with education programs, the development of the media, progress and development of medical science, be said today that abortion provides unwanted situations in surprise or neglect, or, 2nd) should recognize that it has completely failed implementation of the mandates of the Act of sexual and reproductive health, which has completely failed education and has failed completely the role the State must meet to comply with the Constitution and the Law irresponsible Neither the individual nor the failure of the State, can be replaced by a law that allows the elimination of human life created from the individual and collective irresponsibility.Division of the Commission on September 10, 2012.
2 Data from maternity management report 2011 of the Public Health Ministry.
3 "The executive veto Uruguayan decriminalizing abortion: building the foundations of" Analía Vique Banfi, Oscar A. Cabrera, Fanny Gomez Lugo, Martin Hevia, Notebooks contributions to the debate on health, citizenship and rights, MYSU.
TITLE XII - OF CRIMES AGAINST PHYSICAL AND MORAL PERSONALITY OF MAN
Article 325 (Abortion with her consent.) - The woman who causes her abortion or consent shall be punished with imprisonment of three to nine months.
Article 325-A (Del abortion performed with the assistance of a third party with the consent of the woman.) - To assist in the abortion of a woman with her consent to acts of primary or secondary involvement is punished by six to twenty four months of prison.