Mexico Decriminalizes Abortion, Work Remains to Be Done

October 26, 2021

The Supreme Court of Mexico determined the criminalization of abortion to be unconstitutional. Yet, economic inequities pose challenging barriers to reproductive rights for many Mexican women.

March for the decriminalization of abortion in Mexico City. Diana Caballero. CC BY 2.0.

On September 7 the Supreme Court of Mexico ruled the criminalization of women seeking abortion unconstitutional and established women with a legal right to exercise personal agency regarding their pregnancy.

In striking Article 196 of Coahuila’s Penal Code, the Supreme Court of Mexico determined penalizing women undergoing abortion violates their reproductive freedoms. Additionally, certain sections of Article 198, Article 199 and Article 244 were similarly struck for discriminating against women.

Two days later, the Supreme Court of Mexico invalidated a portion of Sinaloa’s state constitution which recognized a ‘right to life from conception.’ The nation’s highest court declared that federative entities, such as state constitutions, are not able to define the legal conception of personhood. As a result, neither an embryo nor a fetus may claim legal protections which ignore a woman’s rights, including her right to abort.

Reproductive policies in Mexico principally depend upon geography.

After Mexico’s shift toward decentralized governance, the issue of reproductive rights elicited contrasting subnational policy. Certain Mexican states permitted abortion and operated government clinics offering free abortions. Others prosecuted women seeking abortion for manslaughter.

But legal prohibitions of abortion do not discourage women from abortion – they merely endanger them. Dozens of women have been incarcerated for undertaking abortion, alongside doctors forced to renounce medical licenses. Women often risk secret and dangerous abortions, to evade incarceration: these abortions are Mexico’s fourth leading cause of maternal death. Each year 300,000 abortions conducted clandestinely yield serious health problems.

Now, these harms may no longer be legitimized. In its landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Mexico unanimously admitted the “unimaginable human suffering” experienced by women seeking to abort amidst criminalization. Rural and low-income women particularly bear the brunt of the pains incurred by penalization. The women prosecuted for abortion are disproportionately poor because poor women are most likely to end up at public hospitals due to improper abortions. As Supreme Court President Arturo Zaldivar succinctly explains, “Rich girls … have always had abortions and never gone to prison.” Mexico’s punative judgment of women undertaking abortion has been “a crime that punishes poverty.”

It may be a decade until Mexico adopts legalization at the national scope.

Policy changes will immediately occur within only Coahuila and Sinaloa, the two Mexican states the Supreme Court ruled against. Therefore, for decriminalization to spread via the federal judiciary amparo lawsuits, appeals to state abuses grounded in constitutional protections must be filed against each Mexican state opposing abortion from within. The Supreme Court’s rulings may then be cited as precedent to bind the specific state.

Dr. Caroline Beer, an expert in Mexican politics at the University of Vermont, expects national decriminalization to play out in a process similar to that of same-sex marriage. Some states will voluntarily decriminalize; others will have to be forced. Of Mexico’s thirty-two states, four have decriminalized already, and ten are anticipated to voluntarily decriminalize in the near future. It’s a matter of time and money before sufficient amparos are filed in the eighteen conservative states resisting decriminalization.

Class disparities delineate access to abortion albeit decriminalization.

Concerns remain that a Mexican woman’s ability to exercise her reproductive rights will depend upon her economic means. Mexico could enforce health standards mandating patient access to reproductive services, but without government clinics offering free procedures, it is unlikely lower-class women will have reliable access to safe abortion.

Middle-class and upper-class women either ‘know a doctor’ (who will conduct the abortion competently and confidentially) or fly abroad. “The important thing to understand,” stresses Dr. Beer, “is that legalization of abortion is more an issue of class than an issue of gender.” Poor women publicly suffer criminalization while rich women privately escape it.

Mexico’s decriminalization may have a modest international impact.

Dr. Beer, who also directs Latin American Studies at UVM, considers Mexico’s decriminalization a sign of the region’s willingness to liberalize attitudes regarding reproductive rights, if not legalize them.

Mexico and Argentina, which legalized abortion in December 2020, are two economic engines with international influence. Their decriminalization will be referenced by neighboring powers such as Brazil, Chile, and Colombia.

However, not all Latin American countries are moving forward. However, Nicaragua and El Salvador, whose politics operate on strong men authoritarianism, have actually heightened measures to limit women’s rights activism.

Feminist political groups spearheaded Mexico’s decriminalization.

Notably, Mexican President Obrador did not explicitly support women seeking an abortion after the Supreme Court’s rulings. President Obrador leans conservative but has allowed his women’s rights allies to promote reproductive rights themselves. Even though President Obrador may not personally approve of decriminalization, he acknowledges women’s rights organizations and feminists as significant political constituencies.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s rulings incorporate a sensitivity to women’s realities in their jurisprudence. Mexico’s strides to protect women’s rights via decriminalization of abortion stand out among nations regressing backwards, not the least being their immediate northern neighbor.

U.S. House Passes Bill Repealing Prevention of Abortion Abroad

August 25, 2021

A new U.S. State Department spending bill includes provisions that expand global abortion rights. The bill passed in the House on July 28 and requires Senate approval by Sept. 30.

Supporters of abortion rights at a rally to stop abortion bans in St. Paul, Minnesota. Lorie Shaull. CC BY-SA 2.0

On July 28, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Department of State, foreign operations and related programs budget bill for the 2022 fiscal year. If the bill passes in the Senate and becomes law, it will have major implications for the global health industry.

The bill is the first of its type since 1973 to exclude language from the Helms Amendment, which blocks U.S. foreign aid money from funding health services abroad related to abortions.

The Helms Amendment’s language specifically prevents U.S. funds from paying for abortions as a method of family planning—yet foreign aid organizations have interpreted the amendment much more restrictively, to ban funding for abortions in other cases, such as rape, incest and life-threatening pregnancies. USAID has used the amendment to enforce a ban on the purchase of equipment and drugs to aid in post-abortion care.

Around 73 million abortions occur annually worldwide, even in countries where access to abortions is restricted. In fact, data shows that abortion rates are often higher in countries where abortion is restricted than in those where abortion is legal. Abortion restrictions, which the Helms Amendment helps to maintain, do not mean that pregnant people are not getting abortions—they just mean that access to safe abortions is severely limited.

The World Health Organization defines an unsafe abortion as one carried out by a person lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not meet minimal medical standards. Out of the 73 million annual abortions, nearly 35 million are estimated to occur in unsafe conditions. Unsafe abortions account for 8% of maternal mortality worldwide; each year about 47,000 women die from unsafe abortions.

Unsafe abortions occur overwhelmingly in developing countries, where U.S. funding could be crucial to removing obstacles for safe abortions.

The recent bill also permanently repealed the 1984 Global Gag Rule, which prevented foreign non-governmental organizations that were receiving U.S. funding from providing assistance on anything related to abortions, including information, referrals, or services. The Global Gag Rule banned such foreign organizations from providing abortion-related assistance even if they used their own, non-U.S. funds.

A 2019 study found that the Global Gag Rule effectively prevented NGOs from providing functional reproductive health services. The rule caused NGOs to reduce sexual and reproductive health and pregnancy counseling and stop providing information on legal abortion services. The Global Gag Rule also prevents NGOs from involvement in pro-abortion advocacy.

The U.S. is the largest funder and implementer of global health worldwide, but for nearly 50 years, the Helms Amendment and the Global Gag Rule have meant that a large portion of the healthcare sector misses out on this funding. Rather than preventing abortions, this legislation has served as further obstacles for people seeking safe abortions. Therefore, their exclusion from the most recent U.S. foreign spending budget bill is monumental.

In addition to the provisions regarding the Helms Amendment and Global Gag Rule, the bill allocated $760 million for family planning and reproductive health services, an $185 million increase from last year’s bill.

The spending bill passed in the House by a slim majority of 217 to 212. To become law, the bill must pass the Senate in the same form. The final 2022 fiscal year budget needs to be approved by Sept. 30.

If the bill passes the Senate without mention of the Helms Amendment and with the inclusion of the Global Gag Rule repeal, it will become a landmark piece of legislation for sexual and reproductive health rights around the world.

To Get Involved:

For more information about global reproductive health policy and how you can support initiatives to make safe abortions accessible, visit the Guttmacher Institute here or PAI here.

Abortion Cases in El Salvador Could Loosen Restrictions on Reproductive Rights

March 26, 2021

The National Palace in San Salvador, El Salvador. David Stanley CC BY 2.0.

Reproductive rights in Latin America have a complicated history. While a handful of countries in the region allow for abortion at the mother’s request, the vast majority of Latin American countries only allow abortions to be performed in very specific cases, with El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras retaining complete prohibitions.

2021 may be a turning point, however. Argentina began the year with a new law legalizing abortion, which makes the country the third in Latin America to do so after Cuba and Uruguay. More recently, new abortion cases being heard in El Salvador could loosen laws in one of the world’s most restrictive countries for reproductive rights, opening the door for further decriminalization and legalization of abortion throughout the region.

El Salvador’s Historical Lack of Reproductive Rights

In 2012, a young Salvadoran woman named Sara had a miscarriage after she slipped and fell while washing laundry. Despite maintaining her innocence, the Salvadoran government sentenced Sara to 30 years in prison for aggravated homicide due to the country’s prohibition on any and all abortions. Lawyers are currently working to appeal her conviction.

A mural in El Salvador which says “Hope Woman” in English. El Decertor. CC BY NC-ND 2.0.

Sara, who is only identified by her first name to protect her privacy, is one of countless women who have been subjected to El Salvador’s restrictive policies on reproductive rights. Another woman, Manuela, had a miscarriage in 2008. After going to the hospital, she was handcuffed to her bed by government authorities, accused of having an abortion and charged with aggravated homicide, which resulted in a 30-year sentence that was cut short when she passed away two years later due to lymphatic cancer.

El Salvador has historically maintained heightened restrictions on abortion access. While the country’s 1956 Penal Code permitted abortions if the woman’s life was at risk and the 1973 Penal Code expanded the exceptions to include circumstances of rape, statutory rape or detected congenital disorders in the fetus, El Salvador banned abortions under any circumstances in 1998 and amended its constitution in 1999 to recognize human life from the moment of conception.

A number of organizations, most notably the United Nations, have condemned El Salvador’s restrictive laws as human rights violations. However, the government has largely ignored these accusations.

Abortion-rights activists both within and outside of El Salvador are hopeful that 2021 could be a turning point for the country. Both Sara and Manuela’s cases are being heard by courts this year—Sara’s in a national court and Manuela’s at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. If either of these cases come back in favor of the women, it could force the country to expand upon reproductive rights after nearly two and a half decades of restrictions.

A Brief Look at Reproductive Rights in Latin America

A view of Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina. The country legalized abortion up to the 14th week of pregnancy in January 2021. Boris G. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

El Salvador’s restrictions on reproductive rights are by no means an outlier in Latin America. As of March 2021, only Argentina, Cuba, Uruguay, Puerto Rico, Mexico’s Federal District and the Mexican state of Oaxaca have legalized abortion at the mother’s request. Every other country in Latin America restricts access to abortions in some way.

One of the primary reasons for Latin America having such restrictive standards on abortion is due to the dominance of Roman Catholicism in the region, a religion which heavily stigmatizes the practice. According to the Pew Research Center, 69% of those in Latin America practice Catholicism, with every country in the region aside from Honduras and Uruguay retaining Catholic majorities. Even when new legislation has favored expanded access, stigmas against abortion remain high.

However, this stigmatization may be changing. Argentina rang in the new year with a groundbreaking abortion law guaranteeing women the right to seek out an abortion up to the 14th week of pregnancy with no exceptions. This new law makes Argentina, which has the fourth highest population of any country in Latin America, the largest country in the region to have such a comprehensive set of reproductive rights standards.

Should El Salvador expand access to abortion in the near future, the change may serve as a catalyst for expanded rights in other countries such as Chile and Mexico, both of which have seen pro-feminist movements in recent years. For the time being, however, activists continue to fight for expanded abortion access throughout Latin America.

Gender Discrimination Is Nothing New in Poland

August 7, 2020

Many view the reelection of Polish President Andrzej Duda in July as a further setback for women’s and LGBTQ+ rights in the country.

Andrzej Duda, the president of Poland, meets with a leader of the Roman Catholic Church. EpiskopatNews. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

For much of the 20th century, Poland was under the influence of foreign countries, particularly the Soviet Union. This caused communism and its ideologies of censorship and control to direct the Poles’ daily lives. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church provided a safe space for many people to feel freedom. Thus, post-communist Poland has continued to embrace Catholicism, with 93% of Poles practicing it despite the country having no official religion.

A result of the Catholic Church’s widespread influence has been restrictive measures toward women and those in Poland’s LGBTQ+ community. One of the first major impacts seen was the passage of an “anti-abortion law” in 1988. While this law banned most instances of the procedure, many doctors and hospitals did not fully enforce it at the time.

Abortion is still a topic of debate in Polish political campaigns. In the Catholic Church’s eyes, abortion is seen as murder and a direct violation of God’s will. Thus, any practice which may go against God’s “original intent” is normally frowned upon.

Due to the Catholic Church’s continued influence in Poland, most legislation passed today still follows the Church’s guidance. This includes on LGBTQ+ rights, where as of June nearly 100 locations had declared themselves to be “LGBT-free zones.”. Yet the fight for LGBTQ+ rights has continued, especially since the election of the staunchly-conservative Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.

LGBTQ+ activists in Poland. Sakuto. CC BY-NC 2.0.

Additionally, the reelection campaign of President Andrzej Duda painted a narrative that LGBTQ+ individuals are a threat to society. As a part of the right-wing Law and Justice Party, his ideologies align with protecting Poland’s “traditional values.” Duda even went so far as to call the LGBTQ+ rights movement “an ideology worse than communism.” He also tapped into anti-Semitism that has been prevalent since World War II by saying that Jewish interests would become more important than Polish ones if his opponent Rafal Trzaskowski had won.

Two weeks after Duda’s victory in the July presidential election, it was announced that Poland was in the process of withdrawing from a European domestic violence treaty known as the Istanbul Convention. This treaty protected women from any forms of violence and placed responsibility on European states to take appropriate measures to protect women and punish attackers.

As justification for the government's decision, Poland denounced the treaty as an infringement on parents’ rights since it required children to be taught about nontraditional gender roles. Duda claimed that the treaty “contains elements of an ideological nature, which we consider harmful.” Many women have argued that withdrawing from the treaty only legalizes domestic violence in Poland.